However, as a pair, BE4 or AR1 will offer around 30% more thrust than a single RD180. The pair will cost less than a single RD180 and with increased tank size, there will be fewer SRMs for the same mission.
Tory Bruno just said on reddit that two BE-4s will cost less than a single RD-180. Obviously that's a ballpark estimate and could very well change, but it's nice to know the target prices are competitive.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ula/comments/47jsfy/new_be4_information_page_from_blue_origin/d0erahf (https://www.reddit.com/r/ula/comments/47jsfy/new_be4_information_page_from_blue_origin/d0erahf)QuoteHowever, as a pair, BE4 or AR1 will offer around 30% more thrust than a single RD180. The pair will cost less than a single RD180 and with increased tank size, there will be fewer SRMs for the same mission.
Tory Bruno just said on reddit that two BE-4s will cost less than a single RD-180. Obviously that's a ballpark estimate and could very well change, but it's nice to know the target prices are competitive.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ula/comments/47jsfy/new_be4_information_page_from_blue_origin/d0erahf (https://www.reddit.com/r/ula/comments/47jsfy/new_be4_information_page_from_blue_origin/d0erahf)QuoteHowever, as a pair, BE4 or AR1 will offer around 30% more thrust than a single RD180. The pair will cost less than a single RD180 and with increased tank size, there will be fewer SRMs for the same mission.
strange he has listed the AR1 in that comment. The final papers must not be signed and the AR1 is the backup?
Tory Bruno has mentioned on reddit that Blue Origin agreed to ULA's target cost for BE-4, although no mention of any specific number.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ula/comments/43v33x/be4_forgings_assemble_full_engine_testing_later/czq86eb (https://www.reddit.com/r/ula/comments/43v33x/be4_forgings_assemble_full_engine_testing_later/czq86eb)QuoteBE4 is our primary path because it started first, is fully funded, and Blue has signed up to our target cost. AR1 is our back up because engines are complicated, risky, and BE4 will be the largest methane engine ever built (so there's technical risk). I plan to downselect after BE4's full scale static testing in about a year. That's when we'll know if the technology will work and can be on schedule.
Where is the engine being built, and tested? I doubt it's the Kent, WA facility because of the noise, though Kent has equipment in the back of the main building that suspiciously suggests an engine test facility.
--Damon
Bezos explained his philosophy on how to build a successful reusable engine: “Our strategy is we like to choose a medium-performing version of a high-performance architecture.” Here’s what that means: The Russian RD-180 engine is a high-performing version of a high performance architecture. It uses the best materials and pushes the performance envelope. It is the Ferrari of engines. But that comes with a cost. When it fires, the RD-180 engines produces extremely high chamber pressures of up to 3,700 psi. By comparison, the BE-4 engine produces a chamber pressure of 1,950 psi.
Ars Technica reports that the combustion chamber pressure of the BE-4 is 1950 psi.Yes, and the RD-180 is still rated for 10 missions. No wonder it is not even close to the RD-180 in performance.QuoteBezos explained his philosophy on how to build a successful reusable engine: “Our strategy is we like to choose a medium-performing version of a high-performance architecture.” Here’s what that means: The Russian RD-180 engine is a high-performing version of a high performance architecture. It uses the best materials and pushes the performance envelope. It is the Ferrari of engines. But that comes with a cost. When it fires, the RD-180 engines produces extremely high chamber pressures of up to 3,700 psi. By comparison, the BE-4 engine produces a chamber pressure of 1,950 psi.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/03/behind-the-curtain-ars-goes-inside-blue-origins-secretive-rocket-factory/ (http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/03/behind-the-curtain-ars-goes-inside-blue-origins-secretive-rocket-factory/)
CULBERSON COUNTY, Texas (Blue Origin PR) — BE-4 testing is well underway at Blue Origin. To date, we’ve completed more than 170 staged-combustion tests – including 51 starts on a single regeneratively cooled chamber and nozzle. The preburner performed flawlessly and the main injector consistently demonstrated performance at the high end of our predictions, giving us confidence that we’ll get good specific impulse when we go to full-scale engine testing later this year.
One of the many benefits of a privately funded engine development is that we can make and implement decisions quickly. Building these two new test cells is a $10 million commitment, and we as a team made the decision to move forward in 10 minutes.
Yes, and the RD-180 is still rated for 10 missions. No wonder it is not even close to the RD-180 in performance.
...so now that we have the chamber pressure information available, we could start speculating about other numbers. Plugging it into MPA, assuming an Isp-optimized O/F ratio and assuming that the nozzle is optimized for maximum thrust at sea level (more likely it'll be optimized for a somewhat lower pressure since Vulcan stages late) , I get a theoretical ideal specific impulse of 327 s SL and 351 s vac.
MPA lite gives me a likely "as it turns out" specific impulse of 315 s SL and 339 s vac. This is where having the full version of the program would be nice to better approximate staged combustion efficiency and get an approximate T/W ratio. But either way, it seems to predict a somewhat lower specific impulse with the BE-4 than with the RD-180, and with a less dense fuel composition.
At ER=25, I would expect to see more like SL~310s
With 1950 psi chamber pressure, I'd say that this is rather unlikely. More likely around 300s, especially if they go for an O/F ratio closer to 3.8 to improve density instead of optimizing only for Isp which was the basis for the 3.3 O/F ratio above.
On the Vulcan configuration which gets lift-off thrust from solids anyway, the BE-4 will probably have a somewhat longer nozzle and thus have a roughly similar and possibly slightly higher Isp than the RD-180 at altitude, but on the other hand have noticeably lower Isp at launch pad due to the lower chamber pressure. On Blue's own flyback booster where they need a short nozzle for landing and where liftoff thrust would be bottlenecked by the engine, they will probably go for a rather low expansion ratio and low Isp.
With that said, for a first stage total thrust to keep gravity losses down is much more important than a <5% Isp increase. The BE-4 only really needs a decent specific impulse. If it has a small enough physical footprint and is cheap enough that you can fit more engine thrust at the bottom of the rocket for a similar production cost, that configuration is going to be superior regardless of whether or not the specific impulse is slightly higher.
The BE4 should have high T/W as it uses additive manufacturing which helps to keep weight down.
At ER=25, I would expect to see more like SL~310s
With 1950 psi chamber pressure, I'd say that this is rather unlikely.
Can anybody guess at throttle range of BE4. Blue plan to do vertical lands so deep throttling it one primary design features.
At ER=25, I would expect to see more like SL~310s
With 1950 psi chamber pressure, I'd say that this is rather unlikely.
No it isn't. If the illustrations are close to the truth the area ratio is somewhere in 23-25 region. 16.77 is way too low to match.
Your analysis has 1 atm nozzle exit pressure, that is too high. All real booster engines are overexpanded at sea level, many have the exit pressure at about 0.6 atm. This improves overall performance during flight.
I did some SWAG analysis (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35655.msg1262643#msg1262643) in 2014. Back then 130bar (1885 psi) Pc produced result close to the imagery and the few known facts. ~3% error, yay!
Like the smaller BE-3 upon which it is modeled, a main feature of the BE-4 is its reusability, and it’s being designed to fly a minimum of 25 missions.
Bezos explained his philosophy on how to build a successful reusable engine: “Our strategy is we like to choose a medium-performing version of a high-performance architecture.” Here’s what that means: The Russian RD-180 engine is a high-performing version of a high performance architecture. It uses the best materials and pushes the performance envelope. It is the Ferrari of engines. But that comes with a cost. When it fires, the RD-180 engines produces extremely high chamber pressures of up to 3,700 psi. By comparison, the BE-4 engine produces a chamber pressure of 1,950 psi.
Developing an elite engine like the RD-180 was a decade-plus project, on par in complexity to the space shuttle’s main engines. It required expensive materials. On the plus side, this provides a lower weight engine and a higher thrust-to-weight ratio. But the engine’s specific impulse isn’t all that much greater than the BE-4, which can be built more easily, and because it doesn't push performance limits can be reused
The BE4 should have high T/W as it uses additive manufacturing which helps to keep weight down.
Huh?
I saw the < sign. I now read the article. But I still cannot believe they are not aiming to be at least somewhat better than RD-180. Even with an initial value which can be improved upon later. After all they use methane instead of RP-1 which should allow for higher ISP, if not better T/W.
Comparing the two engine developments – Aerojet Rocketdyne pursuing the classic government funding route, while Blue Origin has a billionaire owner who can act lightning-fast – the two companies’ situations do not favor Aerojet Rocketdyne.
“Compare it to having two fiancées, two possible brides,” Tobey said of ULA’s approach to the two. “Blue Origin is a super-rich girl, and then there is this poor girl over here, Aerojet Rocketdyne. But we have to continue to go to planned rehearsal dinners, buy cakes and all the rest with both.
“We’re doing all the work on both, and the chance of Aerojet Rocketdyne beating the billionaire is pretty low. Basically we’re putting a whole lot more energy into BE-4 for Blue Origin.”
Using methane would be new for the U.S. space sector, imposing risks, but Tobey said the BE-4 engine is only 60 percent of the cost of the AR1, a clear advantage in today’s cost-driven market.
Of both engines, he said: “They are never going to outperform the RD-180."
I dislike "performance." If you mean Isp, say Isp. If you mean T/W ratio, say T/W ratio.Well, Merlin 1D is sort of an outlier in the T/W business. Before it, the RD-180 was up there as the best T/W (don't believe the NK-33 numbers published elsewhere, they don't include the TVC). But you can't forget the fact that the RD-170 was commissioned by 1985. And the RD-180 was flying by 2000, with Russian manufacturing technology of the 80s. In fact, the thing I find most impressive is that people says that the tolerances on that engine are ridiculously loose.
On the latter, Merlin 1D kicks RD180's butt all over town. Merlin 1D with recent thrust upgrades gets T/W of 200.
I dislike "performance." If you mean Isp, say Isp. If you mean T/W ratio, say T/W ratio.
On the latter, Merlin 1D kicks RD180's butt all over town. Merlin 1D with recent thrust upgrades gets T/W of 200.
In fact, the thing I find most impressive is that people says that the tolerances on that engine are ridiculously loose.
Not a really relevant parameter for comparison. Try installed T/W. Compare Atlas V thrust section to F9 thrust section. Installation wise, I bet RD-180 kick Merlins butt all over town. Atlas V/RD-180 had no need for 9 feed lines.But they can't throttle down to what is effectively less than 10% thrust either. Yes, I appreciate the KISS principle in rocket design, but they could never have pulled off the booster landings with only one or two very powerful engines.
I'd take that wager.I dislike "performance." If you mean Isp, say Isp. If you mean T/W ratio, say T/W ratio.
On the latter, Merlin 1D kicks RD180's butt all over town. Merlin 1D with recent thrust upgrades gets T/W of 200.
Not a really relevant parameter for comparison. Try installed T/W. Compare Atlas V thrust section to F9 thrust section. Installation wise, I bet RD-180 kick Merlins butt all over town. Atlas V/RD-180 had no need for 9 feed lines.
Not a really relevant parameter for comparison. Try installed T/W. Compare Atlas V thrust section to F9 thrust section. Installation wise, I bet RD-180 kick Merlins butt all over town. Atlas V/RD-180 had no need for 9 feed lines.But they can't throttle down to what is effectively less than 10% thrust either. Yes, I appreciate the KISS principle in rocket design, but they could never have pulled off the booster landings with only one or two very powerful engines.
I wasn't speaking of the BE-4 at all (and therefore was off topic). I was referring to your comment about the greater plumbing requirements for the Merlin, or rather for the set of nine of them. Their use case is different, so the comparison is not entirely fair.Not a really relevant parameter for comparison. Try installed T/W. Compare Atlas V thrust section to F9 thrust section. Installation wise, I bet RD-180 kick Merlins butt all over town. Atlas V/RD-180 had no need for 9 feed lines.But they can't throttle down to what is effectively less than 10% thrust either. Yes, I appreciate the KISS principle in rocket design, but they could never have pulled off the booster landings with only one or two very powerful engines.
Neither can Merlin. But what does throttling or landing have to do with the BE-4?
It was originally developed for Blue Origin's own vehicle. The deal with ULA came after.Not a really relevant parameter for comparison. Try installed T/W. Compare Atlas V thrust section to F9 thrust section. Installation wise, I bet RD-180 kick Merlins butt all over town. Atlas V/RD-180 had no need for 9 feed lines.But they can't throttle down to what is effectively less than 10% thrust either. Yes, I appreciate the KISS principle in rocket design, but they could never have pulled off the booster landings with only one or two very powerful engines.
Neither can Merlin. But what does throttling or landing have to do with the BE-4?
Actually, almost all methane engine designs proposed so far had lower ISP than high-ISP kerosene engines
Not a really relevant parameter for comparison. Try installed T/W. Compare Atlas V thrust section to F9 thrust section. Installation wise, I bet RD-180 kick Merlins butt all over town. Atlas V/RD-180 had no need for 9 feed lines.
Those were the MSFC that used that to dismiss anything not done by them (actually, their contractors under their supervision). That's how they stated with a straight face that Atlas V was risky while Ares I was the safest ever. Look what happened when they were taken out and the industry was left to decide.In fact, the thing I find most impressive is that people says that the tolerances on that engine are ridiculously loose.
Yet several years ago there were people on here calling RD-180 a "ticking time bomb". Whether it was due to its ox-rich staged combustion cycle, a distrust toward its country of origin and their manufacturing practices and whether it was coming from experts in the field or forum "experts", I don't know, but it was pretty amusing.
Please correct me if I'm wrong but haven't the various proposed Russian crew launch vehicle using the RD-170 family engines lowered the chamber pressure to increase safety?The RD-180V when it was designed for the Rus-M, used lower pressures. But that was due to the worse particle cleanness standard for the tanks on the Russian industry. The Atlas V version only added electronics for extra fault detection.
Regarding BE-4, here is what we know so far.
Propellants: LNG/LOX
Thrust: ~ 550,000 lbf
Chamber pressure: 1,950 psi
Cycle: ORSC (single shaft)
Isp:<311s SL, <338 vac. (for the booster variant in Vulcan)
TWR: <78
Re-usability: 25 complete missions, minimum.
Suggest that a full scale Raptor on a test stand is within a month or so.
Have not heard Bezos brag about a full scale BE4 making it to a test stand, is he behind Musk?
Will Musk beat Bezos to the test stand with a engine for respective next vehicles?
Pretty sure AR1 is at least 18+ months out and not sweating.
Can anyone contradict this please?
Oh, and could we somewhere do an engine comparative between the three and their best known stats. Thank you.
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2016/03/11/be4-engine-testing-update-jeff-bezos/
Is it possible to do staged combustion with a pintle?
Apologies in advance if I'm in the wrong place.
That looks like a thrust plate, while Merlin is a pintle. I didn't find any information about what Raptor has.
Is it possible to do staged combustion with a pintle?
Thanks!
One characteristic of Raptor is that it is a full flow cycle. Thus, it needs three injectors: LOX-rich preburner, CH4-rich preburner and Main Combustion chamber preburner.http://www.parabolicarc.com/2016/03/11/be4-engine-testing-update-jeff-bezos/
Apologies in advance if I'm in the wrong place.
That looks like a thrust plate, while Merlin is a pintle. I didn't find any information about what Raptor has.
Is it possible to do staged combustion with a pintle?
Thanks!
As far as I understand it, you just have to change the mixing angle somewhat to take into consideration the higher pressure. And I think that the IP issues were resolved the old fashion way (i.e. licensing).Apologies in advance if I'm in the wrong place.
That looks like a thrust plate, while Merlin is a pintle. I didn't find any information about what Raptor has.
Is it possible to do staged combustion with a pintle?
Thanks!
Don't think the current Merlin has a pintle injector. Could be wrong but pintles don't work to well with high chamber pressures (1000+ psi?), too much prop hitting the side wall leading to hot spot on the chamber wall. Suppose could get round this with greater local cooling, transpiration/film etc. Also seem to remember there was some IP issues with Mr Muellers former employer, so they switched to some variant of coax swirl.
Pintle preburner, interesting. The CFD picture they released of the preburner in their mailing list looked more "traditional" and text with it talked about injector elements. Along RD-170 lines, swirl injectors burning at normal mixture rations then diluted with extra oxygen. Assuming the picture is representative of what they are really working on of course.Quite probable that they are pretty standard, then.
Not a really relevant parameter for comparison. Try installed T/W. Compare Atlas V thrust section to F9 thrust section. Installation wise, I bet RD-180 kick Merlins butt all over town. Atlas V/RD-180 had no need for 9 feed lines.But they can't throttle down to what is effectively less than 10% thrust either. Yes, I appreciate the KISS principle in rocket design, but they could never have pulled off the booster landings with only one or two very powerful engines.
Neither can Merlin. But what does throttling or landing have to do with the BE-4?
I dislike "performance." If you mean Isp, say Isp. If you mean T/W ratio, say T/W ratio.
On the latter, Merlin 1D kicks RD180's butt all over town. Merlin 1D with recent thrust upgrades gets T/W of 200.
Not a really relevant parameter for comparison. Try installed T/W. Compare Atlas V thrust section to F9 thrust section. Installation wise, I bet RD-180 kick Merlins butt all over town. Atlas V/RD-180 had no need for 9 feed lines.
Not a really relevant parameter for comparison. Try installed T/W. Compare Atlas V thrust section to F9 thrust section. Installation wise, I bet RD-180 kick Merlins butt all over town. Atlas V/RD-180 had no need for 9 feed lines.But they can't throttle down to what is effectively less than 10% thrust either. Yes, I appreciate the KISS principle in rocket design, but they could never have pulled off the booster landings with only one or two very powerful engines.
Neither can Merlin. But what does throttling or landing have to do with the BE-4?
Everything it seems...
I dislike "performance." If you mean Isp, say Isp. If you mean T/W ratio, say T/W ratio.
On the latter, Merlin 1D kicks RD180's butt all over town. Merlin 1D with recent thrust upgrades gets T/W of 200.
Not a really relevant parameter for comparison. Try installed T/W. Compare Atlas V thrust section to F9 thrust section. Installation wise, I bet RD-180 kick Merlins butt all over town. Atlas V/RD-180 had no need for 9 feed lines.
I doubt it. The empty mass of a Falcon 9FT first stage is listed at 25,600 kg and it produces 5,886kN of thrust at sea level. The Atlas V first stage weighs 21,054kg empty and makes 3,827kN of thrust. So the empty thrust/weight ratio is 26.5% better on the Falcon 9 than the Atlas V. Of course, the empty Falcon 9FT stage also includes around 2,500kg of landing equipment.... and it holds more propellent (395,700kg vs 284,089kg)
So, if we take away the 2,500kg of landing equipment, The Falcon 9FT first stage weighs ~10% more, yet produces 54% more thrust, and holds 39% more fuel.
I'm wondering if Blue has already penciled in the BE-4 for the New Armstrong, and if so what that says about its projected capabilities? I was originally expecting New Armstrong to compare to ITS, but if it sticks with BE-4 I'm not sure that it's a reasonable expectation.BO need to dev. a FFSC engine for NA for it to have any chance of competing with ITS. BE-4 performance sucks compared to Raptor.
The BE4 was designed to be reuseable and low cost to build, to achieve this Blue went for design that had moderate performance.And there not CO2 on the moon, so making methane is out of the question.
Blue have BE3 for BLEO missions so BE4 doesn't need great ISP vac. If moon is your near term goal LH is better fuel as missions are measured in days not months.
The BE4 was designed to be reuseable and low cost to build, to achieve this Blue went for design that had moderate performance.Raptor is also designed to be reuseable and low cost. If BE-4 was designed to be FFSC then it could have competed with Raptor on performance. BO missed a trick by only going with ORSC and not FFSC with BE-4. Not to mention that FFSC eliminates the interpropellant seal which removes a major failure mode. FFSC also allows you to dev. a smaller engine of comparable thrust than with ORSC. Just compare the physical sizes of BE-4 and Raptor. Raptor is physically smaller than BE-4 yet is more powerful.
Blue have BE3 for BLEO missions so BE4 doesn't need great ISP vac. If moon is your near term goal LH is better fuel as missions are measured in days not months.
We get it, we are not idiots. The BE-4 is not as good as raptor on certain aspects. But I don't have a crystal ball, the future is not set.The BE4 was designed to be reuseable and low cost to build, to achieve this Blue went for design that had moderate performance.Raptor is also designed to be reuseable and low cost. If BE-4 was designed to be FFSC then it could have competed with Raptor on performance. BO missed a trick by only going with ORSC and not FFSC with BE-4. Not to mention that FFSC eliminates the interpropellant seal which removes a major failure mode. FFSC also allows you to dev. a smaller engine of comparable thrust than with ORSC. Just compare the physical sizes of BE-4 and Raptor. Raptor is physically smaller than BE-4 yet is more powerful.
Blue have BE3 for BLEO missions so BE4 doesn't need great ISP vac. If moon is your near term goal LH is better fuel as missions are measured in days not months.
If NA has the same dia. as ITS booster and uses BE-4's then you won't be able to put anywhere near the amount of thrust under it as the ITS booster.
Keep in mind Raptor has fired on a test stand.
What if BE4 slips and doesn't make it to a test stand?
Already, in theory, a Raptor based Vulcan a)might make it to a pad faster/cheaper, b) might have greater payload to orbit, and c) might be more reliable.
That is the strategic position at the moment. No tactical course to accept this as an option.
Specifics? Or just your "feelings"?Keep in mind Raptor has fired on a test stand.
What if BE4 slips and doesn't make it to a test stand?
Already, in theory, a Raptor based Vulcan a)might make it to a pad faster/cheaper, b) might have greater payload to orbit, and c) might be more reliable.
That is the strategic position at the moment. No tactical course to accept this as an option.
All baseless assumptions. There's speculting and SPECULATING.
There is no competution between Raptor and BE4. Raptor will never be sold to another LV company. The LVs these engines are used may well compete for same payloads. The engines costs especially if used in RLV will be small part of launch price.Part of any AF money (like Raptor got) comes with the requirement that AF might be able to have a means to use it.
Keep in mind Raptor has fired on a test stand.
What if BE4 slips and doesn't make it to a test stand?
Already, in theory, a Raptor based Vulcan a)might make it to a pad faster/cheaper, b) might have greater payload to orbit, and c) might be more reliable.
That is the strategic position at the moment. No tactical course to accept this as an option.
All baseless assumptions. There's speculting and SPECULATING.
Specifics? Or just your "feelings"?The specifics, we have no clue about where Vulcan is or it's future. If upgrading to Raptor is even possible considering the increased trust.
QuoteKeep in mind Raptor has fired on a test stand.
What if BE4 slips and doesn't make it to a test stand?
Already, in theory, a Raptor based Vulcan a)might make it to a pad faster/cheaper, b) might have greater payload to orbit, and c) might be more reliable.
That is the strategic position at the moment. No tactical course to accept this as an option.QuoteAll baseless assumptions. There's speculting and SPECULATING.QuoteSpecifics? Or just your "feelings"?The specifics, we have no clue about where Vulcan is or it's future. If upgrading to Raptor is even possible considering the increased trust.
Dropping everything for a FFSC engine? Ultimatly? Probably. Right now? I don't think so.
Right now Blue has to get BE-4 working and delivered. With high reliability and high confidence in said reliability. Meeting all the contracted performance, quantity, price and operations cost. The worst thing they could do is one of these two: Not to deliver the engines they sold. Delivering firecrackers. Vulcan does not exactly have engine out capability.
We don't know at this time how good or bad BE-4 actually is. ULA should have an idea about BE-4 and Blue should have know, given all the talk about poaching SpaceX engine developers, where Raptor was going.
BE-4 is still slated to be one of the more efficient engines worldwide, both on performance and price.
I'm wondering if Blue has already penciled in the BE-4 for the New Armstrong, and if so what that says about its projected capabilities? I was originally expecting New Armstrong to compare to ITS, but if it sticks with BE-4 I'm not sure that it's a reasonable expectation.BO need to dev. a FFSC engine for NA for it to have any chance of competing with ITS.
BE-4 performance sucks compared to Raptor.
Not to mention BE-4's much lower chamber pressure gives a lot more confidence in its potential reliability.I agree. Reliability, not ISP or any other number, will largely determinate if these engines make the history texts or merely the footnotes.
Not to mention BE-4's much lower chamber pressure gives a lot more confidence in its potential reliability.I agree. Reliability, not ISP or any other number, will largely determinate if these engines make the history texts or merely the footnotes.
Not to mention BE-4's much lower chamber pressure gives a lot more confidence in its potential reliability.I agree. Reliability, not ISP or any other number, will largely determinate if these engines make the history texts or merely the footnotes.
Reliability has nothing to do with confidence. Reliability is an intrinsic in a manufactured design that is proven on a test stand and confirmed with tear down and measurement. Over and over again. Test history. Flight history. Revisions.
Nothing you determine in the short term.
...and there is little test history -and no flight history- of FFSC engines.
BO said it's doing a medium performance version of a high performance architecture. For reliability/reusability. SpaceX does a very high performance version of a very high performance architecture.
By the way, do we know why BO chose ORSC? It seems they want to avoid FRSC, which would preclude a FFSC architecture.
True also for the SSME when it was chosen for the Shuttle.Not to mention BE-4's much lower chamber pressure gives a lot more confidence in its potential reliability.I agree. Reliability, not ISP or any other number, will largely determinate if these engines make the history texts or merely the footnotes.
Reliability has nothing to do with confidence. Reliability is an intrinsic in a manufactured design that is proven on a test stand and confirmed with tear down and measurement. Over and over again. Test history. Flight history. Revisions.
Nothing you determine in the short term.
...and there is little test history -and no flight history- of FFSC engines.
BO said it's doing a medium performance version of a high performance architecture. For reliability/reusability. SpaceX does a very high performance version of a very high performance architecture.
By the way, do we know why BO chose ORSC? It seems they want to avoid FRSC, which would preclude a FFSC architecture.
That is because with hydrolox you get something like 3 times more power to turbines by using FRSC than ORSC. On methalox, I think it was something like 30% more power by doing ORSC.BO said it's doing a medium performance version of a high performance architecture. For reliability/reusability. SpaceX does a very high performance version of a very high performance architecture.
By the way, do we know why BO chose ORSC? It seems they want to avoid FRSC, which would preclude a FFSC architecture.
I think they went for it since it would be a better choice than FRSC, as far as the propellant mix is concerned. FRSC cycles are almost completely devoted to Hydrolox engines.
Well, NK-33 only had half the chamber pressure of Raptor so I'd say Raptors OR loop alone will probably be just as challenging as NK-33's from a materials perspective, especially considering that while the pressure differential and power output in the turbine might be comparable to NK-33 the actual pressure will still be twice as high.NK-33 was a breakthrough for the West. But the first ORSC Russian rocket engine was OKB-1's S1.5400, which powered the Molnyia rocket third stage, and was operation by 1960.
BO said it's doing a medium performance version of a high performance architecture. For reliability/reusability. SpaceX does a very high performance version of a very high performance architecture.
By the way, do we know why BO chose ORSC? It seems they want to avoid FRSC, which would preclude a FFSC architecture.
Well, the decision is very easy from a thermodynamics POV. The power to your turbines is (basically) specific heat * mass flow. Do the numbers for methalox and you get more power with ORSC. They wanted a cheap engine, and so they went with a single turbine.
Nothing prevents them from then developing a full flow engine on that base. In fact, it would be "relatively" easy. The FRSC circuit is the easiest.
For staged combustion cycles, the pressure cascades
resulting from thrust chamber cooling and turbopump
power requirements are compared in Figure 8 taking
LOX-methane as example. The pumping requirements
are lower for the cycle using a oxidizer-rich preburner,
because no fuel is rerouted to the preburner after passing
through the thrust chamber cooling channels. The small
amount of fuel required for the preburner is delivered by
a low-powered kick stage.
The fuel-rich cycle results in higher fuel-pump
requirements and requires an additional LOX-kick-stage,
while the ox.-rich cycle results in similar lower pump
requirements without a kick-stage. The preburner
pressure is also lower in the ox.-rich cycle. However, the
oxygen-rich environment of the preburner gas may cause
additional complexity for the turbines as well as for hot-
gas lines and valves.
There is a fuel difference between BE4 and Raptor. BE4 is designed to use LNG while Raptor uses liquid methane (99% ?). How it affects engine design I'm not sure.
There is a fuel difference between BE4 and Raptor. BE4 is designed to use LNG while Raptor uses liquid methane (99% ?). How it affects engine design I'm not sure.
I might be wrong, but SpaceX may need neat methane due to their goal of chilling it more.
I think I remember Bezos stating that he said LNG to make things simple for the layman, but they were going to use liquid methane.
I would guess, that to have worse performance than RD-180, it should have about O/F 3.6, Pc 17MPa, ER 22, freezing at the 1.5 area ratio. With those parameters I get isp of 310s at SL and 335.75s in vacuum. In any case, to have worse isp than RD-180 BE-4 should have a relatively low Pc, for a staged engine.
The nice thing is that they can increase performance by increasing the Pc. The turbomachinery and certification is left as an exercise for the reader. :P
What has the ALR engine team done in the last 7 years?Uh, thats leaving out a ton of things. Like $1.2B J-2X engine
A: Are these the folks working on the RS-25 mods for the SLS?
Wonderful but faith based assertions regardless of skill/accomplishments matters little at this point.Indeed. IIRC during SSME development one RUD was traced to an angle sensor being mis-aligned to its shaft by 10 degrees.
When the full scale components come together, all sorts of things suddenly matter that might not have been addressed before. You can end up losing months/years at this point very easily.
An expected "no brainer" turned out at this point to have a 2 year schedule slip, a hundred million overrun, and an even more costly follow-on. Experienced team, prime firm.
What has the ULA engine team done in the last 7 years?ULA doesn't have an "engine team". It is a launch vehicle integrator and launch service provider. What it has been doing is performing more than 100 consecutive successful launches, even counting the AV-009 Centaur failure.
A: Spend more than SpaceX to validate that they could build a Russian engine if they had to. Turned out they couldn't.
What has the ALR engine team done in the last 7 years?I'm not familiar with "ALR". Aerojet Rocketdyne Holding's ticker symbol is AJRD. Aerojet Rocketdyne has been working on RL10, AR-1, RS-25D testing for SLS, and closing out J-2X and AJ-26 among other things.
A: Are these the folks working on the RS-25 mods for the SLS?
What has the ATK engine team done in the last 7 years?Also Castor 30, 30XL, and numerous defense missile motor contracts, among other things.
A: 5 segment solid development from a 4 segment solid.
.
What has the ULA engine team done in the last 7 years?
A: Spend more than SpaceX to validate that they could build a Russian engine if they had to. Turned out they couldn't.
.AJR is the largest producer of thrusters. They have developed many over the last decade.
What has the ALR engine team done in the last 7 years?
A: Are these the folks working on the RS-25 mods for the SLS?
Meyerson: “really great” progress on BE-4 engine; plan engine tests to begin early next year. #ISPCS2016
I'm really looking forward to seeing this engine tested at full scale. It would be a very big and important milestone for Blue, and it could potentially shift a lot of things in the industry.Well, the methalox fuel has already been used on a test stand by Rocketdyne, Masten, Armadillo and SpaceX. So, it has even had operative missions. None orbital, of course.
A 2,500 kN American ORSC engine! And with a new fuel type to boot! Who would have thought that we would get something like this that fast?
However, BE4 remains our primary path and is doing very well, moving from near full scale into full scale testing as I type this. They have also been able to commit to a recurring price that meets our competitiveness needs.Source (https://www.reddit.com/r/ula/comments/59io4t/the_great_rocket_race/d9cti4i/?context=3)
Full scale firings is the big milestone. That likely happens early in 2017.Source (https://www.reddit.com/r/ula/comments/59io4t/the_great_rocket_race/d9cuj3r/?context=3)
For BE-4, not only do we have to design the engine itself, we also have to develop custom tools to make it. One of these tools is an automated electrical discharge machining (EDM) drilling machine. The EDM precisely locates and burns more than 4,000 tightly dimensioned holes into the nozzle and main combustion chamber, providing entry to the regenerative cooling channels.
As far as we know, this particular EDM machine is the only one of its kind in the world. It has 11 axes of motion allowing for precise hole location and accuracy within a few thousands of an inch. Its dual-head design results in reduced cycle time for the drilled holes. Brass multichannel electrodes are used to drill the holes. Water can be pumped through the electrode in order to speed up the drilling cycle. The use of water also helps flush the hole and remove the powder-like foreign object debris generated by the process. This eliminates the concern for plugging cooling channels, which can easily occur with conventional drilling methods. A pair of automated electrode-changing stations allows the EDM to continuously operate for long cycle times at an average rate of one hole every 90 seconds.
Building and operating custom tools of this magnitude is a big investment, but it’s critical for developing an engine that will power America’s access to space in the future.
A pretty wise investment, if you ask me.
Gradatim Ferociter!
Jeff Bezos
PS: Blue Origin is hiring. Check out our Careers (http://blueorigin.us9.list-manage.com/track/click?u=ca4c14684ac1af3f1219b4382&id=f3479d6d75&e=37b7bd39f5) page and apply.
So -- 4000 holes * 90 seconds = 100 hours on this machine to drill the holes for one engine? I suppose that doesn't matter too much if your intention is to reuse things so you don't have to build that many.The nice thing about these machines is that they don't go home after an eight hour shift. Its a little under four days of constant work. Assuming that there was about 50% downtime one of these machines could do about an engine a week. If this was the bottle neck of production Blue could still make at least 40 a year. I wonder how long it would take to do this the old way with a machine shop.
So -- 4000 holes * 90 seconds = 100 hours on this machine to drill the holes for one engine? I suppose that doesn't matter too much if your intention is to reuse things so you don't have to build that many.RS-68 has a lead time of 36 months. I think that the ablative MCC/nozzle takes something like 6 months to do. 100hr for an injector plate is really fast.
RS-68A is slightly less than 36 months now due to improvements and lessons learned being applied to its manufacturing process.So -- 4000 holes * 90 seconds = 100 hours on this machine to drill the holes for one engine? I suppose that doesn't matter too much if your intention is to reuse things so you don't have to build that many.RS-68 has a lead time of 36 months. I think that the ablative MCC/nozzle takes something like 6 months to do. 100hr for an injector plate is really fast.
RS-68A is slightly less than 36 months now due to improvements and lessons learned being applied to its manufacturing process.So -- 4000 holes * 90 seconds = 100 hours on this machine to drill the holes for one engine? I suppose that doesn't matter too much if your intention is to reuse things so you don't have to build that many.RS-68 has a lead time of 36 months. I think that the ablative MCC/nozzle takes something like 6 months to do. 100hr for an injector plate is really fast.
Theoretically you could install more EDM arms to speed the process up, but the current setup is fine for testing and initial production rate.
Where's the complexity on the RS-68A thought that was designed to be cheap?Compared to SSME it was derived from, any rocket engine short of the F1 is designed to be cheaper ... ::)
I think that they used an ablative main combustion chamber and nozzle to "cut costs", and made a very simple gas generator. They also re-used as much of the SSME tooling as possible. Supposedly they would build 30 or more engines per year and thus it would be "dirty cheap".Where's the complexity on the RS-68A thought that was designed to be cheap?Compared to SSME it was derived from, any rocket engine short of the F1 is designed to be cheaper ... ::)
I think that they used an ablative main combustion chamber and nozzle to "cut costs", and made a very simple gas generator.Where's the complexity on the RS-68A thought that was designed to be cheap?Compared to SSME it was derived from, any rocket engine short of the F1 is designed to be cheaper ... ::)
They also re-used as much of the SSME tooling as possible. Supposedly they would build 30 or more engines per year and thus it would be "dirty cheap".For speed to completion as the first commercial engine.
Then the project had lower performance than expected, DIV was found to have cheated and thus its orders slashed and SSME production was ended. Perfect storm that made it very expensive.Because everything was in the margins, the rush to win the deal that wasn't, and there was no "Block 2" redux to recapture. All or nothing then something but not enough to matter.
If you look at Merlin's history, you will see that at the time (late 90s early 2000s) it was thought that ablative MCC and nozzle were a great cost trade off. Apparently the reality has been different. Ditto with hydrogen/LOX.Think of this differently. Too tiny a sample set with too much riding off of it for the speculative examples to resolve in time to tell.
I think that too many decades of Rocketdyne/NASA making all decisions made them think that their way of doing things was the only way. Then came NPO Energomash to the international market and you know how it ended.Both are examples of different kinds of pragmatism/politics.
The BE4 production rate should be >30 a year. 10-20 for ULA (5-10 x Vulcan). 1 per NG flight for expendable US. 7 x NG Booster, even though it is reusable they will need to build a small fleet of boosters plus replace engines after so many flights.BE-4 has some important advantages in cost wrt the RS-68A.
By time Vulcan is reusing BE4 in 2023-25, NG should have high flight rate assuming Blues vision for HSF pans out.
Why "commercial" worked better for Merlin than RS68 was the thumb on the scales.
Watching BE4 closely for thumbs on the scales like AR1 already has. Raptor has no thumb on the scale.
BE-4 has some important advantages in cost wrt the RS-68A.Nope. SSME giveth/taketh. RS68 "could'a should'a would'a" been a follow-on to SSME with better performance/cost ... but there wasn't budget/time for that. The point was to win EELV program, then gradually redress all else.
One is that since SLI in the 1990s, the US has gone through a lot of engine development efforts through many companies. While some don't even exist anymore, many of the Blue engineers have worked previously on many engine projects and they have a huge stack of lessons learned.Like Aerojet Rocketdyne has also done. We'll see.
The other is that a lot of companies have proven that engines can be done relatively cheap. Blue can just leverage the best practices and then innovate on cost.
But more importantly, is that Blue has a very knowledgeable leader that let's engineers make the best technical choice since he is not married to any supplier.On that I can agree for SX/BO.
It is not surprising that KBKhA, NPO Energomash, SpaceX and Blue Origin went with CH4/LOX when they had to do a highly reusable engine. Rocketdyne/Aerojet have always proposed hydrolox, because that was NASA's heritage.Hydrolox also fits desired political aerospace model, where launch costs are never intended to get cheap.
The last is the financing source. They have an extremely predictable cashflow and only care about long term cost. No worries about keeping the program, maintaining the appropriations or keeping big contracts.Yes but. When you scale a program to BE4/NG levels, your program risk footprint has a power function increase i.e. not linear as cash flow. So either you cost leverage (ULA), or increase funding, or slow down.
Can you please talk a little about what you mean by "thumb on the scale"?For RS68 it was to please the Shuttle industrial base at the long term cost to the program.
Robert Goddard’s first rockets used compressed gas to force the liquid propellants into the engine thrust chambers. While simple in design and a logical starting point, he quickly realized the limitations with this approach: it requires thick-walled heavy propellant tanks and limits the engine’s chamber pressure and performance, both of which limit payload capacity. The answer was turbopumps. Store the propellants in low-pressure light tanks, and then pump the propellants up to high pressure just ahead of injection into the main chamber.
For even more performance, you can add one or more boost pumps ahead of the main pumps. We’ve done that on the oxidizer side of our BE-4 engine. Our Ox Boost Pump (OBP) design leverages 3-D additive manufacturing to make many of the key components. The housing is a single printed aluminum part and all of the stages of the hydraulic turbine are printed from Monel, a nickel alloy. This manufacturing approach allows the integration of complex internal flow passages in the housing that would be much more difficult to make using conventional methods. The turbine nozzles and rotors are also 3-D printed and require minimum machining to achieve the required fits.
The OBP was first demonstrated last year in testing, where we validated its interaction with a main pump. The second iteration of the OBP for BE-4 is now in test. We’ve also just finished assembly of the unit that we’ll install for the first all-up BE-4 engine test.
We’ll keep you posted on how our BE-4 powerpack and engine testing progresses.
Gradatim Ferociter!
Jeff Bezos
Powerpack test to that in less than 6 months would be quite an accomplishment.Powerpack testing for BE-4 goes back to fall 2014 (see here. (http://spacenews.com/blue-origin-completes-be-3-engine-as-be-4-work-continues/))
Powerpack test to that in less than 6 months would be quite an accomplishment.Powerpack testing for BE-4 goes back to fall 2014 (see here. (http://spacenews.com/blue-origin-completes-be-3-engine-as-be-4-work-continues/))
The current testing seems like it is just a final validation, or for determining some control parameters, since they stated they have already built some of the hardware for the full up test.
Powerpack test to that in less than 6 months would be quite an accomplishment.Powerpack testing for BE-4 goes back to fall 2014 (see here. (http://spacenews.com/blue-origin-completes-be-3-engine-as-be-4-work-continues/))
The current testing seems like it is just a final validation, or for determining some control parameters, since they stated they have already built some of the hardware for the full up test.
Source please? I don't read it that way at all. Not to be a jerk, but need better than "seems like".
You prove the powerpack for output and reliability. Then you incorporate into the engine sans nozzle and work on startup sequencing, hopefully w/o building an immense fragmentation grenade ...
Powerpack test to that in less than 6 months would be quite an accomplishment.Powerpack testing for BE-4 goes back to fall 2014 (see here. (http://spacenews.com/blue-origin-completes-be-3-engine-as-be-4-work-continues/))
The current testing seems like it is just a final validation, or for determining some control parameters, since they stated they have already built some of the hardware for the full up test.
Source please? I don't read it that way at all. Not to be a jerk, but need better than "seems like".
You prove the powerpack for output and reliability. Then you incorporate into the engine sans nozzle and work on startup sequencing, hopefully w/o building an immense fragmentation grenade ...
The OBP was first demonstrated last year in testing, where we validated its interaction with a main pump. The second iteration of the OBP for BE-4 is now in test. We’ve also just finished assembly of the unit that we’ll install for the first all-up BE-4 engine test.
We are in agreement. I called it "incorporated". My issue is the "powerpack test" callout.Powerpack test to that in less than 6 months would be quite an accomplishment.Powerpack testing for BE-4 goes back to fall 2014 (see here. (http://spacenews.com/blue-origin-completes-be-3-engine-as-be-4-work-continues/))
The current testing seems like it is just a final validation, or for determining some control parameters, since they stated they have already built some of the hardware for the full up test.
Source please? I don't read it that way at all. Not to be a jerk, but need better than "seems like".
You prove the powerpack for output and reliability. Then you incorporate into the engine sans nozzle and work on startup sequencing, hopefully w/o building an immense fragmentation grenade ...
From the email:QuoteThe OBP was first demonstrated last year in testing, where we validated its interaction with a main pump. The second iteration of the OBP for BE-4 is now in test. We’ve also just finished assembly of the unit that we’ll install for the first all-up BE-4 engine test.
They are assembling the final engine for the first integrated test.
