Author Topic: New Glenn: Blue Origin Announcement of Orbital Rocket Plan  (Read 1104769 times)

Offline ZachS09

  • Space Savant
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8406
  • Roanoke, TX
  • Liked: 2344
  • Likes Given: 2060
Re: New Glenn: Blue Origin Announcement of Orbital Rocket Plan
« Reply #1140 on: 10/16/2018 02:50 am »
Black TPS?

Blue Origin’s probably using it because they’ve seen SpaceX utilize the TPS on their F9 Block 5 rockets.
Liftoff for St. Jude's! Go Dragon, Go Falcon, Godspeed Inspiration4!

Offline Eric Hedman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2313
  • The birthplace of the solid body electric guitar
  • Liked: 1953
  • Likes Given: 1142
Re: New Glenn: Blue Origin Announcement of Orbital Rocket Plan
« Reply #1141 on: 10/16/2018 05:50 am »
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.

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
Re: New Glenn: Blue Origin Announcement of Orbital Rocket Plan
« Reply #1142 on: 10/16/2018 12:12 pm »
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
Stretch 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.

Or they need more performance from the booster to cover all the EELV-2 missions. Making the upper stage bigger actually hurts direct to GEO performance.

Offline LaunchedIn68

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 185
  • Deer Park, NY
  • Liked: 151
  • Likes Given: 448
Re: New Glenn: Blue Origin Announcement of Orbital Rocket Plan
« Reply #1143 on: 10/16/2018 04:07 pm »
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.

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?
"I want to build a spaceship, go to the moon, salvage all the junk that's up there, bring it back, sell it." - Harry Broderick

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
Re: New Glenn: Blue Origin Announcement of Orbital Rocket Plan
« Reply #1144 on: 10/16/2018 04:25 pm »
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.

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?

Orange is not the natural color for those vehicles you listed. They are orange for a variety of reasons. SLS, STS, and DIV have lots of exterior insulation, due to Hydrogen, but that is not necessary for Methane and would not work well for a reusable launch vehicle. Atlas V is Orange due to an anodization process (?). And paint is not always just a weight concern, it could have other protective properties as well.

Offline matthewkantar

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2075
  • Liked: 2506
  • Likes Given: 2211
Re: New Glenn: Blue Origin Announcement of Orbital Rocket Plan
« Reply #1145 on: 10/16/2018 04:27 pm »
What works well for disposable tanks and stages does not necessarily work well for a vehicle that will land out on the ocean and see tens or even hundreds of uses.

Offline ZachF

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1610
  • Immensely complex & high risk
  • NH, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 2604
  • Likes Given: 531
Re: New Glenn: Blue Origin Announcement of Orbital Rocket Plan
« Reply #1146 on: 10/17/2018 12:11 am »
Could also be a bit bigger because the newest/final BE-4 design runs more fuel-rich. Switching the MR from say, 3.2:1 to 3:1 would add about a meter in length.

They list 17,100kN of thrust at SL for it on the redesigned website, so I don't think it has changed, GTOW is going to have a ceiling of about 1,450 tonnes because of that.

EDIT: Also meant to add the biggest reason the lower stage is bigger is probably because the upper stage weighs less.
« Last Edit: 10/17/2018 02:25 pm by ZachF »
artist, so take opinions expressed above with a well-rendered grain of salt...
https://www.instagram.com/artzf/

Offline ZachF

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1610
  • Immensely complex & high risk
  • NH, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 2604
  • Likes Given: 531
Re: New Glenn: Blue Origin Announcement of Orbital Rocket Plan
« Reply #1147 on: 10/17/2018 12:16 am »
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.

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.

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 fraction
Delta IV 1S has a ~11.8% mass fraction
Atlas V 2S (centaur) has a ~9.7% mass fraction
Ariane 5 1S has a 8.0% mass fraction
Ariane 5 2S has a 23% mass fraction
SLS EUS has a ~10% mass fraction
Saturn V SIVB has a ~11% mass fraction

My 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.
« Last Edit: 10/17/2018 12:20 am by ZachF »
artist, so take opinions expressed above with a well-rendered grain of salt...
https://www.instagram.com/artzf/

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
Re: New Glenn: Blue Origin Announcement of Orbital Rocket Plan
« Reply #1148 on: 10/17/2018 01:29 am »
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.

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.

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 fraction
Delta IV 1S has a ~11.8% mass fraction
Atlas V 2S (centaur) has a ~9.7% mass fraction
Ariane 5 1S has a 8.0% mass fraction
Ariane 5 2S has a 23% mass fraction
SLS EUS has a ~10% mass fraction
Saturn V SIVB has a ~11% mass fraction

My 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?

Offline Lsquirrel

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 114
  • Liked: 68
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: New Glenn: Blue Origin Announcement of Orbital Rocket Plan
« Reply #1149 on: 10/17/2018 11:04 am »
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.

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?

Offline ZachF

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1610
  • Immensely complex & high risk
  • NH, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 2604
  • Likes Given: 531
Re: New Glenn: Blue Origin Announcement of Orbital Rocket Plan
« Reply #1150 on: 10/17/2018 01:58 pm »
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.

