Black TPS?
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 10/15/2018 04:29 pmQuote from: GWH on 10/15/2018 02:08 pmYay finally an update!Some quick observations:- They claim the same LEO and GTO payload as before, and also direct to GEO capability (though not how much)- Comparing the older version to this new one and some quick CAD scaling I get: Old Booster 55m tall, New Booster 58m Old 2nd Stage 9m, New 2nd Stage 16.5m, Old 2+3 Stage 23m Faring unchanged at 22 m- Total 1st and 2nd stage is about 96.8m tall, the old 3 stage about 100.8m tall- 1000 km downrange landing. Quickly looking up downrange distance for F9 and a GTO mission is around 650km?- You can apply to receive a payload user's guide via emailStretch in booster maybe due to extra performance from BE4 Testing.It could be caused by the change in upper stage as well, causing the optimal delta-V split between the stages to be shifted slightly to the first stage. (due to lower thrust BE-3Us and gravity losses for example)One difference I noticed was the shorter landing legs for the booster.
Quote from: GWH on 10/15/2018 02:08 pmYay finally an update!Some quick observations:- They claim the same LEO and GTO payload as before, and also direct to GEO capability (though not how much)- Comparing the older version to this new one and some quick CAD scaling I get: Old Booster 55m tall, New Booster 58m Old 2nd Stage 9m, New 2nd Stage 16.5m, Old 2+3 Stage 23m Faring unchanged at 22 m- Total 1st and 2nd stage is about 96.8m tall, the old 3 stage about 100.8m tall- 1000 km downrange landing. Quickly looking up downrange distance for F9 and a GTO mission is around 650km?- You can apply to receive a payload user's guide via emailStretch in booster maybe due to extra performance from BE4 Testing.
Yay finally an update!Some quick observations:- They claim the same LEO and GTO payload as before, and also direct to GEO capability (though not how much)- Comparing the older version to this new one and some quick CAD scaling I get: Old Booster 55m tall, New Booster 58m Old 2nd Stage 9m, New 2nd Stage 16.5m, Old 2+3 Stage 23m Faring unchanged at 22 m- Total 1st and 2nd stage is about 96.8m tall, the old 3 stage about 100.8m tall- 1000 km downrange landing. Quickly looking up downrange distance for F9 and a GTO mission is around 650km?- You can apply to receive a payload user's guide via email
I noticed the feather image has shrunk and been moved from the first stage to the second. I wonder if that was done because it didn't reflect heat during reentry as much as the white coated areas would.
Quote from: Eric Hedman on 10/16/2018 05:50 amI noticed the feather image has shrunk and been moved from the first stage to the second. I wonder if that was done because it didn't reflect heat during reentry as much as the white coated areas would.Or, on a rocket of that size it would take too much time, effort and money to paint, for something that would just fade or burn off anyway. And here is a question I've never seen answered. Why is this rocket (and F9/FH, Vulcan for that matter) not left orange like SLS, DIV, AV, STS ET? When a rocket gets to be this big as NG, paint must account for something?
Quote from: ZachF on 10/12/2018 04:50 pmAlso, doing some math... It seems that maybe the New Glenn will be incapable of doing direct geostationary insertion...If the NG upper stage has an ISP of 450, an empty weight of 20 tonnes, fuel of 200 tonnes, and a 13 tonne payload, that gives a total dV of 8619 m/s for the second stage + payload.Staging velocity should be capped by recovery.GTO-1500 would require 8,919m/s. That gives a payload to that orbit of 10,500kg.GEO would require 10,419m/s. That gives a driect GEO payload of... 800kg.I don't think NG is capable of direct GEO insertion.Blue has said that a single configuration is capable of all NSS missions. I think the answer to your dilemma is that the GTO payload with reuse is considerably higher than 13 tonnes. Or else they plan to fly the direct to GEO missions while expending the booster. Or both.Edit: If you plug your numbers in the Silverbird calculator it gives 9.4 tonnes to GEO and 23 tonnes to GEO-1800. And it has a staging velocity of about 3.2 km/s (~Mach 10) after subtracting 1.6 km/s in gravity losses. That's pretty hot, but not totally unreasonable for a lifting return. New Glenn is a massively huge monster of a rocket. It's double the liftoff mass of Ariane 5 with much higher total impulse stages and relatively low recovery losses. It's bigger than Falcon Heavy, but with with a huge hydrogen upper stage. Blue is grossly sandbagging that 13 tonne payload estimate.Quote from: ZachF on 10/12/2018 06:35 pm5% mass fraction for hydrolox? absolutely not.F9 has a <5% mass fraction because it's fuel is 3x as dense.Delta IV 2S has a ~11.4% mass fractionDelta IV 1S has a ~11.8% mass fractionAtlas V 2S (centaur) has a ~9.7% mass fractionAriane 5 1S has a 8.0% mass fractionAriane 5 2S has a 23% mass fractionSLS EUS has a ~10% mass fractionSaturn V SIVB has a ~11% mass fractionMy estimate of 20 tonnes of dry mass for 200 tonnes of fuel is likely generous (9.1% mass fraction) if anything.NG US is considerably bigger than any you list. It's also newer. It's almost certainly autogenously pressurized. And it's probably carbon fiber. All those reduce mass. It could be a hair better than the S-II which was under 8%.