That's the last step before actual hot firing.With closed cycle engines, there's a limit to separable component testing.
You don't do assembly until you have validated and certified each individual subsystem.
But you can't deal with materials/erosion issues, a key issue with ORSC, until much of the engine is operating as a complete unit.My original statement (the one where I used "seems like" to emphasize that it was just my interpretation of the available information) was intended to suggest that the currently ongoing testing is likely the last or nearly last of the testing of components or sub-assemblies before they move on to testing of a full engine. This is just based on the fact that they have been running tests for over 2 years, so combined with statements of having built hardware that will go in the full engine, it will not be surprising if they have an engine on a stand within 6 months.
So my issue was in reference to if the powerpack was finished in development, given the powerpack test reference.
Now I understand the desire for advocates/fans to not have certain things questioned, that set off such hurt feelings. But the confusion here is a polite and valid one.
Blue Origin BE-4 Powerpack installed on test stand in West Texas for 'start transient' testing (2015) #RoadToHotfire #BE4https://twitter.com/megsylhydrazine/status/825461150028476416 (https://twitter.com/megsylhydrazine/status/825461150028476416)
Blue Origin BE-4 Powerpack in operation during start transient testing (2015) 🚀 #RoadToHotfire #BE4https://twitter.com/megsylhydrazine/status/825462058191708160 (https://twitter.com/megsylhydrazine/status/825462058191708160)
Subscale BE-4 in a highly-instrumented calorimeter tested the preburner & regeneratively cooled chamber + nozzle (2016) 🚀#RoadToHotfire #BE4https://twitter.com/megsylhydrazine/status/825465331837607936 (https://twitter.com/megsylhydrazine/status/825465331837607936)
BE-4 Preburner Injector #CFD model shows temperature distribution of hot gaseous oxygen entering the turbine #RoadToHotfire #BE4https://twitter.com/megsylhydrazine/status/825466390534447104 (https://twitter.com/megsylhydrazine/status/825466390534447104)
BE-4 staged-combustion tests confirmed pretest predictions of injector performance, heat transfer & combustion stability #RoadToHotfire #BE4https://twitter.com/megsylhydrazine/status/825468103534317568 (https://twitter.com/megsylhydrazine/status/825468103534317568)
Subscale BE-4 making smoke & fire in Texas! More than 3 years into development, #BE4 will be qualified for flight this year #RoadToHotfire
New test cell for BE-4 pressure-fed preburner testing to support dev. of start & ignition sequence timing for powerpack #RoadToHotfire #BE4
BE-4 pressure-fed preburner (14") testing in the new test cell🚀 These tests are developing the transient start sequence #RoadToHotfire #BE4
and to Blue Origin for the thorough communication in pictures of engine development status.
And ... You've "one upped" on SX in being more communicative than they are about Raptor.
and to Blue Origin for the thorough communication in pictures of engine development status.
And ... You've "one upped" on SX in being more communicative than they are about Raptor.
I'm just wondering why this information came through employees' personal Twitter and YouTube accounts, instead of official communication channels.
and to Blue Origin for the thorough communication in pictures of engine development status.
And ... You've "one upped" on SX in being more communicative than they are about Raptor.
I'm just wondering why this information came through employees' personal Twitter and YouTube accounts, instead of official communication channels.
Hopefully it doesn't get that employee fired...
and to Blue Origin for the thorough communication in pictures of engine development status.
And ... You've "one upped" on SX in being more communicative than they are about Raptor.
I'm just wondering why this information came through employees' personal Twitter and YouTube accounts, instead of official communication channels.
Hopefully it doesn't get that employee fired...
Is it an employee? Her twitter feed has stuff about lots of different rocket companies.
BE-4 Preburner Injector #CFD model shows temperature distribution of hot gaseous oxygen entering the turbine #RoadToHotfire #BE4https://twitter.com/megsylhydrazine/status/825466390534447104 (https://twitter.com/megsylhydrazine/status/825466390534447104)
U.S. engineering is stuck with stupid units in many areas, because that is what all of the reference tables use. (If NASA uses it, and they are provide a historical database you want to compare against....)QuoteBE-4 Preburner Injector #CFD model shows temperature distribution of hot gaseous oxygen entering the turbine #RoadToHotfire #BE4https://twitter.com/megsylhydrazine/status/825466390534447104 (https://twitter.com/megsylhydrazine/status/825466390534447104)
Is that model in... degrees Rankine?
I thought NASA was the only entity stubborn enough to still be adhering to that bloody measurement system...
and to Blue Origin for the thorough communication in pictures of engine development status.
And ... You've "one upped" on SX in being more communicative than they are about Raptor.
I'm just wondering why this information came through employees' personal Twitter and YouTube accounts, instead of official communication channels.
And ... You've "one upped" on SX in being more communicative than they are about Raptor.I hear Ed talking ;)
Nah - he's mad at me. As usual.And ... You've "one upped" on SX in being more communicative than they are about Raptor.I hear Ed talking ;)
@JeffBezos 15m15 minutes ago
1st BE-4 engine fully assembled. 2nd and 3rd following close behind. #GradatimFerociter
@JeffBezos 11m11 minutes ago
Here’s one more shot of BE-4 in its transport cradle.
Good looking engine. Looking forward to seeing its hot fire performancehttps://twitter.com/torybruno/status/838751831262113793 (https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/838751831262113793)
@torybruno Do you know when this is planned?https://twitter.com/tobiasvdb/status/838752089597755392 (https://twitter.com/tobiasvdb/status/838752089597755392)
@TobiasVdb very soonhttps://twitter.com/torybruno/status/838754433668362240 (https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/838754433668362240)
BE4 is the primary path to replace the Atlas' Russian RD180. Looking goodhttps://twitter.com/torybruno/status/838755076449701892 (https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/838755076449701892)
In response to Jeff Bezos' tweets:
...QuoteBE4 is the primary path to replace the Atlas' Russian RD180. Looking goodhttps://twitter.com/torybruno/status/838755076449701892 (https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/838755076449701892)
doesn't sound too good for the AR-1.
BE-4 was always the preferred choice for Vulcan, but the real decision will be made by the hardware when they fire these things up. Staged combustion development testing has historically resulted in hair-pulling frustration.In response to Jeff Bezos' tweets:
...QuoteBE4 is the primary path to replace the Atlas' Russian RD180. Looking goodhttps://twitter.com/torybruno/status/838755076449701892 (https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/838755076449701892)
Primary path... doesn't sound too good for the AR-1.
In response to Jeff Bezos' tweets:
...QuoteBE4 is the primary path to replace the Atlas' Russian RD180. Looking goodhttps://twitter.com/torybruno/status/838755076449701892 (https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/838755076449701892)
Primary path... doesn't sound too good for the AR-1.
BE-4 was always the preferred choice for Vulcan, but the real decision will be made by the hardware when they fire these things up.
Staged combustion development testing has historically resulted in hair-pulling frustration.
Bet a cup of coffee that they'll have a half minute plus burn before June. Anyone want to bet against that?
The engine looks physically quite large compared to the notional size of the full powered Raptor. Quite curious about what this guy's TWR is...
Does the nozzle on the vac variant seem small to anyone else?
GWH is correct, New Glenn's second stage uses a vacuum-optimized BE-4 (the optional third stage uses a vacuum-optimized BE-3).Does the nozzle on the vac variant seem small to anyone else?
BE-4 is a booster engine.
The 2-stage New Glenn is 270 feet tall, and its second stage is powered by a single vacuum-optimized BE-4 engine. The 3-stage New Glenn is 313 feet tall. A single vacuum-optimized BE-3 engine, burning liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen, powers its third stage. The booster and the second stage are identical in both variants.
Methalox appears to be more compatible with simulations than kerolox and hydrolox ever were.I'm curious why methalox would be easier to simulate than hydrolox. Hydrogen combustion is vastly simpler, isn't it?
Note highlighting. Not chemistry. Kinetics. Something to do with decomposition. Don't understand it myself.Methalox appears to be more compatible with simulations than kerolox and hydrolox ever were.I'm curious why methalox would be easier to simulate than hydrolox. Hydrogen combustion is vastly simpler, isn't it?
Methalox appears to be more compatible with simulations than kerolox and hydrolox ever were.I'm curious why methalox would be easier to simulate than hydrolox. Hydrogen combustion is vastly simpler, isn't it?
Methalox appears to be more compatible with simulations than kerolox and hydrolox ever were.I'm curious why methalox would be easier to simulate than hydrolox. Hydrogen combustion is vastly simpler, isn't it?
I'm not sure but I think it's because, scientifically speaking, hydrogen is a pain in the ass and just likes to be different...
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/03/blue-origins-new-engine-isnt-good-enough-for-some-congressmen/
I think that belongs in the space policy section - its politics, not about the technical merits of one engine vs another.I believe we need swearing section for such links.
So does everybody think BE-4 will achieve X before raptor.
Test fire on stand.
Flight in some sort of vehicle.
Likely to fly in Vulcan first. Nice of ULA to help pay for development and test fly it for Blue.So does everybody think BE-4 will achieve X before raptor.
Test fire on stand.
Flight in some sort of vehicle.
Raptor already had an all-up (but sub-scale) test fire on stand. BE-4 will "soon", probably in the next few months. BE-4 should do orbital flights first, though it will be interesting to see if either makes it into a sub-orbital test vehicle.
So where is the BE-4 manufactured?Washington State for Dev, Qual, and pre production flight LRE's. Full production LRE's and static testing will shift to Florida in the coming years once BO's facilities in the KSC/CCAFS area come online.
Texas near their launch site?
Washington state. I think there is a blue origin facility there?
So where is the BE-4 manufactured?Washington State for Dev, Qual, and pre production flight LRE's. Full production LRE's and static testing will shift to Florida in the coming years once BO's facilities in the KSC/CCAFS area come online.
Texas near their launch site?
Washington state. I think there is a blue origin facility there?
Not sure your source for this information. While Blue Origin has some engine test facilities in Washington, the current plan for BE-4 as I understand it is:So where is the BE-4 manufactured?Washington State for Dev, Qual, and pre production flight LRE's. Full production LRE's and static testing will shift to Florida in the coming years once BO's facilities in the KSC/CCAFS area come online.
Texas near their launch site?
Washington state. I think there is a blue origin facility there?
So where is the BE-4 manufactured?Kent, Washington to be precise, about five or six miles up the road from me. In the middle of industrial parks and warehouses. Has to be production only, they couldn't test fire an engine that large and not break windows. There is something in the back of the BO facility that suggests they could test small thrusters there, but I don't know for certain.
Texas near their launch site?
Washington state. I think there is a blue origin facility there?
You are correct, they have an engine test facility in the back that they have used in the past, but there is no way they would test something like BE-4 there.So where is the BE-4 manufactured?Kent, Washington to be precise, about five or six miles up the road from me. In the middle of industrial parks and warehouses. Has to be production only, they couldn't test fire an engine that large and not break windows. There is something in the back of the BO facility that suggests they could test small thrusters there, but I don't know for certain.
Texas near their launch site?
Washington state. I think there is a blue origin facility there?
--Damon
Although the BE-4 turbopump is smaller than your refrigerator, it generates 70,000 horsepower from a turbine running at nearly 19,000 revolutions per minute that pumps cryogenic propellants to pressures just under 5,000 pounds per square inch. To react the forces generated by the rotating turbine and impellers inside the pump, production rocket turbopumps to date have used traditional ball and roller bearings. For BE-4, we’re doing something different – we’re using hydrostatic bearings.
A hydrostatic bearing relies on a fluid film supplied by a high-pressure source to provide support for the shaft and cause it to float without contacting the static structure except at startup and shutdown. The BE-4 main turbopump uses hydrostatic journal bearings for radial support and hydrostatic axial bearings to carry axial thrust. The system is bootstrapped. The high pressure fluid films for the bearings are supplied by the propellants themselves – liquefied natural gas and liquid oxygen – tapped off from the pump discharge flows.
Material selection is a critical consideration for this approach, as there is physical contact between the bearing surfaces during the start transient before the fluid film is fully established and during the shutdown transient as the fluid film dissipates. With lab-scale tests and full-scale bearing rig tests using actual pump hardware, we evaluated over 20 material combinations in over a hundred tests, leading to our baseline material and coating choices.
Extensive rotordynamic and computational fluid dynamics analyses have shown the feasibility of this design, and recent powerpack tests confirmed that this approach works during the startup and shutdown transients – the most critical phases. The shaft orbit plot below shows that the turbopump lifts off smoothly and centers during a typical start transient, demonstrating a smooth ride on a film of propellant.
Why do we go to all this trouble instead of just using traditional bearings? Engine life. We’re relentlessly focused on reusability, and properly designed hydrostatic bearings offer the potential for longer engine life without refurbishment. This is one of the many engineering decisions we’ve made that we hope will lead to reusability – not just in principle – but to practical, operational reusability. If “reusability” requires significant refurbishment, inspection, and re-validation between flights, then it simply won’t lead to the far lower launch costs we need to achieve our vision of millions of people living and working in space.
We’ll keep you up to date as our testing progresses in the coming weeks.
Gradatim Ferociter!
Jeff Bezos
Wow! This is the first engine I know that actually implements hydrostatic bearings. I think it was part of the IPD demonstrated technologies. But actually implementing it on a flight certified reusable engine is quite an accomplishment.
I must admit though that I feel more comfortable with SpaceX's (forced) simpler and more iterative approach.
I must admit though that I feel more comfortable with SpaceX's (forced) simpler and more iterative approach.
In a way, the BE-4 is more of a simple, iterative approach than SpaceX's Raptor design. Raptor is a bleeding-edge engine that relies on a lot of new technologies and designs, while the BE-4 is relatively simple, as far as staged-combustion engines go. That should make the BE-4 a lot easier to iterate on than the Raptor.
I must admit though that I feel more comfortable with SpaceX's (forced) simpler and more iterative approach.
Why?
For comparison, the SSME pump bearings were specified to have a 7.5 hour (450 minute) life before refurbishement. (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20100023061.pdf). That's on the order of 100 flights of a first stage. So if the goal is to have a longer life, they must be planning lots of uses. But it also seem to me (though I am certainly not a bearing engineer) that these might be easier to build and inspect, which might be part of their appeal.Quote from: Underappreciated Engine Components – Bearings[Hydrostatic bearings...]
Why do we go to all this trouble instead of just using traditional bearings? Engine life. We’re relentlessly focused on reusability, and properly designed hydrostatic bearings offer the potential for longer engine life without refurbishment. This is one of the many engineering decisions we’ve made that we hope will lead to reusability – not just in principle – but to practical, operational reusability. If “reusability” requires significant refurbishment, inspection, and re-validation between flights, then it simply won’t lead to the far lower launch costs we need to achieve our vision of millions of people living and working in space.
@spacecom Hydrostatic bearings were one of the innovations that led us to pick the engine. Thrilled to see them working 😌
In what way? We must differentiate between iterations in the design phase and development after the first generation of flight ready engines.
I agree that improvements on capability should be a lot easier on BE-4 than on Raptor, just like interations were frequent and significant for Merlin. Raptor seems much harder to improve capabilities.
But iterations during design are a totally different thing.
Great post. Nice to see great engineering that Blue are doing.
I don't think Blue will be modifying BE4 for improved performance. Increased reliability and easier maintenance yes.In what way? We must differentiate between iterations in the design phase and development after the first generation of flight ready engines.
I agree that improvements on capability should be a lot easier on BE-4 than on Raptor, just like interations were frequent and significant for Merlin. Raptor seems much harder to improve capabilities.
But iterations during design are a totally different thing.
Sorry if I wasn't very clear, I meant it in the sense you did--improvements after the initial design. A big part of Merlin's success was it's relative simplicity, which allowed SpaceX to manufacture it quickly and incorporate more frequent changes. Similarly, I think BE-4's simpler engine cycle will make design modifications easier in the future in comparison to Raptor's more complicated full-flow staged combustion design.
do you have proof for your statements as FFSC is not new and has been tested but not flown because of challenges from previous manufacturing techniques and others.I must admit though that I feel more comfortable with SpaceX's (forced) simpler and more iterative approach.
In a way, the BE-4 is more of a simple, iterative approach than SpaceX's Raptor design. Raptor is a bleeding-edge engine that relies on a lot of new technologies and designs, while the BE-4 is relatively simple, as far as staged-combustion engines go. That should make the BE-4 a lot easier to iterate on than the Raptor.
do you have proof for your statements as FFSC is not new and has been tested but not flown because of challenges from previous manufacturing techniques and others.I must admit though that I feel more comfortable with SpaceX's (forced) simpler and more iterative approach.
In a way, the BE-4 is more of a simple, iterative approach than SpaceX's Raptor design. Raptor is a bleeding-edge engine that relies on a lot of new technologies and designs, while the BE-4 is relatively simple, as far as staged-combustion engines go. That should make the BE-4 a lot easier to iterate on than the Raptor.
First ever FFSC to complete testing was the RD-270 for the cancelled UR-700 and UR-900 programmes. Next was integrated powerhead demonstrator (IPD) by Rocketdyne and last up and in testing is Raptor.
do you have proof for your statements as FFSC is not new and has been tested but not flown because of challenges from previous manufacturing techniques and others.
First ever FFSC to complete testing was the RD-270 for the cancelled UR-700 and UR-900 programmes. Next was integrated powerhead demonstrator (IPD) by Rocketdyne and last up and in testing is Raptor.
I don't think Blue will be modifying BE4 for improved performance. Increased reliability and easier maintenance yes.In what way? We must differentiate between iterations in the design phase and development after the first generation of flight ready engines.
I agree that improvements on capability should be a lot easier on BE-4 than on Raptor, just like interations were frequent and significant for Merlin. Raptor seems much harder to improve capabilities.
But iterations during design are a totally different thing.
Sorry if I wasn't very clear, I meant it in the sense you did--improvements after the initial design. A big part of Merlin's success was it's relative simplicity, which allowed SpaceX to manufacture it quickly and incorporate more frequent changes. Similarly, I think BE-4's simpler engine cycle will make design modifications easier in the future in comparison to Raptor's more complicated full-flow staged combustion design.
Both NG and Vulcan (ACES) will have enough performance for most satellites without needing SRBs.
With a constellation of small sats, there is no longer a 'satellite' based performance requirement as the constellation launches are almost 'infinitely' divisible payloads... more like propellant than today's GTO payloads.
do you have proof for your statements as FFSC is not new and has been tested but not flown because of challenges from previous manufacturing techniques and others.
[...] the actual difference: the requirements. SpaceX accepted a lot risks and aggressive requirements because they are not on a clock. And BE-4 tried to curb risk as much as possible to cover their reduced schedule margin.
SpaceX accepted a lot risks and aggressive requirements because they are not on a clock. And BE-4 tried to curb risk as much as possible to cover their reduced schedule margin.Exactly. For the initial success.
Well, I hope that Raptor will be as important as the V-2 and RD-170 engines. Both had such a legacy that dominated for decades the rocket engine design. Blue is not still ready to make such a breakthough, yet. BE-4, I think, will be their RD-107/Merlin 1 workhorse engine. I expect it to be extremely successful. But for really bleeding edge engine, I expect the next engine, probably to be used on the New Armstrong.The BE4 should be good enough for NA, will just need more >20. By using BE4, NA will fly with a proven engine and production of NA can start as soon as NG fleet as been built.
I think that you have to understand the difference between using unproven technologies and an unproven cycle. The FFSC is a bit more complicated, yes. But not as much as people have stated. The power balance is much simpler, you don't have to worry about interseals, and you can scale the cycle up and down in Pc/thrust and/or O/F as you want.What happens if there is cavitation in LOX or LNG flow supplying the hydrostatic bearings?
Regarding the technologies, both companies are making heavy use of FEM, 3D printing and new hot-oxygen resistant alloys. Blue even has implemented hydrostatic bearing. So, I don't think we know enough regarding the specifics of each to say that Blue has lower technologies risk. It's probable that they have lower rocket cycle risk. But again, there's so little experience with FFSC, that it might just happen to be an "easier" cycle in the long run, albeit initially more expensive.
What we know for sure is that Raptor will be a performance curve-breaking design without a schedule pressure, while BE-4 will be a "good enough" design with a very strict schedule. And that is what I think it's the actual difference: the requirements. SpaceX accepted a lot risks and aggressive requirements because they are not on a clock. And BE-4 tried to curb risk as much as possible to cover their reduced schedule margin.
(...)RUD, I suppose. But please remember that you are talking about a very small amount of high pressure liquid. Cavitation should be the least of the problems. Start up sequence seems much more problematic.
What happens if there is cavitation in LOX or LNG flow supplying the hydrostatic bearings?
(...)RUD, I suppose. But please remember that you are talking about a very small amount of high pressure liquid. Cavitation should be the least of the problems. Start up sequence seems much more problematic.
What happens if there is cavitation in LOX or LNG flow supplying the hydrostatic bearings?
I thought cavitation results in an early engine shutdown as seen in the Delta IV Heavy demo flight in December 2004.
At CSIS #SpaceSecurity event, Blue Origin’s Brett Alexander says first BE-4 engine hotfire test “coming up soon.”https://twitter.com/jeff_foust
New @CSIS report: If the BE-4 engine's hot-fire test is successful, it is the obvious choice to succeed the RD-180.https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace
I thought cavitation results in an early engine shutdown as seen in the Delta IV Heavy demo flight in December 2004.As Jim explained, that was cavitation before the main feedline. But in any case, the RD-68 is a gas generator, thus, a cavitation on the pump inlet would probably mean "bubbles" in the outlet, that run the risk of creating serious instabilities in the Main Combustion Chamber.
There's a separate thread on the CSIS report: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42580.0 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42580.0). Its scope is rather wider than BE-4.
You don't want cavitation on your turbines.
You don't want cavitation on your turbines.
In the pumps and not turbines. Cavitation doesn't get past the pumps. It is the lower pressures before the pumps, where is happens. It never reaches the combustion part of the engine. Cavitation puts loads on impellers and blades and that what tears up the engine. Also, severe cavitation could unload the pumps.
You don't want cavitation on your turbines.
In the pumps and not turbines. Cavitation doesn't get past the pumps. It is the lower pressures before the pumps, where is happens. It never reaches the combustion part of the engine. Cavitation puts loads on impellers and blades and that what tears up the engine. Also, severe cavitation could unload the pumps.
I corrected my wording. But are you positive that cavitation at the pump inlet won't generate instabilities in the flow, and thus combustion instabilities on the Mcc?
Quote from: SrekcalpIs AR1 still going ahead? I thought ULA settled on the BE-4?The engine downselection will occur after this beauty accomplishes some hot fire test data and retires the combustion instability risk
Quote from: hqi777"retires the combustion instability risk."Sure.
What does this mean? Can you please elaborate?
One of the major risks when you go to a new propellant or a new size is the appearance of combustion instability.
This is a combustion roughness phenomenon typically associated with start-up.
It's very much like the roughness you experience in the winter when you start your car on a cold morning and it idles roughly for awhile.
Except, that there is so much energy involved in a rocket engine, that the vibration and uneven heating effects can literally tear the engine apart.
Tuning the engine's geometry and pressure characteristics can usually resolve this, but not always.
Because BE4 is the largest methane engine ever built, combustion instability is the chief technical risk.
Quote from: brickmackIts ISP is known to be about the same or perhaps a bit lower than RD-180, though I expect that will increase after they get experience reusing them and are confident enough to de-nerf the design (since it was intentionally derated for reusability)Sound Systems Engineering adds performance and weight growth allowances (margins). These are cashed in as the design matures. When you do it right, the product gets "better" as you move through its development.
This keeps the rest of the system from being disrupted and redesigned as you move through maturity
There was a bit of info in the CSIS panel discussion (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lftY2-NKX0E?t=17221).
Blue itself is going with New Glenn after the human space flight market. Most of the talking point were about Vulcan.
Confirmed that the spec changed from 400k to 550k lbf. Should Blue stop to supply engines ULA has the first right of refusal. IP, tooling, factory and so on. There is a lot of talk with the Air Force about the BE-4, requirements and insights.
The engine is on the test stand, and it is a flight weight engine. That was a sudden bought of excitement in a tame environment, the ARJ panelist tired to talk Blues progress down ("no factory" "just a prototype") and got shut down hard. link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lftY2-NKX0E?t=19940)
Lots of fun between the lines with "paid for out of pocket" vs "getting lots of government money should buy influence". There were some more points but I did not keep a list.
Well, I hope that Raptor will be as important as the V-2 and RD-170 engines. Both had such a legacy that dominated for decades the rocket engine design. Blue is not still ready to make such a breakthough, yet. BE-4, I think, will be their RD-107/Merlin 1 workhorse engine. I expect it to be extremely successful. But for really bleeding edge engine, I expect the next engine, probably to be used on the New Armstrong.And that possible bleeding edge engine for NA may well be FFSC. BO will need the extra performance of FFSC powering very large rockets to achieve their long term goal of getting millions of people living and working in space. BE-4 is a low risk design to meet ULA's time constraints. BO will use the experience from BE-4 to go forward with a higher performance engine for NA.
Well, I hope that Raptor will be as important as the V-2 and RD-170 engines. Both had such a legacy that dominated for decades the rocket engine design. Blue is not still ready to make such a breakthough, yet. BE-4, I think, will be their RD-107/Merlin 1 workhorse engine. I expect it to be extremely successful. But for really bleeding edge engine, I expect the next engine, probably to be used on the New Armstrong.And that possible bleeding edge engine for NA may well be FFSC. BO will need the extra performance of FFSC powering very large rockets to achieve their long term goal of getting millions of people living and working in space. BE-4 is a low risk design to meet ULA's time constraints. BO will use the experience from BE-4 to go forward with a higher performance engine for NA.
Well, I hope that Raptor will be as important as the V-2 and RD-170 engines. Both had such a legacy that dominated for decades the rocket engine design. Blue is not still ready to make such a breakthough, yet. BE-4, I think, will be their RD-107/Merlin 1 workhorse engine. I expect it to be extremely successful. But for really bleeding edge engine, I expect the next engine, probably to be used on the New Armstrong.And that possible bleeding edge engine for NA may well be FFSC. BO will need the extra performance of FFSC powering very large rockets to achieve their long term goal of getting millions of people living and working in space. BE-4 is a low risk design to meet ULA's time constraints. BO will use the experience from BE-4 to go forward with a higher performance engine for NA.
There's nothing low tech or 'just getting by' about a staged combustion liquid methane engine.
FFSC is certainly the sexiest of engine cycles, but SC is no minor accomplishment.
Surely they will learn and improve and maybe develop a new engine after BE-4, I'm not certain they need too.
Surely they will learn and improve and maybe develop a new engine after BE-4, I'm not certain they need too.
Who is this "almost everyone" with SC? Raptor and BE-4 don't count yet.Well, I hope that Raptor will be as important as the V-2 and RD-170 engines. Both had such a legacy that dominated for decades the rocket engine design. Blue is not still ready to make such a breakthough, yet. BE-4, I think, will be their RD-107/Merlin 1 workhorse engine. I expect it to be extremely successful. But for really bleeding edge engine, I expect the next engine, probably to be used on the New Armstrong.And that possible bleeding edge engine for NA may well be FFSC. BO will need the extra performance of FFSC powering very large rockets to achieve their long term goal of getting millions of people living and working in space. BE-4 is a low risk design to meet ULA's time constraints. BO will use the experience from BE-4 to go forward with a higher performance engine for NA.
There's nothing low tech or 'just getting by' about a staged combustion liquid methane engine.
FFSC is certainly the sexiest of engine cycles, but SC is no minor accomplishment.
Surely they will learn and improve and maybe develop a new engine after BE-4, I'm not certain they need too.
All are relative terms. BTW, even within the cycle, there are different levels of sophistication. The RD-170 in the 80s was completely on a league of its own. It was so advanced that nobody could match its performance and capabilities for 30 years. Now, almost everybody has a staged combustion engine. Within the SC engines, BE-4 might have some very advanced technologies, like the previously mentioned hydrostatic bearings and custom 3D printer, but in general it is a conservative engine... when compared to other ORSC.
Yes, you are talking about less than ten groups in the world that can do this sort of engine, so against other engine technology, it is a very sophisticated design. But when compared to what NPO Energomash, KBKhA or SpaceX are designing, it is rather on the conservative side.
Who is this "almost everyone" with SC? Raptor and BE-4 don't count yet.
Proton uses staged combustion? Huh, didn't know that.
Proton uses staged combustion? Huh, didn't know that.
ORSC to be exact. In all stages.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RD-253 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RD-253)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RD-0210 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RD-0210)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RD-58
The first Soviet LPRE [liquid-propellant rocket engine] with a staged combustion engine cycle to fly was the S1.5400 LPRE developed at Korolev's DB [design bureau] between 1958 and 1960. It has also been identified as the 11D33 engine. The principle of that staged combustion engine cycle was originally demonstrated in ground tests beginning in 1958.... It flew on top of Molniya SLVs and Venera space vehicles, and they in turn were lifted by a variation of the two-stage R-7 ICBM.
The FFSC is a bit more complicated, yes. But not as much as people have stated. The power balance is much simpler, you don't have to worry about interseals, and you can scale the cycle up and down in Pc/thrust and/or O/F as you want.Expanding on this, from a pure engineering point of view, it seems like FFSC might be easier. In addition to the points above:
[...]
But again, there's so little experience with FFSC, that it might just happen to be an "easier" cycle in the long run, albeit initially more expensive.
Also
Angara
Dnepr
Rokot
Soyuz-2.1b
Soyuz-2.1v
(...)Well, you have Energyia, which did the first ORSC (S1.5400) in 1960, and kept on with the RS-58. Then you have NPO Energomash, which have been doing ORSC hypergolics since the RD-253, and of course make the RD-120 and RD-170 family. KBKhA, did the ORSC RD-0210 family of hypergolics and the RD-0124 with kerosen, also did the FRSC RD-0120 among many others. KhIMMASH has the SC RD-56 since late 60s, the S5.98M and did some for ICBM. And let's not forget the Kuznetsov's NK-33.
Who is this "almost everyone" with SC? Raptor and BE-4 don't count yet.
Proton uses staged combustion? Huh, didn't know that.Outside of the Soyuz family and Kosmos family, all of the USSR's space launchers going back for some time used nothing but staged combustion engines (naturally excluding pressure-fed upper stages). The two stages of both the R-36 and the UR-100N are ORSC, so that covers Tsyklon 1/2/3, Dnepr, Strela, and Rockot.
The British had the Bristol Siddeley Gamma, which was staged combustion, albeit with a much simpler catalystic preburner.
The British had the Bristol Siddeley Gamma, which was staged combustion, albeit with a much simpler catalystic preburner.
Gamma was not staged combustion, but gas generator. From
D. Andrews and H. Sunley, "The Gamma rocket engines for Black Knight," J. British Interplanetary Society, vol. 43, pp. 301-310, July 1990.
"The steam/oxygen mixture that drives the turbine is accelerated in conical de Laval nozzles, and the exhaust gas is discharged to the atmosphere or space through the casing and exhaust pipe."
Also, if you look in this article:
http://orbitalaspirations.blogspot.com.ar/2011/11/black-arrow-britains-satellite-launcher.html
The schematics of the engine has the catalyzers right as the injection plate.
And at this image:
http://www.spaceuk.org/htp/gamma_test.jpg
I don't see any exhaust port either.
But the Stentor engines did had an exhaust port.
In an interview during the 33rd Space Symposium here, Tory Bruno said that tests of the BE-4 engine, scheduled to begin “very soon” at Blue Origin’s test site in West Texas, are the last major hurdle the engine must clear before ULA decides to use it on Vulcan.
“The economic factors are largely in place now and the thing that is outstanding is the technical risk,” Bruno said. “That’s why we keep talking about the engine firing.”
So regarding Bezos' article about BE-4 turbopump's hydrostatic bearings, is there any possibility of electromagnetic bearings being used to supplement or assist during the transitional startup or shutdown phases, when the hydrostatic film isn't quite fully formed for hydrostatic integrity?
Given that the propellants themselves are cryogens, then couldn't they be used to cool some superconductors to produce the magnetic fields necessary to serve as the bearings, in order to mitigate even the briefest momentary wear-and-tear that could occur during the startup or shutdown phases of the turbopump?
Perhaps that could improve the reliability and extend the lifespan of what is supposed to be a critical part of a reusable system.
The hot-fire tests will take place over several weeks later this year, allowing Blue Origin to collect data over multiple test events where the power level will gradually be increased and then sustained for longer periods of time.
“Finally you’re at full power running long enough to be steady state, and you know what you’ve got,” Bruno said. “Then, we will know what we have, and we’ll be able to pick an engine.”
It is merely a charade to appease influential people and organizations that they are "keeping an open mind" about the AR-1, IMO. Once BE-4 has been tested, they can drop that pretense.
It is merely a charade to appease influential people and organizations that they are "keeping an open mind" about the AR-1, IMO. Once BE-4 has been tested, they can drop that pretense.
I never understood why Bruno uses the "we'll be able to pick an engine" expression. If I understand the subject correctly, there is no contest here. AR-1 was a backup plan (lets say, insurance policy) from the start, and will only be considered if BE-4 utterly fails to achieve its goals. There will be no competition of any kind, especially since ULA will have taken the decision to go forward before AR-1 matures enough for a full engine test fire program.
If BE-4 tests as designed, ULA will go for it. End of story. At least, that is what I am getting from ULA quotes this last year.
Blue Origin President Rob Meyerson says full-scale testing of the BE-4 engine developed for the New Glenn will start in 3-8 weeks. The first of three test engines is installed horizontally at the company’s launch and test site in West Texas, he says, and the test campaign is designed to progress relatively quickly.
"We have two cells side by side, so we can either test the powerpack and an engine or, we can test two powerpacks, two engines. And that is part of a facility buildout that we’ve done over the last year-and-a-half, adding that capacity,” Meyerson says. “The first BE-4 engine is on the stand. The second and third are in the factory, and they’re going to be shipping soon. We really wanted to go into the test program hardware-rich.”
Despite a delay of several months in the start of full-scale BE-4 testing, Bruno said the Vulcan rocket is still on track for a maiden flight by the end of 2019 if Blue Origin ends up the winner in ULA’s engine test-off.
“Assuming we can make this decision in a reasonable span of time, yes,” Bruno told reporters on the sidelines of the Space Symposium. “If we’re on the BE-4, it’s a pretty clear schedule. If the BE-4 is not going to work out and we select AR1, they’re further behind, so that puts a little more pressure on that schedule … If we had to select the AR1, I cannot fly it by 2019.”
Development of the BE-4 engine itself is a commercial effort, primarily funded by Blue Origin, with additional investment by ULA. Officials have not disclosed the BE-4’s development cost, but Bruno said new rocket engines of its scale have typically cost about $1 billion to design, test, and certify.
It is merely a charade to appease influential people and organizations that they are "keeping an open mind" about the AR-1, IMO. Once BE-4 has been tested, they can drop that pretense.
I have that sense that ULAS and BO feel some urgency for getting BE-4 tested. I guess ULA are under pressure to use AR-1 and that pressure will increase when test dates for BE-4 slip. I personally don't doubt BO will get there and even worst case they will probably be ahead of AR-1.
I suggest you take your question to AR-1 thread: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34944.0
I know the thread's about BE-4, but what will happen to AR-1 if/when ULA selects BE-4?
Are there any other customers waiting in the wings for it? Orbital ATK, or somebody?
Blue Origin @blueorigin 3m3 minutes ago
We lost a set of powerpack test hardware on one of our BE-4 test stands yesterday. Not unusual during development.
Blue Origin @blueorigin 2m2 minutes ago
That’s why we always set up our development programs to be hardware rich. Back into testing soon. #GradatimFerociter
Clearly some powerpack hardware failed in a non-repairable way (hence the 'lost' and reassurrance of being 'hardware rich'). The reference to being back into testing soon is encouraging - hopefully it means Blue don't believe there's a difficult/complex investigation to be done before testing can resume (although 'soon' could still mean months I guess).
For those of us who are not liquid rocket engine experts, can someone please clarify what components typically comprise the powerpack? I assume preburners and turbopumps. What else? Main injector plate?Yes.
Edit: the following NASA blog says the powerpack is basically everything in the engine upstream of the main injector, so I'll assume that's correct.
https://blogs.nasa.gov/J2X/tag/powerpack-assembly-2/
For those of us who are not liquid rocket engine experts, can someone please clarify what components typically comprise the powerpack? I assume preburners and turbopumps. What else? Main injector plate?Yes.
Edit: the following NASA blog says the powerpack is basically everything in the engine upstream of the main injector, so I'll assume that's correct.
https://blogs.nasa.gov/J2X/tag/powerpack-assembly-2/
Clearly some powerpack hardware failed in a non-repairable way (hence the 'lost' and reassurrance of being 'hardware rich'). The reference to being back into testing soon is encouraging - hopefully it means Blue don't believe there's a difficult/complex investigation to be done before testing can resume (although 'soon' could still mean months I guess).
Not unusual seems an understatement. For example, from Characteristics of Space Shuttle Main Engine failures (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19870058042)QuoteBlue Origin @blueorigin 3m3 minutes ago
We lost a set of powerpack test hardware on one of our BE-4 test stands yesterday. Not unusual during development.
https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/863881495169048576 (https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/863881495169048576)
During development and operation of the Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME), 27 ground test failures of sufficient severity to be termed 'major incident' have occurred.Has an engine *ever* been developed without destroying itself several times on the test stand? "Normal" or "Expected" might be more honest than "Not unusual".
Has an engine *ever* been developed without destroying itself several times on the test stand? "Normal" or "Expected" might be more honest than "Not unusual".Probably not. During Tom Mueller's recent interview he mentioned blowing up a lot of Merlin 1D engines during development, and that is a "simple" gas generator cycle.
Has an engine *ever* been developed without destroying itself several times on the test stand?..Probably a few, XRS-2200 and J-2X come to mind quickly
During Tom Mueller's recent interview he mentioned blowing up a lot of Merlin 1D engines during developmentMakes perfect sense if one is doing a "face shutoff" at the injector.
AIUI, may be the RS-68 didn't had this sort of failures?
I can't think of any high performance and successful engine that didn't had a few martyrs in the name of performance."The bigger they are, the harder they fall."
The big question is if this failure was due to envelop exploration or normal condition.Have they achieved "start up" sequencing? Burp test? Short run?
And the test stand status, too.Test stands.
But I'm assuming they had a couple of cells and this was not an RD-170 moment.Heh. Ouch.
Has an engine *ever* been developed without destroying itself several times on the test stand? "Normal" or "Expected" might be more honest than "Not unusual".Probably not. During Tom Mueller's recent interview he mentioned blowing up a lot of Merlin 1D engines during development, and that is a "simple" gas generator cycle.
- Ed Kyle
1D? not 1A?Has an engine *ever* been developed without destroying itself several times on the test stand? "Normal" or "Expected" might be more honest than "Not unusual".Probably not. During Tom Mueller's recent interview he mentioned blowing up a lot of Merlin 1D engines during development, and that is a "simple" gas generator cycle.
- Ed Kyle
1DThe valving was unusual for an engine that big.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Air Force said Monday it is working to "figure out how to progress forward" after a setback in the development of a U.S.-made rocket engine.
Blue Origin, Amazon (AMZN) founder Jeff Bezos' space company, tweeted May 14 that it lost a "set of powerpack test hardware on one of its BE-4" engine tests. The powerpack pumps the propellant, liquid oxygen and methane, through the engine. The company said it would resume testing "soon."
Lt. Gen. Arnold Bunch, military deputy in Air Force acquisition, pointed out that the Air Force has agreements with both Blue Origin and Aerojet Rocketdyne (AJRD) to build a replacement for the Russian-made RD-180 engine.
"We are working with Space and Missile Center to figure out how to progress forward," Bunch told reporters at an Air Force Association breakfast Monday. "We are aware of the Blue Origin setback and we are in dialogue on how to more forward. It is one we are watching because we know the commitment we made to get off of the 180 as quickly as possible."
Correct. Revisiting to assure funding for a "back up".
Looks like Raptor's initial firing was less challenging than BE-4's is turning out to be. I had wondered about FFSC possibly being easier than ORSC, even though its more parts.
ORSC historically has not been easy at scale for new engines, taking years to accomplish. You're dealing with partially combusted, highly reactive, high pressure/volume products, barely containable by the engine's materials.
According to this years talks and slides they have tested the BE-4 powerpack to 400klbf. 60+ starts at that level.
No 550klbf level tests, that was part of this campaign.
Considerable.Correct. Revisiting to assure funding for a "back up".
Looks like Raptor's initial firing was less challenging than BE-4's is turning out to be. I had wondered about FFSC possibly being easier than ORSC, even though its more parts.
ORSC historically has not been easy at scale for new engines, taking years to accomplish. You're dealing with partially combusted, highly reactive, high pressure/volume products, barely containable by the engine's materials.According to this years talks and slides they have tested the BE-4 powerpack to 400klbf. 60+ starts at that level.
No 550klbf level tests, that was part of this campaign.
A couple of questions, if I may, given that I think (?) Raptor tests are also still at subscale?
1) how much difference is there between isolated powerpack testing (at 400 klbf), and a failure of a powerpack during all-up testing at whatever power level they would use during their initial integration testing?
2) I always think of a FFSC engine as being half ORSC, and half FRSC, and therefore think of FFSC as harder than ORSC. Oversimplify, I'm sure.Very.
Of course, given that BE-4 and Raptor are very similar in thrust, the ORSC engine needs to produce more power in its OR leg (the only preburner leg).Nope.
Does this mean that FFSC allows lower temperatures and a lot less reactivity *everywhere* in that leg, or perhaps just in all the difficult bits?Less pressure/flow on each OR/FR. Sequencing. (I wonder if experience on Merlin face shutoff helped.)
Or, maybe avoiding sealing issues separating OR preburner gasses from the fuel leg?
In general, what are the issues that might make the OR leg of FFSC (Raptor) easier than an ORSC engine (BE-4)?
After 18 charmed months, Blue Origin suffers a setback (https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/05/blue-origin-has-an-accident-on-its-rocket-engine-test-stand/)
Likewise, Hyten (Gen. John Hyten, the head of U.S. Strategic Command) said he wasn’t pleased with media coverage of Blue Origin’s May accident that destroyed a set of powerpack test hardware for the company’s BE-4 engine.
“Blue Origin just had a failure. Son of a gun. That’s part of learning,” the general said. “It really upsets me when I see headlines come out in the newspaper after the Blue Origin failure the other day: ‘Blue Origin takes huge step back, big failure!’ I’m going, ‘no, they’re pushing the envelope.’”