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.

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 fraction
Delta IV 1S has a ~11.8% mass fraction
Atlas V 2S (centaur) has a ~9.7% mass fraction
Ariane 5 1S has a 8.0% mass fraction
Ariane 5 2S has a 23% mass fraction
SLS EUS has a ~10% mass fraction
Saturn V SIVB has a ~11% mass fraction

My 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?

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.
« Last Edit: 10/17/2018 01:59 pm by ZachF »
artist, so take opinions expressed above with a well-rendered grain of salt...
https://www.instagram.com/artzf/

Offline ZachF

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1610
  • Immensely complex & high risk
  • NH, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 2604
  • Likes Given: 531
Re: New Glenn: Blue Origin Announcement of Orbital Rocket Plan
« Reply #1151 on: 10/17/2018 02:24 pm »
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.

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?

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.
« Last Edit: 10/17/2018 03:39 pm by ZachF »
artist, so take opinions expressed above with a well-rendered grain of salt...
https://www.instagram.com/artzf/

Offline Chasm

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 495
  • Liked: 230
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: New Glenn: Blue Origin Announcement of Orbital Rocket Plan
« Reply #1152 on: 10/17/2018 02:37 pm »
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. ;)
Quote
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.
from https://www.blueorigin.com/engines

BE-3 has been rebranded BE-3PM. PM is for Propulsion Module, aka the rocket part of New Sheppard.


Edit: BE3-U video linked
« Last Edit: 10/17/2018 02:49 pm by Chasm »

Offline ZachF

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1610
  • Immensely complex & high risk
  • NH, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 2604
  • Likes Given: 531
Re: New Glenn: Blue Origin Announcement of Orbital Rocket Plan
« Reply #1153 on: 10/17/2018 03:27 pm »
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. ;)
Quote
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.
from https://www.blueorigin.com/engines

BE-3 has been rebranded BE-3PM. PM is for Propulsion Module, aka the rocket part of New Sheppard.


Edit: BE3-U video linked

Missed that... I stand corrected then :)
artist, so take opinions expressed above with a well-rendered grain of salt...
https://www.instagram.com/artzf/

Offline LouScheffer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3381
  • Liked: 6109
  • Likes Given: 836
Re: New Glenn: Blue Origin Announcement of Orbital Rocket Plan
« Reply #1154 on: 10/17/2018 04:22 pm »

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?

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.

Offline ZachF

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1610
  • Immensely complex & high risk
  • NH, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 2604
  • Likes Given: 531
Re: New Glenn: Blue Origin Announcement of Orbital Rocket Plan
« Reply #1155 on: 10/17/2018 04:27 pm »
Doing some pixel measuring on the new BE-3U renders seems to suggest an ER in the 75-100 range, ISP is then probably in the 455-450 range, so not that different from earlier estimations.

The hydrolox engines that get ISPs of 460+ have ERs of over 200... The bells on those engines aren't too much different in size from the BE-3U in spite of having much less thrust.
artist, so take opinions expressed above with a well-rendered grain of salt...
https://www.instagram.com/artzf/

Offline ZachF

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1610
  • Immensely complex & high risk
  • NH, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 2604
  • Likes Given: 531
Re: New Glenn: Blue Origin Announcement of Orbital Rocket Plan
« Reply #1156 on: 10/17/2018 04:32 pm »

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?

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.

Expansion ratio looks to be in the 75-100 range as well, not the 250+ that the 460+ ISP champions have.

450 is probably a higher end guess then.
artist, so take opinions expressed above with a well-rendered grain of salt...
https://www.instagram.com/artzf/

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
Re: New Glenn: Blue Origin Announcement of Orbital Rocket Plan
« Reply #1157 on: 10/17/2018 05:30 pm »
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.

with a 10% (107 tonne) reserve and 80 tonne dry mass, New Glenn can do over 2,700 m/s. F9 needs about 700 m/s for its landing burn. New Glenn is only doing a landing burn.

From a delta-v perspective, New Glenn should only need about 2% of its initial fuel load to land. Boosters typically have another 0.5% residual. I'd say anything more than 3% reserve including residuals is overly conservative for a very high energy GEO mission.

Blue might well try to land the booster on slim margins and simply bump the pricing for Direct to GEO to reflect the higher risk of losing the booster. There are very, very few 6+ tonne direct to GEO missions anyway, and those customers are not at all cost-sensitive.

Offline TrevorMonty

For regular GEO direct missions, Blue would be better off using OTVs and in orbit refuelling. At 45t to LEO NG is capable of delivering 10t payload plus fuel for OTV to deliver payload to GEO and return to LEO. This approach also works for reuseable US.

Offline b0objunior

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 261
  • Liked: 162
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: New Glenn: Blue Origin Announcement of Orbital Rocket Plan
« Reply #1159 on: 10/18/2018 06:19 am »
A picture from inside New Glenn factory. Pretty cool, but I more curious about the grey structures on the floor.

From wired article : https://www.wired.com/story/jeff-bezos-blue-origin/

I downloaded it for easier access.
« Last Edit: 10/18/2018 09:47 am by b0objunior »

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1