Also, doing some math... It seems that maybe the New Glenn will be incapable of doing direct geostationary insertion...If the NG upper stage has an ISP of 450, an empty weight of 20 tonnes, fuel of 200 tonnes, and a 13 tonne payload, that gives a total dV of 8619 m/s for the second stage + payload.Staging velocity should be capped by recovery.GTO-1500 would require 8,919m/s. That gives a payload to that orbit of 10,500kg.GEO would require 10,419m/s. That gives a driect GEO payload of... 800kg.I don't think NG is capable of direct GEO insertion.
5% mass fraction for hydrolox? absolutely not.F9 has a <5% mass fraction because it's fuel is 3x as dense.Delta IV 2S has a ~11.4% mass fractionDelta IV 1S has a ~11.8% mass fractionAtlas V 2S (centaur) has a ~9.7% mass fractionAriane 5 1S has a 8.0% mass fractionAriane 5 2S has a 23% mass fractionSLS EUS has a ~10% mass fractionSaturn V SIVB has a ~11% mass fractionMy estimate of 20 tonnes of dry mass for 200 tonnes of fuel is likely generous (9.1% mass fraction) if anything.
Quote from: envy887 on 10/12/2018 10:29 pmQuote from: ZachF on 10/12/2018 04:50 pmAlso, doing some math... It seems that maybe the New Glenn will be incapable of doing direct geostationary insertion...If the NG upper stage has an ISP of 450, an empty weight of 20 tonnes, fuel of 200 tonnes, and a 13 tonne payload, that gives a total dV of 8619 m/s for the second stage + payload.Staging velocity should be capped by recovery.GTO-1500 would require 8,919m/s. That gives a payload to that orbit of 10,500kg.GEO would require 10,419m/s. That gives a driect GEO payload of... 800kg.I don't think NG is capable of direct GEO insertion.Blue has said that a single configuration is capable of all NSS missions. I think the answer to your dilemma is that the GTO payload with reuse is considerably higher than 13 tonnes. Or else they plan to fly the direct to GEO missions while expending the booster. Or both.Edit: If you plug your numbers in the Silverbird calculator it gives 9.4 tonnes to GEO and 23 tonnes to GEO-1800. And it has a staging velocity of about 3.2 km/s (~Mach 10) after subtracting 1.6 km/s in gravity losses. That's pretty hot, but not totally unreasonable for a lifting return. New Glenn is a massively huge monster of a rocket. It's double the liftoff mass of Ariane 5 with much higher total impulse stages and relatively low recovery losses. It's bigger than Falcon Heavy, but with with a huge hydrogen upper stage. Blue is grossly sandbagging that 13 tonne payload estimate.Quote from: ZachF on 10/12/2018 06:35 pm5% mass fraction for hydrolox? absolutely not.F9 has a <5% mass fraction because it's fuel is 3x as dense.Delta IV 2S has a ~11.4% mass fractionDelta IV 1S has a ~11.8% mass fractionAtlas V 2S (centaur) has a ~9.7% mass fractionAriane 5 1S has a 8.0% mass fractionAriane 5 2S has a 23% mass fractionSLS EUS has a ~10% mass fractionSaturn V SIVB has a ~11% mass fractionMy estimate of 20 tonnes of dry mass for 200 tonnes of fuel is likely generous (9.1% mass fraction) if anything.NG US is considerably bigger than any you list. It's also newer. It's almost certainly autogenously pressurized. And it's probably carbon fiber. All those reduce mass. It could be a hair better than the S-II which was under 8%.I ran those numbers on silverbird and got roughy 13 tonnes to GTO with a ~10% fuel reserve in the booster, and ~22 tonnes expendable. Direct GEO capability was pretty low (nothing at 10% fuel reserve), rising to 6 tonnes with the booster expended.It's also possible that they use it's expendable GEO capability to qualify for EELV, but then never bid those launches (Or bid extremely high).I think blue is going to be pretty allergic to dumping those big, pretty stages into the drink... They probably cost $100 million a piece if I had to guess, hell, there's ~$42 million in engines alone.