The odd exploding engine means they pushing hard, as it should.Exactly. Below is a tidbit from the second half of the 1970's, when Rocketdyne was developing the Space Shuttle Main Engine (http://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Space_Engines/SSME_Pursuit_Improvement.pdf) (aka RS-25)
The first development tests were designed to develop the start sequence (Figure 14). Math models indicated propellant conditions and valve timing would be critical. It took 37 tests and 13 turbopump replacements to achieve minimum power level, which was 50% RPL at the time, and ninety-five tests to reach 100% RPL.
Sure. Same was true with all the moaning/groaning about the GHe pressurization failures with SX.Quote from: Phillip SwartsLikewise, Hyten (Gen. John Hyten, the head of U.S. Strategic Command) said he wasn’t pleased with media coverage of Blue Origin’s May accident that destroyed a set of powerpack test hardware for the company’s BE-4 engine.
“Blue Origin just had a failure. Son of a gun. That’s part of learning,” the general said. “It really upsets me when I see headlines come out in the newspaper after the Blue Origin failure the other day: ‘Blue Origin takes huge step back, big failure!’ I’m going, ‘no, they’re pushing the envelope.’”
Agree with the analogy.The odd exploding engine means they pushing hard, as it should.Exactly. Below is a tidbit from the second half of the 1970's, when Rocketdyne was developing the Space Shuttle Main Engine (http://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Space_Engines/SSME_Pursuit_Improvement.pdf) (aka RS-25)
Whole different time/tools/practices.Quote from: Douglas P. Bradley - Pratt&Whitney RocketdyneThe first development tests were designed to develop the start sequence (Figure 14). Math models indicated propellant conditions and valve timing would be critical.
QuoteIt took 37 tests and 13 turbopump replacements to achieve minimum power level, which was 50% RPL at the time, and ninety-five tests to reach 100% RPL.
It is generally assumed that Blue lost their powerpack set during development testing of the BE-4 start-up sequence, so similar to what Rocketdyne went thru with SSME.Anything big enough is like that.
Not quite. From what I hear from sources is that SpaceX lost Raptor components on several occassions during components testing at Stennis. Lost as in wrecked beyond repair. Not as spectacular as Blue's powerpack loss, but still...
(Good news for the Raptor team - they've got a working engine and they didn't have to go through what both AR1/BE4 teams are going through right now.)
Not as spectacular as Blue's powerpack loss, but still...Was it spectacular?
High mass flows of high pressure, highly reactive hot gasses ... usually go up like massive fireworks.Not as spectacular as Blue's powerpack loss, but still...Was it spectacular?
The thing about the BE-4 powerpack failure and the subsequent reporting of the failure is that Blue hasn't released images or video, so those outside the company can only conjure images of a massive, earth-shaking, program-ending explosion in their heads. If the company showed the failure, the reporting might be more realistic about what the failure means.Might help.
Failure of an entire powerpack is generally more spectacular in nature than failure of a component such as a preburner.Not as spectacular as Blue's powerpack loss, but still...Was it spectacular?
The thing about the BE-4 powerpack failure and the subsequent reporting of the failure is that Blue hasn't released images or video,
Blue have spare engines and test stand. Any delay will be from finding out extactly what went wrong..Then any mods to next engine.
Not as spectacular as Blue's powerpack loss, but still...Was it spectacular?
The thing about the BE-4 powerpack failure and the subsequent reporting of the failure is that Blue hasn't released images or video, so those outside the company can only conjure images of a massive, earth-shaking, program-ending explosion in their heads. If the company showed the failure, the reporting might be more realistic about what the failure means.
If failure is supposed to be a *good* thing in this business, then come on Blue, celebrate the failure! (SpaceX and Aerojet too.)
I'm a little late to the party, but having just caught up on this thread, I want to weigh in.Most rocket engine manufacturers will never publically admit that they did not put sufficient margin into the development schedule to alleviate development trouble (such as a failure on the test-stand). Publically stated schedules for readiness of a new engine are almost always too optimistic. Blue and SpaceX are no exceptions.
To me, it seems like all of the points that people have been making about how this anomaly is expected/normal/etc and falls into the "neutral" instead of the "bad" category can be condensed down to one linchpin - was this possibility baked into the schedule margins for the RD-180 replacement contract(s) or not?
If this is to be characterized as nominal/predictable, then it follows that there should be no impact on schedule, because it was anticipated, and built into the schedule margin for the contracts.
I don't know if this will impact the schedule or not, but it sounds like the major players are worried that it will. As always, time will tell.
I'm a little late to the party, but having just caught up on this thread, I want to weigh in.Most rocket engine manufacturers will never publically admit that they did not put sufficient margin into the development schedule to alleviate development trouble (such as a failure on the test-stand). Publically stated schedules for readiness of a new engine are almost always too optimistic. Blue and SpaceX are no exceptions.
To me, it seems like all of the points that people have been making about how this anomaly is expected/normal/etc and falls into the "neutral" instead of the "bad" category can be condensed down to one linchpin - was this possibility baked into the schedule margins for the RD-180 replacement contract(s) or not?
If this is to be characterized as nominal/predictable, then it follows that there should be no impact on schedule, because it was anticipated, and built into the schedule margin for the contracts.
I don't know if this will impact the schedule or not, but it sounds like the major players are worried that it will. As always, time will tell.
I'm a little late to the party, but having just caught up on this thread, I want to weigh in.Most rocket engine manufacturers will never publically admit that they did not put sufficient margin into the development schedule to alleviate development trouble (such as a failure on the test-stand). Publically stated schedules for readiness of a new engine are almost always too optimistic. Blue and SpaceX are no exceptions.
To me, it seems like all of the points that people have been making about how this anomaly is expected/normal/etc and falls into the "neutral" instead of the "bad" category can be condensed down to one linchpin - was this possibility baked into the schedule margins for the RD-180 replacement contract(s) or not?
If this is to be characterized as nominal/predictable, then it follows that there should be no impact on schedule, because it was anticipated, and built into the schedule margin for the contracts.
I don't know if this will impact the schedule or not, but it sounds like the major players are worried that it will. As always, time will tell.
I don't agree with the assertion that Blue and SpaceX intentionally fabricate schedules and enter into fixed-price contracts knowing full well that it is not realistic to deliver. I suspect that it's not even possible given the amount of oversight that both companies currently have with NASA/USAF. The suggestion seems absurd to me, especially absent the typical cost+ structure.
My main point is that there's a catch-22 here - if it's so easy for the posters on this forum to characterize as a normal part of engine development, then how did the experts miss it? I reject the notion that they intentionally ignored it.
Most rocket engine manufacturers will never publically admit that they did not put sufficient margin into the development schedule to alleviate development trouble (such as a failure on the test-stand). Publically stated schedules for readiness of a new engine are almost always too optimistic. Blue and SpaceX are no exceptions.
I don't agree with the assertion that Blue and SpaceX intentionally fabricate schedules and enter into fixed-price contracts knowing full well that it is not realistic to deliver. I suspect that it's not even possible given the amount of oversight that both companies currently have with NASA/USAF. The suggestion seems absurd to me, especially absent the typical cost+ structure.
My main point is that there's a catch-22 here - if it's so easy for the posters on this forum to characterize as a normal part of engine development, then how did the experts miss it? I reject the notion that they intentionally ignored it.
As such, I still feel that my point has some merit - if it's so easy for the posters on this forum to characterize as a normal part of engine development, then it should be baked into said schedule and there should be no impact.
As such, I still feel that my point has some merit - if it's so easy for the posters on this forum to characterize as a normal part of engine development, then it should be baked into said schedule and there should be no impact.
The schedule is built as though things will work, otherwise there will be a work stoppage while waiting for other parts to catch up while burning through the baked in delay.Agreed. Where do you "bake in" the "unexpected"?
Likely the AF looked at all the collateral, asked pointed questions, and came to the conclusions that the situation was far from closed, so being open they needed to respond to the threat by reviving a program.
As such, I still feel that my point has some merit - if it's so easy for the posters on this forum to characterize as a normal part of engine development, then it should be baked into said schedule and there should be no impact.Competition makes it very hard to set a conservative schedule, including unexpected delays, unless all sides are somehow compelled to be equally honest.
AR-1. Apparently not.QuoteLikely the AF looked at all the collateral, asked pointed questions, and came to the conclusions that the situation was far from closed, so being open they needed to respond to the threat by reviving a program.
Reviving which program? AR-1? Hasn't that been running in parallel to BE-4 all along?
AR-1. Apparently not.QuoteLikely the AF looked at all the collateral, asked pointed questions, and came to the conclusions that the situation was far from closed, so being open they needed to respond to the threat by reviving a program.
Reviving which program? AR-1? Hasn't that been running in parallel to BE-4 all along?
AR-1. Apparently not.QuoteLikely the AF looked at all the collateral, asked pointed questions, and came to the conclusions that the situation was far from closed, so being open they needed to respond to the threat by reviving a program.
Reviving which program? AR-1? Hasn't that been running in parallel to BE-4 all along?
What did I miss? I thought Aerojet had been running hard to catch up to BE-4 all this time.
Oh dear. You're linking to Loren Thompson? Not an authoritative source, by any means.Here's another source with a similar report.
http://aviationweek.com/space/usaf-keep-ar-1-work-going-amid-be-4-setback
- Ed Kyle
AR-1. Apparently not.QuoteLikely the AF looked at all the collateral, asked pointed questions, and came to the conclusions that the situation was far from closed, so being open they needed to respond to the threat by reviving a program.
Reviving which program? AR-1? Hasn't that been running in parallel to BE-4 all along?
What did I miss? I thought Aerojet had been running hard to catch up to BE-4 all this time.
I was skeptical too. Aviation Week reporting...Oh dear. You're linking to Loren Thompson? Not an authoritative source, by any means.Here's another source with a similar report.
http://aviationweek.com/space/usaf-keep-ar-1-work-going-amid-be-4-setback
- Ed Kyle
[A]t a briefing of staff members organized by the House Armed Services Committee June 23, an independent assessment prepared by NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center reportedly confirmed that BE-4 maintained a major schedule advantage over the AR1 despite the testing setback.
“They are two years behind Blue Origin,” one meeting attendee, not authorized to speak on the record, said of the assessment’s conclusion about AR1. Another year would be needed to integrate the engine with a launch vehicle.
The BE-4 powerpack testing mishap raised a number of questions by those at the briefing, the source said, but the NASA assessment concluded it would not have a major effect on the overall testing program for the engine. “They should be on track to restart testing in late summer and still stay on schedule,” the attendee recalled.
That confidence is based on the hardware-rich testing approach the company has promoted. The briefing attendee noted the NASA assessment’s concerns about the AR1 were focused on its schedule and cost, rather than its technical development.
Yet another attempt to restrict Air Force funding to the the development of first-stage rocket engines only:"“They should be on track to restart testing in late summer ... "
http://spacenews.com/blue-origin-retains-engine-lead-as-house-considers-limitations-on-launch-system-funding/
I believe I did say "fireworks" ... ::)Yet another attempt to restrict Air Force funding to the the development of first-stage rocket engines only:"“They should be on track to restart testing in late summer ... "
http://spacenews.com/blue-origin-retains-engine-lead-as-house-considers-limitations-on-launch-system-funding/
Four months or more then. Yikes.
- Ed Kyle
Yet another attempt to restrict Air Force funding to the the development of first-stage rocket engines only:"“They should be on track to restart testing in late summer ... "
http://spacenews.com/blue-origin-retains-engine-lead-as-house-considers-limitations-on-launch-system-funding/
Four months or more then. Yikes.
I was thinking four months from the date of the incident. One month has already passed since then. :)Yet another attempt to restrict Air Force funding to the the development of first-stage rocket engines only:"“They should be on track to restart testing in late summer ... "
http://spacenews.com/blue-origin-retains-engine-lead-as-house-considers-limitations-on-launch-system-funding/
Four months or more then. Yikes.
Here in the Northern Hemisphere we start summer around June 21st, and it is followed by autumn, which starts around the 21st, so at most "late summer" is 3 months out, but could be as little as 2 months away.
New article from Jeff Foust of SpaceNews:You missed this part:
(http://spacenews.com/blue-origin-retains-engine-lead-as-house-considers-limitations-on-launch-system-funding/)
The section includes a specific prohibition against funding “the development of new launch vehicles under such program.” It also specifically defines a “rocket propulsion system” that can be funded as a first-stage rocket engine or motor. “The term does not include a launch vehicle, an upper stage, a strap-on motor, or related infrastructure,” it states.
Such language would allow the Air Force to continue funding development of Aerojet Rocketdyne’s AR1 engine. However, it could restrict funding to United Launch Alliance to support development of its Vulcan rocket, as that work goes beyond development of a first-stage engine.
I was thinking four months from the date of the incident. One month has already passed since then. :)Yet another attempt to restrict Air Force funding to the the development of first-stage rocket engines only:"“They should be on track to restart testing in late summer ... "
http://spacenews.com/blue-origin-retains-engine-lead-as-house-considers-limitations-on-launch-system-funding/
Four months or more then. Yikes.
Here in the Northern Hemisphere we start summer around June 21st, and it is followed by autumn, which starts around the 21st, so at most "late summer" is 3 months out, but could be as little as 2 months away.
- Ed Kyle
We know they have multiple engines, and I thought they had multiple test stands. But if so, presumably they would continue testing (at the 400K lbf level, at least) while they investigate why it failed at 550K lbf and repair/replace the busted stand. So it would seem they only have one test stand.If it was a leak or a cold flow fracture, it would have been up with a new hardware set by now. Big boom. Rebuild level boom. Like AJ26's fun on E1 test stand.I was thinking four months from the date of the incident. One month has already passed since then. :)"“They should be on track to restart testing in late summer ... "Here in the Northern Hemisphere we start summer around June 21st, and it is followed by autumn, which starts around the 21st, so at most "late summer" is 3 months out, but could be as little as 2 months away.
Four months or more then. Yikes.
This complicates things in congressional micromanaging of EELV options. It attempts to narrow the scope of how EELV could be funded to eliminate the foreign engine dependency.
So alternatives and advanced work could not be attempted. Vulcan and ACES.
And, it creates a legal contradiction over "upper stage engines". Technically, Raptor as funded was an upper stage engine, however it can be used as a booster engine, and it is a current engine under development.
It is also at a more advanced state than AR-1 (which these proposed restrictions are aimed primarily to benefit) and BE-4. That already addresses/creates a potential vendor bias in law, of which a large body of procurement related law, administrative practice and process stands in conflict with.
The problem with meddling is that it only serves to "monkey wrench" things further. And then you have to undo it.
We know they have multiple engines, and I thought they had multiple test stands. But if so, presumably they would continue testing (at the 400K lbf level, at least) while they investigate why it failed at 550K lbf and repair/replace the busted stand. So it would seem they only have one test stand.If it was a leak or a cold flow fracture, it would have been up with a new hardware set by now. Big boom. Rebuild level boom. Like AJ26's fun on E1 test stand.I was thinking four months from the date of the incident. One month has already passed since then. :)"“They should be on track to restart testing in late summer ... "Here in the Northern Hemisphere we start summer around June 21st, and it is followed by autumn, which starts around the 21st, so at most "late summer" is 3 months out, but could be as little as 2 months away.
Four months or more then. Yikes.
Also, suppose they need to modify some fairly fundamental part, such as the turbopump, to run safely at 550K lbf. How quickly can something like this be turned around? They need to re-design the part(s) (which might need CFD work), then re-prototype it, then component test it, then re-integrate it, then re-burp test it, etc. until they can get back to testing the engine. I could easily imagine this taking a few months, in parallel with test stand repair.
New article from Jeff Foust of SpaceNews:
Blue Origin retains engine lead as House considers limitations on launch system funding (http://spacenews.com/blue-origin-retains-engine-lead-as-house-considers-limitations-on-launch-system-funding/)
The company said it will make a $200 million investment to develop the facility, capable of producing up to 30 BE-4 engines per year.I hadn't noticed the engine production rate in other reporting. Does 30/year seem too low to anyone else? Do we know how many they can make in Kent if they also keep production there?
Kent factory could add another few a year.New article from Jeff Foust of SpaceNews:
Blue Origin retains engine lead as House considers limitations on launch system funding (http://spacenews.com/blue-origin-retains-engine-lead-as-house-considers-limitations-on-launch-system-funding/)QuoteThe company said it will make a $200 million investment to develop the facility, capable of producing up to 30 BE-4 engines per year.I hadn't noticed the engine production rate in other reporting. Does 30/year seem too low to anyone else? Do we know how many they can make in Kent if they also keep production there?
Even with perfect and unlimited reuse, 12/year 2nd stages expended on New Glenn would only allow 9 Vulcans per year until ULA starts their reuse program. If one new New Glenn is built each year as well, that knocks it down to 5-6 Vulcans per year.
George Sowers @george_sowers 20m20 minutes ago
George Sowers Retweeted Jeff Foust
Parasite (AR) killing the host (ULA)...
New article from Jeff Foust of SpaceNews:
Blue Origin retains engine lead as House considers limitations on launch system funding (http://spacenews.com/blue-origin-retains-engine-lead-as-house-considers-limitations-on-launch-system-funding/)
Quote from: George SowersParasite (AR) killing the host (ULA)...
https://twitter.com/george_sowers/status/880087678733217792 (https://twitter.com/george_sowers/status/880087678733217792)
Ouch ... !
Quote from: George SowersParasite (AR) killing the host (ULA)...
https://twitter.com/george_sowers/status/880087678733217792 (https://twitter.com/george_sowers/status/880087678733217792)
Ouch ... !
The advantages of being retired is that you can speak your mind.
And, being distinguished former ULA executive - it doesn't come across as a criticism of ULA, unlike anyone else.
Truer words have never been spoken.
Quote from: George SowersParasite (AR) killing the host (ULA)...
https://twitter.com/george_sowers/status/880087678733217792 (https://twitter.com/george_sowers/status/880087678733217792)
Ouch ... !
The advantages of being retired is that you can speak your mind.
And, being distinguished former ULA executive - it doesn't come across as a criticism of ULA, unlike anyone else.
Truer words have never been spoken.
Sorry to be so stupid but I still dont get it. Why does ULA depend on DOD for developing new launch vehicles? Within the new bill, DOD is allowed to pay for the ULA share of development costs of BE4. ULA would still be able to fund the development of Vulcan from its own profits. I must be missing something because every expert seems to see it differently. What am I missing?
Sen. Shelby is clearly on Team Blue Origin now. Asks Robert Lightfoot for a copy of report that found BE-4 engine ahead of Aerojet's AR1.
BE is getting a leg up to match AR's political pull:QuoteSen. Shelby is clearly on Team Blue Origin now. Asks Robert Lightfoot for a copy of report that found BE-4 engine ahead of Aerojet's AR1.
https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/880432831272497153
Apparently doesn't take much to buy a congressional delegation these days.
Quote from: George SowersParasite (AR) killing the host (ULA)...
https://twitter.com/george_sowers/status/880087678733217792 (https://twitter.com/george_sowers/status/880087678733217792)
Ouch ... !
The advantages of being retired is that you can speak your mind.
And, being distinguished former ULA executive - it doesn't come across as a criticism of ULA, unlike anyone else.
Truer words have never been spoken.
Sorry to be so stupid but I still dont get it. Why does ULA depend on DOD for developing new launch vehicles? Within the new bill, DOD is allowed to pay for the ULA share of development costs of BE4. ULA would still be able to fund the development of Vulcan from its own profits. I must be missing something because every expert seems to see it differently. What am I missing?
The big defense contractors aren't used to spending their own money to develop a product for the government. Especially when there was already a proposed plan in place where the government would pay for most of the development. Why hurry to spend hundreds of millions from your own pocket when it looks likely the government will pay a majority of the cost if you just wait a little while?
The government is co-funding Raptor.Quote from: George SowersParasite (AR) killing the host (ULA)...
https://twitter.com/george_sowers/status/880087678733217792 (https://twitter.com/george_sowers/status/880087678733217792)
Ouch ... !
The advantages of being retired is that you can speak your mind.
And, being distinguished former ULA executive - it doesn't come across as a criticism of ULA, unlike anyone else.
Truer words have never been spoken.
Sorry to be so stupid but I still dont get it. Why does ULA depend on DOD for developing new launch vehicles? Within the new bill, DOD is allowed to pay for the ULA share of development costs of BE4. ULA would still be able to fund the development of Vulcan from its own profits. I must be missing something because every expert seems to see it differently. What am I missing?
The big defense contractors aren't used to spending their own money to develop a product for the government. Especially when there was already a proposed plan in place where the government would pay for most of the development. Why hurry to spend hundreds of millions from your own pocket when it looks likely the government will pay a majority of the cost if you just wait a little while?
I don't imagine SpaceX will be okay with government funding its competitor, especially on top of ELC still in force.
Boeing raises holy h*ll whenever European governments give money to Airbus to design products that compete with Boeing, and insists that their large., lucrative military contracts are not relevant to, and certainly do not subsidize, their commercial airplane business.
I don't imagine SpaceX will be okay with government funding its competitor, especially on top of ELC still in force.
I don't imagine SpaceX will be okay with government funding its competitor, especially on top of ELC still in force.
The government is co-funding Raptor.
This really isn't true. Government procurement is far too competitive and if a contractor doesn't come into a bid without significant existing background in the product they are proposing then they have no real chance of winning a bid.
The big defense contractors aren't used to spending their own money to develop a product for the government.
I don't imagine SpaceX will be okay with government funding its competitor, especially on top of ELC still in force.
The government is co-funding Raptor.
I'm talking about Vulcan development, not BE-4.
This really isn't true. Government procurement is far too competitive and if a contractor doesn't come into a bid without significant existing background in the product they are proposing then they have no real chance of winning a bid.
The big defense contractors aren't used to spending their own money to develop a product for the government.
Do we have to go over this again.
a. The gov't is not funding Vulcan
The government is not funding Vulcan development. It is funding BE-4 development, via ULA. The 2016 award of funding for RD-180 replacements went (amongst others) to ULA. But ULA is using that funding to help finance development of BE-4, not Vulcan itself. Another award from the same rpf went to SpaceX for development of Raptor.I don't imagine SpaceX will be okay with government funding its competitor, especially on top of ELC still in force.
The government is co-funding Raptor.
I'm talking about Vulcan development, not BE-4.
The government is not funding Vulcan development. It is funding BE-4 development, via ULA.I don't imagine SpaceX will be okay with government funding its competitor, especially on top of ELC still in force.
The government is co-funding Raptor.
I'm talking about Vulcan development, not BE-4.
Could SpaceX's Rapter Power Pack be used or lessons learned to mature Blue's BE-4 development?
Madison County Commission votes to do their part in Blue Origin agreement
POSTED 5:24 PM, JULY 12, 2017, BY CAITLAN DALLAS, UPDATED AT 09:28PM, JULY 12, 2017
"This commission voted to authorize that we do site preparation, and that we also contributed a half a million dollars towards this incentive package,"
Huntsville Oks deal 'confident' Blue Origin plant is coming
Updated on July 15, 2017 at 11:43 AM
Posted on July 14, 2017 at 5:17 AM
The Huntsville City Council unanimously approved a deal Thursday night to bring a $200 million Blue Origin rocket engine factory and up to 400 high-paying jobs to Cummings Research Park.
That so-called Project Development Agreement depends on Blue Origin Alabama getting an engine production contract from United Launch Alliance. [...]
On May 14, after the BE-4 powerpack failure on Blue's Texas test stand, the company tweeted that it would be "back into testing soon". Two months have now passed. Is there any evidence that testing of any kind has resumed?Gradatim, Ed, Gradatim.
- Ed Kyle
On May 14, after the BE-4 powerpack failure on Blue's Texas test stand, the company tweeted that it would be "back into testing soon". Two months have now passed. Is there any evidence that testing of any kind has resumed?Well, if it's a design problem, then the hardware rich approach will mean that there is a lot of hardware that's been made that can't be used and new hardware would have to be built to fix the issue and that will take time. If it's a sequencing or controller issue, then I would expect them to be testing again shortly.
- Ed Kyle
Or, perhaps its more ... late fall now? How's it going in the Texas heat?Blue would be crowing if there had been any success, I think.
Even if BE-4 is considered here as moderate in technical aspects (compared to Raptor), it's still an oxidizer-rich staged combustion engine. And Americans never built, -and used- one for orbital flight. Also this is from company which has never built orbital class engine before. So, some delays are expected.
Even if BE-4 is considered here as moderate in technical aspects (compared to Raptor), it's still an oxidizer-rich staged combustion engine. And Americans never built, -and used- one for orbital flight. Also this is from company which has never built orbital class engine before. So, some delays are expected.Good point.
It doesn't
I'm excited that we have bothe Blue Origin and SpaceX, both BE-4 and Raptor. Wonderful assets, both represent an improvement in the state of the art.
...
The RD-180 and 181 (Both from NPOE) are used on American rockets currently flying (Atlas and Antares, respectively). Not sure how easily that experience translates to future use of the BE-4, though.
...
The RD-180 and 181 (Both from NPOE) are used on American rockets currently flying (Atlas and Antares, respectively). Not sure how easily that experience translates to future use of the BE-4, though.
-Russian engines. I think, even as ULA has boosted, that they have RD-180 blueprints, Russian still have the secret sauce for oxygen-rich tech (-cough; porcelain enamel coating*; cough -). And like Jim says Blue doesn't have access for those.
*"Currently, the Russian-developed enamel coatings are a far more mature and proven technology. However, application of these special coatings and/or advanced materials to U.S. ORSC engine designs has not been fully proven, so a comprehensive risk reduction program will be required."
-Liquid Rocket Hydrocarbon Booster Engines (LRHCBE’s) for Launch Vehicles – A Status Report
Robert L. Sackheim Aerospace Propulsion Consultant, Huntsville, Alabama
-Russian engines. I think, even as ULA has boosted, that they have RD-180 blueprints, Russian still have the secret sauce for oxygen-rich tech (-cough; porcelain enamel coating*; cough -). And like Jim says Blue doesn't have access for those.
*"Currently, the Russian-developed enamel coatings are a far more mature and proven technology. However, application of these special coatings and/or advanced materials to U.S. ORSC engine designs has not been fully proven, so a comprehensive risk reduction program will be required."
-Liquid Rocket Hydrocarbon Booster Engines (LRHCBE’s) for Launch Vehicles – A Status Report
Robert L. Sackheim Aerospace Propulsion Consultant, Huntsville, Alabama
Now I'm curious. Where are the enamel coatings used in an ORSC engine? Bearings? Turbine blades?, chamber walls? Everything exposed to oxygen?
It is well known that Russian engine designs have overcome this material incompatibility challenge by using inert enamel coatings on traditional high-strength turbine alloys and hot-gas ducting. The alloys provide the structural load support, while the enamel coating provides the requisite hot-oxygen-rich environment protection for various exposed surfaces.
Is this something that Blue will certainly need to overcome on the BE-4 or is a `medium-performing version of a high-performance design' somehow able to get away without such enamel coatings? If the speculating is true that they'll gradually improve to be a high-performing version, then maybe it is eventually unavoidable.
...
And a link should you wish to read more: http://guest.warr.de/Archiv/Konferenzen/EUCASS_2013_Papers/full/p596.pdf (http://guest.warr.de/Archiv/Konferenzen/EUCASS_2013_Papers/full/p596.pdf)
...
Someone posted this on /r/BlueOrigin under the subject "New Commemorative Patch", hopefully this means we'll have some good news about BE-4 soon.
Does anyone know a timeframe for another test?When it was announced in 2014, full scale testing was expected in 2016 and first flight in 2019. I suppose one must add one year to each number at this point. We're getting close to needing to add two years. When was AR-1 supposed to be ready again?
- Ed Kyle
I'll bite Ed. AR-1 will be delayed just as much. No schedule ever holds in engine development. You of all people should know that.Does anyone know a timeframe for another test?When it was announced in 2014, full scale testing was expected in 2016 and first flight in 2019. I suppose one must add one year to each number at this point. We're getting close to needing to add two years. When was AR-1 supposed to be ready again?
- Ed Kyle
on the lower right, there are 9 lines.
does the fact that the 2nd line is red signify that they are working on the 2nd step in a 9 step master plan?
on the lower right, there are 9 lines.
does the fact that the 2nd line is red signify that they are working on the 2nd step in a 9 step master plan?
9 lines, 1 of them red.
8 stars, none of them red.
Perhaps representing the number of test milestones (engines) and their major Oops?
(Terraserver imagery is from ~1 week before the oops, and nothing since. Frustrating)
From what I understand, the first test of BE-4 failed. The sub-scale test of Raptor was a success. The first sub-scale test of AR-1 was a success. Is this correct? If so, seems as if BE-4 is falling behind.A BE-4 powerpack failed earlier this year. Are you referring to this or has a full BE-4 engine failed recently?
Make no mistake - proving a powerpack to an engine of this scale is hard - note the F-1B powerpack test that was done a few years back. But then you typically attach an injector/combustion chamber next, in order to validate operation in start up / shut down / "burp". So it's hard to believe they were just testing the powerpack again.Indeed.
This work is very tedious and often "goes backward". Redesign/rebuild/reprove/retest. With ORSC, you could end up in a "free fall" for a while, until things start working once again. Likely here.
so raptor is a FFSC. Full Flow Staged Combustion and therefore one half of it is ORSC Oxygen Rich Staged Combustion. So Spacex has the same problems as Blue?This is OT here.
This report said that Blue suffered a power pack explosion in 2015, prior to this year's May power pack explosion.Thanks. I did not realize there was a recording of Tobey career ending seminar.
http://spacenews.com/ula-intends-to-lower-its-costs-and-raise-its-cool-to-compete-with-spacex/
- Ed Kyle
so raptor is a FFSC. Full Flow Staged Combustion and therefore one half of it is ORSC Oxygen Rich Staged Combustion. So Spacex has the same problems as Blue?
Perhaps BO should redesign the BE-4 as a FFSC engine to remove the issue mentioned above and to improve performance. BO should have made BE-4 FFSC in the first place. Maybe their next engine after BE-4 will be FFSC.so raptor is a FFSC. Full Flow Staged Combustion and therefore one half of it is ORSC Oxygen Rich Staged Combustion. So Spacex has the same problems as Blue?
One of the safety concerns about either ORSC or FRSC is the shared turbine shaft with the reactant's fuel pump. Unless a very good seal is used, very highly pressurized hot oxidizer (in BE04's case) can escape into the fuel line (LNG) as it enters the axial flow compressor, creating an extremely volatile mixture that will likely explode. We do not yet know whether this was the cause of the mishap in May.
This is not a concern with FFSC, because exhaust from both pre-burners only turns their respective fuel pumps. No mixing of reactants is possible.
The raptor is certainly more complex than the BE04, since the former has two pre-burners and two turbine shafts, rather than the latter's one, but in this one specific area, the FFSC engine does have an advantage.
Perhaps BO should redesign the BE-4 as a FFSC engine to remove the issue mentioned above and to improve performance. BO should have made BE-4 FFSC in the first place. Maybe their next engine after BE-4 will be FFSC.so raptor is a FFSC. Full Flow Staged Combustion and therefore one half of it is ORSC Oxygen Rich Staged Combustion. So Spacex has the same problems as Blue?
One of the safety concerns about either ORSC or FRSC is the shared turbine shaft with the reactant's fuel pump. Unless a very good seal is used, very highly pressurized hot oxidizer (in BE04's case) can escape into the fuel line (LNG) as it enters the axial flow compressor, creating an extremely volatile mixture that will likely explode. We do not yet know whether this was the cause of the mishap in May.
This is not a concern with FFSC, because exhaust from both pre-burners only turns their respective fuel pumps. No mixing of reactants is possible.
The raptor is certainly more complex than the BE04, since the former has two pre-burners and two turbine shafts, rather than the latter's one, but in this one specific area, the FFSC engine does have an advantage.
Perhaps BO should redesign the BE-4 as a FFSC engine to remove the issue mentioned above and to improve performance. BO should have made BE-4 FFSC in the first place. Maybe their next engine after BE-4 will be FFSC.Nonsense. And add another decade of delay?
We've all been discussing whether Blue's BE-4 or Aerojet's AR-1 will be the Vulcan's engine... assuming that both will have successful development programs. It is possible that neither will develop a reliable ORSC engine in the next five years (or ever).FFSC has the potential to be much more reliable than both ORSC which the BE-4 uses and FRSC as it eliminates the interpropellant seal which is a potential serious failure mode. The failure of the BE-4 powerpack may have been caused by unwanted propellant mixing causing an explosion. Such a failure would not have happened if BO had selected FFSC for BE-4. Hopefully they will learn their lesson and use FFSC for their next engine after BE-4 which NA will use. FFSC at BE-4's Pc should be extremely reliable.
Maybe that's why ULA is buying RD-180s to cover Atlas-V flights out to mid-2020s...
So you are saying that the failure may have been caused by it, but you are claiming that their failure wouldn't have happened if they were using FFSC(without any mention of the word "may"). Right... Either you have some insider info or you are taking your own speculation as fact.We've all been discussing whether Blue's BE-4 or Aerojet's AR-1 will be the Vulcan's engine... assuming that both will have successful development programs. It is possible that neither will develop a reliable ORSC engine in the next five years (or ever).FFSC has the potential to be much more reliable than both ORSC which the BE-4 uses and FRSC as it eliminates the interpropellant seal which is a potential serious failure mode. The failure of the BE-4 powerpack may have been caused by unwanted propellant mixing causing an explosion. Such a failure would not have happened if BO had selected FFSC for BE-4. Hopefully they will learn their lesson and use FFSC for their next engine after BE-4 which NA will use. FFSC at BE-4's Pc should be extremely reliable.
Maybe that's why ULA is buying RD-180s to cover Atlas-V flights out to mid-2020s...
You know how many FFSC engines are flying? NONE. The Russians have been reliably flying ORSC for DECADES. It's not at all obvious that Blue should have gone a different route just because a couple of ya'll read about a possible failure mode on Wikipedia.
You know how many FFSC engines are flying? NONE. The Russians have been reliably flying ORSC for DECADES. It's not at all obvious that Blue should have gone a different route just because a couple of ya'll read about a possible failure mode on Wikipedia.
Do you have any information about the reason for their failure or are you just spreading FUD?We've all been discussing whether Blue's BE-4 or Aerojet's AR-1 will be the Vulcan's engine... assuming that both will have successful development programs. It is possible that neither will develop a reliable ORSC engine in the next five years (or ever).FFSC has the potential to be much more reliable than both ORSC which the BE-4 uses and FRSC as it eliminates the interpropellant seal which is a potential serious failure mode. The failure of the BE-4 powerpack may have been caused by unwanted propellant mixing causing an explosion. Such a failure would not have happened if BO had selected FFSC for BE-4. Hopefully they will learn their lesson and use FFSC for their next engine after BE-4 which NA will use. FFSC at BE-4's Pc should be extremely reliable.
Maybe that's why ULA is buying RD-180s to cover Atlas-V flights out to mid-2020s...
This report said that Blue suffered a power pack explosion in 2015, prior to this year's May power pack explosion.Thanks. I did not realize there was a recording of Tobey career ending seminar.
http://spacenews.com/ula-intends-to-lower-its-costs-and-raise-its-cool-to-compete-with-spacex/
- Ed Kyle
Note the piece talks of a whole engine on a stand, but no indication of wheather this was the BE-3, BE-4 or something else, so it's unclear if this is the first or second RUD in the BE-4 development programme.
In my mind I keep seeing the frontispiece of Clarke's "Ignition" of the engine test cell working normally, and the engine test cell when things go wrong. :(
It's only a test failure if you a) Didn't get any of the data you wanted and b)Have no idea why the engine failed and c) Have no idea how to fix it. :(
As long as you've got something on one (or more) of those (and funds to rebuild) you can keep moving forward.
As I noted SSME destroyed 11 powerheads just to develop the start sequence. At least one was due to a sensor misalignment of 1 degree in measuring a key valve opening and I suspect some were due to the fact that LH2 is compressible (at engine pressures) in a way virtually no other common fluid is. :(
In hindsight, expecting a RUD free development programme from large rocket engines with a new complex combustion cycle, regardless of the development teams experience with other cycles, should have been seen as a low probability event. It was a case of when, not if one of them would suffer a RUD.
....The seafloor is littered with Atlas/RD-180 stages, grabbing one on the sly would be easy, and maybe even legal...
Matthew
It's kind of obvious that a failure caused by interpropellant seal wouldn't have happened is there was no such seal.Do you have any information about the reason for their failure or are you just spreading FUD?We've all been discussing whether Blue's BE-4 or Aerojet's AR-1 will be the Vulcan's engine... assuming that both will have successful development programs. It is possible that neither will develop a reliable ORSC engine in the next five years (or ever).FFSC has the potential to be much more reliable than both ORSC which the BE-4 uses and FRSC as it eliminates the interpropellant seal which is a potential serious failure mode. The failure of the BE-4 powerpack may have been caused by unwanted propellant mixing causing an explosion. Such a failure would not have happened if BO had selected FFSC for BE-4. Hopefully they will learn their lesson and use FFSC for their next engine after BE-4 which NA will use. FFSC at BE-4's Pc should be extremely reliable.
Maybe that's why ULA is buying RD-180s to cover Atlas-V flights out to mid-2020s...
But is there any information on whether the failure had anything to do with the interpropellant seal?It's kind of obvious that a failure caused by interpropellant seal wouldn't have happened is there was no such seal.Do you have any information about the reason for their failure or are you just spreading FUD?We've all been discussing whether Blue's BE-4 or Aerojet's AR-1 will be the Vulcan's engine... assuming that both will have successful development programs. It is possible that neither will develop a reliable ORSC engine in the next five years (or ever).FFSC has the potential to be much more reliable than both ORSC which the BE-4 uses and FRSC as it eliminates the interpropellant seal which is a potential serious failure mode. The failure of the BE-4 powerpack may have been caused by unwanted propellant mixing causing an explosion. Such a failure would not have happened if BO had selected FFSC for BE-4. Hopefully they will learn their lesson and use FFSC for their next engine after BE-4 which NA will use. FFSC at BE-4's Pc should be extremely reliable.
Maybe that's why ULA is buying RD-180s to cover Atlas-V flights out to mid-2020s...
Oh, Nomadd is right, they only tested the power pack, right? No interpropellant seal, no main propellant flow, no main propellant flow related failure modes. So how could the failure be related to the interpropellant seal?
So again: how about stopping to spread FUD?
FFSC has the potential to be much more reliable than both ORSC which the BE-4 uses and FRSC as it eliminates the interpropellant seal which is a potential serious failure mode. The failure of the BE-4 powerpack may have been caused by unwanted propellant mixing causing an explosion. Such a failure would not have happened if BO had selected FFSC for BE-4. Hopefully they will learn their lesson and use FFSC for their next engine after BE-4 which NA will use. FFSC at BE-4's Pc should be extremely reliable.Quite true in theory.
FFSC has the potential to be much more reliable than both ORSC which the BE-4 uses and FRSC as it eliminates the interpropellant seal which is a potential serious failure mode. The failure of the BE-4 powerpack may have been caused by unwanted propellant mixing causing an explosion. Such a failure would not have happened if BO had selected FFSC for BE-4. Hopefully they will learn their lesson and use FFSC for their next engine after BE-4 which NA will use. FFSC at BE-4's Pc should be extremely reliable.Quite true in theory.
However I've seen quite a few Aerojet design studies in the archives and they really did love the FFSC cycle (along with really high O/F ratios)
Yet when Congress (through the USAF) put money on the table what did they go for?
BTW the SSME was an FRSC and in flight I don't think it ever suffered an interpropellant seal failure.
What FFSC would have done would have eliminated one of those large 300lb GHe tanks, radically improving the T/W ratio.
BTW part of their size was because the seal leakage was about 3-4x what it was forecast to be. Modern seal designs (EG the brush) can deliver the leakage rates that the SSME was originally expected to have, using the simplistic models available at the time of its initial specification.
IIRC, The SSME used a continuous flow of GHe through the turbine shaft cavities to expel preburned H to mitigated the leakage. It is one of the many reasons the engines needed extensive refurbishment between each mission and increased total weight of the orbiter due to the additional helium and tanks required. Refurbishment is not a concern with the RS-25s going into the SLS for obvious reasons. While many rocket designs utilize helium purges to remove explosive gases during shutdown, for example, it does not seem likely any modern engine developer would wish to include this type of interseal redundancy scheme.This is one of those "in theory no, in practice yes" problems that most real engines do have to do.
https://twitter.com/JeffBezos/status/908124621391618050
The tweet has nothing to do with space, but I think that's a (partially assembled) BE-4 in the background.
No such thing as a "regular" staged combustion engine. Either fuel rich, oxidizer rich, or full flow. Fuel rich, all of the fuel goes through the turbine and a small amount of it is burned with a small amount of the oxidizer, that combustion spins the pump to push oxidizer through the engine while the hot gassified fuel goes into the main combustion chamber and burns with the still liquid oxidizer. Ox rich is basically the same but the other way around. With both of these, you need an interpropellant seal because both propellants are going through the same turbopump, just on different sides, and if they interact before getting to the combustion chamber, boom. Full flow staged combustion has 2 totally separate turbopumps, where all of the fuel goes through one pump and all of the oxidizer goes through the other, excepting the tiny amount of the opposite needed by each for combustion in the turbopumps (hence, full flow), and both propellants are fully gassified when they go into the chamber. Since the propellants go through totally separate pumps, theres no need for a seal. Dual expander engines don't need a seal either for a similar reason, though to date no such engine has flown
Time for a bump. With less than a week to IAC 17, if there is significant progress (good news) on BE-4, I would expect to hear early next week. If nothing to report, I will start to be concerned. They did start the test program hardware rich.
Time for a bump. With less than a week to IAC 17, if there is significant progress (good news) on BE-4, I would expect to hear early next week. If nothing to report, I will start to be concerned. They did start the test program hardware rich.
There is no need to be worried as BO have more than enough money to afford a redesign of the BE-4 and they are not in any particular rush to do anything. Hopefully we will get something new on BE-4 during IAC2017.Time for a bump. With less than a week to IAC 17, if there is significant progress (good news) on BE-4, I would expect to hear early next week. If nothing to report, I will start to be concerned. They did start the test program hardware rich.
I think we all hope to see something new from Blue. What I think we are all worried about is that they had to make a design change that sent all of the extra hardware to the scrap bin. (i.e. maybe switching from hydrostatic bearings to more conventional ball and roller bearings like the ssme turbomachinery uses.)
Like has been stated before, only time will tell.
C
There is no need to be worried as BO have more than enough money to afford a redesign of the BE-4 and they are not in any particular rush to do anything. Hopefully we will get something new on BE-4 during IAC2017.Time for a bump. With less than a week to IAC 17, if there is significant progress (good news) on BE-4, I would expect to hear early next week. If nothing to report, I will start to be concerned. They did start the test program hardware rich.
