Quote from: AncientU on 10/05/2017 03:21 pmAt NSC meeting "Blue Origin in discussions concerning certifying NG for NSS payloads.'(!)QuoteSmith: in talks with nat’l security community and NASA on certifying New Glenn for their missions.https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/915959780979740673(Bold mine)Anyone catch that?I'm old enough to remember when people scoffed at the idea that Blue Origin would do national security launches...
At NSC meeting "Blue Origin in discussions concerning certifying NG for NSS payloads.'(!)QuoteSmith: in talks with nat’l security community and NASA on certifying New Glenn for their missions.https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/915959780979740673
Smith: in talks with nat’l security community and NASA on certifying New Glenn for their missions.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 10/06/2017 02:48 amQuote from: AncientU on 10/05/2017 03:21 pmAt NSC meeting "Blue Origin in discussions concerning certifying NG for NSS payloads.'(!)QuoteSmith: in talks with nat’l security community and NASA on certifying New Glenn for their missions.https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/915959780979740673(Bold mine)Anyone catch that?I'm old enough to remember when people scoffed at the idea that Blue Origin would do national security launches...There were indication of this from the Air Force months ago, this is the first time Blue admitted it themselves though.I guess people could still argue that there're some sort of non-compete agreement between Blue and ULA, something like Blue would only go after launches that ULA would lose to SpaceX anyway.
Quote from: su27k on 10/06/2017 02:59 amQuote from: Robotbeat on 10/06/2017 02:48 amQuote from: AncientU on 10/05/2017 03:21 pmAt NSC meeting "Blue Origin in discussions concerning certifying NG for NSS payloads.'(!)QuoteSmith: in talks with nat’l security community and NASA on certifying New Glenn for their missions.https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/915959780979740673(Bold mine)Anyone catch that?I'm old enough to remember when people scoffed at the idea that Blue Origin would do national security launches...There were indication of this from the Air Force months ago, this is the first time Blue admitted it themselves though.I guess people could still argue that there're some sort of non-compete agreement between Blue and ULA, something like Blue would only go after launches that ULA would lose to SpaceX anyway.I doubt such non-compete would be legal - let alone enforceable.
Quote from: su27k on 10/06/2017 02:59 amThere were indication of this from the Air Force months ago, this is the first time Blue admitted it themselves though.I guess people could still argue that there're some sort of non-compete agreement between Blue and ULA, something like Blue would only go after launches that ULA would lose to SpaceX anyway.I doubt such non-compete would be legal - let alone enforceable.
There were indication of this from the Air Force months ago, this is the first time Blue admitted it themselves though.I guess people could still argue that there're some sort of non-compete agreement between Blue and ULA, something like Blue would only go after launches that ULA would lose to SpaceX anyway.
...I'm not so sure the 1MN (1000kN) Raptor is a FFSC. I'm expecting it's a GG cycle engine like Merlin 1D, burning oxygen rich or fuel rich. If they have the GG and turbine running reliable oxygen and fuel rich; I think SpaceX needs to develop a new combustion chamber and two new turbopumps. ...
Quote from: Rik ISS-fan on 10/06/2017 09:28 pm...I'm not so sure the 1MN (1000kN) Raptor is a FFSC. I'm expecting it's a GG cycle engine like Merlin 1D, burning oxygen rich or fuel rich. If they have the GG and turbine running reliable oxygen and fuel rich; I think SpaceX needs to develop a new combustion chamber and two new turbopumps. ...How can an engine designed to be a FFSC be run as a GG cycle engine? I legitimately don’t know if that’s possible, but got the impression it wasn’t. If not possible, you’re suggesting that SpaceX is not actually showing us the raptor they say they are. I have been under the impression that the raptor is exactly what has been described and running exactly as intended although not built to the scale previously announced and perhaps not at the full thrust or duration as intended for use in BFR. But otherwise it is operating just as the final engine will. What am I missing/misunderstanding?
Up-scaling a FFSC engine means redeveloping 2x pre-burners; 2x turbine/turbo-pump assemblies & new combustion chamber. With a GG cycle engine the GG can become a pre-burner. When a single shaft turbine/dual TP GG is used; the oxygen rich turbine can become the turbine for the Oxidizer side; The fuel rich turbine can become the fuel side turbine. Now only the two turbopumps (using the tested turbines) and the combustion chamber need to be developed. So with a GG subscale engine you prove 4 systems; leaving 3 to be developed instead of 5 completely new systems. And they reused the Merlin hardware for this sub-scale Raptor demonstrator.(Neglecting the engine controller and a lot or other stuf that needs to be redesigned for every rocket engine.)That's my reasoning for doubting 1MN Raptor is FFSC. But I could be wrong.In that case the full size raptor is years away from introduction. All components have to be redesigned, tested and qualified. BE-4 400 => 550 lbf = 1.375x; Raptor 1MN => 1.7MN = 1.7x
For the two versions of BE-4 I use SI-units instead of Imperial.
I'm not so sure the 1MN (1000kN) Raptor is a FFSC. I'm expecting it's a GG cycle engine like Merlin 1D, burning oxygen rich or fuel rich. If they have the GG and turbine running reliable oxygen and fuel rich; I think SpaceX needs to develop a new combustion chamber and two new turbopumps.
I like coming on here and just checking any updates
I doubt such non-compete would be legal - let alone enforceable.
Quote from: Mnethercutt on 10/17/2017 01:15 pm I like coming on here and just checking any updatesSame. Dropping a message to say I agree with you.