Quote from: ZachF on 10/17/2018 12:16 amQuote from: envy887 on 10/12/2018 10:29 pmQuote from: ZachF on 10/12/2018 04:50 pmAlso, doing some math... It seems that maybe the New Glenn will be incapable of doing direct geostationary insertion...If the NG upper stage has an ISP of 450, an empty weight of 20 tonnes, fuel of 200 tonnes, and a 13 tonne payload, that gives a total dV of 8619 m/s for the second stage + payload.Staging velocity should be capped by recovery.GTO-1500 would require 8,919m/s. That gives a payload to that orbit of 10,500kg.GEO would require 10,419m/s. That gives a driect GEO payload of... 800kg.I don't think NG is capable of direct GEO insertion.Blue has said that a single configuration is capable of all NSS missions. I think the answer to your dilemma is that the GTO payload with reuse is considerably higher than 13 tonnes. Or else they plan to fly the direct to GEO missions while expending the booster. Or both.Edit: If you plug your numbers in the Silverbird calculator it gives 9.4 tonnes to GEO and 23 tonnes to GEO-1800. And it has a staging velocity of about 3.2 km/s (~Mach 10) after subtracting 1.6 km/s in gravity losses. That's pretty hot, but not totally unreasonable for a lifting return. New Glenn is a massively huge monster of a rocket. It's double the liftoff mass of Ariane 5 with much higher total impulse stages and relatively low recovery losses. It's bigger than Falcon Heavy, but with with a huge hydrogen upper stage. Blue is grossly sandbagging that 13 tonne payload estimate.Quote from: ZachF on 10/12/2018 06:35 pm5% mass fraction for hydrolox? absolutely not.F9 has a <5% mass fraction because it's fuel is 3x as dense.Delta IV 2S has a ~11.4% mass fractionDelta IV 1S has a ~11.8% mass fractionAtlas V 2S (centaur) has a ~9.7% mass fractionAriane 5 1S has a 8.0% mass fractionAriane 5 2S has a 23% mass fractionSLS EUS has a ~10% mass fractionSaturn V SIVB has a ~11% mass fractionMy estimate of 20 tonnes of dry mass for 200 tonnes of fuel is likely generous (9.1% mass fraction) if anything.NG US is considerably bigger than any you list. It's also newer. It's almost certainly autogenously pressurized. And it's probably carbon fiber. All those reduce mass. It could be a hair better than the S-II which was under 8%.I ran those numbers on silverbird and got roughy 13 tonnes to GTO with a ~10% fuel reserve in the booster, and ~22 tonnes expendable. Direct GEO capability was pretty low (nothing at 10% fuel reserve), rising to 6 tonnes with the booster expended.It's also possible that they use it's expendable GEO capability to qualify for EELV, but then never bid those launches (Or bid extremely high).I think blue is going to be pretty allergic to dumping those big, pretty stages into the drink... They probably cost $100 million a piece if I had to guess, hell, there's ~$42 million in engines alone.Why do you think they need a 10% fuel reserve?
Quote from: ZachF on 10/12/2018 04:50 pmAlso, doing some math... It seems that maybe the New Glenn will be incapable of doing direct geostationary insertion...If the NG upper stage has an ISP of 450, an empty weight of 20 tonnes, fuel of 200 tonnes, and a 13 tonne payload, that gives a total dV of 8619 m/s for the second stage + payload.Staging velocity should be capped by recovery.GTO-1500 would require 8,919m/s. That gives a payload to that orbit of 10,500kg.GEO would require 10,419m/s. That gives a driect GEO payload of... 800kg.I don't think NG is capable of direct GEO insertion.I think NG upper stage may has ISP up to 460+(may be 465?,MB-60 has ISP of 467)btw, has anyone received NG payload user's guide via email?