I think we all hope to see something new from Blue. What I think we are all worried about is that they had to make a design change that sent all of the extra hardware to the scrap bin. (i.e. maybe switching from hydrostatic bearings to more conventional ball and roller bearings like the ssme turbomachinery uses.)
Like has been stated before, only time will tell.
C
But its a problem for ULA, which needs to downselect engine for Vulcan ASAP.
But its a problem for ULA, which needs to downselect engine for Vulcan ASAP.
You are right, it's times like these that big boy decisions get made and we get to see what Tory Bruno is made of :).
P.S. - I don't doubt his ability one bit, I'm watching and hope I can learn something about leadership from this...
Don't put too much stock on that. He's just as human, and the ULA "parents" are about as coldly pathological as any. He cares about the survival of ULA long term, which was why attempting BE-4 was an extremely good idea, but there's only so long that he can wait before "falling back" to AR-1 becomes necessary.
The "parents" believe they can twist AJR's arm enough, for a marginally successful ULA. Perhaps they will learn to become immune to "iocane poison"?
Meyerson: we have made “measurable progress” on BE-4 engine this year, with more engines in the pipeline. #IAC2017
Not the most effusive statement:It's like getting a "C+" on an elementary student's report card.QuoteMeyerson: we have made “measurable progress” on BE-4 engine this year, with more engines in the pipeline. #IAC2017
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/912479192444420096 (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/912479192444420096)
In a follow-up tweet Jeff clarified it’s more BE-4 engines.
Hasn't Blue been working on BE-4 longer than SpaceX has been working on Raptor?At what size? SpaceX is already in all up testing for a 1MN engine but is likely a couple years at least from the 3MN version. But Blue has a pretty good chance to be in all up testing at 2.4MN in the next year or so.
Who is closer to a finished engine right now?
Hasn't Blue been working on BE-4 longer than SpaceX has been working on Raptor?Raptor had been in testing at Stennis way before BE-4 and it wasn't even called Raptor when it started initial testing.
Who is closer to a finished engine right now?
Hasn't Blue been working on BE-4 longer than SpaceX has been working on Raptor?
Who is closer to a finished engine right now?
Have we seen this picture yet? Looks like an engine without a powerpack
(https://g.foolcdn.com/editorial/images/458165/3-be-4-engines-is-blue-origin_large.jpg)
edit: came from an article on this website: https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/10/04/jeff-bezos-has-3-customers-at-blue-origin-now-he-j.aspx (https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/10/04/jeff-bezos-has-3-customers-at-blue-origin-now-he-j.aspx)
has anyone seen anymore details on the BE-4 engine following the IAC conference, the information faucet seems to be just barely dripping right now... :'(
Jeff Foust
@jeff_foust
Smith: “soon” begin testing of BE-4 engine [after testing mishap earlier this year]
First hotfire of our BE-4 engine is a success #GradatimFerociter
QuoteFirst hotfire of our BE-4 engine is a success #GradatimFerociter
https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/921095318669873154 (https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/921095318669873154)
Blue Origin just sent a jolt through the aerospace industry
"As Joe Biden would say, this is a BFD for the space industry."
by Eric Berger - Oct 19, 2017 8:31pm BS
The significance of Blue Origin's successful engine test is pretty simple. The company basically built a huge new engine with private money.https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/921098453698121732
The main line of attack from its legacy competitor was that this new company didn't have the experience to build such a large engine.https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/921098607436226560
Well, they just took a huge step toward putting the lie to that. Seven years of hard work, and now they're on fire. Like, literally.https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/921098909090430976
Tory Bruno
@torybruno
Congratulations
Eric Berger’s write-up:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/10/blue-origin-has-successfully-tested-its-powerful-be-4-rocket-engine/ (https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/10/blue-origin-has-successfully-tested-its-powerful-be-4-rocket-engine/)
A good reminder that this is only the beginning. AR-1 will only hang around as long as the US Air Force wants it to hang around, but it seems to me a good idea to wait to shelve it until BE-4 has not only hit that full thrust mark, but racked up some serious firing time. RS-68A demonstrated 4,800 cumulative seconds on one test engine, for example. Its predecessor RS-68 took three years from first hot fire to flight certification.That's all true; however, ULA has indicated it intends to down-select by the end of the year, and it seems a foregone conclusion that they will select the BE-4 at this point. Once that happens they will move forward with vehicle design decisions that would not suit a rocket designed around the AR-1. So the cost (and delay) to switch to an AR-1 will go up progressively from then. This makes the benefit of keeping the development of AR-1 going much further seem to be rather low, barring some unanticipated new rocket that chooses to use the engine.
- Ed Kyle
Blue Origin just shared some photos of the BE-4 hot fire test. 🔥 🔥
Looks like a good, stable burn. Few artifacts, and more than enough to begin a considerable test program. Impressive even at 50% power. It wouldn't surprise if this engine surpasses RD-191 before the end of this year, and reaches 3MN before the next year is out.
Congratulations to the Blue engine team! You look like you are on the way to orbit with a fine engine that can get you there.
Tory Bruno, your hunch and going out on a limb looks like it will pay off after all. Now you have to work with Blue to get to a proven engine for Vulcan. Perhaps a nice Christmas gift is in the offing?
[...] it seems to me a good idea to wait to shelve it [the AR-1] until BE-4 has not only hit that full thrust mark, but racked up some serious firing time.I'm not a rocket designer, but if I was ULA I'd find 10 seconds at full thrust pretty convincing, much more so than full duration at any lesser power setting. Of course you need both, but at these power levels the engine should reach equilibrium pretty quickly. Running at less than full power is no guarantee the engine will survive higher, more stressful, settings. But if it runs for 10 seconds at full power, it should be more or less straightforward to make it run for 10 minutes.
It can be a flight engine if they want it
I wonder how close this is to a flight engine?
Is it still using a heat sink nozzle or is it something close to the flight engine?
I wonder how close this is to a flight engine?
Is it still using a heat sink nozzle or is it something close to the flight engine?
Is a heat-sink nozzle and a regenerative cooled nozzle not the same think?
Yes that's pretty much it.Is a heat-sink nozzle and a regenerative cooled nozzle not the same think?
I thought the regeneratively cooled nozzle specifically has the fine channels to route the liquid propellant through, to cool the nozzle. Meanwhile the heat sink nozzle would simply have heat sink drawing off the heat, without particularly involving the propellant.
Looks like a good, stable burn. Few artifacts, and more than enough to begin a considerable test program. Impressive even at 50% power. It wouldn't surprise if this engine surpasses RD-191 before the end of this year, and reaches 3MN before the next year is out.
I though they were targeting 2.45 MN as operational thrust. Is 122% a standard margin? Will they try to take it higher?
[...] it seems to me a good idea to wait to shelve it [the AR-1] until BE-4 has not only hit that full thrust mark, but racked up some serious firing time.I'm not a rocket designer, but if I was ULA I'd find 10 seconds at full thrust pretty convincing, much more so than full duration at any lesser power setting. Of course you need both, but at these power levels the engine should reach equilibrium pretty quickly. Running at less than full power is no guarantee the engine will survive higher, more stressful, settings. But if it runs for 10 seconds at full power, it should be more or less straightforward to make it run for 10 minutes.
So if I was ULA, I'd ask BO to step power first, to find any design weaknesses, so I could make a quick decision. Then they can optimize for duration.
Yes - ULA needed considerably more thrust (and margin) than Blue was originally after, thus a larger engine and fewer for NG as a result. Would also expect that they are expecting to gradually increase chamber pressure beyond afterward.
(The engine seems "over scaled" for what they want/claim for it.)
Yes - ULA needed considerably more thrust (and margin) than Blue was originally after, thus a larger engine and fewer for NG as a result. Would also expect that they are expecting to gradually increase chamber pressure beyond afterward.
(The engine seems "over scaled" for what they want/claim for it.)
I suspect they probably were originally aiming for 2X Merlin 1D thrust levels.
Yes - ULA needed considerably more thrust (and margin) than Blue was originally after, thus a larger engine and fewer for NG as a result. Would also expect that they are expecting to gradually increase chamber pressure beyond afterward.
(The engine seems "over scaled" for what they want/claim for it.)
I suspect they probably were originally aiming for 2X Merlin 1D thrust levels.
Why would Merlin thrust levels be relevant when setting BE-4 goals?
Looks like a good, stable burn. Few artifacts, and more than enough to begin a considerable test program. Impressive even at 50% power. It wouldn't surprise if this engine surpasses RD-191 before the end of this year, and reaches 3MN before the next year is out.
I though they were targeting 2.45 MN as operational thrust. Is 122% a standard margin? Will they try to take it higher?
Yes - ULA needed considerably more thrust (and margin) than Blue was originally after, thus a larger engine and fewer for NG as a result. Would also expect that they are expecting to gradually increase chamber pressure beyond afterward.
(The engine seems "over scaled" for what they want/claim for it.)
Does the portion of fuel passes through the regen-cooled nozzle also pass through the pre-burner?Usually yes.
Looks like a good, stable burn. Few artifacts, and more than enough to begin a considerable test program. Impressive even at 50% power. It wouldn't surprise if this engine surpasses RD-191 before the end of this year, and reaches 3MN before the next year is out.
I though they were targeting 2.45 MN as operational thrust. Is 122% a standard margin? Will they try to take it higher?
Yes - ULA needed considerably more thrust (and margin) than Blue was originally after, thus a larger engine and fewer for NG as a result. Would also expect that they are expecting to gradually increase chamber pressure beyond afterward.
(The engine seems "over scaled" for what they want/claim for it.)
Blue was originally targeting 400 klbf (1800 kN). They upped it to 550 klbf (2450 kN) to sell it to ULA. Why would they need to fire it at 675 klbf (3000 kN)?
Agree that it does seem oversized for 2450 kN and Blue is probably reserving performance.
Keep in mind that comparing a gas generator to ORSC, especially at this scale, isn't wise ...Looks like a good, stable burn. Few artifacts, and more than enough to begin a considerable test program. Impressive even at 50% power. It wouldn't surprise if this engine surpasses RD-191 before the end of this year, and reaches 3MN before the next year is out.
I though they were targeting 2.45 MN as operational thrust. Is 122% a standard margin? Will they try to take it higher?
Yes - ULA needed considerably more thrust (and margin) than Blue was originally after, thus a larger engine and fewer for NG as a result. Would also expect that they are expecting to gradually increase chamber pressure beyond afterward.
(The engine seems "over scaled" for what they want/claim for it.)
Blue was originally targeting 400 klbf (1800 kN). They upped it to 550 klbf (2450 kN) to sell it to ULA. Why would they need to fire it at 675 klbf (3000 kN)?
Agree that it does seem oversized for 2450 kN and Blue is probably reserving performance.
This engine does seem to have lots of upgrade potential just like the old Merlin.
Upgrading to ~200bar in a future model would have thrust in the 3.7MN range... :o
Jeff Foust
@jeff_foust
Gunderson: the first BE-4 test lasted as long as planned (although he didn’t say how long); team very excited. #vonbraun
8:34 pm · 25 Oct 2017
[...] it seems to me a good idea to wait to shelve it [the AR-1] until BE-4 has not only hit that full thrust mark, but racked up some serious firing time.I'm not a rocket designer, but if I was ULA I'd find 10 seconds at full thrust pretty convincing, much more so than full duration at any lesser power setting. Of course you need both, but at these power levels the engine should reach equilibrium pretty quickly. Running at less than full power is no guarantee the engine will survive higher, more stressful, settings. But if it runs for 10 seconds at full power, it should be more or less straightforward to make it run for 10 minutes.
So if I was ULA, I'd ask BO to step power first, to find any design weaknesses, so I could make a quick decision. Then they can optimize for duration.
QuoteJeff Foust
@jeff_foust
Gunderson: the first BE-4 test lasted as long as planned (although he didn’t say how long); team very excited. #vonbraun
8:34 pm · 25 Oct 2017
https://mobile.twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/923271615307309056
QuoteJeff Foust
@jeff_foust
Gunderson: the first BE-4 test lasted as long as planned (although he didn’t say how long); team very excited. #vonbraun
8:34 pm · 25 Oct 2017
https://mobile.twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/923271615307309056
What's the reference to #VonBraun - is this part of the nomenclature like Shepard, Glenn, Armstrong?
What's it specifically referring to?
There were some good reasons for why it took so long with RS-68, but none of those are likely here. The two aren't comparable.Wasn't RS68 the ablative cooled GG cycle LH2/LO2 for the Delta IV?
From the artifacts present, suggest chamber pressure is the limiting factor in some form at the moment.
RS-68B LRE Upgrade with regenerative cooling was shelved after i believe the Critical Design Review because Constellation program was terminated and there wasn't another rocket that needed it because it was easier to take certain components of RS-68 to make an RS-25E. This has been discussed many times and doesn't need to be repeated again.There were some good reasons for why it took so long with RS-68, but none of those are likely here. The two aren't comparable.Wasn't RS68 the ablative cooled GG cycle LH2/LO2 for the Delta IV?
From the artifacts present, suggest chamber pressure is the limiting factor in some form at the moment.
I'd guess ablative reuse would have been an issue.
Do you mean RS25, the SSME. There were 13 RUDs (of various levels of seriousness) getting it to flight. AFAIK It's still the only cryogenic SC (of any variant) to be developed in the US (before Blue and SX).
Whenever I think of human rated engines canabalized from non human rated engines I think of the J-2X, with most parts from the RS68 or the RL10.RS-68B LRE Upgrade with regenerative cooling was shelved after i believe the Critical Design Review because Constellation program was terminated and there wasn't another rocket that needed it because it was easier to take certain components of RS-68 to make an RS-25E. This has been discussed many times and doesn't need to be repeated again.There were some good reasons for why it took so long with RS-68, but none of those are likely here. The two aren't comparable.Wasn't RS68 the ablative cooled GG cycle LH2/LO2 for the Delta IV?
From the artifacts present, suggest chamber pressure is the limiting factor in some form at the moment.
I'd guess ablative reuse would have been an issue.
Do you mean RS25, the SSME. There were 13 RUDs (of various levels of seriousness) getting it to flight. AFAIK It's still the only cryogenic SC (of any variant) to be developed in the US (before Blue and SX).
Define "human rated" in a way that isn't 1) talking about an entire system (i.e. launch vehicle) or 2) cargo cult nonsense.
Good article by Eric Berger on the NDAA funding language and thus the flexibility it does, and does not, give the USAF:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/11/a-new-law-gives-air-force-some-wiggle-room-in-picking-its-new-rockets/ (https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/11/a-new-law-gives-air-force-some-wiggle-room-in-picking-its-new-rockets/)
Two crucial quotes:QuoteFurther, the bill defines “rocket propulsion system” as a main booster, first-stage rocket engine, or motor. The term does not include a launch vehicle, an upper stage, a strap-on motor, or related infrastructure.QuoteAnother provision in the bill relates to the engines under development for Vulcan. This language states that the Air Force may terminate funding for other rocket propulsion systems when “the Secretary of the Air Force certifies to the congressional defense committees that a successful full-scale test of a domestic rocket engine has occurred.”
So first stage funding is fine, but not second or other stages, and AR-1 funding can be dropped once BE-4 achieves a 'full-scale test'.
Latest BE-4 engine test footage where we exceeded our Isp targets. We continue to exercise the deep throttling of our full scale 550,000 lbf BE-4, the reusability of our hydrostatic pump bearings and our stable start/stop cycles. More to follow from ongoing tests. #BE4 #NewGlenn
Have they done full power test yet? Even for few seconds.Probably not.
Nice progress to see Blue!
You can see clear improvements across all aspects of engine operation visible.
...
Nice progress to see Blue!
You can see clear improvements across all aspects of engine operation visible.
...
Can you describe the 'improvements' that you see?
Have they done full power test yet? Even for few seconds.Probably not.
That wouldn't be a priority right now, and likely not useful. From the data accumulated, likely they can tell the bounds of engine performance they can reach.
Most important is that they determine that the engine operates like expected/model, through various conditions. Plenty to do for that.
There's many concurrent issues before you treat a propulsion system like it might be used on a LV. For you want it to work for the right reasons, not just any reason, for it to be a reliable/proven system that you need.
This is the right amount of progress, in the right way.
No, that was last spring and before they put a full scale engine on a stand.Nice progress to see Blue!
You can see clear improvements across all aspects of engine operation visible.
...
Can you describe the 'improvements' that you see?
Not blowing up? Wasn't there a breach in the power pack in the previously released information on testing?
Short article to mark these tests:
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/01/blue-origin-be-4-engine-testing/
a gigantic production facility nearly competition on Merritt Island.
Short article to mark these tests:
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/01/blue-origin-be-4-engine-testing/
Interestingly, L2 information notes Blue Origin’s BE-3E engine is making progress in a trade study being conducted at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) for use on the Space Launch System’s Exploration Upper Stage (EUS).
This option is competing against the current baseline of the RL-10 and an alternative MB-60 LOX-LH2 engine from Japan.
Compare the video's side by side.Nice progress to see Blue!
You can see clear improvements across all aspects of engine operation visible.
...
Can you describe the 'improvements' that you see?
AFAIK It's still the only cryogenic SC (of any variant) to be developed in the US (before Blue and SX).
Quote from: Chris Bergin in said short article
Interestingly, L2 information notes Blue Origin’s BE-3E engine is making progress in a trade study being conducted at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) for use on the Space Launch System’s Exploration Upper Stage (EUS).
Marking the tests, and throwing in just the slightest bit of eyebrow-raising and tree-shaking I see ;)
Quote from: Chris Bergin in said short article
Interestingly, L2 information notes Blue Origin’s BE-3E engine is making progress in a trade study being conducted at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) for use on the Space Launch System’s Exploration Upper Stage (EUS).
Marking the tests, and throwing in just the slightest bit of eyebrow-raising and tree-shaking I see ;)
Yes, what is the BE-3E. Previously we only heard about the BE-3U being worked on.
All real booster engines are overexpanded at sea level, many have the exit pressure at about 0.6 atm. This improves overall performance during flight.Was it even the case for the Shuttle SRB ? They seem slightly underexpanded since liftoff.
Yes, what is the BE-3E. Previously we only heard about the BE-3U being worked on.
They are the same engine. (or it is a very close cousin, like the RL-10 variants)
Sorry if I missed this in the discussion earlier...
Anyone know what the BE-4 nominal mixture ratio s supposed to be, compared to the Aerojet AR-1 (2.2?)?
Wouldn't that have a definite impact on tank sizing? If so, how can ULA be designing it's Vulcan booster stage, tanks and all, if it hasn't committed 100% to one engine?
Sorry if I missed this in the discussion earlier...Comparing mixture ratio is not really useful as they are using entirely different fuels, but that is already making designing Vulcan to be able to accept both engines impossible. Note that the diameter of Vulcan will also be different depending on which engine it ends up with(source (https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/04/18/ula-chief-says-blue-origin-in-drivers-seat-for-vulcan-engine-deal/)).
Anyone know what the BE-4 nominal mixture ratio s supposed to be, compared to the Aerojet AR-1 (2.2?)?
Wouldn't that have a definite impact on tank sizing? If so, how can ULA be designing it's Vulcan booster stage, tanks and all, if it hasn't committed 100% to one engine?
Which is why I'm confused that ULA doesn't seem to be in a rush to down select....
Wouldn't that have a definite impact on tank sizing? If so, how can ULA be designing it's Vulcan booster stage, tanks and all, if it hasn't committed 100% to one engine?
Easy. Double design, double CDR.
Which is why I'm confused that ULA doesn't seem to be in a rush to down select....
Wouldn't that have a definite impact on tank sizing? If so, how can ULA be designing it's Vulcan booster stage, tanks and all, if it hasn't committed 100% to one engine?
Easy. Double design, double CDR.
True, I'm basing it on a recent tweet by Jeff Foust and an article from November....
Which is why I'm confused that ULA doesn't seem to be in a rush to down select.
Who says they haven't downselected? They don't have to announce it right away.
Jeff Foust
@jeff_foust
Tshudy: no downselect yet on Vulcan engine, but anticipate it “this year.”
10:58 AM - 18 Jan 2018
Maybe E for expendable, just like the upper stage it will be used on? Which would imply that Blue would be considering reuse for their own upper stage.Or it may stand for "Exploration" as it is being considered for the Exploration Upper Stage. That may involve design specifications to accommodate longer loiter times than the BE-3U is designed for. I have seen recent images released by Bigelow on Instagram that suggest that they are considering the EUS as a propulsion block for their modular spacecraft designs.
BE-3E was originally known as BE-3U-EN (BE-3 Upper Stage - Extensible Nozzle) BE-3E is similar to the deployable nozzle on an RL-10B-2 and RL-10C-2/C-3 but with greater thrust and throttle range unless AR CECE technology is rolled into an operational RL-10 or RL-60 engine class series.Maybe E for expendable, just like the upper stage it will be used on? Which would imply that Blue would be considering reuse for their own upper stage.Or it may stand for "Exploration" as it is being considered for the Exploration Upper Stage. That may involve design specifications to accommodate longer loiter times than the BE-3U is designed for. I have seen recent images released by Bigelow on Instagram that suggest that they are considering the EUS as a propulsion block for their modular spacecraft designs.
Anyone know what the BE-4 nominal mixture ratio s supposed to be, compared to the Aerojet AR-1 (2.2?)?
From what I understand from friends I have at ULA, they are working towards a single CDR.
Or it may stand for "Exploration" as it is being considered for the Exploration Upper Stage. That may involve design specifications to accommodate longer loiter times than the BE-3U is designed for. I have seen recent images released by Bigelow on Instagram that suggest that they are considering the EUS as a propulsion block for their modular spacecraft designs.
From what I understand from friends I have at ULA, they are working towards a single CDR.
No, that is wrong. Tony Bruno reported via Twitter that CDR had begun. (https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/938594215235280896) That was well over a month ago.
Jeff Foust @jeff_foust
Jim Centore, Blue Origin: making good progress on BE-4 engine testing. Getting to longer duration [but unspecified] burn times, and multiple runs on the same engine. Continuing testing for the next several months.
Quote from: https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/968970651355709440Jeff Foust @jeff_foust
Jim Centore, Blue Origin: making good progress on BE-4 engine testing. Getting to longer duration [but unspecified] burn times, and multiple runs on the same engine. Continuing testing for the next several months.
Significance of multiple runs on same engine is that they have a) many units under test (reproducability) and b) some idea of wear on engine - critical for an ORSC that is vulnerable to significant erosion down stream of the preburner.
They are about where the earlier schedules would have put them in the September/October time frame. Good progress.
add:
It is unlikely you'd attempt a high thrust test burn, before you have long duration burns.
Long duration burns allow you to gain insight on combustion stability and thermal dissipation, in addition to obviously greater engine wear it must endure to get the duration. You determine margins and can tell thermal runaway that might happen at high thrust levels, as well as determining the chamber pressures that the engine will be operating at to obtain them.
Ninja'd in updates thread:@JeffBezos 15m15 minutes ago
1st BE-4 engine fully assembled. 2nd and 3rd following close behind. #GradatimFerociter
@JeffBezos 11m11 minutes ago
Here’s one more shot of BE-4 in its transport cradle.
How about applying the same critical eye to SpaceX and not just anything not SpaceXYou are wasting you time Jim, SpaceX fans are one eyed.
How about applying the same critical eye to SpaceX and not just anything not SpaceXAbsolutely. AncientU's post isn't fair, or based of understanding, or inquiring why.
(Note - my post above was meant to synopsize success. Meant to "buffer" ignorant criticism with some insight, in an area one cannot "teach" in posts. Perhaps I shouldn't, if it's going to be used as a means to attack by rhetorically picking from it to concoct a negative.)
Again, they have made good progress with BE-4, and I wish them well in hoping to hear more success in testing.
More than six years into developmentfrom the horse's mouth (https://www.blueorigin.com/BE4)
BE-4 is already more than six years into development, fully funded, and will be flight qualified in 2018 – at least two years ahead of the alternative engine option. BE-4 component testing has already been underway for more than four years and full engine testing will begin soon.
Ready in 2019
BE-4 is the only engine that can fly by 2019, meeting the congressionally mandated deadline to eliminate dependence on Russian-built engines. The alternative engine option is multiple years behind and could not be integrated into a launch vehicle until at least 2021, extending our dependence on Russian engines well beyond 2019.
How about applying the same critical eye to SpaceX and not just anything not SpaceXAbsolutely. AncientU's post isn't fair, or based of understanding, or inquiring why.
(Note - my post above was meant to synopsize success. Meant to "buffer" ignorant criticism with some insight, in an area one cannot "teach" in posts. Perhaps I shouldn't, if it's going to be used as a means to attack by rhetorically picking from it to concoct a negative.)
...
QuoteMore than six years into developmentfrom the horse's mouth (https://www.blueorigin.com/BE4)
BE-4 is already more than six years into development, fully funded, and will be flight qualified in 2018 – at least two years ahead of the alternative engine option. BE-4 component testing has already been underway for more than four years and full engine testing will begin soon.
Ready in 2019
BE-4 is the only engine that can fly by 2019, meeting the congressionally mandated deadline to eliminate dependence on Russian-built engines. The alternative engine option is multiple years behind and could not be integrated into a launch vehicle until at least 2021, extending our dependence on Russian engines well beyond 2019.
I presume "in the next couple of months" refers to the expectation it will be flight qualified by the end of 2018. Which seems credible given the full scale version has already hot fired multiple times and the engines has been in development for over six years. There will be delays just like everything else, but probably on the order of months, not years.
The real question is when can this engine be flight qualified? 2018 was estimate as of over a year ago... is it still a viable target date?Yes they can. It will be late. IMHO doubt 2020. Others will be late too, as before. So what.
The real question is when can this engine be flight qualified? 2018 was estimate as of over a year ago... is it still a viable target date?Yes they can. It will be late. IMHO doubt 2020. Others will be late too, as before. So what.
It's not a "design flaw" issue here. It's a gradual proving by "mm, degrees, milliseconds, ..." issue. Then some refinements.
Wash. Rinse. Repeat. Just no "booms". Same is true for Raptor.
The only useless boom is the one you don't learn from.Booms can destroy that which you need to learn from. Indiscriminate. Too easily.
...
add:
And to put the shoe on the other foot, we've heard twice now on BE-4 testing, but nothing more on Raptor. Aren't we overdue on a SX report on how Raptor is doing? Unless it's sliding into "Musk time dilation"? By now they should have finished 1/3 scale Raptor tests, and be fabricating a full scale along with an test stand that can handle such. Hello? Where is it?
...
add:
And to put the shoe on the other foot, we've heard twice now on BE-4 testing, but nothing more on Raptor. Aren't we overdue on a SX report on how Raptor is doing? Unless it's sliding into "Musk time dilation"? By now they should have finished 1/3 scale Raptor tests, and be fabricating a full scale along with an test stand that can handle such. Hello? Where is it?
Not like you to low value post...
But, since you asked, I was wondering the same.
We saw first raptor burn at IAC2016.
Next we heard was at IAC 2017... 42 tests, 1,200s cumulative over the first year of testing.
We've also heard testing continues this year.
We may have to wait until IAC 2018 to get next quantitative status.
Been told to post less frequent/depth, be more crisp and balanced with inconsistent rivals, limiting details. Hard.When I see a large post from Space Ghost I look forward to reading it. It forces me to slow down and digest what is written. Sometimes the longer post is easier to write than a short concise message.
Been told to post less frequent/depth, be more crisp and balanced with inconsistent rivals, limiting details. Hard.
Been told to post less frequent/depth, be more crisp and balanced with inconsistent rivals, limiting details. Hard.
Been told to post less frequent/depth, be more crisp and balanced with inconsistent rivals, limiting details. Hard.We would prefer you post just as much as before please ignore whoever said that.
...
add:
And to put the shoe on the other foot, we've heard twice now on BE-4 testing, but nothing more on Raptor. Aren't we overdue on a SX report on how Raptor is doing? Unless it's sliding into "Musk time dilation"? By now they should have finished 1/3 scale Raptor tests, and be fabricating a full scale along with an test stand that can handle such. Hello? Where is it?
Not like you to low value post...
But, since you asked, I was wondering the same.
We saw first raptor burn at IAC2016.
Next we heard was at IAC 2017... 42 tests, 1,200s cumulative over the first year of testing.
We've also heard testing continues this year.
We may have to wait until IAC 2018 to get next quantitative status.
...
add:
And to put the shoe on the other foot, we've heard twice now on BE-4 testing, but nothing more on Raptor. Aren't we overdue on a SX report on how Raptor is doing? Unless it's sliding into "Musk time dilation"? By now they should have finished 1/3 scale Raptor tests, and be fabricating a full scale along with an test stand that can handle such. Hello? Where is it?
Not like you to low value post...
But, since you asked, I was wondering the same.
We saw first raptor burn at IAC2016.
Next we heard was at IAC 2017... 42 tests, 1,200s cumulative over the first year of testing.
We've also heard testing continues this year.
We may have to wait until IAC 2018 to get next quantitative status.
Can I ask you a very simple question why do you think you’re entitled to know anything at this stage in the development of the BE-4?
In my opinion Blue Origin don’t owe anyone outside of themselves, their relevant commercial partners and the USAF in the case of Vulcan anything information wise on the progression of the BE-4.
...
add:
And to put the shoe on the other foot, we've heard twice now on BE-4 testing, but nothing more on Raptor. Aren't we overdue on a SX report on how Raptor is doing? Unless it's sliding into "Musk time dilation"? By now they should have finished 1/3 scale Raptor tests, and be fabricating a full scale along with an test stand that can handle such. Hello? Where is it?
Not like you to low value post...
But, since you asked, I was wondering the same.
We saw first raptor burn at IAC2016.
Next we heard was at IAC 2017... 42 tests, 1,200s cumulative over the first year of testing.
We've also heard testing continues this year.
We may have to wait until IAC 2018 to get next quantitative status.
Can I ask you a very simple question why do you think you’re entitled to know anything at this stage in the development of the BE-4?
In my opinion Blue Origin don’t owe anyone outside of themselves, their relevant commercial partners and the USAF in the case of Vulcan anything information wise on the progression of the BE-4.
I've never said or implied that I or anyone else is entitled* to this information.
What's your source of this snark?
* Doesn't mean we aren't interested and ready to grab any bits that fall to the floor.
...
add:
And to put the shoe on the other foot, we've heard twice now on BE-4 testing, but nothing more on Raptor. Aren't we overdue on a SX report on how Raptor is doing? Unless it's sliding into "Musk time dilation"? By now they should have finished 1/3 scale Raptor tests, and be fabricating a full scale along with an test stand that can handle such. Hello? Where is it?
Not like you to low value post...
But, since you asked, I was wondering the same.
We saw first raptor burn at IAC2016.
Next we heard was at IAC 2017... 42 tests, 1,200s cumulative over the first year of testing.
We've also heard testing continues this year.
We may have to wait until IAC 2018 to get next quantitative status.
Can I ask you a very simple question why do you think you’re entitled to know anything at this stage in the development of the BE-4?
In my opinion Blue Origin don’t owe anyone outside of themselves, their relevant commercial partners and the USAF in the case of Vulcan anything information wise on the progression of the BE-4.
I've never said or implied that I or anyone else is entitled* to this information.
What's your source of this snark?
* Doesn't mean we aren't interested and ready to grab any bits that fall to the floor.
The source of my so called snark is the seeming expectation for all commercial companies in this sector to act in the same PR led way that Space X does. Leading by PR often leads to things like hyperbole and unrealistic delivery dates for products. Maybe in this case less is more?
...
add:
And to put the shoe on the other foot, we've heard twice now on BE-4 testing, but nothing more on Raptor. Aren't we overdue on a SX report on how Raptor is doing? Unless it's sliding into "Musk time dilation"? By now they should have finished 1/3 scale Raptor tests, and be fabricating a full scale along with an test stand that can handle such. Hello? Where is it?
Not like you to low value post...
But, since you asked, I was wondering the same.
We saw first raptor burn at IAC2016.
Next we heard was at IAC 2017... 42 tests, 1,200s cumulative over the first year of testing.
We've also heard testing continues this year.
We may have to wait until IAC 2018 to get next quantitative status.
Can I ask you a very simple question why do you think you’re entitled to know anything at this stage in the development of the BE-4?
In my opinion Blue Origin don’t owe anyone outside of themselves, their relevant commercial partners and the USAF in the case of Vulcan anything information wise on the progression of the BE-4.
I've never said or implied that I or anyone else is entitled* to this information.
What's your source of this snark?
* Doesn't mean we aren't interested and ready to grab any bits that fall to the floor.
The source of my so called snark is the seeming expectation for all commercial companies in this sector to act in the same PR led way that Space X does. Leading by PR often leads to things like hyperbole and unrealistic delivery dates for products. Maybe in this case less is more?
However it's old school government contractors that say next to nothing about their developments (I'm thinking AJRD). Even though they are a publically traded company, and their shares are highly driven by public opinion, they don't seem to do much PR compared to SpaceX, BO, or RL. Or at least effective PR. Press release here and there about hot fires of RS-25, and may be one tiny snippet about AR-1 every year or so.
You can't find any information online on some of their defunct programs from the past.
At least the SpaceX minimal update was more informative.
We saw first raptor burn at IAC2016.
Next we heard was at IAC 2017... 42 tests, 1,200s cumulative over the first year of testing.
At least the SpaceX minimal update was more informative.
We saw first raptor burn at IAC2016.
Next we heard was at IAC 2017... 42 tests, 1,200s cumulative over the first year of testing.
42 tests (and assuming at most 4 test engines) implies at least one engine ran 10 times.
1200 seconds total (and 42 tests) implies that at least one engine ran for at least 29 seconds. That's enough time to reach steady state operation and thermal equilibrium for most components.
The BE-4 update does not support even these minimal milestones of progress.
Here’s why the imminent test of Jeff Bezos’ BE-4 rocket engine is a huge dealhttps://arstechnica.com/science/2017/03/heres-why-the-imminent-test-of-jeff-bezos-be-4-rocket-engine-is-a-huge-deal/
Blue has had a full scale engine for a year (announced with pictures 3/6/17). March 2107 announcements were that hot fire was imminent.QuoteHere’s why the imminent test of Jeff Bezos’ BE-4 rocket engine is a huge dealhttps://arstechnica.com/science/2017/03/heres-why-the-imminent-test-of-jeff-bezos-be-4-rocket-engine-is-a-huge-deal/
This is comparable to the first year of Raptor's existence (shown at IAC 2016 -- fired days before).
So, even though Raptor testing began 6-7 months before BE-4, the comparison of year one for each engine is valid*.
Blue has had a full scale engine for a year (announced with pictures 3/6/17). March 2107 announcements were that hot fire was imminent.QuoteHere’s why the imminent test of Jeff Bezos’ BE-4 rocket engine is a huge dealhttps://arstechnica.com/science/2017/03/heres-why-the-imminent-test-of-jeff-bezos-be-4-rocket-engine-is-a-huge-deal/
This is comparable to the first year of Raptor's existence (shown at IAC 2016 -- fired days before).
So, even though Raptor testing began 6-7 months before BE-4, the comparison of year one for each engine is valid*.
That is nonsense. Raptor began test fires of a full engine an entire year before BE-4.
Blue has had a full scale engine for a year (announced with pictures 3/6/17). March 2107 announcements were that hot fire was imminent.QuoteHere’s why the imminent test of Jeff Bezos’ BE-4 rocket engine is a huge dealhttps://arstechnica.com/science/2017/03/heres-why-the-imminent-test-of-jeff-bezos-be-4-rocket-engine-is-a-huge-deal/
This is comparable to the first year of Raptor's existence (shown at IAC 2016 -- fired days before).
So, even though Raptor testing began 6-7 months before BE-4, the comparison of year one for each engine is valid*.
That is nonsense. Raptor began test fires of a full engine an entire year before BE-4.
Because it spent a lot more time between shipping out of the factory and first fire for some reason.
We don't know how long Raptor sat on the test stand before it was fired for the first time.
March 2107 announcements were that hot fire was imminent.I know they're slow, but not that slow.
Raptor began test fires of a full engine an entire year before BE-4.I think that SpaceX has been test firing a sub-scale Raptor, probably not a flight-type engine, and we haven't seen that engine in months.
BE-4 is undergoing full-scale testing of nearly-flight-type hardware, as I understand things.
- Ed Kyle
Raptor and BE4 engines are not competiting against each other. The LVs that use them might compete for payloads.
BE4 vs AR1 now that is a race for Vulcan. Although BE4 can't really loss as will fly in NG regardless of outcome.
Anyone have a quote from Blue that this is a flight engine?Brett Alexander (Director of Business Development and Strategy for Blue Origin) stated that the engine being tested is flight weight (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lftY2-NKX0E?t=5h32m33s).
Great news:QuoteBob Smith, Blue Origin: making good progress on BE-4 engine. Recently had 114-second firing at 65% power. #SatShowhttps://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/973297209860153349
This seems like it has taken them a considerable amount of time to get to that point. Has there been any tests at full power yet?I think as spectators we're just impatient. They are light years ahead of the competition and Blue is super serious about the Gradatim in "Gradatim Ferociter."
Really? They look to be a good 6 months behind Raptor. Did you mean AR-1? If so, I agree.This seems like it has taken them a considerable amount of time to get to that point. Has there been any tests at full power yet?I think as spectators we're just impatient. They are light years ahead of the competition and Blue is super serious about the Gradatim in "Gradatim Ferociter."
Yeah, I meant AR1 which is supposedly in an actual competition with BE-4 and yet AFAICT they are still testing engine components. I wasn't being snarky when I said they take the Gradatim seriously. I just meant that they will won't rush or take any shortcuts to hurry.Really? They look to be a good 6 months behind Raptor. Did you mean AR-1? If so, I agree.This seems like it has taken them a considerable amount of time to get to that point. Has there been any tests at full power yet?I think as spectators we're just impatient. They are light years ahead of the competition and Blue is super serious about the Gradatim in "Gradatim Ferociter."
(Not that I'm worried about Blue. As you say, Blue will take their time. But they're taking a very good technical approach and they have a VERY large and infinitely patient funding source.)
I think this should be in here to:114 seconds is an interesting number. It's much longer than it takes to get to steady state flows and operation, but less than a full duration firing. I can't see any reason to plan a test of this length. So it seems likely this was intended to be full duration, but they ran into a red-line somewhere and the test was cut off.Great news:QuoteBob Smith, Blue Origin: making good progress on BE-4 engine. Recently had 114-second firing at 65% power. #SatShowhttps://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/973297209860153349
114 seconds is an interesting number. It's much longer than it takes to get to steady state flows and operation, but less than a full duration firing. I can't see any reason to plan a test of this length. So it seems likely this was intended to be full duration, but they ran into a red-line somewhere and the test was cut off.
114 seconds is an interesting number. It's much longer than it takes to get to steady state flows and operation, but less than a full duration firing. I can't see any reason to plan a test of this length. So it seems likely this was intended to be full duration, but they ran into a red-line somewhere and the test was cut off.
Raptor tests are limited by the size of the propellant tanks at the test stand. Do we know how long of a burn the Blue test stand would support?
While nothing is known about the stand, I'd be extremely surprised if ULA (and Blue themselves) dd not demand a series of full power, full duration burns. So if this stand can't do this, they must be planning another test stand with bigger tanks. But that seems like un-needed duplication, so I'd be very surprised if tank limits were the cause of the short duration. Of course it's possible that bigger tanks are on order, or the tanks were not full, etc., but that seems unlikely to me.No. There is virtually nothing publically known about Blue's BE-4 test stand.114 seconds is an interesting number. It's much longer than it takes to get to steady state flows and operation, but less than a full duration firing. I can't see any reason to plan a test of this length. So it seems likely this was intended to be full duration, but they ran into a red-line somewhere and the test was cut off.Raptor tests are limited by the size of the propellant tanks at the test stand. Do we know how long of a burn the Blue test stand would support?
Presumably it is this stand?Vulcan first stage is supposed to be something like 5.4m diameter and 32 meters long. That's 732 m^3, or about 368 m^3 per engine.
link (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/West+Texas+Suborbital+Launch+Site/@31.4296702,-104.7198876,173m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x86e5cc0b9031e3c7:0xb0d4dcff3a06f329!8m2!3d31.422927!4d-104.757152)
Though I'm not sure what can be gleaned from that ...
Presumably it is this stand?Vulcan first stage is supposed to be something like 5.4m diameter and 32 meters long. That's 732 m^3, or about 368 m^3 per engine.
link (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/West+Texas+Suborbital+Launch+Site/@31.4296702,-104.7198876,173m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x86e5cc0b9031e3c7:0xb0d4dcff3a06f329!8m2!3d31.422927!4d-104.757152)
Though I'm not sure what can be gleaned from that ...
The test stand has 4 tanks that look like 3.66 m by 20 meters, and one slightly smaller (3.2 by 17m ?). That's 210 m^3 each for the big tanks. Even allowing for insulation, etc, it would appear the tanks are big enough to support a full duration burn.
New test video of Blue’s 550K lbf thrust, ox-rich staged combustion, LNG-fueled BE-4 engine. The test is a mixture ratio sweep at 65% power level and 114 seconds in duration. Methane (or LNG) has proved to be an outstanding fuel choice. @BlueOrigin #GradatimFerociter
Presumably it is this stand?
link (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/West+Texas+Suborbital+Launch+Site/@31.4296702,-104.7198876,173m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x86e5cc0b9031e3c7:0xb0d4dcff3a06f329!8m2!3d31.422927!4d-104.757152)
Though I'm not sure what can be gleaned from that ...
QuoteNew test video of Blue’s 550K lbf thrust, ox-rich staged combustion, LNG-fueled BE-4 engine. The test is a mixture ratio sweep at 65% power level and 114 seconds in duration. Methane (or LNG) has proved to be an outstanding fuel choice. @BlueOrigin #GradatimFerociter
https://twitter.com/jeffbezos/status/973696994332983299
Edit: video added
Also, I understood most of that, but what does "mixture ratio sweep" mean?
Also, I understood most of that, but what does "mixture ratio sweep" mean?
The mixture ratio is referring the oxidiser mass rate to fuel mass rate ratio. With methalox that varies from about 3.5 to 3.8. Some rocket engines have the ability to vary the mixture ratio. The sweep will vary the mixture ratio from the minimum value (most fuel rich) to the maximum value (most oxidiser rich) during the rocket burn.
So, 3.5 for maximum isp and 3.8 for maximum impulse density and thrust?
What is the reason the maximum is about 3.8, not 4 to get all the methane burned? Would be too corrosive for the chamber and nozzle, or something else?
That is the New Shepard launch site. The BE-4 test stand is 3-4km ENE of that launch pad I believe.
