Blue Origin New Armstrong width. 30 m? >100 ft???This is remarkable news, from an excellent post by johnlandish in a Blue vs SpaceX discussion thread:QuoteRe: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?« Reply #746 on: Today at 03:00:58 »--- snip ---12. Bezos deeply involved with blue operations, from that evidence i have seen it seems he has deeper knowledge of rocketry than most people think. Bezos talked to Alan Boyle about New Armstrong being the next rocket they build. Bob Meyerson hinted at a 30m Diameter rocket, also confirmed work on Blue moon & in space tugs. Aim to increase flight rate way beyond 12 flights a year. Source: MIT talk 2018-03-10Let's discuss this.
Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?« Reply #746 on: Today at 03:00:58 »--- snip ---12. Bezos deeply involved with blue operations, from that evidence i have seen it seems he has deeper knowledge of rocketry than most people think. Bezos talked to Alan Boyle about New Armstrong being the next rocket they build. Bob Meyerson hinted at a 30m Diameter rocket, also confirmed work on Blue moon & in space tugs. Aim to increase flight rate way beyond 12 flights a year. Source: MIT talk 2018-03-10
12m diameter is about the largest you can go with existing barges on the intercoastal waterways and river systems. Anything larger would have to be an offshore launch facility and be built near or at a shipyard.
Does anyone have any thoughts about what a NA vehicle would be used for? If people are going to live and work in space they have to have something to do up there. No one outside of NASA builds a rocket without some purpose or market it is serving, so if we figure out what they intend to accomplish with this rocket then it will give us insight into how big it can be or needs to be.
Quote from: spacenut on 06/03/2018 07:09 pm12m diameter is about the largest you can go with existing barges on the intercoastal waterways and river systems. Anything larger would have to be an offshore launch facility and be built near or at a shipyard. BO will likely build a new factory for NA close to the NA launch pad so would not need any barges to get it to the launch pad. Still I think NA won't be larger than 12m dia. which will be around the max. dia. you will be able to launch from KSC due to launch acoustics. Anything larger than 12m dia. will likely have to be launched offshore.
Quote from: DJPledger on 06/03/2018 07:36 pmQuote from: spacenut on 06/03/2018 07:09 pm12m diameter is about the largest you can go with existing barges on the intercoastal waterways and river systems. Anything larger would have to be an offshore launch facility and be built near or at a shipyard. BO will likely build a new factory for NA close to the NA launch pad so would not need any barges to get it to the launch pad. Still I think NA won't be larger than 12m dia. which will be around the max. dia. you will be able to launch from KSC due to launch acoustics. Anything larger than 12m dia. will likely have to be launched offshore.The factory they just built is probably big enough for a 12 meter rocket.
Quote from: intrepidpursuit on 06/03/2018 08:04 pmDoes anyone have any thoughts about what a NA vehicle would be used for? If people are going to live and work in space they have to have something to do up there. No one outside of NASA builds a rocket without some purpose or market it is serving, so if we figure out what they intend to accomplish with this rocket then it will give us insight into how big it can be or needs to be.My guess is that it's a BFR- or ITS-style competitor for, well, BFR, sending tons of people and/or cargo to the Moon, Mars or Earth orbit in a large ship.How wide could it be? I think 10-15m is pretty likely. Maybe a bit less and let it be taller.That's all a pure guess though.Remember, they're looking to build a NA pad north of LC-39B, where 39C would have been, so clearly they at least expect it will be able to launch from land and not kill everyone in the area. I think that gives us a slight hint at the largest it could be.
Quote from: envy887 on 06/04/2018 11:22 amQuote from: DJPledger on 06/03/2018 07:36 pmQuote from: spacenut on 06/03/2018 07:09 pm12m diameter is about the largest you can go with existing barges on the intercoastal waterways and river systems. Anything larger would have to be an offshore launch facility and be built near or at a shipyard. BO will likely build a new factory for NA close to the NA launch pad so would not need any barges to get it to the launch pad. Still I think NA won't be larger than 12m dia. which will be around the max. dia. you will be able to launch from KSC due to launch acoustics. Anything larger than 12m dia. will likely have to be launched offshore.The factory they just built is probably big enough for a 12 meter rocket.The factory BO has just built is some distance from the site of the proposed LC-49 launch pad for NA. They will need a new factory near LC-49 to streamline ops. Only takes a couple hundred million $ to build a new factory which is nothing for JB.
I was referring to the protected waterway along the American coastline where a lot of barges carry large items and bulk items to ports for shipping. The Saturn V traveled along this waterway from Louisiana. It can be used as intercoastal also. Both can be correct as in the interstate highway system. The waterway goes between states along the coast. When I was young and in the 1960's my teachers called it intercoastal. Everyone I know calls it intercoastal. Sorry if it is not correct.
Quote from: Darkseraph on 01/29/2018 04:46 amI'd bet strongly against a triple core New Armstrong for two reasons:1. Their goal is operational re-usability. Complex triple core systems don't help that. More complex recovery, more engines, more points of failure etc.2. Lowering development costs is not as big a concern for Blue Origin. They're sufficiently funded by Bezos not to have to cut corners. From public comments their business philosophy seems to be 'Do it right, rather than do it right now'.Speculating,New Armstrong will probably be like New Glenn, but scaled up to at least 10 meters with new 'BE-6' engines. The first two stages will be reusable, return to launch site. An optional third stage will be a 'BE-5' powered reusable lunar lander/spaceship that can be refueled from a lunar depot created in the Blue Moon program. The notional BE-5 would be a higher efficiency hydrolox engine to succeed the BE-3. Similarly, BE-6 would be an F1 class full-flow staged combustion methalox engine intended to replace BE-4. Rather than use dozens of engines like BFR, Blue Origin will simply invest adequate resources in developing larger engines. Speculating ...(or what I might do if I had a New Glenn and lots of billions)... reasons for a triple core:- SpaceX has shown that a triple core is a good way of roughly tripling payload capability. Two stages at least are recoverable, and the third stage should also be recoverable.
I'd bet strongly against a triple core New Armstrong for two reasons:1. Their goal is operational re-usability. Complex triple core systems don't help that. More complex recovery, more engines, more points of failure etc.2. Lowering development costs is not as big a concern for Blue Origin. They're sufficiently funded by Bezos not to have to cut corners. From public comments their business philosophy seems to be 'Do it right, rather than do it right now'.Speculating,New Armstrong will probably be like New Glenn, but scaled up to at least 10 meters with new 'BE-6' engines. The first two stages will be reusable, return to launch site. An optional third stage will be a 'BE-5' powered reusable lunar lander/spaceship that can be refueled from a lunar depot created in the Blue Moon program. The notional BE-5 would be a higher efficiency hydrolox engine to succeed the BE-3. Similarly, BE-6 would be an F1 class full-flow staged combustion methalox engine intended to replace BE-4. Rather than use dozens of engines like BFR, Blue Origin will simply invest adequate resources in developing larger engines.
- Tripling New Glenn gives 135 tons to LEO - which is compatible with the current BFR plans
BO rocks...just watch they might win it all