We are currently developing and testing an upgraded version of the BE-3PM, the BE-3U, which is optimized to operate in the vacuum of space. Repackaging the engine components, converting to the expander cycle, and adding a larger nozzle maximizes performance and increases the thrust to 125,000 lbf. Two BE-3U engines will power the upper stage of our New Glenn orbital launch vehicle. With extensive testing and use of BE-3PM on New Shepard, the BE-3U will be one of the best understood rocket engines before it ever launches into space.
BE-3U is no longer tap-off, they changed to expander a while back. First time we (the public) deduced that was a few weeks ago when a BE-3U image video on the NASA test stand looked different than expected.Even says so on this weeks sticker. QuoteWe are currently developing and testing an upgraded version of the BE-3PM, the BE-3U, which is optimized to operate in the vacuum of space. Repackaging the engine components, converting to the expander cycle, and adding a larger nozzle maximizes performance and increases the thrust to 125,000 lbf. Two BE-3U engines will power the upper stage of our New Glenn orbital launch vehicle. With extensive testing and use of BE-3PM on New Shepard, the BE-3U will be one of the best understood rocket engines before it ever launches into space.from https://www.blueorigin.com/enginesBE-3 has been rebranded BE-3PM. PM is for Propulsion Module, aka the rocket part of New Sheppard. Edit: BE3-U video linked
Quote from: Lsquirrel on 10/17/2018 11:04 amI think NG upper stage may has ISP up to 460+(may be 465?,MB-60 has ISP of 467)btw, has anyone received NG payload user's guide via email?Not likely. The rocket engines with ISPs in the 460 range are all closed cycle expanders, not open cycle tapoff engines like the BE-3U. ~2% of the propellant mass will be tapped off and ejected at a nearly meaningless velocity, so 450 is probably the upper range of what the BE-3U ISP should be.Expansion ratio is not known, but the bell diameter looks to be roughly around 2 meters from the new renders, could probably figure a rough expansion ratio there.EDIT: Chasm has corrected me, new BE-3 is an expander cycle... ISP of 460+ is possible.
I think NG upper stage may has ISP up to 460+(may be 465?,MB-60 has ISP of 467)btw, has anyone received NG payload user's guide via email?
Quote from: ZachF on 10/17/2018 02:24 pmQuote from: Lsquirrel on 10/17/2018 11:04 amI think NG upper stage may has ISP up to 460+(may be 465?,MB-60 has ISP of 467)btw, has anyone received NG payload user's guide via email?Not likely. The rocket engines with ISPs in the 460 range are all closed cycle expanders, not open cycle tapoff engines like the BE-3U. ~2% of the propellant mass will be tapped off and ejected at a nearly meaningless velocity, so 450 is probably the upper range of what the BE-3U ISP should be.Expansion ratio is not known, but the bell diameter looks to be roughly around 2 meters from the new renders, could probably figure a rough expansion ratio there.EDIT: Chasm has corrected me, new BE-3 is an expander cycle... ISP of 460+ is possible.The question then is whether it's an open or closed cycle expander. I suspect it's an open expander, since (a) that's much closer to their previous design, and (b) the general concensus is that a closed expander is not practical above about 65,000 lbf (due the square-cube law). See, for example ANOTHER LOOK AT THE PRACTICAL AND THEORETICAL LIMITS OF AN EXPANDER CYCLE, LOX/H2 ENGINE. If so, then the ISP should be more similar to the tap-off cycle, not the closed expander cycle of the RL-10.
I don't know what it will need precisely, I just plugged in the numbers on the silverbird site from 0% (plus 0.5% for residuals) all the way to 11%. The 2016 ITS needed ~7% for RTLS.From 0 to 11% the GTO payload dropped from ~23 tonnes to a little under 13 tonnes. The GEO payload dropped from 6 tonnes to 0 tonnes.They will probably start out with larger margins and work their way down as they improve their recovery processes if I had to guess. The 13 tonne figure may be eventually larger because of that as well.FWIW, it should also be capable of a pretty hefty LEO payload with RTLS (probably 34 tonnes) if they so choose.