Presumably it is this stand?Vulcan first stage is supposed to be something like 5.4m diameter and 32 meters long. That's 732 m^3, or about 368 m^3 per engine.
link (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/West+Texas+Suborbital+Launch+Site/@31.4296702,-104.7198876,173m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x86e5cc0b9031e3c7:0xb0d4dcff3a06f329!8m2!3d31.422927!4d-104.757152)
Though I'm not sure what can be gleaned from that ...
The test stand has 4 tanks that look like 3.66 m by 20 meters, and one slightly smaller (3.2 by 17m ?). That's 210 m^3 each for the big tanks. Even allowing for insulation, etc, it would appear the tanks are big enough to support a full duration burn.
Don't you want to look at just the two vertical tanks on the stand itself? It looks like they are suspended in cages so they can weigh the propellant to measure flow rate. Though perhaps all the tanks could be used if you just wanted to get max duration.
QuoteNew test video of Blue’s 550K lbf thrust, ox-rich staged combustion, LNG-fueled BE-4 engine. The test is a mixture ratio sweep at 65% power level and 114 seconds in duration. Methane (or LNG) has proved to be an outstanding fuel choice. @BlueOrigin #GradatimFerociter
https://twitter.com/jeffbezos/status/973696994332983299
Edit: video added
So if we have 65% of 2400 kN thrust and 311 Isp then we can calculate:
Ve = 311*9.8 = 3048 m/s
F = 0.65*2400 = 1560 kN
F = mdot * Ve --> mdot = 1560000/3048 = 511.8 kg/s
A 114 second firing should then use 58346 kg of propellants .. which is probably off because they were doing a mixture sweep.
Anybody want to make a stab at how this relates to the size of the tanks seen in the google sat image posted a bit earlier?
Vulcan first stage is supposed to be something like 5.4m diameter and 32 meters long. That's 732 m^3, or about 368 m^3 per engine.
The test stand has 4 tanks that look like 3.66 m by 20 meters, and one slightly smaller (3.2 by 17m ?). That's 210 m^3 each for the big tanks. Even allowing for insulation, etc, it would appear the tanks are big enough to support a full duration burn.
Keep in mind the substantially different chamber pressures, and the fact that one does not have a seal.
Presumably it is this stand?
link (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/West+Texas+Suborbital+Launch+Site/@31.4296702,-104.7198876,173m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x86e5cc0b9031e3c7:0xb0d4dcff3a06f329!8m2!3d31.422927!4d-104.757152)
Though I'm not sure what can be gleaned from that ...
Replying to @timmermansr @SierraNevCorp @blueorigin
Although in lesser scale than in 2017, @blueorigin is also visibly present this year
https://mobile.twitter.com/blueorigin/status/863881495169048576
They blew up a powerpack, not a full engine.
Didn't they have one that blew up before that in summer? Lost 3 months repairing the test stand?
So isn't this the first successfully hotfired one? Its little details like this that annoy with BO (and Bezos in general). "It never happened ..."
BTW great pics HMX, couldn't come this year, you know exactly where to frame what we need to see here.
Looks like some of the preburner assembly and manifold have been redesigned since I last saw the side mounted TP version from the top mount.
Didn't they have one that blew up before that in summer? Lost 3 months repairing the test stand?
So isn't this the first successfully hotfired one? Its little details like this that annoy with BO (and Bezos in general). "It never happened ..."
BTW great pics HMX, couldn't come this year, you know exactly where to frame what we need to see here.
Looks like some of the preburner assembly and manifold have been redesigned since I last saw the side mounted TP version from the top mount.
add:
Perfectly illustrates why I dislike BO's/Bezos communications:
https://mobile.twitter.com/blueorigin/status/863881495169048576
They blew up a powerpack, not a full engine.
They tested the powerpack ahead of engine arrival many times at rated flow. They got the engine on the test stand for first firing. The powerpack failed while bringing up the engine. They blamed the powerpack. The test stand was damaged. If the test stand is damaged, so is the engine.
Exactly the two-bit shit I despise that this enables. And it's in no way "being excellent to each other" here. And evasion of the truth as far as we can attempt to prove it with the tidbits released, which are sometimes editted/deleted. To make somebody look better than they are. Earns my ire. Not worth a post.
Its a nice designed engine though.
They tested the powerpack ahead of engine arrival many times at rated flow. They got the engine on the test stand for first firing. The powerpack failed while bringing up the engine. They blamed the powerpack. The test stand was damaged. If the test stand is damaged, so is the engine.
Exactly the two-bit shit I despise that this enables. And it's in no way "being excellent to each other" here. And evasion of the truth as far as we can attempt to prove it with the tidbits released, which are sometimes editted/deleted. To make somebody look better than they are. Earns my ire. Not worth a post.
Its a nice designed engine though.
False.
They tested the powerpack ahead of engine arrival many times at rated flow. They got the engine on the test stand for first firing. The powerpack failed while bringing up the engine. They blamed the powerpack. The test stand was damaged. If the test stand is damaged, so is the engine.
Exactly the two-bit shit I despise that this enables. And it's in no way "being excellent to each other" here. And evasion of the truth as far as we can attempt to prove it with the tidbits released, which are sometimes editted/deleted. To make somebody look better than they are. Earns my ire. Not worth a post.
Its a nice designed engine though.
You are inferring a lot without any evidence.
What makes you think that the powerpack was attached to the engine when it failed?
Why would they publicly announce that they had a powerpack failure, but then lie about whether or not the engine was involved?Because a powerpack can be a failure of an engine as well as being a seperate test.
Isn't the simpler answer that the powerpack failed during powerpack testing (without the engine), which then delayed the first engine hot fire until October?They chose to omit details, as well as didn't illustrate the extent of a multi month repair.
And you don't need to know.
False.
You are inferring a lot without any evidence.
They made multiple announcements about the powerpack ahead of arrival of engines on site.
They indicated that the engine was to be given first hotfire then.QuoteWhat makes you think that the powerpack was attached to the engine when it failed?
That they said so prior?
And you don't need to know.
And they don't need to "look good" either. Another two bit move that makes them look like a "fly by night" group. Hurrah.
Stage combustion engines are so integrated don't quite understand how testing the powerpack as a whole on its own (not components) works. Still need something to control the back pressure if its not going through the MCC injector, also without the nozzle less pressure drop on the fuel side. The IPD seemed to include everything down to a short nozzle. So don't really see a huge difference between losing a powerpack and losing an engine.Here is a post discussing J2X powerpack testing. A powerpack is not a full engine.
Stage combustion engines are so integrated don't quite understand how testing the powerpack as a whole on its own (not components) works. Still need something to control the back pressure if its not going through the MCC injector, also without the nozzle less pressure drop on the fuel side. The IPD seemed to include everything down to a short nozzle. So don't really see a huge difference between losing a powerpack and losing an engine.Here is a post discussing J2X powerpack testing. A powerpack is not a full engine.
https://blogs.nasa.gov/J2X/2012/02/21/post_1329851305074/
Blue Origin CEO Bob Smith BE4 will be able to launch 100 missions
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/18/blue-origin-ceo-bob-smith-be-4-will-be-able-to-launch-100-missions.html
Is 100 'full starts' equivalent to 100 missions then? That would allow no pre-launch testing (stand testing before integration and/or static firing) or restarts during descent, confirming our supposition that the EDL could be totally passive aero-breaking.
Would you be willing to take a few of the great images you posted of the BE-4 and annotate with as much detail as you can? Is someone willing to start an "Anatomy of the BE-4 Engine" thread where such marked up images / diagrams live? Would love to see that, along with equivalent threads for Merlin 1D and Raptor and... So not a discussion thread but rather a visual description thread.Stage combustion engines are so integrated don't quite understand how testing the powerpack as a whole on its own (not components) works. Still need something to control the back pressure if its not going through the MCC injector, also without the nozzle less pressure drop on the fuel side. The IPD seemed to include everything down to a short nozzle. So don't really see a huge difference between losing a powerpack and losing an engine.Here is a post discussing J2X powerpack testing. A powerpack is not a full engine.
https://blogs.nasa.gov/J2X/2012/02/21/post_1329851305074/ (https://blogs.nasa.gov/J2X/2012/02/21/post_1329851305074/)
In the case of an engine like the BE-4, the "powerpack" really is almost the whole engine, as it includes the preburner, TPA and likely also the main chamber injector (to get the appropriate pressure drop). All of the main chamber m-dot of LOX is flowing through the TPA and the preburner. Generally all that is lacking would be the main chamber and nozzle. The J-2X is a gas generator cycle which is really not comparable to BE-4 since only about 2% of the overall engine m-dot is being consumed.
Edit: typo
Would you be willing to take a few of the great images you posted of the BE-4 and annotate with as much detail as you can? Is someone willing to start an "Anatomy of the BE-4 Engine" thread where such marked up images / diagrams live? Would love to see that, along with equivalent threads for Merlin 1D and Raptor and... So not a discussion thread but rather a visual description thread.Stage combustion engines are so integrated don't quite understand how testing the powerpack as a whole on its own (not components) works. Still need something to control the back pressure if its not going through the MCC injector, also without the nozzle less pressure drop on the fuel side. The IPD seemed to include everything down to a short nozzle. So don't really see a huge difference between losing a powerpack and losing an engine.Here is a post discussing J2X powerpack testing. A powerpack is not a full engine.
https://blogs.nasa.gov/J2X/2012/02/21/post_1329851305074/ (https://blogs.nasa.gov/J2X/2012/02/21/post_1329851305074/)
In the case of an engine like the BE-4, the "powerpack" really is almost the whole engine, as it includes the preburner, TPA and likely also the main chamber injector (to get the appropriate pressure drop). All of the main chamber m-dot of LOX is flowing through the TPA and the preburner. Generally all that is lacking would be the main chamber and nozzle. The J-2X is a gas generator cycle which is really not comparable to BE-4 since only about 2% of the overall engine m-dot is being consumed.
Edit: typo
Blue Origin expects BE-4 qualification tests to be done by year’s end
“We continue to roll through our test program and hope to qualify that engine by the end of the year,” he said. “We’re walking our way through that just to make sure we understand and characterize the engine fully.”http://spacenews.com/blue-origin-expects-be-4-qualification-tests-to-be-done-by-years-end/
Would you be willing to take a few of the great images you posted of the BE-4 and annotate with as much detail as you can? Is someone willing to start an "Anatomy of the BE-4 Engine" thread where such marked up images / diagrams live? Would love to see that, along with equivalent threads for Merlin 1D and Raptor and... So not a discussion thread but rather a visual description thread.Stage combustion engines are so integrated don't quite understand how testing the powerpack as a whole on its own (not components) works. Still need something to control the back pressure if its not going through the MCC injector, also without the nozzle less pressure drop on the fuel side. The IPD seemed to include everything down to a short nozzle. So don't really see a huge difference between losing a powerpack and losing an engine.Here is a post discussing J2X powerpack testing. A powerpack is not a full engine.
https://blogs.nasa.gov/J2X/2012/02/21/post_1329851305074/ (https://blogs.nasa.gov/J2X/2012/02/21/post_1329851305074/)
In the case of an engine like the BE-4, the "powerpack" really is almost the whole engine, as it includes the preburner, TPA and likely also the main chamber injector (to get the appropriate pressure drop). All of the main chamber m-dot of LOX is flowing through the TPA and the preburner. Generally all that is lacking would be the main chamber and nozzle. The J-2X is a gas generator cycle which is really not comparable to BE-4 since only about 2% of the overall engine m-dot is being consumed.
Edit: typo
It's a question of time. Crazy busy running two nonprofits, and three companies.
Hopefully someone else who is knowledgeable (and there are plenty on this forum) can step in and do it. If nothing shows up by the weekend, I'll revisit.
(I do believe someone has already done this for Raptor and 1D, by the way...)
So I did have a few minutes to cobble together some captions. In my haste I may have missed or mislabeled something, so corrections welcome.
Blue Origin CEO says next-gen BE-4 rocket engine meets technical requirements
BY ALAN BOYLE on April 19, 2018 at 3:30 pm
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. — For years, there’s been a big question surrounding the next-generation BE-4 rocket engine that’s being built by Amazon billionaire Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin space venture: Will it be good enough for United Launch Alliance, a crucial prospective customer?
Now Blue Origin CEO Bob Smith says the BE-4 has passed all of the technical tests required for ULA to sign onto a production contract.
A few questions about the engine:
There seem to be at least 4 different materials, or at least surface finishes - dark grey (lox boost pump), medium grey (fuel valve), light grey (fuel manifold), and shiny. A special material for the pre-burner, turbine, and pre-burner exhaust makes sense, since these need to resist hot oxygen gas. Are the others all different materials, or just different finishes? If different materials, why?
Nothing in the structure looks flexible. I'd assume this means some sort of flexible line before the intake ports that we see, and the entire engine moves as a unit when gimballed. Is this correct?
So I did have a few minutes to cobble together some captions. In my haste I may have missed or mislabeled something, so corrections welcome.
Great job! Minor nit. The arrow for the LOX High Pressure Discharge in Slide 2 is out of place. I've lightened up the image so that you can see the details better.
So where is the LNG boost pump? Is it not needed?
At least some Russian engines work differently, I think. Since they have one turbopump and several nozzles, and they want the nozzles to gimbal independently (for roll control, for example) the pump are fixed to the frame and the nozzles move.A few questions about the engine:
There seem to be at least 4 different materials, or at least surface finishes - dark grey (lox boost pump), medium grey (fuel valve), light grey (fuel manifold), and shiny. A special material for the pre-burner, turbine, and pre-burner exhaust makes sense, since these need to resist hot oxygen gas. Are the others all different materials, or just different finishes? If different materials, why?
Nothing in the structure looks flexible. I'd assume this means some sort of flexible line before the intake ports that we see, and the entire engine moves as a unit when gimballed. Is this correct?
Yes. That's how it is mostly done with gimballing rocket engines.
QuoteBlue Origin CEO says next-gen BE-4 rocket engine meets technical requirements
BY ALAN BOYLE on April 19, 2018 at 3:30 pm
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. — For years, there’s been a big question surrounding the next-generation BE-4 rocket engine that’s being built by Amazon billionaire Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin space venture: Will it be good enough for United Launch Alliance, a crucial prospective customer?
Now Blue Origin CEO Bob Smith says the BE-4 has passed all of the technical tests required for ULA to sign onto a production contract.
https://www.geekwire.com/2018/blue-origin-ceo-says-next-gen-4-rocket-engine-meets-technical-requirements/
So I did have a few minutes to cobble together some captions. In my haste I may have missed or mislabeled something, so corrections welcome.
Great job! Minor nit. The arrow for the LOX High Pressure Discharge in Slide 2 is out of place. I've lightened up the image so that you can see the details better.
So where is the LNG boost pump? Is it not needed?
Ah, thanks, fixed.
As for the LNG boost pump, like you I noted it wasn't there but don't know why.
So I did have a few minutes to cobble together some captions. In my haste I may have missed or mislabeled something, so corrections welcome.
Great job! Minor nit. The arrow for the LOX High Pressure Discharge in Slide 2 is out of place. I've lightened up the image so that you can see the details better.
So where is the LNG boost pump? Is it not needed?
Ah, thanks, fixed.
As for the LNG boost pump, like you I noted it wasn't there but don't know why.
What if what you pointed out at the PB injector isn't actually it, but is buried downstream that within the gray cast structure? That preburner is inline with the main TP shaft and the pressures at the main discharge doesn't make sense...
What if that jacket of cold LOX helps with something...
Hmm...
I'm thinking a kick pump is integrated into the inlet to the preburner assembly where you point to as the injector. The bolt patterns seem to indicate that there is a part bolted internally.
So I did have a few minutes to cobble together some captions. In my haste I may have missed or mislabeled something, so corrections welcome.
Great job! Minor nit. The arrow for the LOX High Pressure Discharge in Slide 2 is out of place. I've lightened up the image so that you can see the details better.
So where is the LNG boost pump? Is it not needed?
Ah, thanks, fixed.
As for the LNG boost pump, like you I noted it wasn't there but don't know why.
What if what you pointed out at the PB injector isn't actually it, but is buried downstream that within the gray cast structure? That preburner is inline with the main TP shaft and the pressures at the main discharge doesn't make sense...
What if that jacket of cold LOX helps with something...
Hmm...
I'm thinking a kick pump is integrated into the inlet to the preburner assembly where you point to as the injector. The bolt patterns seem to indicate that there is a part bolted internally.
There is already a LOX boost pump labeled, so I don't see any need for one at the inlet of the PB. The PB will have an injector, a short combustion chamber (operating at perhaps 700°F±100) and a turbine to drive the single-shaft main propellant pumps. The apparent PB length is just sufficient to provide space for those items. Sometimes this cycle of engine will have a fuel kick pump (as is the case for the NK-33) but I don't see one in the BE-4 layout.
QuoteBlue Origin CEO says next-gen BE-4 rocket engine meets technical requirements
BY ALAN BOYLE on April 19, 2018 at 3:30 pm
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. — For years, there’s been a big question surrounding the next-generation BE-4 rocket engine that’s being built by Amazon billionaire Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin space venture: Will it be good enough for United Launch Alliance, a crucial prospective customer?
Now Blue Origin CEO Bob Smith says the BE-4 has passed all of the technical tests required for ULA to sign onto a production contract.
https://www.geekwire.com/2018/blue-origin-ceo-says-next-gen-4-rocket-engine-meets-technical-requirements/
So, they did a full-duration, full-pressure burn and got the required stability, thrust, and I_sp?
I would think those are the minimum technical requirements.
So I did have a few minutes to cobble together some captions. In my haste I may have missed or mislabeled something, so corrections welcome.
Great job! Minor nit. The arrow for the LOX High Pressure Discharge in Slide 2 is out of place. I've lightened up the image so that you can see the details better.
So where is the LNG boost pump? Is it not needed?
Ah, thanks, fixed.
As for the LNG boost pump, like you I noted it wasn't there but don't know why.
What if what you pointed out at the PB injector isn't actually it, but is buried downstream that within the gray cast structure? That preburner is inline with the main TP shaft and the pressures at the main discharge doesn't make sense...
What if that jacket of cold LOX helps with something...
Hmm...
I'm thinking a kick pump is integrated into the inlet to the preburner assembly where you point to as the injector. The bolt patterns seem to indicate that there is a part bolted internally.
There is already a LOX boost pump labeled, so I don't see any need for one at the inlet of the PB. The PB will have an injector, a short combustion chamber (operating at perhaps 700°F±100) and a turbine to drive the single-shaft main propellant pumps. The apparent PB length is just sufficient to provide space for those items. Sometimes this cycle of engine will have a fuel kick pump (as is the case for the NK-33) but I don't see one in the BE-4 layout.
I was insinuating that the LOX may be used to keep the methane at a lower temp to help prevent cavitation at the kick pump. Might just be a coincidence in packaging I just threw that idea out there, but it will definitely help keep the walls of the combustor side of the preburner cooler.
You'll need a much higher fuel pressure at the PB than at the main chamber as stuff flows from high to low pressures. You need a good pressure difference between the above the turbine (which is kick pump pressure minus the delta p in the PB injector) to below (which is effectively manifold pressure to the main injector) The kick pump I was referring to being embedded in the PB assembly is the fuel kick pump. The fuel going to the regen chambers is main chamber pressure + main injector delta P + delta P in the cooling channels and pipes.
We lack a lot of necessary information, such as planned depth of throttle, and I'm not sure what the nominal Pc is – anyone know?
A few questions about the engine:
There seem to be at least 4 different materials, or at least surface finishes - dark grey (lox boost pump), medium grey (fuel valve), light grey (fuel manifold), and shiny. A special material for the pre-burner, turbine, and pre-burner exhaust makes sense, since these need to resist hot oxygen gas. Are the others all different materials, or just different finishes? If different materials, why?
A few questions about the engine:
There seem to be at least 4 different materials, or at least surface finishes - dark grey (lox boost pump), medium grey (fuel valve), light grey (fuel manifold), and shiny. A special material for the pre-burner, turbine, and pre-burner exhaust makes sense, since these need to resist hot oxygen gas. Are the others all different materials, or just different finishes? If different materials, why?
You can't infer material type from appearance. Machining or polishing can cause shiny metal appearance, a sandblasted finish would have the medium to light grey appearance. The dark grey could be an after heat treated appearance without any further finishing done to it such as sandblasting.
The appearances of the various components could be due to different part requirements/specifications of individual parts along with different manufactures standard practices for finishing of parts.
Ariane Cornell, Blue Origin: key for us in the next few months is continued BE-4 engine testing. Up to 70% thrust, 114-sec duration. #SpaceTechExpohttps://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/998961252184543233
Still* at 70%, 114s:QuoteAriane Cornell, Blue Origin: key for us in the next few months is continued BE-4 engine testing. Up to 70% thrust, 114-sec duration. #SpaceTechExpohttps://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/998961252184543233
* 65%, 114s reported 3/12/18
They might be pump head limited right now and have been waiting for a new iteration of the powerpack to be fabricated while still testing with the older revision.Or perhaps testing revealed that some part X of the engine did not have the margins they'd like, so they can only test to 70% while they frantically (or graditum-ly) redesign and fabricate a new and better part X.
Matsutomi: doing a lot of testing of the BE-4 engine, capable of going up to 200 seconds at a time. One aspect of the horizontal test stand is that the plume has created a “giant canyon” in front of the stand as plume erodes ground. #AIAAPropEnergy
Matsutomi: we’re targeting to complete BE-4 engine testing by the end of this year. #AIAAPropEnergy
Can someone please mark up where the LOX line to the injector is? I only see the LOX ducts to the preburner. Thanks!But since the BE-4 uses oxygen-rich staged combustion, doesn't all the LOX go through the pre-burner?
Can someone please mark up where the LOX line to the injector is? I only see the LOX ducts to the preburner. Thanks!But since the BE-4 uses oxygen-rich staged combustion, doesn't all the LOX go through the pre-burner?
And welcome to the forum!
Confirmation of BE-4 getting chosen for Vulcan booster engine?Or Soon as Tory likes to say.
https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1042907200950288384
"before" x 2
Confirmation of BE-4 getting chosen for Vulcan booster engine?
https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1042907200950288384
"before" x 2
yes. i know which one. and i just told you.
Anyone heard about recent testing of BE-4 engine? I've heard some rumors about recent testing (in the past two weeks), would like to know if there is any facts about the testing. Hopefully, there were able to increase their thrust levels successfully, or meet their test requirements. Surely, ULA is very interested in the progress of the test of BE-4.
“It’s performing quite well,” Blue Origin Chief Executive Bob Smith said of BE-4 on the same panel as Bruno. “We’ve gone through several hundred seconds of firing, including an over 200-second firing of that engine, so we’re feeling very good about its progress and what we’re going to be able to deliver to the market, as well as for our own consumption.”
Published on Sep 27, 2018
The BE-4 is our fourth-generation liquid rocket engine, made to take us into orbit and beyond.
Will there be an update on the BE-4 testing "soon"? There has been no official statement on testing since March/April 2018. The testing/certification was to be completed by the end of 2018, and later changed to early 2019.
Meanwhile, Blue Origin has hit "a few minor setbacks" during rigorous BE-4 testing but was "progressing nominally" and was expected to live up to delivery targets, Drefke said.https://www.businessinsider.com/r-boeing-lockheeds-vulcan-rocket-design-nearly-fully-mature-2019-1
Blue Origin, the commercial rocket company founded by Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, will break ground in Alabama Friday on a promised plant to produce its new, next-generation rocket engine.
Wonder what that means in terms of thrust they've achieved and duration of the tests. You can clearly see throttling in the video, but we've already seen throttling tests right? Have they achieve 100% thrust for full duration yet? I'd think achieving either 100% thrust or full duration would have prompted a press release from Blue. Wonder where they are standing now.
Blue Origin’s Cornell, talking about BE-4 testing, says the next version of the engine that will be tested soon will go up to 100% thrust, vs 70% of earlier tests.https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1088088915771342848
Looks like they saved on architecture/engineering for the Alabama factory.
Have they done ANY tests at 100%, even short ones? Going from 70% to 100% is a 42% increase in thrust, with a corresponding increase flow rates, pump power, and throttle range. That's not a gimme, even though the engine was clearly designed for it.Wonder what that means in terms of thrust they've achieved and duration of the tests. You can clearly see throttling in the video, but we've already seen throttling tests right? Have they achieve 100% thrust for full duration yet? I'd think achieving either 100% thrust or full duration would have prompted a press release from Blue. Wonder where they are standing now.
Today, Jeff Foust:QuoteBlue Origin’s Cornell, talking about BE-4 testing, says the next version of the engine that will be tested soon will go up to 100% thrust, vs 70% of earlier tests.
Have they done ANY tests at 100%, even short ones? Going from 70% to 100% is a 42% increase in thrust, with a corresponding increase flow rates, pump power, and throttle range. That's not a gimme, even though the engine was clearly designed for it.Wonder what that means in terms of thrust they've achieved and duration of the tests. You can clearly see throttling in the video, but we've already seen throttling tests right? Have they achieve 100% thrust for full duration yet? I'd think achieving either 100% thrust or full duration would have prompted a press release from Blue. Wonder where they are standing now.
Today, Jeff Foust:QuoteBlue Origin’s Cornell, talking about BE-4 testing, says the next version of the engine that will be tested soon will go up to 100% thrust, vs 70% of earlier tests.
Have they done ANY tests at 100%, even short ones? Going from 70% to 100% is a 42% increase in thrust, with a corresponding increase flow rates, pump power, and throttle range. That's not a gimme, even though the engine was clearly designed for it.Wonder what that means in terms of thrust they've achieved and duration of the tests. You can clearly see throttling in the video, but we've already seen throttling tests right? Have they achieve 100% thrust for full duration yet? I'd think achieving either 100% thrust or full duration would have prompted a press release from Blue. Wonder where they are standing now.
Today, Jeff Foust:QuoteBlue Origin’s Cornell, talking about BE-4 testing, says the next version of the engine that will be tested soon will go up to 100% thrust, vs 70% of earlier tests.
The tweet says that the power level of the engine never exceeds 70%.
They were babying it for a reason. Probably to prevent it from blowing up.
Blue Origin breaks ground for BE-4 factory
by Jeff Foust — January 25, 2019
WASHINGTON — As Blue Origin breaks ground on a new factory for producing rocket engines, the company says development of its BE-4 engine will be completed later this year.
Smith announced at the groundbreaking that Blue Origin is working on agreement with NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center to take over Building 4670 at the center. That site, a test stand previously used for testing engines for the Saturn 5 and shuttle, will be used for acceptance testing for both the BE-3U and BE-4 engines.
Test Stand 4670 was originally used to test S-IC-T and the first three S-IC flight stages of the Saturn V!
http://heroicrelics.org/info/s-ic-test-stand/s-ic-stand-log-book.html
But I assume that they won’t be using the stand to test NG first stages?
This will be money making business, selling BE4s to ULA and BE3U to Blue for customer missions. Should be able to stand on its own two feet without relying on Bezos $Bs to jack it up.
SNIP
Test stands at CCAFS SLC-11 will be capable of both stage and engine tests (launches are currently not planned from SLC-11). SLC-36 will be capable of static fires and launches. As a SLC for testing and launched at VAFB has not been leased there are presently two candidates which are not in the running for use by competitors that are on the table SLC-576 Alpha and Bravo complexes which have a trio of above ground pads each.But I assume that they won’t be using the stand to test NG first stages?
Yes, that is my understanding as well. The article doesn't say they will be testing full stages on the S-IC stand, only BE-4 and BE-3U engines.
.@blueorigin's Mowry: #BE4 engine fired to 70% power and 200-sec duration, roughly flight profile for launch. Testing continues in West Texas.
https://twitter.com/stephenclark1/status/1100165131101720579QuoteJust finished a nice interview with @torybruno. The first flight hardware for Vulcan is now being produced at ULA’s factory in Alabama. First launch remains set for Spring 2021.
https://twitter.com/stephenclark1/status/1100167165578235905QuoteCritical design review for Vulcan should be completed soon, says @torybruno. Waiting on some final data from BE-4 engine tests. He says Blue Origin has completed dozens of hotfire tests to date on the BE-4, the most powerful methane rocket engine ever built.
Presumably waiting to get higher than 70% power?
Forgot to copy this over for completeness:Thanks for the informative tweets. Sorry to be repetitive and this is a general comment, not directed at you, but as far as I can tell we've "made up" the trouble/delays going above 70%. Blue is a secretive, quiet, company that is notorious for the gradatum part of "Gradatum Ferociter." I'm not saying they didn't have to tweak things (it's rocket engine development, of course you'd need to tweak things). But this is totally standard operating procedure for Blue. OK, I'll try to drop it now....QuoteJust finished a nice interview with @torybruno. The first flight hardware for Vulcan is now being produced at ULA’s factory in Alabama. First launch remains set for Spring 2021....QuoteCritical design review for Vulcan should be completed soon, says @torybruno. Waiting on some final data from BE-4 engine tests. He says Blue Origin has completed dozens of hotfire tests to date on the BE-4, the most powerful methane rocket engine ever built.
Presumably waiting to get higher than 70% power?
Note that Vulcan first flight date hasn't changed, so whatever delays BE-4 is experiencing to get above 70% power isn't (yet) impacting ULA schedule.
Forgot to copy this over for completeness:Thanks for the informative tweets. Sorry to be repetitive and this is a general comment, not directed at you, but as far as I can tell we've "made up" the trouble/delays going above 70%. Blue is a secretive, quiet, company that is notorious for the gradatum part of "Gradatum Ferociter." I'm not saying they didn't have to tweak things (it's rocket engine development, of course you'd need to tweak things). But this is totally standard operating procedure for Blue. OK, I'll try to drop it now....QuoteJust finished a nice interview with @torybruno. The first flight hardware for Vulcan is now being produced at ULA’s factory in Alabama. First launch remains set for Spring 2021....QuoteCritical design review for Vulcan should be completed soon, says @torybruno. Waiting on some final data from BE-4 engine tests. He says Blue Origin has completed dozens of hotfire tests to date on the BE-4, the most powerful methane rocket engine ever built.
Presumably waiting to get higher than 70% power?
Note that Vulcan first flight date hasn't changed, so whatever delays BE-4 is experiencing to get above 70% power isn't (yet) impacting ULA schedule.
This reasonably-thorough SpaceNews article on groundbreaking at the new Blue engine factory in Huntsville, Alabama (https://spacenews.com/blue-origin-breaks-ground-for-be-4-factory/), says the "new version of the engine will soon be installed at the test site ... 'and we’re going to be going up to 100 percent power.' "
From this conference BE-4 seems to be at 80% level of trust and from the words of the ULA person, it seems to be going well!
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/120731279?rmalang=en_US
Blue Origin's Bob Smith: Unknown whether BE-4 engine will fly first on Vulcan Centaur or New Glenn.
Blue Origin strikes a deal with NASA to use a historic rocket test stand in Alabama
BY ALAN BOYLE on April 17, 2019 at 10:28 pm
Amazon billionaire Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin space venture has signed an agreement with NASA for the use of a historic test stand at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala.
Under the terms of a Commercial Space Launch Act agreement, Blue Origin will upgrade and refurbish Test Stand 4670 to support testing of its BE-3U and BE-4 rocket engines, NASA said today.
A 1965 photo shows a Saturn V first-stage rocket engine being test-fired at Marshall Space Flight Center’s Test Stand 4670 in Alabama. Blue Origin has struck a deal with NASA to refurbish and use the facility, which has been inactive since 1998. (NASA Photo)
Why do they need a test stand that can handle 8 million pounds of thrust? Are they going to barge integrated New Glenn boosters over to Stennis for full duration hotfires?They might, but on the other hand it could just be that leasing this stand is cheaper than the alternatives despite being overbuilt for what they need.
Why do they need a test stand that can handle 8 million pounds of thrust? Are they going to barge integrated New Glenn boosters over to Stennis for full duration hotfires?They might, but on the other hand it could just be that leasing this stand is cheaper than the alternatives despite being overbuilt for what they need.
Why do they need a test stand that can handle 8 million pounds of thrust?
Why do they need a test stand that can handle 8 million pounds of thrust? Are they going to barge integrated New Glenn boosters over to Stennis for full duration hotfires?They might, but on the other hand it could just be that leasing this stand is cheaper than the alternatives despite being overbuilt for what they need.
Why do they need a test stand that can handle 8 million pounds of thrust? Are they going to barge integrated New Glenn boosters over to Stennis for full duration hotfires?
Why do they need a test stand that can handle 8 million pounds of thrust? Are they going to barge integrated New Glenn boosters over to Stennis for full duration hotfires?
Maybe they don't need the full capability, but they needed (for some unknown reason) a new engine stand? This one just happened to be available.
They are building the BE-4 in Alabama, so maybe trucking them to Louisiana instead of Texas makes sense...
Why do they need a test stand that can handle 8 million pounds of thrust? Are they going to barge integrated New Glenn boosters over to Stennis for full duration hotfires?
Maybe they don't need the full capability, but they needed (for some unknown reason) a new engine stand? This one just happened to be available.
They are building the BE-4 in Alabama, so maybe trucking them to Louisiana instead of Texas makes sense...
What about the engine test stand they are building right next to LC-36, though? Maybe they need a backup since testing would interfere with launch ops on occasion?
Why do they need a test stand that can handle 8 million pounds of thrust? Are they going to barge integrated New Glenn boosters over to Stennis for full duration hotfires?
Maybe they don't need the full capability, but they needed (for some unknown reason) a new engine stand? This one just happened to be available.
They are building the BE-4 in Alabama, so maybe trucking them to Louisiana instead of Texas makes sense...
What about the engine test stand they are building right next to LC-36, though? Maybe they need a backup since testing would interfere with launch ops on occasion?
That sounds very plausible although a little OT here. Blue may use the stand for cluster testing of BE-4's for NG 1st stage.Why do they need a test stand that can handle 8 million pounds of thrust? Are they going to barge integrated New Glenn boosters over to Stennis for full duration hotfires?They might, but on the other hand it could just be that leasing this stand is cheaper than the alternatives despite being overbuilt for what they need.
True, or Jeff is considering a F-1B/Merlin 2 class BE-5 Engine for New Armstrong.
Why do they need a test stand that can handle 8 million pounds of thrust?
Politics.
IIRC the planning documents said that the stand near the launch pad is used for short verifications.
Again IIRC Blue stated a low limit on both number and total duration of burns per year. Can't find the actual numbers right now in the environmental study pdf.
Engine Acceptance Testing
Acceptance testing of the BE-4 engine will occur at the engine test stand at the former LC-11 area of the OLS. Each
engine tested would have a separate test plan. Each test plan would require a variety of engine test run durations
(measured in seconds) with a maximum total run duration of approximately 500 seconds. The total duration of all
engine testing would be approximately 30 minutes per month based on approximately 9 test events per month.
Maximum test thrust for the BE-4 would be approximately 550,000 lbf (2.4 MN).
They're working through some issues with the engine, I believe, and realizing how damn hard it is to scale from New Shepard all the way to New Glenn. They'll get there.
Eric Berger on Twitter :QuoteThey're working through some issues with the engine, I believe, and realizing how damn hard it is to scale from New Shepard all the way to New Glenn. They'll get there.
https://mobile.twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1118554286714183681
The folks from Hawthorne make building large liquid semi-cryogenic rocket engines looks way too easy. Blue Origin in theory should have about the same progress on the BE-4 development as the Raptor in the same amount of time. They are not on a more benign engine design.
The folks from Hawthorne make building large liquid semi-cryogenic rocket engines looks way too easy. Blue Origin in theory should have about the same progress on the BE-4 development as the Raptor in the same amount of time. They are not on a more benign engine design.
The folks from Hawthorne are also still tweaking their engine design to get to a production configuration.
Why are you referring to these as semi-cryogenic? Is liquid methane not cold enough for you?
Eric Berger on Twitter :Was originally to be 400klbs engine for NG but ULA needed 550klbs engine for Vulcan, so they scaled it up.QuoteThey're working through some issues with the engine, I believe, and realizing how damn hard it is to scale from New Shepard all the way to New Glenn. They'll get there.
https://mobile.twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1118554286714183681
Smith: had really good test recently on what we think is the last dev version of the BE-4 engine; expect to finish qualification of the engine this year. #SATShow
Bob Smith, Blue Origin: Did an 87 second test on Friday for what we hope is our last development engine for BE-4. #SATShow
Here's a list of engines that aren't that left engine.
BE-4, AR1, F1, J2, RS-68, LE-7, LE9, RL-10, RD-181, RS-27, Merlin, Raptor, M1, NK-33
And I'm mostly sure it's not an SSME, but looking at SSME guts is like starring at one of those optical illusion images designed to screw with your brain.
It looks familiar though...
(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/assets/39674.0/1562502.jpg)
Here's a list of engines that aren't that left engine.
BE-4, AR1, F1, J2, RS-68, LE-7, LE9, RL-10, RD-181, RS-27, Merlin, Raptor, M1, NK-33
And I'm mostly sure it's not an SSME, but looking at SSME guts is like starring at one of those optical illusion images designed to screw with your brain.
It looks familiar though...
(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/assets/39674.0/1562502.jpg)
It looks like an early version of the BE-4 that had a horizontal turbopump:
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/11/atk-expand-alternative-atlasv-rd-180/
(https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/2014-11-07-01_46_11-Blue_Origin_BE4_Large_Banner_LowRes-1.pdf-270x350.jpg)
That only took 15 minutes of my life to figure out.
BTW, SSME has dual turbopumps, one each for fuel and oxidizer, mounted nearly vertical on each side of the MCC.
(https://www.americaspace.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/blue-origin-be4-engine-360x357.png)
That only took 15 minutes of my life to figure out.
Wouldn't a horizontal turbopump directly precess the LV? How was this even a thing?
Wouldn't a horizontal turbopump directly precess the LV? How was this even a thing?
If you have a multi engine vehicle, with a horizontal arrangement you can orient the engines such the moments cancel each other. Vertical you can't, as they all spin in the same direction parallel to each other.
Wouldn't a horizontal turbopump directly precess the LV? How was this even a thing?
If you have a multi engine vehicle, with a horizontal arrangement you can orient the engines such the moments cancel each other. Vertical you can't, as they all spin in the same direction parallel to each other.
I'm trying to imagine such arrangements, but... Never seen any operational liquid rocket engine with a horizontal turbopump. Do all operational vertical turbopump rocket engines use some means to counteract precession?
Wouldn't the horizontal arrangement you refer to require every alternating engine to have a counter-rotating turbopump, with respect to the turbopump of the engine directly next to it?
Not an engineer, please shed some light on this.
Did H-1 have a horizontal turbopump? (Saturn 1, 1B)Yes.
Did H-1 have a horizontal turbopump? (Saturn 1, 1B)Yes.
It's called film. Probably took a long time to focus.Did H-1 have a horizontal turbopump? (Saturn 1, 1B)Yes.
Well, that is certainly a pretty, high-res picture.
The short answer is that yes, the pump will try to process the vehicle (this is even true if its axis is vertical, since the rocket rotates from vertical to horizontal during ascent). But the forces needed to force the axis change on the turbopump are much smaller than those produced by the rocket motor. So basically the motor just forces the pump to turn. The same is true in race cars, which have lots of rotating parts around horizontal axes, but the force from the wheels simply forces the crankshaft/clutch to turn with the vehicle.Wouldn't a horizontal turbopump directly precess the LV? How was this even a thing?
I'm trying to imagine such arrangements, but... Never seen any operational liquid rocket engine with a horizontal turbopump. Do all operational vertical turbopump rocket engines use some means to counteract precession?
Wouldn't the horizontal arrangement you refer to require every alternating engine to have a counter-rotating turbopump, with respect to the turbopump of the engine directly next to it?
Not an engineer, please shed some light on this.
Since they haven't announced completion of there development/qualification of the engine, does anyone have an idea of how close they are?(stolen from Robotbeat) I am quite sure someone has a good idea how close they are.
Since they haven't announced completion of there development/qualification of the engine, does anyone have an idea of how close they are?(stolen from Robotbeat) I am quite sure someone has a good idea how close they are.
... however I don't think anyone posting in this non L2 thread does, and I'm not sure I saw anything better in L2. I would love to know.
I am still wondering where they are in testing. This article from April of 2018 in Space News:Well, they did an 87 second test run on what they hope is the last dev engine:
https://spacenews.com/blue-origin-expects-be-4-qualification-tests-to-be-done-by-years-end/ (https://spacenews.com/blue-origin-expects-be-4-qualification-tests-to-be-done-by-years-end/)
The article said they would be done by the end of the year. A quote in the article from Bob Smith of Blue Origin, “We continue to roll through our test program and hope to qualify that engine by the end of the year,”
Since they haven't announced completion of there development/qualification of the engine, does anyone have an idea of how close they are?
https://twitter.com/CHenry_SN/status/1125849250766700545QuoteBob Smith, Blue Origin: Did an 87 second test on Friday for what we hope is our last development engine for BE-4. #SATShow
Blue Origin’s Next Rocket Engine Could Send the First Settlers to the Moon
By MARK HARRIS
Posted 9 Jul 2019 | 15:00 GMT
https://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/space-flight/blue-origins-next-rocket-engine-could-send-the-first-settlers-to-the-moon
In 2014, rival launch provider United Launch Alliance (ULA) was looking for an engine for its own next-generation launch vehicle, the Vulcan. It offered to invest in the BE-4 program, but only if Blue Origin could increase the engine’s planned thrust by nearly 40 percent. For Blue Origin, that would mean not only taking the BE-4 back to the drawing board but redesigning the entire New Glenn rocket to match, likely delaying its maiden launch by years.
I recall that Bezos said the BE-4 would be a "hardware rich" development, but I'm now wondering what he meant by that. SpaceX Raptor is on S/N 6, and is producing engines at a rate where a test stand failure is not devastating, so at least it's "hardware adequate". And compared to Apollo development (https://history.nasa.gov/monograph45.pdf), that's not very rich either. The F-1 development destroyed 11 engines on the test stand due to combustion instabily, and 4 due to bad vanes in the LOX pump. The SPS engine tested 216 injectors, 271 combustion chambers, and 27 complete engines. J2 development kept 5 test stands running 2 shifts per day.
Does anyone have any idea how many BE-4 engines have been built and tested so far? Is it really "hardware rich"?
They are hardware rich in that they have no fear of running out of hardware to test although it appears they would prefer to solve any issues that led to the issue before building a replacement.One way to use hardware-richness is to speed development by not waiting until problems are solved to continue testing (which may uncover other problems). Fixing problems serially is an efficient use of resources, but comes at a risk to schedule. On Apollo, they used hardware richness to help complete the test campaign faster. From Remembering the Giants (https://history.nasa.gov/monograph45.pdf), a monograph about Apollo engines:
When a component failed in an engine test, or in a component test, the UCR was generated. The first thing we had to determine was whether the latest configuration had failed, or whether it was something else that had already been replaced on the engine and the failure wasn’t useful. There was enough hardware richness that we had five engine test stands, running two shifts. [..] The attempt was to incorporate any corrective actions immediately, and put out kits for retrofit of everything in the field. The logbooks of which kits applied to which engines were pretty interesting.
I think for major problems we have always [...] established an investigation team[...] Today, we would not test for a period of time. I think on F-1 that was rare. We would continue testing while the investigation was going on.
They are hardware rich in that they have no fear of running out of hardware to test although it appears they would prefer to solve any issues that led to the issue before building a replacement.One way to use hardware-richness is to speed development by not waiting until problems are solved to continue testing (which may uncover other problems). Fixing problems serially is an efficient use of resources, but comes at a risk to schedule. On Apollo, they used hardware richness to help complete the test campaign faster. From Remembering the Giants (https://history.nasa.gov/monograph45.pdf), a monograph about Apollo engines:QuoteWhen a component failed in an engine test, or in a component test, the UCR was generated. The first thing we had to determine was whether the latest configuration had failed, or whether it was something else that had already been replaced on the engine and the failure wasn’t useful. There was enough hardware richness that we had five engine test stands, running two shifts. [..] The attempt was to incorporate any corrective actions immediately, and put out kits for retrofit of everything in the field. The logbooks of which kits applied to which engines were pretty interesting.QuoteI think for major problems we have always [...] established an investigation team[...] Today, we would not test for a period of time. I think on F-1 that was rare. We would continue testing while the investigation was going on.
I agree with your point, and that's definitely how SpaceX has approached Raptor development. Blue on the other hand seems to be focused more on getting it right than getting it done fast.
I don't expect we'll get any updates on the BE-4 until after it's fully ready to go.
I agree with your point, and that's definitely how SpaceX has approached Raptor development. Blue on the other hand seems to be focused more on getting it right than getting it done fast.
... ...
I cheer for both, but part of my cheer for Blue Origin is that I hope they go faster... ;)
The first stage will use new BE-4 booster engines. A single BE-4 engine consumes approximately 150,000 pounds (68,038 kilograms) of LNG and 500,000 pounds (226,796 kilograms) of LO2.
From the "Environmental assessment for launching Vulcan at CCAFS" document , (see Vulcan thread reply #946 & #948 ), we can read :QuoteThe first stage will use new BE-4 booster engines. A single BE-4 engine consumes approximately 150,000 pounds (68,038 kilograms) of LNG and 500,000 pounds (226,796 kilograms) of LO2.
Does this mean that the mixture ratio equals 3.33 ?
From the "Environmental assessment for launching Vulcan at CCAFS" document , (see Vulcan thread reply #946 & #948 ), we can read :QuoteThe first stage will use new BE-4 booster engines. A single BE-4 engine consumes approximately 150,000 pounds (68,038 kilograms) of LNG and 500,000 pounds (226,796 kilograms) of LO2.
Does this mean that the mixture ratio equals 3.33 ?
CH4 + 2(O2) = CO2 + 2(H2O)
16 g/mol + 2*14 g/mol so ideally that's about 28/16 = 1.75
First of all, LNG is not pure CH4 so there are some longer chain hydrocarbons in the mix. If they really are doubling the O2 needed for combustion then my guess is they are doing that to eliminate any possibility of coking or soot formation. There may be some combustion temperature issues also. Disclaimer: I'm an embedded software developer with a degree in chemistry, but I'm no rocket scientist.
From the "Environmental assessment for launching Vulcan at CCAFS" document , (see Vulcan thread reply #946 & #948 ), we can read :QuoteThe first stage will use new BE-4 booster engines. A single BE-4 engine consumes approximately 150,000 pounds (68,038 kilograms) of LNG and 500,000 pounds (226,796 kilograms) of LO2.
Does this mean that the mixture ratio equals 3.33 ?
Blue Origin
@blueorigin
·
18m
BE-4 continues to rack up time on the test stand. Here’s a great shot of our full power engine test today #GradatimFerociter
That's great news for Blue.And for ULA and for spaceflight in general.
That's great news for Blue.And for ULA and for spaceflight in general.
Now hopefully they can get some full duration runs in and see how the engine holds up.
Fantastic news that full power has finally been reached - a huge milestone.
Here’s the photo from Blue’s tweet.
That means an O/F ratio of 3.3, plus or minus a bit. They only gave one and a half significant figures, and threw an "approximately" on it, so take that with a medium sized grain of salt.
What was the best ISP? I'm really interested to know.That means an O/F ratio of 3.3, plus or minus a bit. They only gave one and a half significant figures, and threw an "approximately" on it, so take that with a medium sized grain of salt.
In my simulations using the AFAL Specific Impulse Program, I found with pure CH4, chamber pressure = 20.7 MPa and expansion ratio = 77.5 (same as the SSME), that the best Isp was obtained for a MR of 3.6.
What was the best ISP? I'm really interested to know.That means an O/F ratio of 3.3, plus or minus a bit. They only gave one and a half significant figures, and threw an "approximately" on it, so take that with a medium sized grain of salt.
In my simulations using the AFAL Specific Impulse Program, I found with pure CH4, chamber pressure = 20.7 MPa and expansion ratio = 77.5 (same as the SSME), that the best Isp was obtained for a MR of 3.6.
What was the best ISP? I'm really interested to know.That means an O/F ratio of 3.3, plus or minus a bit. They only gave one and a half significant figures, and threw an "approximately" on it, so take that with a medium sized grain of salt.
In my simulations using the AFAL Specific Impulse Program, I found with pure CH4, chamber pressure = 20.7 MPa and expansion ratio = 77.5 (same as the SSME), that the best Isp was obtained for a MR of 3.6.
The one that gets one where one wants to go, with the desired amount of cargo one wants to take, for the least amount of dollars spent. It might not be the ideal system, but it does tend to get results.
What was the best ISP? I'm really interested to know.That means an O/F ratio of 3.3, plus or minus a bit. They only gave one and a half significant figures, and threw an "approximately" on it, so take that with a medium sized grain of salt.
In my simulations using the AFAL Specific Impulse Program, I found with pure CH4, chamber pressure = 20.7 MPa and expansion ratio = 77.5 (same as the SSME), that the best Isp was obtained for a MR of 3.6.
The one that gets one where one wants to go, with the desired amount of cargo one wants to take, for the least amount of dollars spent. It might not be the ideal system, but it does tend to get results.
:o
Fantastic news that full power has finally been reached - a huge milestone.Quite a lot of orange atmospheric combustion in that flame, is that because we're seeing so much of the exhaust plume or because it's being run more fuel rich compared to the other methane staged combustion engine of note?
Here’s the photo from Blue’s tweet.
From the "Environmental assessment for launching Vulcan at CCAFS" document , (see Vulcan thread reply #946 & #948 ), we can read :QuoteThe first stage will use new BE-4 booster engines. A single BE-4 engine consumes approximately 150,000 pounds (68,038 kilograms) of LNG and 500,000 pounds (226,796 kilograms) of LO2.
Does this mean that the mixture ratio equals 3.33 ?
That means an O/F ratio of 3.3, plus or minus a bit. They only gave one and a half significant figures, and threw an "approximately" on it, so take that with a medium sized grain of salt.
This is the first public indication of a full power firing that I'm aware of. They may have hit that milestone earlier, but only the insiders know at this point. Maybe SpaceX's recent activity "encouraged" Blue to lift their veil of secrecy a bit...or the LSA proposal deadline. :o
More test firings (this time at full thrust):QuoteBlue Origin
@blueorigin
·
18m
BE-4 continues to rack up time on the test stand. Here’s a great shot of our full power engine test today #GradatimFerociter
https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1157478525575684097
This is the first public indication of a full power firing that I'm aware of. They may have hit that milestone earlier, but only the insiders know at this point. Maybe SpaceX's recent activity "encouraged" Blue to lift their veil of secrecy a bit...or the LSA proposal deadline. :o
This is the first public indication of a full power firing that I'm aware of. They may have hit that milestone earlier, but only the insiders know at this point. Maybe SpaceX's recent activity "encouraged" Blue to lift their veil of secrecy a bit...or the LSA proposal deadline. :o
This. I keep reminding people that the Phase 2 launch services proposals are due in a few days, and both Blue and SpaceX have to allay some major schedule risk concerns in the minds of Air Force proposal evaluators. There's a lot at stake here behind the PR.
I wonder if Blue hurt themselves with the LSA, though, by selling the engine to a competitor. Blue got instant credibility as a world-class aerospace/engine company with ULA buying the engine for their flagship next gen launch vehicle. But both ULA and Blue will be using the same engine for their respective vehicles, so that commonality will necessarily be a factor in selecting the two contract winners.
This is the first public indication of a full power firing that I'm aware of. They may have hit that milestone earlier, but only the insiders know at this point. Maybe SpaceX's recent activity "encouraged" Blue to lift their veil of secrecy a bit...or the LSA proposal deadline. :o
This. I keep reminding people that the Phase 2 launch services proposals are due in a few days, and both Blue and SpaceX have to allay some major schedule risk concerns in the minds of Air Force proposal evaluators. There's a lot at stake here behind the PR.
I wonder if Blue hurt themselves with the LSA, though, by selling the engine to a competitor. Blue got instant credibility as a world-class aerospace/engine company with ULA buying the engine for their flagship next gen launch vehicle. But both ULA and Blue will be using the same engine for their respective vehicles, so that commonality will necessarily be a factor in selecting the two contract winners.
You're making (I think) the same argument SpaceX did in their lawsuit, ie that having a common engine between New Glenn and Vulcan undermines the Air Force's stated desire to have reliable independent launch providers.
But apparently the Air Force isn't that concerned, or Blue and ULA would never have gone down this common engine path in the first place, and they wouldn't both have gotten LSA awards.
In my simulations using the AFAL Specific Impulse Program, I found with pure CH4, chamber pressure = 20.7 MPa and expansion ratio = 77.5 (same as the SSME), that the best Isp was obtained for a MR of 3.6.What was the best ISP? I'm really interested to know.
Thank you very much!In my simulations using the AFAL Specific Impulse Program, I found with pure CH4, chamber pressure = 20.7 MPa and expansion ratio = 77.5 (same as the SSME), that the best Isp was obtained for a MR of 3.6.What was the best ISP? I'm really interested to know.
I got an Isp of 3656 m/s (372.8 s) assuming 97.4% efficiency.
Next major milestone would be full power full duration test firing. Prior to conclusion of development phase and moving to mass production phase and eventual vehicle integration.More test firings (this time at full thrust):QuoteBlue Origin
@blueorigin
·
18m
BE-4 continues to rack up time on the test stand. Here’s a great shot of our full power engine test today #GradatimFerociter
https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1157478525575684097
FULL POWAH!
Congrats to Blue's engine team! ;D
This is great news!ULA will need about 20 a year. Blue 14-21 for 2-3 boosters. After that maybe set of 7 every 10 flights. 30-40 a year is quite realistic.
Makes me think of the next couple steps. In order to launch Vulcan and New Glenn within 24 months they need to wrap up testing and produce a minimum of 9 BE-4's. Anyone have an idea of what the current stockpile looks like or what the production rate is likely to be for BE-4s in the near future?
Do you think that orange color comes from hot dust?I think the color comes from the water cooling film that is projected just below the engine (see the attached picture): It isn't certainly pure water, so a small contamination , for example with sodium, is enough to obtain this orange color .
I honestly don't understand where the confusion is.
No, I saw it all. I was just about to post this: before it got trimmed.I honestly don't understand where the confusion is.
Oh, clearly you missed yesterday's debate over what "full thrust engine test" actually meant. ::) Thread trimmed...
Tony Bruno knows this well - this is precisely why ULA always says "mission success", where the launcher failed to achieve the correct orbit.It was a mission success, despite the anomaly. ULA accounts for the anomaly in it's reliability numbers. You might not want to go down the "achieve the correct orbit" road. You might find other providers would have to add 3 to 6 missions to the non "mission success" list.
The slight amount of orange may mean they are running liquid natural gas instead of pure methane. Other gases burn orange. If you have a natural gas cooktop, look at the gas burning, mostly blue, but occasional orange. This is because of trace amounts of mostly butane which burns orange.
No disrespect to ULA and their excellent reliability record was implied. This was just to point out that Tony Bruno knows the power of words. It means a lot to ULA (and its supporters) to say they have a perfect record of mission success. He could also say we've never missed a target orbit by so much that the satellite could not recover. I'm sure Tony would use one phrasing when addressing Congress but perhaps another when addressing a convention of reliability engineers or insurance adjusters. Again, this is not bad. By any metric, and any phrasing, ULA has the best reliability record in the business. The distinction is just a sign that Tony is careful with his words.Tony Bruno knows this well - this is precisely why ULA always says "mission success", where the launcher failed to achieve the correct orbit.It was a mission success, despite the anomaly. ULA accounts for the anomaly in it's reliability numbers. You might not want to go down the "achieve the correct orbit" road. You might find other providers would have to add 3 to 6 missions to the non "mission success" list.
Congrats to Blue Origin for the successful test!
I tried to make a little comparison of the engine's exhaust plumes at 65% thrust firing and at 100% thrust firing :I always like to analyze the "shock diamonds" in the exhaust plume...
No disrespect to ULA and their excellent reliability record was implied. This was just to point out that Tony Bruno knows the power of words. It means a lot to ULA (and its supporters) to say they have a perfect record of mission success. He could also say we've never missed a target orbit by so much that the satellite could not recover. I'm sure Tony would use one phrasing when addressing Congress but perhaps another when addressing a convention of reliability engineers or insurance adjusters. Again, this is not bad. By any metric, and any phrasing, ULA has the best reliability record in the business. The distinction is just a sign that Tony is careful with his words.Tony Bruno knows this well - this is precisely why ULA always says "mission success", where the launcher failed to achieve the correct orbit.It was a mission success, despite the anomaly. ULA accounts for the anomaly in it's reliability numbers. You might not want to go down the "achieve the correct orbit" road. You might find other providers would have to add 3 to 6 missions to the non "mission success" list.
Congrats to Blue Origin for the successful test!
Congrats to Blue Origin on their progress! It's great to see new engine development.
And congrats to ULA on their perfect record of mission success. May the string continue!
The slight amount of orange may mean they are running liquid natural gas instead of pure methane. Other gases burn orange. If you have a natural gas cooktop, look at the gas burning, mostly blue, but occasional orange. This is because of trace amounts of mostly butane which burns orange.
It's so beautiful. This new generation of engines has the prettiest exhaust yet (at least, the most photogenic), in my opinion. The beautiful blue/purple color, visible even in the daytime, but transparent with clearly visible shock diamonds. Much better than the raging yellow smoke of kerolox or the pale blue flicker of hydrolox.I tried to make a little comparison of the engine's exhaust plumes at 65% thrust firing and at 100% thrust firing :I always like to analyze the "shock diamonds" in the exhaust plume...
Liquid natural gas is kind of like refining oil. If liquid natural gas is put in a tall tank. Hydrogen and helium can be tapped off the top. Butain and other trace gases off the bottom. Pure methane in the middle. Now natural gas is about 95% methane, so why not burn it directly without separating? The BE-4 engine is probably designed to handle the 5% impurities.
The Raptor on the other hand may not work right with the impurities and need pure methane which is not hard to tap out of the center of a LNG storage tank.
The Raptor on the other hand may not work right with the impurities and need pure methane which is not hard to tap out of the center of a LNG storage tank.
https://www.reddit.com/r/BlueOrigin/comments/cmg52n/confirmation_from_ula_ceo_tory_bruno_this_is_a/ew6tbsw?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x (https://www.reddit.com/r/BlueOrigin/comments/cmg52n/confirmation_from_ula_ceo_tory_bruno_this_is_a/ew6tbsw?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x)As one of the skeptics, I'm happy to at last see an un-ambiguous statement.
Tory Bruno explicitly confirms via Reddit that the BE-4 engine has indeed reached 100% power.
"They achieved 100 percent power in this test. That’s a significant technical milestone and a huge retirement of development risk"
This is the nail in the coffin to all the speculation from the skeptics.
Liquid natural gas is kind of like refining oil. If liquid natural gas is put in a tall tank. Hydrogen and helium can be tapped off the top. Butain and other trace gases off the bottom. Pure methane in the middle. Now natural gas is about 95% methane, so why not burn it directly without separating? The BE-4 engine is probably designed to handle the 5% impurities.
The Raptor on the other hand may not work right with the impurities and need pure methane which is not hard to tap out of the center of a LNG storage tank.
You can get blue with Kerolox, Launcher's engine gets an entirely blue flame; plus LandSpace's methalox engine produces a mostly yellow flame. Seems more to do with combustion specifics than the fuel.It's so beautiful. This new generation of engines has the prettiest exhaust yet (at least, the most photogenic), in my opinion. The beautiful blue/purple color, visible even in the daytime, but transparent with clearly visible shock diamonds. Much better than the raging yellow smoke of kerolox or the pale blue flicker of hydrolox.I tried to make a little comparison of the engine's exhaust plumes at 65% thrust firing and at 100% thrust firing :I always like to analyze the "shock diamonds" in the exhaust plume...
Liquid natural gas is kind of like refining oil. If liquid natural gas is put in a tall tank. Hydrogen and helium can be tapped off the top. Butain and other trace gases off the bottom. Pure methane in the middle. Now natural gas is about 95% methane, so why not burn it directly without separating? The BE-4 engine is probably designed to handle the 5% impurities.
The Raptor on the other hand may not work right with the impurities and need pure methane which is not hard to tap out of the center of a LNG storage tank.
Why is that? Because the Raptor has a fuel-rich PB?
The difference is that Raptor runs on subcooled prop, and when the methane is cooled to the point they want it at, almost all of the impurities that were mixed in as liquid in the LNG have now frozen, and they probably don't want solids in their tanks.
We haven't found any significant issues in all the testing we've done, thousands of ignitions, thousands of seconds of testing, there are benefits in term of no soot, autogenous pressurization [...]
BE4 is designed for 100 missions, that means 200 starts, because the engine restarts on the way down, we are building in a lot of margin
Brett Alexander, Vice President, Blue Origin:
About methane :QuoteWe haven't found any significant issues in all the testing we've done , thousands of ignitions, thousands of seconds of testing , there are benefits in term of no soot , autogenous pressurization [...]QuoteBE4 is designed for 100 missions ,that means 200 starts , because the engine restarts on the way down , we are building in a lot of margin
Agreed. The standardized landing plan only works if the cargoes and the orbits are virtually the same. But if the lift capacity of the rocket is way underutilized then I suppose you have the fuel to go long to the same landing spot more often.
Brett Alexander, Vice President, Blue Origin:This implies the average test is quite short, otherwise there would be tens of thousands of seconds of testing from thousands of ignitions. I guess this makes sense since ignition tests can be short, and even full power tests should reach equilibrium conditions in just a few seconds. Then once everything looks good, you can rack up thousands of seconds of operation with just a few ignitions.
About methane:Quoteall the testing we've done, thousands of ignitions, thousands of seconds of testing
Agreed. The standardized landing plan only works if the cargoes and the orbits are virtually the same. But if the lift capacity of the rocket is way underutilized then I suppose you have the fuel to go long to the same landing spot more often.
True, but why would you want to do a higher energy entry than absolutely necessary. Logic says you would use excess fuel to scrub excess velocity and just put the darned landing ship nearer to the coast. Cheaper/faster recovery, less degradation of first stage TPS and optimised launch trajectories. I simply can’t think of a downside???
On that mission a faulty valve allowed propellant to leak from the upper stage during a coast phase, and when the stage was restarted it was unable to fire for the full planned duration of the burn. Despite this underperformance the NRO was able to recover its satellites and place them into the correct orbit under their own power.https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/09/ula-atlas-v-secretive-clio-mission/
Brett Alexander, Vice President, Blue Origin:This implies the average test is quite short, otherwise there would be tens of thousands of seconds of testing from thousands of ignitions. I guess this makes sense since ignition tests can be short, and even full power tests should reach equilibrium conditions in just a few seconds. Then once everything looks good, you can rack up thousands of seconds of operation with just a few ignitions.
About methane:Quoteall the testing we've done, thousands of ignitions, thousands of seconds of testing
Brett Alexander, Vice President, Blue Origin:This implies the average test is quite short, otherwise there would be tens of thousands of seconds of testing from thousands of ignitions. I guess this makes sense since ignition tests can be short, and even full power tests should reach equilibrium conditions in just a few seconds. Then once everything looks good, you can rack up thousands of seconds of operation with just a few ignitions.
About methane:Quoteall the testing we've done, thousands of ignitions, thousands of seconds of testing
That would be my experience with engine testing. It depends to some degree on what you're testing, what you're measuring, and the engine cycle to some degree. In many cases you're looking for something on startup/shutdown, Injector issues, valve timing, purge levels, transients, power tuning, etc.
Often, developing some of the valve and purge timings/levels is a difficult, experimental process which can damage injectors, turbopumps, and other sensitive portions of the engine. Anecdotally, the SSME required 19 tests over 23 weeks and 8 turbopump replacements before it was successfully started for two seconds, and an additional 18 tests over 12 weeks with 5 more turbopump replacements to reach MPL.
Source:
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/3.pdf (https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/3.pdf)
Blue Origin’s BE-4 rocket engine (7 of them will launch New Glenn) was recently tested at full power. The company will begin mission duty cycles (essentially an on-the-ground simulation of a launch) on the engine next week.
From the "Environmental assessment for launching Vulcan at CCAFS" document , (see Vulcan thread reply #946 & #948 ), we can read :QuoteThe first stage will use new BE-4 booster engines. A single BE-4 engine consumes approximately 150,000 pounds (68,038 kilograms) of LNG and 500,000 pounds (226,796 kilograms) of LO2.
Does this mean that the mixture ratio equals 3.33 ?
Thanks for Stoichometric ratio explanation.
Did wonder why they ran fuel rich ratios.
Stoichometric ratio is 4.0 for methalox.
So, I remember one of the rather interesting characteristics of the BE-4 was supposedly that it could run on LNG instead of purified methane. According to a recent tweet by Tony Bruno, perhaps this is no longer the case?I think it is unlikely that they were ever seriously considering natural gas. They could never have used it without some level of refinement. This article talks about some of the difficulties involved with precipitates in cryogenic natural gas.
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1174788727870083072
Also, realizing there's probably been more interesting info from ULA about Blue Origin's progress than there has been from BO...
I vouch for this. I reread it from time to time.Thanks for Stoichometric ratio explanation.
Did wonder why they ran fuel rich ratios.
Some years ago, Proponent posted an excellent layman's explanation of the stoichiometric ratio issue. It's one of the very few posts I have bookmarked; and I think you (and some newer members) might find it interesting.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35169.msg1227557#msg1227557
#BE4 Engine here at #IAC2019!
For those attending #IAC2019, make sure to stop by booth #754 to learn more about ULA’s #VulcanCentaur rocket! Come take a selfie with a life-sized BE-4 engine and a Vulcan orthogrid panel on display! @IAC2019DC
Some #iPhone11 ultra wide shots of the Blue Origin BE4 engine at #IAC2019
Regular photos (1x lens) of the Blue Origin BE-4 here at #IAC2019
Some close up (2x lens) photos of the Blue Origin BE-4 here at #IAC2019
#BE4 🥰
Short BE-4 tour for IAC.
twitter.com/goforstaging/status/1187579010450100225QuoteShort BE-4 tour for IAC.
https://twitter.com/lars_0/status/1189028735132921857
Looks expensive.Well it's not a drop in replacement for your car engine. It is expensive. The question is just how expensive is it.
Looks expensive.
This engine's basically the third one built, dated April 2018.
Vulcan is looking like July 2021 for first flight. New Glenn is highly unlikely to fly before then, and it's also highly unlikely that BE-4 will fly on any other vehicle in the near future.Do you want to count hop tests by NG prototype boosters?
Title says it all. I've not been able to find out when BE-4 is expected to make its first flight. The reason I ask is that everyone is talking about NG flying in 2021, but given the dearth of info coming out directly, I don't find anything truly credible about that date.
Since NG is dependent on BE-4, I thought that I'd look to see when Vulcan (I think?) is supposed to fly, but THAT's sometime in 2021 also, right?
So, what am I missing? Are there any other customers for BE-4?
TIA, and have a good one,
Mike
Vulcan is looking like July 2021 for first flight. New Glenn is highly unlikely to fly before then, and it's also highly unlikely that BE-4 will fly on any other vehicle in the near future.Do you want to count hop tests by NG prototype boosters?
So, what am I missing? Are there any other customers for BE-4?
You answered your own question. First flight is scheduled for 2021. Why would an engine under development have more than two customers? It's very rare for a rocket engine to have more than one customer.
I count them as very unlikely to happen before Vulcan's first flight.That's interesting. Even as slow as Blue is, it seems hard to imagine they won't have prototype boosters to test by 2021.
Blue hasn't indicated that they will do test hops with BE-4, and they didn't with BE-3.Every flight of BE-3 is a test hop. But nailing a sea landing from an orbital mission on your first try with the first flight of a new launch vehicle? When you've never even hopped with that engine before?
So, what am I missing? Are there any other customers for BE-4?
You answered your own question. First flight is scheduled for 2021. Why would an engine under development have more than two customers? It's very rare for a rocket engine to have more than one customer.
That's why I asked the question; what I've been reading (NG flying in 2021, and Vulcan being the first vehicle to use BE-4), I couldn't reconcile the two. Hence my question. Is NG now going to be BE-4's first flight? That would actually make more sense to me, as to not risk a customer's prototype vehicle, and also to disconnect from that prototype's development schedule.
I count them as very unlikely to happen before Vulcan's first flight.That's interesting. Even as slow as Blue is, it seems hard to imagine they won't have prototype boosters to test by 2021.Blue hasn't indicated that they will do test hops with BE-4, and they didn't with BE-3.Every flight of BE-3 is a test hop. But nailing a sea landing from an orbital mission on your first try with the first flight of a new launch vehicle? When you've never even hopped with that engine before?
But they are well behind ULA in this fairly standard process, and I highly doubt they will beat Vulcan to any kind of flight.
But they are well behind ULA in this fairly standard process, and I highly doubt they will beat Vulcan to any kind of flight.
Interesting. Pretty strong statement. Do you have access to BO's New Glen schedules, or is this your impression based on BO's pace of development?
BE-4 is the engine for New Glenn and for Vulcan. Both of those vehicles will use BE-4 on their first flight, and whichever flies first will be the first flight of BE-4. I really don't see why that's hard to understand.Right. Also, keep in mind that both Vulcan and New Glenn are competing for NSSL (versus Falcon and Omega). Only two will win contracts. Given the core importance of the contract, it is possible that only the two winners will ultimately fly. Perhaps Vulcan and New Glenn will both win. Perhaps only one wins. Perhaps both will lose and BE-4 will never fly. I'm not guessing who wins!
But they are well behind ULA in this fairly standard process, and I highly doubt they will beat Vulcan to any kind of flight.
Interesting. Pretty strong statement. Do you have access to BO's New Glen schedules, or is this your impression based on BO's pace of development?
I can't see ULA missing out, their excellent performance is 2nd to none. Pricing has got sharper with competition and introduction of Vulcan will only help that. Some of DOD satellites are very expensive so much so that reliable launch becomes more important than launch price.BE-4 is the engine for New Glenn and for Vulcan. Both of those vehicles will use BE-4 on their first flight, and whichever flies first will be the first flight of BE-4. I really don't see why that's hard to understand.Right. Also, keep in mind that both Vulcan and New Glenn are competing for NSSL (versus Falcon and Omega). Only two will win contracts. Given the core importance of the contract, it is possible that only the two winners will ultimately fly. Perhaps Vulcan and New Glenn will both win. Perhaps only one wins. Perhaps both will lose and BE-4 will never fly. I'm not guessing who wins!
- Ed Kyle
It seems to me if the Air Force wants more secure launches in case of a stand down. With both Vulcan and New Glenn using BE-4, it would seem to me that only one of those would win. SpaceX uses no solids. OmegA is a solid. Vulcan uses strap on. The Air Force may one at least one of the companies also using solids to keep the solid industry going. So Vulcan would be one of the logical choices using both a BE-4 from Blue Origin and Solids.Is this reasoning still valid after Blue Origin's successful challenge? I thought that they had to weight each proposal by itself and could not take into account the combined advantages of the two winners.
Then the second choice would be New Glenn or F9/FH. So it would seem F9/FH would be the second choice as it is all liquids and is already flying. Vulcan would actually help three companies with its liquid engines and solids.
Blue Origin construction timelapse of its rocket engine factory in Huntsville, AL
Don’t think there’s a specific thread for the BE-4 factory?A timelapse of a the whole build as seen by satellites.
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1204830063759384576QuoteBlue Origin construction timelapse of its rocket engine factory in Huntsville, AL
Roth, talking about ULA's Vulcan rocket, says that the certification process for Blue Origin's BE-4 engine is "going very well."
Been some weeks since I checked out Blue Origin’s rocket engine plant in Huntsville. Looking good. And blue. Coming soon: one more thing in space made in Alabama. @blueorigin
Now THAT is a sign! #BlueOrigin #CRPHSV
BE-4 is the engine for New Glenn and for Vulcan. Both of those vehicles will use BE-4 on their first flight, and whichever flies first will be the first flight of BE-4. I really don't see why that's hard to understand.Right. Also, keep in mind that both Vulcan and New Glenn are competing for NSSL (versus Falcon and Omega). Only two will win contracts. Given the core importance of the contract, it is possible that only the two winners will ultimately fly. Perhaps Vulcan and New Glenn will both win. Perhaps only one wins. Perhaps both will lose and BE-4 will never fly. I'm not guessing who wins!
- Ed Kyle
On Monday, we open our high rate rocket engine production facility in Huntsville, AL. In anticipation of that, we wanted to show a little love for our #BE4 engine progress. https://bit.ly/37ozOFR
Will deliver first two production engines this year.
We’re also going to qualify two entire engines through the lifecycle test.
We’ve got two of the flight representative, flight readiness firing engines. They’re going to be the first time we actually take an engine, go down and run an acceptance test profile.
We’re actually going to ship those to United Launch Alliance to get integrated on the first Vulcan to go do a pad hot fire.
On the heels of that we already are starting to develop the next block upgrade of the engine, going for at least 25 flights before we have to do any significant work on it.
Unlike kerosene, LNG can be used to self-pressurize its tank. Known as autogenous repressurization, this eliminates the need for costly and complex systems that draw on Earth’s scarce helium reserves.Ignoring, of course, Earth's scarce LNG reserves. And they don't sound like they're going to Sabatier their own, given the phrasing "low cost and widely available".
Awesome to see this engine progress through testing and qualification. That said, there was one part of the page they linked that bugged me:Helium is scarce and prices are unstable. Helium is up 9.04 percent since yesterday. So even if they don't make a huge dent in Helium consumption they want to not make it worse for others. The following article explains it:QuoteUnlike kerosene, LNG can be used to self-pressurize its tank. Known as autogenous repressurization, this eliminates the need for costly and complex systems that draw on Earth’s scarce helium reserves.Ignoring, of course, Earth's scarce LNG reserves. And they don't sound like they're going to Sabatier their own, given the phrasing "low cost and widely available".
Will Blue make a dent in global LNG consumption? No. Would they have made a dent in global helium consumption? Also no. Seems like a strange point to market.
I’m in Huntsville, AL for Blue Origin’s opening of its BE-4 rocket engine facility.
Stay tuned, as I’ll be talking to CEO Bob Smith and other company leaders today in Rocket City:
Looking at the floor of Blue Origin’s new plant in Huntsville. The company will be building and testing rocket engines in Alabama soon, y’all. @blueorigin @NASA_Marshall
Blue Origin’s new BE-4 engine factory in Huntsville. Formal ribbon cutting of the factory today.
I’ve seen it in person before but the BE-4 is such an immense engine up close
Blue Origin’s Huntsville factory, by the numbers:
Size: 350,000 sq ft
Investment: $200 million
Employee capacity: 400
Blue Origin’s sparkling factory floor and 90,000 sq ft of office space
Smith: we’ll be delivering two “flight readiness” BE-4 engines to ULA in May, and production engines later this year.
In Huntsville, Alabama, for ribbon cutting at Blue Origin’s new $200 million engine factory. Bob Smith, Blue Origin’s CEO, says the company will deliver two engines to United Launch Alliance in May for a flight readiness firing on the next-gen Vulcan rocket.
Smith, Blue Origin: Engines produced at new factory will be test-fired on stand 4670 at nearby Marshall Space Flight Center beginning next year.
Blue Origin has also spent $50M to renovate test stand 4670 at NASA Marshall, which will be used for engine testing starting next year.
Our high rate engine production facility is open for business in Huntsville, AL. Thanks to @DougJones
, @RepMoBrooks
, @Robert_Aderholt
& the great state of Alabama for your support - together we are bringing the sounds of rocket engines back to the Rocket City & hundreds of jobs.
Very nice facility! And to think that SpaceX is putting together a space ship in tents and outside in the blowing dust and wind!You do know that Blue recently opened new offices in the same type of tents that SpaceX is using to built SS in?
Very nice facility! And to think that SpaceX is putting together a space ship in tents and outside in the blowing dust and wind!
Our facility will be home to the next generation of rocket engines, as well as the next generation of engine builders. Join our team, which is soon to be 300 strong. https://bit.ly/38nQfng
Big news:
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1229446773879513093QuoteSmith: we’ll be delivering two “flight readiness” BE-4 engines to ULA in May, and production engines later this year.
Edit to add:
https://twitter.com/stephenclark1/status/1229447129158029312QuoteIn Huntsville, Alabama, for ribbon cutting at Blue Origin’s new $200 million engine factory. Bob Smith, Blue Origin’s CEO, says the company will deliver two engines to United Launch Alliance in May for a flight readiness firing on the next-gen Vulcan rocket.
Big news:
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1229446773879513093QuoteSmith: we’ll be delivering two “flight readiness” BE-4 engines to ULA in May, and production engines later this year.
Edit to add:
https://twitter.com/stephenclark1/status/1229447129158029312QuoteIn Huntsville, Alabama, for ribbon cutting at Blue Origin’s new $200 million engine factory. Bob Smith, Blue Origin’s CEO, says the company will deliver two engines to United Launch Alliance in May for a flight readiness firing on the next-gen Vulcan rocket.
What is difference between flight readiness and production engines?.
Very nice facility! And to think that SpaceX is putting together a space ship in tents and outside in the blowing dust and wind!
And let see how that go...
Very nice facility! And to think that SpaceX is putting together a space ship in tents and outside in the blowing dust and wind!
And let see how that go...
Blue origin appears to be doing their utmost to do NewSpace the OldSpace way. Plenty of infrastructure, all over the country. Progress is also going at OldSpace pace.
Bezos seems to want to build his own NASA. But it’s almost as if Bezos forgot that NASA and OldSpace operates that way because of politics (spend as much in as many districts as possible), not because it was the most effective way to get things done. (And the most obvious example of this is the BE-4 plant in Alabama)
But I’m hoping that Blue Origin can prove me wrong with New Glenn.
Very nice facility! And to think that SpaceX is putting together a space ship in tents and outside in the blowing dust and wind!
And let see how that go...
Blue origin appears to be doing their utmost to do NewSpace the OldSpace way. Plenty of infrastructure, all over the country. Progress is also going at OldSpace pace.
Bezos seems to want to build his own NASA. But it’s almost as if Bezos forgot that NASA and OldSpace operates that way because of politics (spend as much in as many districts as possible), not because it was the most effective way to get things done. (And the most obvious example of this is the BE-4 plant in Alabama)
But I’m hoping that Blue Origin can prove me wrong with New Glenn.
Very nice facility! And to think that SpaceX is putting together a space ship in tents and outside in the blowing dust and wind!
And let see how that go...
Blue origin appears to be doing their utmost to do NewSpace the OldSpace way. Plenty of infrastructure, all over the country. Progress is also going at OldSpace pace.
Bezos seems to want to build his own NASA. But it’s almost as if Bezos forgot that NASA and OldSpace operates that way because of politics (spend as much in as many districts as possible), not because it was the most effective way to get things done. (And the most obvious example of this is the BE-4 plant in Alabama)
But I’m hoping that Blue Origin can prove me wrong with New Glenn.
He's building the factory at Alabama exactly because of politics, $200M is a small price to pay for several billion dollars of HLS contract.
Any recent updates on where Blue is in the process of flight-qualifying BE-4 for use on Vulcan?
Full scale testing
twitter.com/rocketrepreneur/status/1245077142368473088QuoteAny recent updates on where Blue is in the process of flight-qualifying BE-4 for use on Vulcan?
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1245088011416752130QuoteFull scale testing
Was there a previous post that said what the mass of a single BE-4 is?No I don't think so, at least there's no official number for that, but comparing it to the RD-180; 2 to 3 metric tons?
twitter.com/rocketrepreneur/status/1245077142368473088QuoteAny recent updates on where Blue is in the process of flight-qualifying BE-4 for use on Vulcan?
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1245088011416752130QuoteFull scale testing
"Isp vac.[sec]" sort of gives that away. Boeing obviously has the specific impulse because ULA uses that engine. ULA never published that number though and neither has Blue Origin?
From a Boeing Lunar lander paper they quote an ISP of BE-4
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340628805_Crewed_Lunar_Missions_and_Architectures_Enabled_by_the_NASA_Space_Launch_System
Dreamypickles suggested in another thread that the 330s figure is probably at vaccuum.
From a Boeing Lunar lander paper they quote an ISP of BE-4
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340628805_Crewed_Lunar_Missions_and_Architectures_Enabled_by_the_NASA_Space_Launch_System
Dreamypickles suggested in another thread that the 330s figure is probably at vaccuum.
The Raptor thrust number is clearly wrong, I'm not sure how much trust we can put in the other numbers.
From a Boeing Lunar lander paper they quote an ISP of BE-4
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340628805_Crewed_Lunar_Missions_and_Architectures_Enabled_by_the_NASA_Space_Launch_System
Dreamypickles suggested in another thread that the 330s figure is probably at vaccuum.
From a Boeing Lunar lander paper they quote an ISP of BE-4
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340628805_Crewed_Lunar_Missions_and_Architectures_Enabled_by_the_NASA_Space_Launch_System
Dreamypickles suggested in another thread that the 330s figure is probably at vaccuum.
I'm dubious that this value reflects any insider knowledge. It's inconsistent with the published chamber pressure and thrust, and Blue's rendered nozzle diameters. If that's all the performance they are getting, they wasted their time with ORSC... a gas generator design can easily beat that ISP at lower cost and complexity and higher TWR.
From a Boeing Lunar lander paper they quote an ISP of BE-4
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340628805_Crewed_Lunar_Missions_and_Architectures_Enabled_by_the_NASA_Space_Launch_System
Dreamypickles suggested in another thread that the 330s figure is probably at vaccuum.
I'm dubious that this value reflects any insider knowledge. It's inconsistent with the published chamber pressure and thrust, and Blue's rendered nozzle diameters. If that's all the performance they are getting, they wasted their time with ORSC... a gas generator design can easily beat that ISP at lower cost and complexity and higher TWR.
Can you show me which Gas Generator methane or kerosene rocket engine with a sea level optimized nozzle, can beat 330s of vacuum isp?
Sure, an unnamed paper engine. And those idiots at Blue didn't read that paper and went into all the hassle of designing a ORSC methalox. Or may be that paper is making awful assumptions.From a Boeing Lunar lander paper they quote an ISP of BE-4
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340628805_Crewed_Lunar_Missions_and_Architectures_Enabled_by_the_NASA_Space_Launch_System
Dreamypickles suggested in another thread that the 330s figure is probably at vaccuum.
I'm dubious that this value reflects any insider knowledge. It's inconsistent with the published chamber pressure and thrust, and Blue's rendered nozzle diameters. If that's all the performance they are getting, they wasted their time with ORSC... a gas generator design can easily beat that ISP at lower cost and complexity and higher TWR.
Can you show me which Gas Generator methane or kerosene rocket engine with a sea level optimized nozzle, can beat 330s of vacuum isp?
A SL-optimized methalox GG with ER=20 should get about 334 s in vacuum, see Table 3 of this PDF:
https://elib.dlr.de/114430/1/Paper_IAC2017_D.2.4.3ENTRAIN.pdf
Where's that from? I seem to remember them settling on around 2,000kn a year before that IAC. They were already building a Raptor by that time. Vacuum couldn't have been that much higher that SL.From a Boeing Lunar lander paper they quote an ISP of BE-4
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340628805_Crewed_Lunar_Missions_and_Architectures_Enabled_by_the_NASA_Space_Launch_System
Dreamypickles suggested in another thread that the 330s figure is probably at vaccuum.
The Raptor thrust number is clearly wrong, I'm not sure how much trust we can put in the other numbers.
It is correct in the sense that it exactly matches the vacuum thrust number that Musk presented for the "ITS" in 2016 at IAC in Gaudalajara, Mexico.
Sure, an unnamed paper engine. And those idiots at Blue didn't read that paper and went into all the hassle of designing a ORSC methalox. Or may be that paper is making awful assumptions.From a Boeing Lunar lander paper they quote an ISP of BE-4
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340628805_Crewed_Lunar_Missions_and_Architectures_Enabled_by_the_NASA_Space_Launch_System
Dreamypickles suggested in another thread that the 330s figure is probably at vaccuum.
I'm dubious that this value reflects any insider knowledge. It's inconsistent with the published chamber pressure and thrust, and Blue's rendered nozzle diameters. If that's all the performance they are getting, they wasted their time with ORSC... a gas generator design can easily beat that ISP at lower cost and complexity and higher TWR.
Can you show me which Gas Generator methane or kerosene rocket engine with a sea level optimized nozzle, can beat 330s of vacuum isp?
A SL-optimized methalox GG with ER=20 should get about 334 s in vacuum, see Table 3 of this PDF:
https://elib.dlr.de/114430/1/Paper_IAC2017_D.2.4.3ENTRAIN.pdf
It's probably about as accurate as their estimate of 382 s for Raptor, which is not very.
Where's that from? I seem to remember them settling on around 2,000kn a year before that IAC. They were already building a Raptor by that time. Vacuum couldn't have been that much higher that SL.From a Boeing Lunar lander paper they quote an ISP of BE-4
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340628805_Crewed_Lunar_Missions_and_Architectures_Enabled_by_the_NASA_Space_Launch_System
Dreamypickles suggested in another thread that the 330s figure is probably at vaccuum.
The Raptor thrust number is clearly wrong, I'm not sure how much trust we can put in the other numbers.
It is correct in the sense that it exactly matches the vacuum thrust number that Musk presented for the "ITS" in 2016 at IAC in Gaudalajara, Mexico.
Thanks. My memory must be confused. I was talking to Baldusi about the smaller than expected thrust figures right when that convention was going on. It's probably his fault for forcing me to drink all that Argentinian wine against my will.Where's that from? I seem to remember them settling on around 2,000kn a year before that IAC. They were already building a Raptor by that time. Vacuum couldn't have been that much higher that SL.From a Boeing Lunar lander paper they quote an ISP of BE-4
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340628805_Crewed_Lunar_Missions_and_Architectures_Enabled_by_the_NASA_Space_Launch_System
Dreamypickles suggested in another thread that the 330s figure is probably at vaccuum.
The Raptor thrust number is clearly wrong, I'm not sure how much trust we can put in the other numbers.
It is correct in the sense that it exactly matches the vacuum thrust number that Musk presented for the "ITS" in 2016 at IAC in Gaudalajara, Mexico.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7Uyfqi_TE8&t=3240s
@32:40
Big news:
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1229446773879513093QuoteSmith: we’ll be delivering two “flight readiness” BE-4 engines to ULA in May, and production engines later this year.
Edit to add:
https://twitter.com/stephenclark1/status/1229447129158029312QuoteIn Huntsville, Alabama, for ribbon cutting at Blue Origin’s new $200 million engine factory. Bob Smith, Blue Origin’s CEO, says the company will deliver two engines to United Launch Alliance in May for a flight readiness firing on the next-gen Vulcan rocket.
A good question about, is how many BE-4 are they producing per month right now, and by the end of the year?
Because some rumor said they have a delay of BE-4 for the NG debut in 2021...
Thank you, @blueorigin, for hosting me at your rocket factory in Kent this weekend. It was great to see the pandemic response with your production of face shields, as well as the progress on the BE-4 engine.
Amazing how "clean" it looks compared to the pipe and wiring chaos on the Raptor.
Right.. That was actually pretty obvious. Sorry for the clueless comment.Amazing how "clean" it looks compared to the pipe and wiring chaos on the Raptor.
Because it hasn't been plumbed or wired up yet. If you look closer, you can see fittings where all the plumbing and wiring will go once it's done.
Right.. That was actually pretty obvious. Sorry for the clueless comment.Amazing how "clean" it looks compared to the pipe and wiring chaos on the Raptor.
Because it hasn't been plumbed or wired up yet. If you look closer, you can see fittings where all the plumbing and wiring will go once it's done.
@torybruno
will it be publicized when ULA receives the first engines?
Probably
Here is the "wired up", version. Guess what it's still simpler looking than Raptor, coz it is! Oxygen rich vs. full flow.Amazing how "clean" it looks compared to the pipe and wiring chaos on the Raptor.
Because it hasn't been plumbed or wired up yet. If you look closer, you can see fittings where all the plumbing and wiring will go once it's done.
Not received them yet then?
These are probably the best shots of the engine I have seen...from IAC 2019.Well May is gone and if Bruno had a firm date he could have said so to positively answer the question.
https://twitter.com/TrevorMahlmann/status/1186380843331342336
https://twitter.com/AlohaPaulGeller/status/1187784951279882240Not received them yet then?
This is aerospace. May means June-August.
These are probably the best shots of the engine I have seen...from IAC 2019.Well May is gone and if Bruno had a firm date he could have said so to positively answer the question.
https://twitter.com/TrevorMahlmann/status/1186380843331342336
https://twitter.com/AlohaPaulGeller/status/1187784951279882240Not received them yet then?
This is aerospace. May means June-August.
I don't think he is rushing to greet the FedEx truck every morning.
Well May is gone and if Bruno had a firm date he could have said so to positively answer the question.
I don't think he is rushing to greet the FedEx truck every morning.
The May date predates COVID-19 so it’s understandable that it’s slipped a bit.
Why do they use ORSC instead of FRSC?
Why do they use ORSC instead of FRSC?
Methane does coke if you heat it enough, and 2/3 of the flow volume (and thus the turbine-extractable power) is on the ox side.
LH2 is ideal for FRSC because it doesn't coke at all, and because of the low fuel density almost all of the flow volume and power is on the fuel side.
FF runs the turbines pretty cool, for a preburner.Why do they use ORSC instead of FRSC?
Methane does coke if you heat it enough, and 2/3 of the flow volume (and thus the turbine-extractable power) is on the ox side.
LH2 is ideal for FRSC because it doesn't coke at all, and because of the low fuel density almost all of the flow volume and power is on the fuel side.
How is the coking problem solved with Raptor?
Why do they use ORSC instead of FRSC?
Methane does coke if you heat it enough, and 2/3 of the flow volume (and thus the turbine-extractable power) is on the ox side.
LH2 is ideal for FRSC because it doesn't coke at all, and because of the low fuel density almost all of the flow volume and power is on the fuel side.
How is the coking problem solved with Raptor?
Why do they use ORSC instead of FRSC?
Methane does coke if you heat it enough, and 2/3 of the flow volume (and thus the turbine-extractable power) is on the ox side.
LH2 is ideal for FRSC because it doesn't coke at all, and because of the low fuel density almost all of the flow volume and power is on the fuel side.
How is the coking problem solved with Raptor?
FFSC gets about 35% of the total pump power out of the methane side. A methane FRSC would need to get 100% of the pump power out of that same flow, so either chamber pressure goes down or turbine temps go up.
Why do they use ORSC instead of FRSC?
Methane does coke if you heat it enough, and 2/3 of the flow volume (and thus the turbine-extractable power) is on the ox side.
LH2 is ideal for FRSC because it doesn't coke at all, and because of the low fuel density almost all of the flow volume and power is on the fuel side.
How is the coking problem solved with Raptor?
FFSC gets about 35% of the total pump power out of the methane side. A methane FRSC would need to get 100% of the pump power out of that same flow, so either chamber pressure goes down or turbine temps go up.
Where did you get that coking was a problem? As far as I know, the issue is that going ORSC gives better performance because methane only has 2.42 times the specific heat of oxygen, but oxygen has 3.5 times the mass, so you get about 45% more power (or lower turbine temperature) if you go oxidizer-rich rather than fuel-rich. Of course that this "close" numbers only makes FFSC more attractive.
The @blueorigin #BE4 engine for #VulcanCentaur arrived at our Decatur, AL factory. ULA’s next-gen rocket is on track for launch in 2021! #CountdowntoVulcan
So there are production versions of the BE-4 in existence now? Shouldn't that be bigger news?
Smith: we’ll be delivering two “flight readiness” BE-4 engines to ULA in May, and production engines later this year.
We are proud to provide our American-made #BE4 engine to fly on Vulcan.
"The @blueorigin #BE4 engine for #VulcanCentaur arrived..."Only one engine is shown in the photo. This engine should be part of the Flight Readiness Firing Test (FRFT) set. The test engines will be used for the first integrated processing and pad testing flow (includes an FRF/static fire test).
Vulcan uses two BE-4 engines, so is this both of them, and they use the collective "The" to denote that, or should they have said "A BE4 engine..."?
Inquiring minds want to know... ;)
I saw on twitter they already had the pathfinder engines, these are flight engines I believe
That was Different activity to pathfind transportation. This is a development engine that we will use to pathfind assembly at Decatur and operations at the pad
Development Pathfinder
According to sources, frustration has been mounting at ULA as the company’s future is tied to the success of Vulcan Centaur and there is no room for error when it comes to the main engine.
ULA CEO Tory Bruno told SpaceNews in February that most of Vulcan’s major components except the main engine are in production. He called the engine “the hardest part” and said Blue Origin was doing its best to stay on track and overcome “big technical challenges this past year.”
Bruno said the BE-4 is a “powerful and complicated machine” that can power a cruise ship. “It’s a pretty big engineering feat.”
From https://spacenews.com/blue-origin-delivers-the-first-be-4-engine-to-united-launch-alliance/:I doubt they would've been any closer to launch if the AR1 had been choosen. Either way they were relying on new engine development with usual schedule slips.QuoteAccording to sources, frustration has been mounting at ULA as the company’s future is tied to the success of Vulcan Centaur and there is no room for error when it comes to the main engine.
ULA CEO Tory Bruno told SpaceNews in February that most of Vulcan’s major components except the main engine are in production. He called the engine “the hardest part” and said Blue Origin was doing its best to stay on track and overcome “big technical challenges this past year.”
Bruno said the BE-4 is a “powerful and complicated machine” that can power a cruise ship. “It’s a pretty big engineering feat.”
Who said anything about AR1? The article is strictly about BE-4 and the challenges BO and ULA are facing to get it to production status and never mentions AR1 at all.From https://spacenews.com/blue-origin-delivers-the-first-be-4-engine-to-united-launch-alliance/:I doubt they would've been any closer to launch if the AR1 had been choosen. Either way they were relying on new engine development with usual schedule slips.QuoteAccording to sources, frustration has been mounting at ULA as the company’s future is tied to the success of Vulcan Centaur and there is no room for error when it comes to the main engine.
ULA CEO Tory Bruno told SpaceNews in February that most of Vulcan’s major components except the main engine are in production. He called the engine “the hardest part” and said Blue Origin was doing its best to stay on track and overcome “big technical challenges this past year.”
Bruno said the BE-4 is a “powerful and complicated machine” that can power a cruise ship. “It’s a pretty big engineering feat.”
It is relative as article implies Blue aren't doing a good job in supplying the BE4. AR1 was the alternative, either way Vulcan was going to be delayed as development schedules for either engine choice would've happen.Who said anything about AR1? The article is strictly about BE-4 and the challenges BO and ULA are facing to get it to production status and never mentions AR1 at all.From https://spacenews.com/blue-origin-delivers-the-first-be-4-engine-to-united-launch-alliance/:I doubt they would've been any closer to launch if the AR1 had been choosen. Either way they were relying on new engine development with usual schedule slips.QuoteAccording to sources, frustration has been mounting at ULA as the company’s future is tied to the success of Vulcan Centaur and there is no room for error when it comes to the main engine.
ULA CEO Tory Bruno told SpaceNews in February that most of Vulcan’s major components except the main engine are in production. He called the engine “the hardest part” and said Blue Origin was doing its best to stay on track and overcome “big technical challenges this past year.”
Bruno said the BE-4 is a “powerful and complicated machine” that can power a cruise ship. “It’s a pretty big engineering feat.”
Keep in mind that the PE's and DE's are not built in the same complex and state as the production engines which just opened up for production start up. The development facility is in the early phases of transitioning to its next main project. It is similar to Angara's RD-191 series which is also relocating its tooling to a new facility in a different oblast (state). Moving, production start up and quality control verification, new site against former site takes time.It is relative as article implies Blue aren't doing a good job in supplying the BE4. AR1 was the alternative, either way Vulcan was going to be delayed as development schedules for either engine choice would've happen.Who said anything about AR1? The article is strictly about BE-4 and the challenges BO and ULA are facing to get it to production status and never mentions AR1 at all.From https://spacenews.com/blue-origin-delivers-the-first-be-4-engine-to-united-launch-alliance/:I doubt they would've been any closer to launch if the AR1 had been choosen. Either way they were relying on new engine development with usual schedule slips.QuoteAccording to sources, frustration has been mounting at ULA as the company’s future is tied to the success of Vulcan Centaur and there is no room for error when it comes to the main engine.
ULA CEO Tory Bruno told SpaceNews in February that most of Vulcan’s major components except the main engine are in production. He called the engine “the hardest part” and said Blue Origin was doing its best to stay on track and overcome “big technical challenges this past year.”
Bruno said the BE-4 is a “powerful and complicated machine” that can power a cruise ship. “It’s a pretty big engineering feat.”
Keep in mind that the PE's and DE's are not built in the same complex and state as the production engines which just opened up for production start up. The development facility is in the early phases of transitioning to its next main project. It is similar to Angara's RD-191 series which is also relocating its tooling to a new facility in a different oblast (state). Moving, production start up and quality control verification, new site against former site takes time.
Disclaimer: I have no knowledge of the actual delay reason however the above is a contributing factor for the big picture.
Correct but those are initial (pre) production engines. Huntsville is full production.Keep in mind that the PE's and DE's are not built in the same complex and state as the production engines which just opened up for production start up. The development facility is in the early phases of transitioning to its next main project. It is similar to Angara's RD-191 series which is also relocating its tooling to a new facility in a different oblast (state). Moving, production start up and quality control verification, new site against former site takes time.
Disclaimer: I have no knowledge of the actual delay reason however the above is a contributing factor for the big picture.
The first flight engines are supposed to be built in Kent, not Huntsville.
The first flight engines are supposed to be built in Kent, not Huntsville.
The first flight engines are supposed to be built in Kent, not Huntsville.
"...are supposed to be..."
How about are already built and delivered?
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1281258078751637504QuoteNow that’s what I call an unboxing video! @blueorigin #BE4 engine at the Rocket Factory in Decatur supporting #VulcanCentaur pathfinding. #CountdowntoVulcan
Chief Engineer, BE-4 Block 2https://blueorigin.wd5.myworkdayjobs.com/en-US/BlueOrigin/job/Kent-WA/Chief-Engineer--BE-4-Block-2_R3928 (https://blueorigin.wd5.myworkdayjobs.com/en-US/BlueOrigin/job/Kent-WA/Chief-Engineer--BE-4-Block-2_R3928)
As part of a dedicated and accomplished Chief Engineering team, you will provide independent oversight across the BE-4 Block 2 Engine Program to ensure overall technical compliance across the development and operational lifecycle. The position reports to the Engines Chief Engineer Lead and requires strong engineering and collaboration skills to implement the optimal solutions that support the imposed requirements and architecture. In a fast-paced challenging environment, you will contribute to innovative solutions, while demonstrating personal leadership, technical judgement and competence, and a passion for the highest technical standards partnering with the business unit and engineering leadership to achieve program goals. This position will directly impact the history of space exploration and will require your dedicated commitment and attention towards safe and reliable spaceflight.
According to this job positing Blue is planning a block 2 version of the BE-4 engine.Perhaps more accurately, they have always planned a Block 2 version of BE-4, and now they are staffing the project.
I think the cost is not a major issue if they achieve 25 re-uses. I think they are gated on current levels of reliability, & will make more rapid improvement once they start flying sometime in 2023-2024. As much as there is to love about BE-4, I think the PC is being sandbagged until they get more experience. Over time, I would hope they get the PC upwards of the RD-180. If they do that, BE-4 will be a monster of an engine, nearly double the current thrust, & that would fit well to a future New Armstrong vehicle.
Block 2 is the 25 time reusable version of BE4 .
See this video : (timestamp : 1 min 05s )
Higher PC is bad for reusability, to my knowledge. If they go with hydrolox for the upper/in-space stage, they might never need a better performing methalox engine.Hydrolox complicates a lot of things. The fuel tank is much larger, the temperature much lower, and the interface with the lox tank must be well insulated. The ground support is more complex. I'm a software guy so please correct me if I'm missing something, but I would think that methalox can get some impressive vacuum performance when optimized.
I think the cost is not a major issue if they achieve 25 re-uses. I think they are gated on current levels of reliability, & will make more rapid improvement once they start flying sometime in 2023-2024. As much as there is to love about BE-4, I think the PC is being sandbagged until they get more experience. Over time, I would hope they get the PC upwards of the RD-180. If they do that, BE-4 will be a monster of an engine, nearly double the current thrust, & that would fit well to a future New Armstrong vehicle.
Higher PC is bad for reusability, to my knowledge. If they go with hydrolox for the upper/in-space stage, they might never need a better performing methalox engine.
I think the cost is not a major issue if they achieve 25 re-uses. I think they are gated on current levels of reliability, & will make more rapid improvement once they start flying sometime in 2023-2024. As much as there is to love about BE-4, I think the PC is being sandbagged until they get more experience. Over time, I would hope they get the PC upwards of the RD-180. If they do that, BE-4 will be a monster of an engine, nearly double the current thrust, & that would fit well to a future New Armstrong vehicle.
Higher PC is bad for reusability, to my knowledge. If they go with hydrolox for the upper/in-space stage, they might never need a better performing methalox engine.
Difficult to assess, an oxygen rich staged combustion engine shouldn't really have any issues with coking so it shouldn't necessarily need any cleaning between missions.
The life limiting elements will be the pre-burner combustor and the turbine gas path components. The failure would be by oxidation.
From a temperature/stress perspective the turbine system is less highly loaded than an aero gas turbine so it's not going to fail due to creep or high cycle fatigue. Though I suspect that seals might also be life limiting given that they all have to be coated metallic or ceramic.
25 missions is barely over 1 hour of running there is decent evidence that high pressure staged combination engines may be capable of doing that today.
The advantage of upping the chamber pressure to 250-300bar range is that New Glenn gross mass goes up to the 2500-3000 tonne range. This essentially means that you now have substantial margin to second stage reuse given that you can support a 200-1000 tonne second stage depending on your design choices.
Personally I'd like to see a wet workshop Modular space station and visiting it with a runway landed winged second stage.
The biggest elements not previously flown will be the booster structure itself and the BE-4 engines.
Blue Origin is still troubleshooting the 75,000-horsepower pumps that bring fuel to the BE-4’s main combustion chamber, Bruno said, adding that’s he confident the issues will soon be solved.
“There’s very little technical risk,” he said. “It isn’t easy, but we know we can do it.”
ULA CEO: Here's how we beat SpaceX for Space Force's big contract (https://www.bizjournals.com/denver/news/2020/08/20/united-launch-alliance-space-force-spacex-contract.html)QuoteThe biggest elements not previously flown will be the booster structure itself and the BE-4 engines.
Blue Origin is still troubleshooting the 75,000-horsepower pumps that bring fuel to the BE-4’s main combustion chamber, Bruno said, adding that’s he confident the issues will soon be solved.
“There’s very little technical risk,” he said. “It isn’t easy, but we know we can do it.”
New thread for where we currently are with development.
Thursday, I talked to Mark Peller of ULA who deep dived into where Vulcan's various elements are in production and what the current first flight timeline is.
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2020/08/ula-updates-vulcan-status/
Speaking to NASASpaceflight on the same day, Mr. Peller independently affirmed that no schedule impacts from the BE-4 are currently being tracked, stating “They are actively building, in their Kent facility, the [qualification engines] as well as the first flight engines. Later this year, we’ll also take delivery of the first flight engines for buildup of the first booster to support the Peregrine mission.”
Mr. Peller added that Blue Origin is nearing the end of the development phase for the BE-4 engine, espousing that if there’s been a good development process, qualification usually goes well.
“Development is really the hard part because that’s where you work out all your issues, at least that’s my experience. Once you get into qualification with the engine, if you had a solid development program behind you, those usually go pretty smoothly,” noted Mr. Peller.
Development of the BE-4 has long been seen as the critical path for Vulcan. ULA exercised an option within the U.S. Space Force’s National Security Space Launch (NSSL) Phase 2 award proposal and bid Atlas V as a backup vehicle for Vulcan in case the latter ran into development or certification issues.
When asked when ULA would have to inform the Space Force of its desire to switch one of the first awarded NSSL missions from Vulcan to Atlas V under a purely hypothetical BE-4 or Vulcan issue, Mr. Peller did not comment directly, instead affirming ULA’s confidence that all of their NSSL missions would fly on Vulcan.
“BE-4, they’ve made really good progress with development. And they’ve really demonstrated all the fundamental technologies. And all the things that all the people were concerned with years ago with propellant and the fuel and the ability to develop, domestically, a large oxygen-rich combustion engine and some of the other really novel technologies that are key to enabling BE-4 and its performance, we’re through all those.
“We’re into just working out the final details and have kind of moved on to production and qualification of hardware. We’re on track and have the necessary margin in our schedules.”
Q: They [Blue Origin] got the BE-4 tho right, right?
A: Yes, but it's at least 12-18 months away from first flight.
I am saying the BE-4 will not fly on Vulcan for at least 12 months, maybe 18.
Nice engine! Thanks @ac_charania and the @blueorigin team in #Huntsville for a great visit. #NationalTeam
Tory Bruno was interviewed on the Space Show yesterday:
https://www.thespaceshow.com/show/23-oct-2020/broadcast-3594-tory-bruno-ceo-ula
I haven’t listened to it yet.
Tory Bruno was interviewed on the Space Show yesterday:
https://www.thespaceshow.com/show/23-oct-2020/broadcast-3594-tory-bruno-ceo-ula
I haven’t listened to it yet.
Someone asked about BE4 and possible turbopump issue. Tory said its sorted and testing is almost finished, also added engine is performing better than expected. I take from that its capable of more than 550klbs, not they will be using it on first few missions.
Tory Bruno was interviewed on the Space Show yesterday:
https://www.thespaceshow.com/show/23-oct-2020/broadcast-3594-tory-bruno-ceo-ula
I haven’t listened to it yet.
Someone asked about BE4 and possible turbopump issue. Tory said its sorted and testing is almost finished, also added engine is performing better than expected. I take from that its capable of more than 550klbs, not they will be using it on first few missions.
Better combustion efficiency?Tory Bruno was interviewed on the Space Show yesterday:
https://www.thespaceshow.com/show/23-oct-2020/broadcast-3594-tory-bruno-ceo-ula
I haven’t listened to it yet.
Someone asked about BE4 and possible turbopump issue. Tory said its sorted and testing is almost finished, also added engine is performing better than expected. I take from that its capable of more than 550klbs, not they will be using it on first few missions.
Could also be that it's a bit lighter or have better isp. Thrust is not the only engine metric.
Tory Bruno was interviewed on the Space Show yesterday:
https://www.thespaceshow.com/show/23-oct-2020/broadcast-3594-tory-bruno-ceo-ula
I haven’t listened to it yet.
Someone asked about BE4 and possible turbopump issue. Tory said its sorted and testing is almost finished, also added engine is performing better than expected. I take from that its capable of more than 550klbs, not they will be using it on first few missions.
Could also be that it's a bit lighter or have better isp. Thrust is not the only engine metric.
Also the isp has no big random variables.
[...] your engine should not become lighter when you test it, unless you use an ablative nozzle ;)Historically, it's very common for engines to get additional thrust (you'll see comments like "running at 110% thrust", which makes little sense unless the baseline is the original thrust). But I've never seen an engine get 10% lighter, or have significantly better ISP (without changing the nozzle, impractical in this case).
You know how much it weights when you design and build it.
Also the isp has no big random variables.
But you may find out you can use much higher pressure than originally planned, and gain considerable amount of thrust, while gaining only very little isp.
Merlin 1 wants to have a talk with you. The C-version was 630kg, and the D version is 470kg. Over 25% reduction in weight, and a doubling of the thrust-to-weight ratio.[...] your engine should not become lighter when you test it, unless you use an ablative nozzle ;)Historically, it's very common for engines to get additional thrust (you'll see comments like "running at 110% thrust", which makes little sense unless the baseline is the original thrust). But I've never seen an engine get 10% lighter, or have significantly better ISP (without changing the nozzle, impractical in this case).
You know how much it weights when you design and build it.
Also the isp has no big random variables.
But you may find out you can use much higher pressure than originally planned, and gain considerable amount of thrust, while gaining only very little isp.
That was totally redesigned engine, not slight modifications on existing engine.Merlin 1 wants to have a talk with you. The C-version was 630kg, and the D version is 470kg. Over 25% reduction in weight, and a doubling of the thrust-to-weight ratio.[...] your engine should not become lighter when you test it, unless you use an ablative nozzle ;)Historically, it's very common for engines to get additional thrust (you'll see comments like "running at 110% thrust", which makes little sense unless the baseline is the original thrust). But I've never seen an engine get 10% lighter, or have significantly better ISP (without changing the nozzle, impractical in this case).
You know how much it weights when you design and build it.
Also the isp has no big random variables.
But you may find out you can use much higher pressure than originally planned, and gain considerable amount of thrust, while gaining only very little isp.
The Merlin 1-D is a new engine with a closely related name. SpaceX replaced all the main engine parts - the turbopump (moved to an in-house design), the combustion chamber (changed the expansion ratio), the nozzle (increased margins), the fuel (now designed for subcooled RP-1 and LOX) and who know what else. I suspect all that remained were the mounting points and physical envelope.Historically, it's very common for engines to get additional thrust (you'll see comments like "running at 110% thrust", which makes little sense unless the baseline is the original thrust). But I've never seen an engine get 10% lighter, or have significantly better ISP (without changing the nozzle, impractical in this case).Merlin 1 wants to have a talk with you. The C-version was 630kg, and the D version is 470kg. Over 25% reduction in weight, and a doubling of the thrust-to-weight ratio.
Mowry: making great progress BE-4 engine, beginning qualification at the end of the year.
Bruno: very happy with the BE-4, performing better than anticipated. Plan to have Vulcan ready so first customer (Astrobotic) is not waiting for us. #WSBW
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1325831369612808193QuoteMowry: making great progress BE-4 engine, beginning qualification at the end of the year.
Bruno: very happy with the BE-4, performing better than anticipated. Plan to have Vulcan ready so first customer (Astrobotic) is not waiting for us. #WSBW
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1325831369612808193QuoteMowry: making great progress BE-4 engine, beginning qualification at the end of the year.
Bruno: very happy with the BE-4, performing better than anticipated. Plan to have Vulcan ready so first customer (Astrobotic) is not waiting for us. #WSBW
Is there a test flight before "first customer"?
And - this would have been a very good point for Bruno to say "ready before end of 2021" for example. saying "Ready before Astrobotic will be ready" is kinda nebulous.
https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/space/ula-remakes-itself-new-space-era (https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/space/ula-remakes-itself-new-space-era)
From the article:
"The pacing item for us is the BE-4 rocket engine. Blue Origin has completed fine-tuning the design of the turbo machinery to get the pumps to perform exactly the way they are needed. They’ve been testing it for a while and it’s very successful, so now we think we understand the final configuration on that rocket engine. They have begun fabrication of the flight engines for us, but until we have them, that will be the pacing item.
After we get those engines, we’ll have to assemble them into the rocket, take the rocket to Florida and conduct a flight-readiness-firing series of tests. I would expect to have the two flight engines in hand before the end of March 2021, and we’ll be flying the Vulcan next year. That is the ultimate culmination of all of this."
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1336002283558072322QuoteiSpy a pair of BE4 Path Finder engines at the Decatur Rocket Factory. #VulcanCentaur
Edit to add:
twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1336004658050031617QuoteIs one of these the pathfinder delivered in July? When do you expect the first flight-qualified BE-4 to arrive?
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1336024208023969794QuoteYes. Next year
During a call with reporters, Tory Bruno said he expects to receive "flight configuration" BE-4 engines for the Vulcan rocket "this summer." Engine performance is better than asked for, so far.
https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1339633465076150273 (https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1339633465076150273)QuoteDuring a call with reporters, Tory Bruno said he expects to receive "flight configuration" BE-4 engines for the Vulcan rocket "this summer." Engine performance is better than asked for, so far.
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1347942408676368386QuoteNow that is a beautiful sight! A pair of @BlueOrigin BE4 engines installed on a #VulcanCentaur booster for pathfinding operations in preparation for launch in 2021. #CountdownToVulcan!
The #BE4 engine hotfire test from earlier this week in West Texas 🔥
jeffbezoshttps://www.instagram.com/jeffbezos/
Perfect night! Sitting in the back of my pickup truck under the Moon and stars watching another long duration, full thrust hotfire test of @BlueOrigin’s BE-4 engine. #GradatimFerociter
Musical_Tanks
@torybruno I have been looking for specific impulse of BE-4, can't find it. Are you able to say or is it TBD/classified kinda thing?
Tory Bruno
Not yet released. I can say that it is better than we expected
It seems like with a rocket engine, you'd want exactly what you expected. Anything else means you don't quite know what's going on in there. Could it be pessimistic combustion efficiency assumptions?You can be optimistic or conservative, better to be the latter.
It seems like with a rocket engine, you'd want exactly what you expected. Anything else means you don't quite know what's going on in there. Could it be pessimistic combustion efficiency assumptions?
It seems like with a rocket engine, you'd want exactly what you expected. Anything else means you don't quite know what's going on in there. Could it be pessimistic combustion efficiency assumptions?You can be optimistic or conservative, better to be the latter.
It seems like with a rocket engine, you'd want exactly what you expected. Anything else means you don't quite know what's going on in there. Could it be pessimistic combustion efficiency assumptions?
What is the size of the BE3 compared to the BE4?
Jones said Blue Origin intends to deliver flight qualified BE-4 engines to United Launch Alliance on time for ULA’s planned maiden launch of its Vulcan rocket late this year. “We’re hot firing regularly and every time you turn around, we’re doing additional tests,” he said. “We have over 11,000 seconds of accumulated test time and we feel confident.”
I wonder if BE4 is going to find any issues once they are clustered. It's being used in two very different enviorments. Dual engine with nearby solids... Tight clustering on New Glenn, especially the center engine.... Retro propulsion...I doubt Vulcan pad test will be much more than few seconds. Their water deluge system is design for few seconds of launch.
ULA is at least planning a flight readiness firing I believe on the pad before launch. (anyone know the planned duration?)
Is New Glenn planning something similar on the Pad?
Just curious.
I found this video on the tube that goes a bit into analysing the various components of the BE-4 engine and what they do. Quite informative, and I think quite a bit more rare than info on the Raptor.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTky-qkQK3I
The BE-4 caught my attention recently due to being oxidiser rich with a single shaft, despite having the option to easily run it fuel rich with a single shaft. Why would they do that? I assume, it's because oxygen is much denser than methane. That's why the pressure needed to flow the whole oxygen stream over the turbine costs less than half the power to provide, reducing the whole pump section by a lot - but this leads to another question:
Comparing the pump section of the BE-4 to Raptor, I see the BE-4's section is way bigger despite having only 20 % more thrust and less then half the chamber pressure. That's not just a slightly larger security factor, isn't it? Or is it? Or do they not have that advanced alloys? If you know something, I'm happy to listen.
The BE-4 caught my attention recently due to being oxidiser rich with a single shaft, despite having the option to easily run it fuel rich with a single shaft. Why would they do that? I assume, it's because oxygen is much denser than methane. That's why the pressure needed to flow the whole oxygen stream over the turbine costs less than half the power to provide, reducing the whole pump section by a lot - but this leads to another question:
Comparing the pump section of the BE-4 to Raptor, I see the BE-4's section is way bigger despite having only 20 % more thrust and less then half the chamber pressure. That's not just a slightly larger security factor, isn't it? Or is it? Or do they not have that advanced alloys? If you know something, I'm happy to listen.
CH4 doesn't really form soot very readally, even when burned fuel rich. Coking is an issue primarily with longer-chain hydrocarbons, thus we don't see FFSC engine designs burning RP-1.
CH4 doesn't really form soot very readally, even when burned fuel rich. Coking is an issue primarily with longer-chain hydrocarbons, thus we don't see FFSC engine designs burning RP-1.
I thought I read somewhere that there is a temperature dependency for soot formation?
CH4 doesn't really form soot very readally, even when burned fuel rich. Coking is an issue primarily with longer-chain hydrocarbons, thus we don't see FFSC engine designs burning RP-1.
I thought I read somewhere that there is a temperature dependency for soot formation?
Maybe, but as far as I understand has no practical effects. Will be intersting to se how will this engine be reusable and if and how much will need to be refurbished. A methane engine has never been reused (except for small hops of the Starhopper).
The BE-4 caught my attention recently due to being oxidiser rich with a single shaft, despite having the option to easily run it fuel rich with a single shaft. Why would they do that? I assume, it's because oxygen is much denser than methane. That's why the pressure needed to flow the whole oxygen stream over the turbine costs less than half the power to provide, reducing the whole pump section by a lot - but this leads to another question:Bolded emphasis mine.
Comparing the pump section of the BE-4 to Raptor, I see the BE-4's section is way bigger despite having only 20 % more thrust and less then half the chamber pressure. That's not just a slightly larger security factor, isn't it? Or is it? Or do they not have that advanced alloys? If you know something, I'm happy to listen.
The BE-4 caught my attention recently due to being oxidiser rich with a single shaft, despite having the option to easily run it fuel rich with a single shaft. Why would they do that? I assume, it's because oxygen is much denser than methane. That's why the pressure needed to flow the whole oxygen stream over the turbine costs less than half the power to provide, reducing the whole pump section by a lot - but this leads to another question:
Comparing the pump section of the BE-4 to Raptor, I see the BE-4's section is way bigger despite having only 20 % more thrust and less then half the chamber pressure. That's not just a slightly larger security factor, isn't it? Or is it? Or do they not have that advanced alloys? If you know something, I'm happy to listen.
What would have been the first national security mission for United Launch Alliance’s Vulcan Centaur rocket will instead be flown by Atlas 5, the company confirmed this week. https://spacenews.com/with-ulas-new-rocket-vulcan-behind-schedule-space-force-agrees-to-let-atlas-5-fill-in/
A spokeswoman for Blue Origin said May 20 the company is “on track to deliver BE-4 engines this year.”
Already more than 3 years into development our BE-4 will be ready for flight in 2017!
I thought it was generally believed that in the run-up to trying to win the Vulcan contract, Blue Origin upscaled the BE-4 engine, to the point of basically restarting the development process? If so, we probably shouldn't consider them to have been developing the same engine continuously since 2012.I think original was 400klbs and ULA wanted 550klbs. Should've gone with 3x400klbs, would've been ready now.
I thought it was generally believed that in the run-up to trying to win the Vulcan contract, Blue Origin upscaled the BE-4 engine, to the point of basically restarting the development process? If so, we probably shouldn't consider them to have been developing the same engine continuously since 2012.Disagree. Upscaling by 25-30% is well within the range a typical engine will be upgraded to.
I thought it was generally believed that in the run-up to trying to win the Vulcan contract, Blue Origin upscaled the BE-4 engine, to the point of basically restarting the development process? If so, we probably shouldn't consider them to have been developing the same engine continuously since 2012.Disagree. Upscaling by 25-30% is well within the range a typical engine will be upgraded to.
I thought it was generally believed that in the run-up to trying to win the Vulcan contract, Blue Origin upscaled the BE-4 engine, to the point of basically restarting the development process? If so, we probably shouldn't consider them to have been developing the same engine continuously since 2012.Disagree. Upscaling by 25-30% is well within the range a typical engine will be upgraded to.
USAF considered 50% the limit to a "new" engine design. At least that was the margin when they did the first round of research to replace the RD-180. Funny thing... SpaceX tried to get Raptor in there, but USAF dismissed it for using methane rather than RP-1 and for "lack of experience and maturity" on the developer. ::)
I thought it was generally believed that in the run-up to trying to win the Vulcan contract, Blue Origin upscaled the BE-4 engine, to the point of basically restarting the development process? If so, we probably shouldn't consider them to have been developing the same engine continuously since 2012.Disagree. Upscaling by 25-30% is well within the range a typical engine will be upgraded to.
USAF considered 50% the limit to a "new" engine design. At least that was the margin when they did the first round of research to replace the RD-180. Funny thing... SpaceX tried to get Raptor in there, but USAF dismissed it for using methane rather than RP-1 and for "lack of experience and maturity" on the developer. ::)
Well, raptor still is far from production ready and reliable. SN15 lost an engine on test after all, and most static fires involve repairs or engine swaps.
I'm sure raptor will get there, but its also far from complete.
I thought it was generally believed that in the run-up to trying to win the Vulcan contract, Blue Origin upscaled the BE-4 engine, to the point of basically restarting the development process? If so, we probably shouldn't consider them to have been developing the same engine continuously since 2012.Disagree. Upscaling by 25-30% is well within the range a typical engine will be upgraded to.
USAF considered 50% the limit to a "new" engine design. At least that was the margin when they did the first round of research to replace the RD-180. Funny thing... SpaceX tried to get Raptor in there, but USAF dismissed it for using methane rather than RP-1 and for "lack of experience and maturity" on the developer. ::)
Well, raptor still is far from production ready and reliable. SN15 lost an engine on test after all, and most static fires involve repairs or engine swaps.
I'm sure raptor will get there, but its also far from complete.
I thought it was generally believed that in the run-up to trying to win the Vulcan contract, Blue Origin upscaled the BE-4 engine, to the point of basically restarting the development process? If so, we probably shouldn't consider them to have been developing the same engine continuously since 2012.Disagree. Upscaling by 25-30% is well within the range a typical engine will be upgraded to.
I thought it was generally believed that in the run-up to trying to win the Vulcan contract, Blue Origin upscaled the BE-4 engine, to the point of basically restarting the development process? If so, we probably shouldn't consider them to have been developing the same engine continuously since 2012.Disagree. Upscaling by 25-30% is well within the range a typical engine will be upgraded to.
BE-4 is also fairly low pressure for a staged combustion engine.
I thought it was generally believed that in the run-up to trying to win the Vulcan contract, Blue Origin upscaled the BE-4 engine, to the point of basically restarting the development process? If so, we probably shouldn't consider them to have been developing the same engine continuously since 2012.Disagree. Upscaling by 25-30% is well within the range a typical engine will be upgraded to.
BE-4 is also fairly low pressure for a staged combustion engine.
SpaceX did even more with their Merlin in upscaling the thrust,but IDK if they made big midifications.
Umm how are the BE-4's coming along?
Performance looks good. Moving into formal qual testing soon
twitter.com/bigpony8/status/1400664791920910336QuoteUmm how are the BE-4's coming along?
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1400810188618317827QuotePerformance looks good. Moving into formal qual testing soon
I checked a few other engines about the duration of the formal qualification test. It took about 6-18 months for these engines.
I checked a few other engines about the duration of the formal qualification test. It took about 6-18 months for these engines.
Can you please clarify if those 6-18 months were how long the formal qualification testing took, or from start of the formal qualification test to the 1st launch?
thx
“A U.S. produced rocket engine under development for ULA’s Vulcan launch vehicle is experiencing technical challenges related to the igniter and booster capabilities required and may not be qualified in time to support first launches beginning in 2021,” said GAO.
Quote“A U.S. produced rocket engine under development for ULA’s Vulcan launch vehicle is experiencing technical challenges related to the igniter and booster capabilities required and may not be qualified in time to support first launches beginning in 2021,” said GAO.
https://spacenews.com/gaos-annual-review-of-dod-programs-raises-concerns-on-space-launch-missile-warning-satellites/
Have we heard about the igniter before?
So far, so good. Like most new rocket programs, the most complex item is a new engine, which generally paces the program. BE4 is in test now building up the hours. It is performing about our expectations. Of course, in development, you're not done... until you're done.https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXMasterrace/comments/nsajm2/at_this_point_im_pretty_sure_bo_have_an_allergy/h16vfld/
Development problems, particularly after the ULA-required upscaling, were to be expected.
Development problems, particularly after the ULA-required upscaling, were to be expected.
The question has to be asked, was it worth it for Blue Origin to take on the ULA engine supply contract and the ensuing development delays that ULA's upscaling requirements caused?
Should they have gone with their original smaller engine and offered it to ULA on a "take it as is or leave it" basis and let ULA either go along with Blue's plans or take their chances with Aerojet Rocketdyne?
I guess it comes down to how many of the delays with New Glenn are due to delays with BE-4 and how many are unrelated?
The upsizing suited ULA as it let them have a near like for like replacement in terms of performance with the RD-180. However I see little upside for Blue Origin in it, particularly with hindsight.
Development problems, particularly after the ULA-required upscaling, were to be expected.
The question has to be asked, was it worth it for Blue Origin to take on the ULA engine supply contract and the ensuing development delays that ULA's upscaling requirements caused?
Should they have gone with their original smaller engine and offered it to ULA on a "take it as is or leave it" basis and let ULA either go along with Blue's plans or take their chances with Aerojet Rocketdyne?
I guess it comes down to how many of the delays with New Glenn are due to delays with BE-4 and how many are unrelated?
The upsizing suited ULA as it let them have a near like for like replacement in terms of performance with the RD-180. However I see little upside for Blue Origin in it, particularly with hindsight.
Worth it is an interesting term in regards to Blue Origin. They don't need the money, so nothing is "worth it" by that metric. But I applaud that they made an effort to provide a well-defined service and be put on a strict delivery timeline for the first time.
Development problems, particularly after the ULA-required upscaling, were to be expected.
The question has to be asked, was it worth it for Blue Origin to take on the ULA engine supply contract and the ensuing development delays that ULA's upscaling requirements caused?
Should they have gone with their original smaller engine and offered it to ULA on a "take it as is or leave it" basis and let ULA either go along with Blue's plans or take their chances with Aerojet Rocketdyne?
I guess it comes down to how many of the delays with New Glenn are due to delays with BE-4 and how many are unrelated?
The upsizing suited ULA as it let them have a near like for like replacement in terms of performance with the RD-180. However I see little upside for Blue Origin in it, particularly with hindsight.
Is it known that BE-4 problems were caused specifically by ULA requirements? The deal with ULA was first announced six years ago, that should be plenty of time to adapt the design.
Claiming that the engine would have been ready sooner without an ULA contract is speculation, and New Glenn is experiencing delays that seem unrelated anyway.
Generally speaking none of those development issues are surprising. Blue is a first-timer at building a large methane ORSC engine. Development problems, particularly after the ULA-required upscaling, were to be expected.
It should be clear by now that Blue's biggest problems have been ineffective leadership and toxic culture. The ULA deal could only be a plausible scapegoat for so long before Blue's inherent weaknesses became glaringly obvious. In a perfect world, Tory Bruno would run Blue, free of the shackles of his current position, and ULA would be run by some kind of proverbial Bob Smith.
I also get the sense that ULA is throwing a considerable amount of systems engineering and analysis resources into dragging BE-4 across the finish line, at least for the purposes of Vulcan. The engine doesn't have to be perfect, they just need to characterize its problems and shortcomings and develop strategies for avoiding the problematic conditions. Those same strategies may not necessarily work for New Glenn, but any work that ULA does in these areas is potentially helpful for Blue to understand their challenges ahead.
I also get the sense that ULA is throwing a considerable amount of systems engineering and analysis resources into dragging BE-4 across the finish line, at least for the purposes of Vulcan. The engine doesn't have to be perfect, they just need to characterize its problems and shortcomings and develop strategies for avoiding the problematic conditions. Those same strategies may not necessarily work for New Glenn, but any work that ULA does in these areas is potentially helpful for Blue to understand their challenges ahead.
How can ULA help Blue Origin with BE-4? ULA have always gotten their engines from someone else (Energomash for the RD-180, Aerojet Rocketdyne for the rest). Therefore, would they have any propulsion engineers?
I also get the sense that ULA is throwing a considerable amount of systems engineering and analysis resources into dragging BE-4 across the finish line, at least for the purposes of Vulcan. The engine doesn't have to be perfect, they just need to characterize its problems and shortcomings and develop strategies for avoiding the problematic conditions. Those same strategies may not necessarily work for New Glenn, but any work that ULA does in these areas is potentially helpful for Blue to understand their challenges ahead.
How can ULA help Blue Origin with BE-4? ULA have always gotten their engines from someone else (Energomash for the RD-180, Aerojet Rocketdyne for the rest). Therefore, would they have any propulsion engineers?
I think this is analogous to the separation of concerns that I’ve experienced in large scale computer systems engineering work - I spent a good 6-7 years doing engineering on a system component that my company essentially bought externally. But this component was both very complex in its own right and integral to the system my company *did* sell. This meant they found it unavoidable to have significant in house engineering expertise on that subsystem.
Sure, the company they bought it from had 60 people working on it and my employer had more like 6... but those 6 were needed to handle the needs of the larger system as they expressed themselves in the subsystem. It wasn’t enough - in this engineering of complex systems - to just demand the other guy fix it. You absolutely had to understand it (even to the level of practical expertise, not just general knowledge) to even have useful conversations about it.
I think it’s pretty likely ULA finds themselves in the same position with respect to propulsion. There’s a question of degree, but certainly they don’t start by calling Energomash every time an RD-180 sensor reading looks a little funny.
That still leaves uncertain how much extra oomph they could give, though.
After reading that, the part that concerns me is that they specifically call out the issue with the igniters as a problem for bringing Vulcan online. That means it's not an issue with inflight relights, which are more difficult, but with lighting the engine on the pad. That doesn't sound like a good sign.
After reading that, the part that concerns me is that they specifically call out the issue with the igniters as a problem for bringing Vulcan online. That means it's not an issue with inflight relights, which are more difficult, but with lighting the engine on the pad. That doesn't sound like a good sign.For ULA it just means an aborted launch. For NG it could mean big splash and new artificial reef.
I'm curious, what is the toxic culture at Blue? I've heard of it being bureaucratic, but I feel that is more common in corporate culture than not for most companies.
I think it’s pretty likely ULA finds themselves in the same position with respect to propulsion. There’s a question of degree, but certainly they don’t start by calling Energomash every time an RD-180 sensor reading looks a little funny.
Meanwhile I'm guessing the AR engineers are not especially keen on fixing BOs design issues.
ULA (well, Lockheed Martin) is closing on the purchase of Aerojet Rocketdyne in the fourth quarter. That means a ULA partner will be one of the world's top developers of rocket propulsion systems.
I think it’s pretty likely ULA finds themselves in the same position with respect to propulsion. There’s a question of degree, but certainly they don’t start by calling Energomash every time an RD-180 sensor reading looks a little funny.
Yes, they do
I think it’s pretty likely ULA finds themselves in the same position with respect to propulsion. There’s a question of degree, but certainly they don’t start by calling Energomash every time an RD-180 sensor reading looks a little funny.
Yes, they do
Thanks for the detailed reply. So ULA has no propulsion expertise at all? No capability whatsoever to analyze sensor readings from the engine? Do you have any source for this?
Again we may be talking about matters of degree here, but it would be pretty weird if ULA has zero internal expertise on the propulsion system.
Another way to think about it is that ULA added requirements - and has the ability to make them stick.
After reading that, the part that concerns me is that they specifically call out the issue with the igniters as a problem for bringing Vulcan online. That means it's not an issue with inflight relights, which are more difficult, but with lighting the engine on the pad. That doesn't sound like a good sign.
After reading that, the part that concerns me is that they specifically call out the issue with the igniters as a problem for bringing Vulcan online. That means it's not an issue with inflight relights, which are more difficult, but with lighting the engine on the pad. That doesn't sound like a good sign.
I missed that statement, who said that?
“A U.S. produced rocket engine under development for ULA’s Vulcan launch vehicle is experiencing technical challenges related to the igniter and booster capabilities required and may not be qualified in time to support first launches beginning in 2021,” said GAO.
ULA have operated vehicles with 3 different propellant combinations and 4 different engine cycles. That's valuable experience even if ULA do not build any engines themselves. One of the hardest parts of systems engineering (or engineering in general) is defining the problem you want to solve (or defining the system you want to build). ULA know what they want from an engine, so can aid immensely in all the little 'fine detail' work that separates an engine that works great on a test stand from an engine that is easy and reliable to operate. Desirable pre-startup conditions, thermal bridging, telemetry, plumbing orientation tolerances, etc. Things that may not even make it onto the design table as variables if you've never built a large launch vehicle before and therefore aren't even aware you need to be thinking about, but will bite you if you ignore them or treat them as free variables until somebody actually needs to use the thing.I also get the sense that ULA is throwing a considerable amount of systems engineering and analysis resources into dragging BE-4 across the finish line, at least for the purposes of Vulcan. The engine doesn't have to be perfect, they just need to characterize its problems and shortcomings and develop strategies for avoiding the problematic conditions. Those same strategies may not necessarily work for New Glenn, but any work that ULA does in these areas is potentially helpful for Blue to understand their challenges ahead.
How can ULA help Blue Origin with BE-4? ULA have always gotten their engines from someone else (Energomash for the RD-180, Aerojet Rocketdyne for the rest). Therefore, would they have any propulsion engineers?
IIRC the BE-4 uses electric igniters, like the raptor and he RS-25. BO probably has to stick with them, even if they are giving probem to BO, because changing to TEA-TEB or to pirotecnics would need too much redesign.
I wonder if with methalox/hydrolox electric igniters are strictly needed. Is that true? Or are they simply the better system with igniters?
IIRC the BE-4 uses electric igniters, like the raptor and he RS-25. BO probably has to stick with them, even if they are giving probem to BO, because changing to TEA-TEB or to pirotecnics would need too much redesign.
I wonder if with methalox/hydrolox electric igniters are strictly needed. Is that true? Or are they simply the better system with igniters?
Electric lighters allow for reuse without having to refill TEA/TEB
The gases is already present as they are using it for tank pressurization.IIRC the BE-4 uses electric igniters, like the raptor and he RS-25. BO probably has to stick with them, even if they are giving probem to BO, because changing to TEA-TEB or to pirotecnics would need too much redesign.
I wonder if with methalox/hydrolox electric igniters are strictly needed. Is that true? Or are they simply the better system with igniters?
Electric lighters allow for reuse without having to refill TEA/TEB
And the relationship with methalox is quite the opposite: They are not needed, but they can be used easily, as opposed to other propellants, and TEA-TEB is pretty finicky and costly. Making what is basically a torch if you have two propellants that are naturally gaseous is easy (relatively speaking). Compared to kerolox, say, it only involves a setup of two valves no more complex conceptually than any lab torch you can ignite by hand.
After reading that, the part that concerns me is that they specifically call out the issue with the igniters as a problem for bringing Vulcan online. That means it's not an issue with inflight relights, which are more difficult, but with lighting the engine on the pad. That doesn't sound like a good sign.
I missed that statement, who said that?
If I understand your question correctly yt was from the GAO report that was quoted in the article:
https://spacenews.com/gaos-annual-review-of-dod-programs-raises-concerns-on-space-launch-missile-warning-satellites/Quote“A U.S. produced rocket engine under development for ULA’s Vulcan launch vehicle is experiencing technical challenges related to the igniter and booster capabilities required and may not be qualified in time to support first launches beginning in 2021,” said GAO.
A GAO report this month on the Space Force's NSSL program notes that Blue Origin's BE-4 engine "is experiencing technical challenges" and "may not be qualified in time to support first launches beginning in 2021" of ULA's Vulcan rocket.
gao.gov/assets/gao-21-…
Sadly inaccurate. Ie: while BE4 paces completion of Vulcan, as is typical in rocket development , there are no “igniter technical issues”. We will fly when our payload is ready.
Thanks Tory - are there any technical issues remaining with BE-4 or the "booster" (quoting GAO)? Or was this assessment based on old, since-solved info from Aug 2020
Engine is performing well. Need to complete qual and initial production
Well.... I take anything Tory Bruno says with a grain of salt.
He could have meant "there are NO LONGER igniter issues".
He is also known for misdirection and lies of omission. He didn't deny ALL the issues from the report, just the ignitor one.
Program Office Comments
We provided a draft of this assessment to the program office for review and comment. The program office provided technical comments, which we incorporated.
Is there any information on how many engines have been produced? Could it be the case that the qualification units have potential workmanship issues, or if it's fundamentally a design issue?
Exactly. While the Government Accounting Office (GAO) is independent and reasonable accurate,
Exactly. While the Government Accounting Office (GAO) is independent and reasonable accurate,
Naw, not really
Exactly. While the Government Accounting Office (GAO) is independent and reasonable accurate,
Naw, not really
[Citation needed]
The GAO is also wrong a lot of times, and they can also be political.Bingo. If you have ever worked on a project and then read about it in a GAO report (as I have), you would know that at best they are written from a particular perspective which it's easy enough to disagree with.
The GAO is also wrong a lot of times, and they can also be political.Bingo. If you have ever worked on a project and then read about it in a GAO report (as I have), you would know that at best they are written from a particular perspective which it's easy enough to disagree with.
Bingo. If you have ever worked on a project and then read about it in a GAO report (as I have), you would know that at best they are written from a particular perspective which it's easy enough to disagree with.This is true of all sorts of reports - if you have ever been at live event, then read an article about it in the newspaper, they often have differences ranging from a different slant to completely wrong.
...
However, in my experience anyway, reporters and auditors do not make up issues from scratch. So if GAO says "ignitor issues", then they heard this from someone on the project. This still leaves several possibilities - the source they heard from is wrong, it was a problem but the fix is in and it is no longer believed to be a problem, to it was a problem but has been fixed and verified. If the problem is no longer present we'll likely never know which.
This really doesn't mean very much. Every project I've ever worked on has had issues (often multiple issues) with every single aspect of the project. Sometimes they were major and required months or even years to resolve. Sometimes they were trivial and could be fixed in an afternoon or after 10 minutes of Google. Saying "there is not currently an igniter issue" is almost as meaningless as saying "there was an igniter issue, but it's been fixed." Without any indication of the severity of the issue(s) or the effort involved in fixing it, it doesn't say much about the state of progress of the BE-4, or whether it is proceeding along slowly but surely or is in serious trouble. Everything written here is pure speculation and tea-leaf reading....
However, in my experience anyway, reporters and auditors do not make up issues from scratch. So if GAO says "ignitor issues", then they heard this from someone on the project. This still leaves several possibilities - the source they heard from is wrong, it was a problem but the fix is in and it is no longer believed to be a problem, to it was a problem but has been fixed and verified. If the problem is no longer present we'll likely never know which.
Notice that Tory Bruno did NOT say "There has never been an igniter issue", what he said on June 21, 2021 was that "there are no “igniter technical issues”."
It may in fact be accurate that as June 21, 2021 there is not CURRENTLY an ignitor issue, but that doesn't mean that there never was one. Because as you say Lou, reporters and auditors don't make up issues from scratch, and the GAO has no stake in the status of the program. So there must of been some issue with the ignitor in the past, but it could be true that it was solved and is no longer considered an issue.
Something seems to be delaying the BE-4...
All you're offering is opinion. Also, when trimming a quote, please indicate so,
Nope, just facts.
All you're offering is opinion. Also, when trimming a quote, please indicate so,
Nope, just facts.
Believe it or not, as much as you may distrust the government, it's rational to believe them over "what some guy on the internet says." The "fact" that you have an opinion (or even a personal experience you want to relay) doesn't outweigh that the GAO is unlikely to outright lie -- if I had to pick one entity to completely distrust, I'll give you two guesses who it's going to be.
Is there any information on how many engines have been produced? Could it be the case that the qualification units have potential workmanship issues, or if it's fundamentally a design issue?
No engines. They are still working out design issues with them. After that is qualification testing - which proves the design and build process work as intended. At that point they can start producing engines.
Every project I've ever worked on has had issues (often multiple issues) with every single aspect of the project. Sometimes they were major and required months or even years to resolve. Sometimes they were trivial and could be fixed in an afternoon or after 10 minutes of Google.This is accurate in my experience. However, it can't be a completely trivial problem as GAO must have found at least one person who thought the problem was serious. Sometimes that single person is right (witness the Challenger disaster) but often they don't have the bigger picture. It is often hard for the auditing entity to figure out who to believe in such cases.
Everything written here is pure speculation and tea-leaf reading.True, but reverse engineering of lawyer-like statements is the only evidence available. ULA or Blue could trivially resolve these with one or two additional sentences, based on information they have on hand. Since they choose not to do this, of course readers wonder how bad the problems really are, and speculate about spokesmen using weasel words to avoid admitting problems.
...Without any indication of the severity of the issue(s) or the effort involved in fixing it, it doesn't say much about the state of progress of the BE-4, or whether it is proceeding along slowly but surely or is in serious trouble. Everything written here is pure speculation and tea-leaf reading.
In a podcast with @AviationWeek, Tory Bruno says the BE-4 engine remains on the test stand. "We’ve narrowed down to what we think is the final configuration. It’s in its prequalification test series right now."
Not to mention how long it will take them to build the first two production engines which likely have do not exist yet. Remember this is not the Other company who have well over 150 engines either built or being built.They could easily have most of the components built and just replace the parts that may change. There are so many details that we don't know that this is pure speculation.
The relatively small thrust upgrade for ULA seems to have resulted in quite a delay. In March 2018, they expected the original engine to complete qualification testing by the end of that year (https://spacenews.com/blue-origin-expects-be-4-qualification-tests-to-be-done-by-years-end/). More than three years later, they are completing pre-qualification testing on the up-rated engine.
I wonder (pure speculation) whether Blue succumbed to Second System Syndrome (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-system_effect)? This is where the original system is in unknown territory and is designed conservatively, and works well. Then on the second system, since the first seemed to be well understood, the engineers reduce the margins and add in all the improvements they wished were in the first version. As a result the second version is harder to develop and less reliable, even though the basic operation is better understood.
Sounds to me more like finding performance and reliability margins ULA/USSF needs.Yes, that sounds right. I'm just curious (for curiosity sake) as to what the specific differences are and how, if at all, those differences affected BE4's Pre-Qual timelines. Either way, sounds like a Q4 or Q1 2022 delivery of initial flight qualified engines. But what the hell do I know...
I'd like to know what Tory meant by final configuration. And how that differs from the configuration Blue will be using. It is my understanding that there are key differences between the BE4 versions for Vulcan vs NG with regards to reuse. Relights, throttle control, TVC?, Mixture? etc...
Is one variant of BE4 for Vulcan and New Glenn?I'd bet dollars to donuts there are different versions. Air restart, deep throttling, and maintenance free re-use are all historically hard problems. New Glenn needs all three, but the more urgent Vulcan needs none of these. So I suspect any rational engineering group would first qualify the engine for basic operation (for ULA), and then qualify it for restart, deep throttling, and reuse later. This will almost surely require at least minor hardware and software changes, resulting in two versions (though they may converge eventually).
Is one variant of BE4 for Vulcan and New Glenn?I'd bet dollars to donuts there are different versions. Air restart and deep throttling are both historically hard problems. New Glenn needs both, but the more urgent Vulcan needs neither. So I suspect any rational engineering group would first qualify the engine for basic operation (for ULA), and then qualify it for restart and deep throttling later. This will almost surely require at least minor hardware and software changes, resulting in two versions (though they may converge later).
If I was a Blue engine developer, what would keep me awake is worrying about things that happen during flight but not on the test stand. For example, there is the historical case of the Apollo fuel bellows (https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4206/ch12.htm) and the recent case of the RL10C-1-1 unexpected vibrations (https://spaceflightnow.com/2021/06/10/ula-delays-atlas-5-launch-to-study-unexpected-engine-vibrations/). This is where the SpaceX policy of flying developmental engines can remove some risk.
Is one variant of BE4 for Vulcan and New Glenn?I'd bet dollars to donuts there are different versions. Air restart and deep throttling are both historically hard problems. New Glenn needs both, but the more urgent Vulcan needs neither. So I suspect any rational engineering group would first qualify the engine for basic operation (for ULA), and then qualify it for restart and deep throttling later. This will almost surely require at least minor hardware and software changes, resulting in two versions (though they may converge later).
If I was a Blue engine developer, what would keep me awake is worrying about things that happen during flight but not on the test stand. For example, there is the historical case of the Apollo fuel bellows (https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4206/ch12.htm) and the recent case of the RL10C-1-1 unexpected vibrations (https://spaceflightnow.com/2021/06/10/ula-delays-atlas-5-launch-to-study-unexpected-engine-vibrations/). This is where the SpaceX policy of flying developmental engines can remove some risk.
Is one variant of BE4 for Vulcan and New Glenn?I'd bet dollars to donuts there are different versions. Air restart and deep throttling are both historically hard problems. New Glenn needs both, but the more urgent Vulcan needs neither. So I suspect any rational engineering group would first qualify the engine for basic operation (for ULA), and then qualify it for restart and deep throttling later. This will almost surely require at least minor hardware and software changes, resulting in two versions (though they may converge later).
If I was a Blue engine developer, what would keep me awake is worrying about things that happen during flight but not on the test stand. For example, there is the historical case of the Apollo fuel bellows (https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4206/ch12.htm) and the recent case of the RL10C-1-1 unexpected vibrations (https://spaceflightnow.com/2021/06/10/ula-delays-atlas-5-launch-to-study-unexpected-engine-vibrations/). This is where the SpaceX policy of flying developmental engines can remove some risk.
Tory Bruno said on r/Blue Origin (correct me if he said that on different Reddit) that it was exactly the same engine as for NG
Tory Bruno said on r/Blue Origin (correct me if he said that on different Reddit) that it was exactly the same engine as for NGThis sounds to me like a management statement of aspirational intentions. I've been on many engineering projects, and the first thing to go under schedule pressure is stuff not needed for the first release. For example, suppose Blue calls for 90 minutes of runtime and 40 starts, to allow for 20 flights. That's a long qualification cycle. Meanwhile Vulcan, which needs 1 start and 4 minutes of operation, is waiting rather impatiently. Even worse, suppose there is a component that wears out and causes a failure after 15 simulated flights. Blue has to redesign the part and start the qualification sequence over. If there is only one version Vulcan is left waiting for a qualification that is completely irrelevant for their mission.
This is where it would have been wise for them to do one or the other - Be an engine manufacture or a launch provider. Not both.Why? Doing both seems to work for an unnamed company that takes over every thread on this forum.
Just because they do it doesn't mean you should. /MomThis is where it would have been wise for them to do one or the other - Be an engine manufacture or a launch provider. Not both.Why? Doing both seems to work for an unnamed company that takes over every thread on this forum.
This is where it would have been wise for them to do one or the other - Be an engine manufacture or a launch provider. Not both.Why? Doing both seems to work for an unnamed company that takes over every thread on this forum.
SpaceX and RocketLab both manufacture engines but they don't supply them to outsiders. The only company that sells both engines and launches is Blue Origin. To a smaller extent this applies to Northrop Grumman but they only supply solid boosters after a complex series of acquisitions.This is where it would have been wise for them to do one or the other - Be an engine manufacture or a launch provider. Not both.Why? Doing both seems to work for an unnamed company that takes over every thread on this forum.
SpaceX and RocketLab both manufacture engines but they don't supply them to outsiders. The only company that sells both engines and launches is Blue Origin. To a smaller extent this applies to Northrop Grumman but they only supply solid boosters after a complex series of acquisitions.This is where it would have been wise for them to do one or the other - Be an engine manufacture or a launch provider. Not both.Why? Doing both seems to work for an unnamed company that takes over every thread on this forum.
SpaceX and RocketLab both manufacture engines but they don't supply them to outsiders. The only company that sells both engines and launches is Blue Origin. To a smaller extent this applies to Northrop Grumman but they only supply solid boosters after a complex series of acquisitions.This is where it would have been wise for them to do one or the other - Be an engine manufacture or a launch provider. Not both.Why? Doing both seems to work for an unnamed company that takes over every thread on this forum.
SpaceX and RocketLab both manufacture engines but they don't supply them to outsiders. The only company that sells both engines and launches is Blue Origin. To a smaller extent this applies to Northrop Grumman but they only supply solid boosters after a complex series of acquisitions.This is where it would have been wise for them to do one or the other - Be an engine manufacture or a launch provider. Not both.Why? Doing both seems to work for an unnamed company that takes over every thread on this forum.
And in fact, this exact situation, needing to have one version of the engine for internal use and another for external sale, is what those companies avoid by not selling their engines to outsiders.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1409960205920649220 (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1409960205920649220)
SpaceX amazing peoples and... Wait,
It would be actually pretty cool if they did that (Raptors on Vulcan), although it wouldn't happen for... like, dozens of reasons.
It is at this moment I’m reminded of the unicorns dancing in the flame trench comment from 2013…He said 5 years, it now looks like 10+.
https://spacenews.com/37389musk-calls-out-blue-origin-ula-for-phony-blocking-tactic-on-shuttle-pad/
I suspect Raptor is a lot cheaper than BE-4. Anyone know what the cost differential might be?
I suspect Raptor is a lot cheaper than BE-4. Anyone know what the cost differential might be?
I suspect Raptor is a lot cheaper than BE-4. Anyone know what the cost differential might be?
Of course it is. SpaceX is spending a bunch of time/development to MAKE raptor production cheaper.
Its also a smaller engine too
Cost price != sale price.I suspect Raptor is a lot cheaper than BE-4. Anyone know what the cost differential might be?
I heard that ULA pays 8 millions for one engine.
Even with Raptor having less normal thrust than BE-4, with Vulcan being expendable, they could perhaps just increase the chamber pressure some to make up the difference. Also as was mentions in the Vulcan thread, Raptor has a higher ISP which helps too. Not going to happen through - may be in Tory's dreams.As long as they'd be redoing the thrust structure and propellant delivery anyway, they could just add a third raptor, which would more than make up for the thrust differential -- it seems like there ought to be room for three 1.4m diameter engines on a 5.4m diameter rocket. (NB that comparisons of BE-4 performance to Raptor's aren't quite apples-to-apples due to such things as Raptor's use of subcooled propellant, which Vulcan and its GSE aren't designed for. But the rated thrust of three Raptors exceeds the rated thrust of two BE-4s by a wide enough margin that even after discounts for stuff like this, the Raptors probably still come out ahead.)
Cost price != sale price.
Elon has been describing Raptor's cost to manufacture (parts + labour). BE-4's price to for sale to ULA includes profit margin along with some portion of the costs to develop the engine in the first place.
I suspect Raptor is a lot cheaper than BE-4. Anyone know what the cost differential might be?
Blue won't go into mass production until they have flight certified engine. SpaceX on other need to built uncertified engines for to fly their prototype SS LVs. Neither is wrong just different requirements for different applications.I suspect Raptor is a lot cheaper than BE-4. Anyone know what the cost differential might be?
Sea level Raptor is currently more than a magnitude cheaper, though that's obviously comparing Raptor's cost with BE-4's price. Haven't been able to extract a direct answer about BE-4 production cost, but they're very difficult to compare regardless because of how low-volume BE-4's production run is. And Blue is reeeeeallllyyyy struggling to shift from R&D to production.
Smaller in what way? Raptor is targeting about 225t of thrust for regular raptor and 250-300 tons for the R-boost variant. BE-4 is 240 tons, so in the middle. It IS *much* higher chamber pressure, which allows the chamber to be a big smaller, but also much higher Isp. None of these things really sound like "of course it'd be cheaper" except the fact that SpaceX is doing it (with the usual scale and energy that SpaceX projects have) instead of Blue Origin.I suspect Raptor is a lot cheaper than BE-4. Anyone know what the cost differential might be?
Of course it is. SpaceX is spending a bunch of time/development to MAKE raptor production cheaper.
Its also a smaller engine too
Smaller in what way?
due to Raptor having a higher pressure, which is rarely correlated with being cheaper!!!Smaller in what way?
Physically, I'd imagine; Raptor has a nozzle diameter of 1.3 meters, and BE-4's is 1.9 meters.
So are there any updates on when Blue Origin is going to be able to deliver a flight certified BE-4 engine to ULA?
Unofficially—because Blue Origin never talks about these things publicly—I've heard that a total of nine BE-4 engines have been built as part of the development program so far. Nine. Zero currently on the test stand.
Wow 5 years of development and they've only built 9 engines which barely can support one launch.
None of those nine are flight engines.
Finally, the proposal did not define the BE-4 engine block version proposed. Booster engine design or operational changes that drive requalification create an increased risk of schedule delays.
From the Europa Clipper Source Selection:QuoteFinally, the proposal did not define the BE-4 engine block version proposed. Booster engine design or operational changes that drive requalification create an increased risk of schedule delays.
That means - ULA has indicated in the RFP that the BE-4 will keep changing and won't have one stable "ULA" version?
Nine engines in 5 years used to develop a staged combustion engine isn't that bad.Blue apparently have no engines on the test stand and no flight ready hardware and they are way behind on their deliveries to ULA, never mind getting New Glenn flying. How is that considered good engine development?
In Europe they build 7 Vince Expander cycle engines over a period of 15 years to develop that engine.
SpaceX tests ridiculously hardware rich and fast, they are wasting a crapload of funding and worse material.
I think how Blue Origin develops the BE-4 is more normal.
And yes, the BE-4 development had several setbacks, but it's rocket science.
Nine engines in 5 years used to develop a staged combustion engine isn't that bad.Blue apparently have no engines on the test stand and no flight ready hardware and they are way behind on their deliveries to ULA, never mind getting New Glenn flying. How is that considered good engine development?
In Europe they build 7 Vince Expander cycle engines over a period of 15 years to develop that engine.
SpaceX tests ridiculously hardware rich and fast, they are wasting a crapload of funding and worse material.
I think how Blue Origin develops the BE-4 is more normal.
And yes, the BE-4 development had several setbacks, but it's rocket science.
Nine engines in 5 years used to develop a staged combustion engine isn't that bad.
In Europe they build 7 Vince Expander cycle engines over a period of 15 years to develop that engine.
SpaceX tests ridiculously hardware rich and fast, they are wasting a crapload of funding and worse material.
I think how Blue Origin develops the BE-4 is more normal.
And yes, the BE-4 development had several setbacks, but it's rocket science.
I don't know if Astrobotic's first CLPS lander is ready to fly yet but they must be looking very carefully at this situation.
From the Europa Clipper Source Selection:QuoteFinally, the proposal did not define the BE-4 engine block version proposed. Booster engine design or operational changes that drive requalification create an increased risk of schedule delays.
That means - ULA has indicated in the RFP that the BE-4 will keep changing and won't have one stable "ULA" version?
Thanks for posting, this caught my eye as well.
I wonder if it might be an indication that Blue is now working on finishing up an engine for ULA ASAP, that engine being good for one mission cycle and deferring fixing the reusability/longevity problems as applicable to New Glenn to a block upgrade?
I can't see what other reason for a Vulcan block upgrade there'd be especially since Tory Bruno is satisfied with the current engine performance. Well, at least publicly.
I don't know if Astrobotic's first CLPS lander is ready to fly yet but they must be looking very carefully at this situation.
It isn't ready to fly this year (cue collective sigh of relief at ULA for now).
Funnily enough, I wouldn't at all be surprised if the situation ends up being reversed - the engines and vehicle ready, but the payload still isn't.
Nine engines in 5 years used to develop a staged combustion engine isn't that bad.
In Europe they build 7 Vince Expander cycle engines over a period of 15 years to develop that engine.
SpaceX tests ridiculously hardware rich and fast, they are wasting a crapload of funding and worse material.
I think how Blue Origin develops the BE-4 is more normal.
And yes, the BE-4 development had several setbacks, but it's rocket science.
The thing is that Tory said the acceptance testing for an engine takes 6-18 months on average (really wide range there). He also said that be-4 has not started yet. So assuming an average of 12 months (middle of that date range), it means vulcan will be lucky to launch in 2022 at all. Even once the engines are finished, new ones will need to be made, and then Vulcan will have alot of stuff to do AFTER it gets the engines.Do you have a source for these figures?
I checked a few other engines about the duration of the formal qualification test. It took about 6-18 months for these engines.
The thing is that Tory said the acceptance testing for an engine takes 6-18 months on average (really wide range there). He also said that be-4 has not started yet. So assuming an average of 12 months (middle of that date range), it means vulcan will be lucky to launch in 2022 at all. Even once the engines are finished, new ones will need to be made, and then Vulcan will have alot of stuff to do AFTER it gets the engines.
Nine engines in 5 years used to develop a staged combustion engine isn't that bad.
In Europe they build 7 Vince Expander cycle engines over a period of 15 years to develop that engine.
SpaceX tests ridiculously hardware rich and fast, they are wasting a crapload of funding and worse material.
I think how Blue Origin develops the BE-4 is more normal.
And yes, the BE-4 development had several setbacks, but it's rocket science.
More old school yes....but "normal" is in the eye of the beholder. To SpaceX...what they are doing IS normal. ;D
Funny thing is....BO was touting their "hardware rich" testing when BE-4 was first shown out in Texas. I'm starting to get the idea they don't know what that means.....
EDIT: ugordan found that tweet before I could :P
Nine engines in 5 years used to develop a staged combustion engine isn't that bad.
In Europe they build 7 Vince Expander cycle engines over a period of 15 years to develop that engine.
SpaceX tests ridiculously hardware rich and fast, they are wasting a crapload of funding and worse material.
I think how Blue Origin develops the BE-4 is more normal.
And yes, the BE-4 development had several setbacks, but it's rocket science.
More old school yes....but "normal" is in the eye of the beholder. To SpaceX...what they are doing IS normal. ;D
Funny thing is....BO was touting their "hardware rich" testing when BE-4 was first shown out in Texas. I'm starting to get the idea they don't know what that means.....
EDIT: ugordan found that tweet before I could :P
Hardware rich doesn't mean being irresponsible with your hardware. It just means testing upgrading, and if it fails replacing it and moving on. so they are either not testing the BE-4 hard enough for it to break often, or its handling tests relatively well and they don't need to replace it often.
Nine engines in 5 years used to develop a staged combustion engine isn't that bad.Making lots of engines isn't waste. Having lots of people employed without a lot of progress is waste.
In Europe they build 7 Vince Expander cycle engines over a period of 15 years to develop that engine.
SpaceX tests ridiculously hardware rich and fast, they are wasting a crapload of funding and worse material.
I think how Blue Origin develops the BE-4 is more normal.
And yes, the BE-4 development had several setbacks, but it's rocket science.
Nine engines in 5 years used to develop a staged combustion engine isn't that bad.Making lots of engines isn't waste. Having lots of people employed without a lot of progress is waste.
In Europe they build 7 Vince Expander cycle engines over a period of 15 years to develop that engine.
SpaceX tests ridiculously hardware rich and fast, they are wasting a crapload of funding and worse material.
I think how Blue Origin develops the BE-4 is more normal.
And yes, the BE-4 development had several setbacks, but it's rocket science.
I'm also not quite sure Europe is the standard for quick progress we should be holding Blue Origin up to.
If Blue is just another Oldspace company, then ULA should have gone with AJR for the RD-180 replacement. If you're going with Oldspace, at least go with an Oldspace company with a track record.
(BTW, I'm not knocking ULA, BTW. They made what I think was a bold decision to go with Blue over AJR, thinking that Blue was going to be responsive and fast. But unfortunately, Blue hasn't shown the same level of competence or speed as ULA has in this field.)
So what would be a realistic timeframe at this point for the BE-4 flight ready engines being delivered and then flown on the Vulcan?2022 is all but officially not possible.
Is a 2022 launch becoming less likely at this point? I guess like 6 months of testing and integration after the engines are delivered or something to that extent? It's got to be dangerous for ULA since they can't use the Atlas V after 2023 I believe. I'd really like to see the Vulcan fly soon.
This is NOT SpaceX thread, and what is sure; this site in not a f*ing roofing forum! (Don't let ncb1397 be near your drinks)
You’re right, of course. Back to discussing the latest BE-4 developments. Who wants to go first?
Blue Origin has announced a hiring blitz this week seeking skilled machinists and welders to begin building the reusable rocket engines it erected a giant plant to produce in Alabama.https://www.al.com/news/huntsville/2021/07/blue-origin-announces-hiring-blitz-at-alabama-rocket-engine-plant.html
The company wants to hire “more than 80 skilled machinists and welders in Huntsville, Alabama, who are passionate about the company’s mission to lower the cost of access to space,” a company news release said. “We aim to fill these roles within two months to support continued company growth.”
I will only point out that the BE-4 saga is so frustrating that even in L2 you have the same thread derailments as here. With a bit more information, but same pattern. Even same Raptor as replacement suggestions by readers. ::)Replacement discussion has nothing todo with engine progress. Maybe valid in Vulcan thread but not here.
I will only point out that the BE-4 saga is so frustrating that even in L2 you have the same thread derailments as here. With a bit more information, but same pattern. Even same Raptor as replacement suggestions by readers. ::)Replacement discussion has nothing todo with engine progress. Maybe valid in Vulcan thread but not here.
Should I write a story to explain where Tory's engines really are?
OK, even though more than 120 people have voted no (love ya, haters!) I will doggedly press ahead. Give me a day or so to write the story and vainly seek comment from Blue Origin. It's actually not a particularly bad news story for Blue.
I found the BE-4 engines. And I found out why they're four years late.
And in order to make this deadline, Blue Origin plans to take the somewhat risky step of shipping the engines to its customer before completing full qualification testing.
Hardware poor, extended periods with nothing on the test stands, other programs prioritised. Eric’s article will be a fun read for ULA and the DoD.
Hardware poor, extended periods with nothing on the test stands, other programs prioritised. Eric’s article will be a fun read for ULA and the DoD.
Sounds like putting Bob Smith in charge was one of the worst decisions the company ever made.
...
Given Blues performance so far I honestly don’t understand how Bob Smith can stay, even without this kind of story.
https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1423343697157103616 (https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1423343697157103616)QuoteI found the BE-4 engines. And I found out why they're four years late.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/08/blue-origins-powerful-be-4-engine-is-more-than-four-years-late-heres-why/ (https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/08/blue-origins-powerful-be-4-engine-is-more-than-four-years-late-heres-why/)
Edit to add: wow, lots of info in the article. Blue still aiming to deliver flight engines to ULA by the end of the year, but looking more like a stretch goal with early next year more realistic. Plus:QuoteAnd in order to make this deadline, Blue Origin plans to take the somewhat risky step of shipping the engines to its customer before completing full qualification testing.
As to why BE-4 is so delayed, several reasons but one is the programme wasn’t hardware rich after all.
Blue Origin's current plan involves testing two more development engines at its facility near Van Horn, Texas, this fall. These are close to, but not the, final version of the BE-4 engine.
After these tests, a fully assembled flight engine no. 1 will be shipped to Texas to undergo a fairly brief round of tests, known as acceptance testing. If this engine passes, as expected, it will be shipped to ULA. Then a virtually identical BE-4 engine will be sent from Kent to Texas. This "qual" engine will undergo a much more rigorous series of tests, known as qualification testing. The idea is to push the engine through its paces to find any flaws. Then a similar process will follow with flight engine no. 2, followed by a second "qual" engine.
In my career, every "success based" plan was a prelude to schedule and budget disaster.
It's just the minimum conceivable timeline so that the customer has to wait to start screaming, because they know it's not going to be met but they would have to directly dispute it without hard evidence.
Usually they are either seething or using it to push off their customer, who is seething.
Engineers have already tested the BE-4 engine in a configuration close to that of the flight engines, and it has performed well during hot firings that approximate the duty cycle of a Vulcan first stage launch.
The Best Scale for an experiment is 12 inches to a foot.
About a year and a half ago, ULA and Blue Origin decided that the first BE-4s would be made with an igniter suitable for Vulcan but not for New Glenn, which has a reusable first stage and would need a different igniter for propulsive flyback.
“We have a solid relationship with our engine provider,” he said. “We know that we are in this together,” Bruno added. “There is no mission for our new rocket without engines, and there is no practical engine fabrication capability without us as a customer.”
What did Tory mean by ‘there is no practical engine fabrication capability without us as a customer’?
Very quick into damage control mode by Tory. Well done Eric, you hit something tender!
Big takes from me are that it confirms that ULA are not switching engine provider. It also confirms that they committed far to little hardware to the development program.
What did Tory mean by ‘there is no practical engine fabrication capability without us as a customer’?
Very quick into damage control mode by Tory. Well done Eric, you hit something tender!
Big takes from me are that it confirms that ULA are not switching engine provider. It also confirms that they committed far to little hardware to the development program.
What did Tory mean by ‘there is no practical engine fabrication capability without us as a customer’?
Wasn’t there mention of ULA being involved in production at the beginning of this?
Very quick into damage control mode by Tory. Well done Eric, you hit something tender!
Big takes from me are that it confirms that ULA are not switching engine provider. It also confirms that they committed far to little hardware to the development program.
What did Tory mean by ‘there is no practical engine fabrication capability without us as a customer’?
Wasn’t there mention of ULA being involved in production at the beginning of this?
Tory’s statement is all in the present tense, ‘there IS no practical fabrication capability. He is apparently saying that if ULA walk away then Blue can’t make BE-4.
I am not a rocket engineer and have not any insight on design or project management on these kind of projects, but I find at least curious that it is widely accepted as a given that any project involving rocketry or space hardware runs late by years.
I don't get how someone expert could miss a project target by multiple years and this seems true for everyone on this market:
What did Tory mean by ‘there is no practical engine fabrication capability without us as a customer’?
Hardware poor, extended periods with nothing on the test stands, other programs prioritised. Eric’s article will be a fun read for ULA and the DoD.
Very quick into damage control mode by Tory. Well done Eric, you hit something tender!There never was any "switching engine provider" as option, new engine -> new core stage design. (AR + kerosene)
Big takes from me are that it confirms that ULA are not switching engine provider. It also confirms that they committed far to little hardware to the development program.
What did Tory mean by ‘there is no practical engine fabrication capability without us as a customer’?
What did Tory mean by ‘there is no practical engine fabrication capability without us as a customer’?
He was trying to say that they both need each other and therefore the relationship is not in jeopardy.
Kind of like saying "Without their engines we have no rocket, and without our rocket there is no practical demand for their engines" but that is a diss on NG so he was being Diplomatic Tory.
Hardware poor, extended periods with nothing on the test stands, other programs prioritised. Eric’s article will be a fun read for ULA and the DoD.
ULA and DoD already knew about BE-4's problems in minute detail! Its us mugs in the public domain that were kept in the dark. :-)
I am not a rocket engineer and have not any insight on design or project management on these kind of projects, but I find at least curious that it is widely accepted as a given that any project involving rocketry or space hardware runs late by years.
I don't get how someone expert could miss a project target by multiple years and this seems true for everyone on this market:
That is a deep and complex question, and there is no simple answer. (If there was, then people would implement it and avoid the problem). Of course, it is not only rocketry projects that experience delays; project delays occur across all industries to some extent. e.g. 60% of construction projects are late.
However, delays generally occur due to unexpected problems, and unexpected problems are hard to plan for. Factors that increase the risk of unexpected include the size and complexity of the project, high performance requirements, and novelty of the project undertaken. Space hardware includes all of those things, so that is probably why they are prone to delays.
Disagree. NG needs 7 engines per core. And it'll have limited flight life, and early on they'll have multiple failures and may not even try to recover the first boosters. Let's say 20-30 engines per year.What did Tory mean by ‘there is no practical engine fabrication capability without us as a customer’?
He was trying to say that they both need each other and therefore the relationship is not in jeopardy.
Kind of like saying "Without their engines we have no rocket, and without our rocket there is no practical demand for their engines" but that is a diss on NG so he was being Diplomatic Tory.
Even with NG, you could argue that there's no practical demand for their engines. Blue aren't planning to build that many NG boosters.
Disagree. NG needs 7 engines per core. And it'll have limited flight life, and early on they'll have multiple failures and may not even try to recover the first boosters. Let's say 20-30 engines per year.What did Tory mean by ‘there is no practical engine fabrication capability without us as a customer’?
He was trying to say that they both need each other and therefore the relationship is not in jeopardy.
Kind of like saying "Without their engines we have no rocket, and without our rocket there is no practical demand for their engines" but that is a diss on NG so he was being Diplomatic Tory.
Even with NG, you could argue that there's no practical demand for their engines. Blue aren't planning to build that many NG boosters.
It's not like SpaceX, which needs 27 Merlins per Falcon Heavy or over 30 Raptors for Starship/Superheavy and make 10 of them per year for hundreds of engines annually, but it is still a high level of engine demand compared to, say, the RD-180 which might only need 4-12 engines per year.
Volume production is only way to reduce engine build cost, but the engine factory is expensive to build. With ULA as customer they should be allowing for 20-40 engines are year as NG is going need lot initially.
Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk
I don't think this is at all complex or mysterious. The problem is the competitive funding model, where an honest answer will not win the award. Say in 2014 ULA is looking for new engines. The honest answer is that a new engine takes about 8 years, so they can be delivered in 2022. But then ULA says "eight years?! AR is promising us 5 years". So now BO goes back to their engineers and says "What's the soonest we could possibly be done?" The engineers reply "4 years, if absolutely everything goes right", and the management then says 2017 deliveries, even though that's vanishingly unlikely.I am not a rocket engineer and have not any insight on design or project management on these kind of projects, but I find at least curious that it is widely accepted as a given that any project involving rocketry or space hardware runs late by years.
I don't get how someone expert could miss a project target by multiple years and this seems true for everyone on this market:
That is a deep and complex question, and there is no simple answer. (If there was, then people would implement it and avoid the problem). Of course, it is not only rocketry projects that experience delays; project delays occur across all industries to some extent. e.g. 60% of construction projects are late.
But they've run into even more problems than usual, and the end result is a 25 year, $10 billion project.
But they've run into even more problems than usual, and the end result is a 25 year, $10 billion project.
Yeah, unexpected problems, what I said. Unexpected problems lead to inaccurate estimates. Honesty is really nothing to do with it. If someone says "it'll take 5 years, give or take", we have no way of knowing if that estimate is true or not. Estimates are guesswork. Since "your guess is as good as mine", no one can say that an estimate is honest or not. No one knows.
Of course hindsight is 20/20, we can look back and say a particular estimate was "obviously wrong". But the fundamental problem is how do we create estimates that are not obviously wrong at the time they were made.
You are mainly describing "optimism bias", which affects projects across all industries. Optimism bias is really a corollary to Liebig's Law of the Minimum. The question though was "Why do space projects in particular seem to suffer a lot of delays".
The curious thing is that even though it is well known that estimates are not accurate, and that budgets are shaved to win contracts, program managers keep repeating the same mistakes. It's like the adage "insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result". One could argue that human psychology is itself complex and mysterious, so blaming it on psychology is not much of an explanation.
But they've run into even more problems than usual, and the end result is a 25 year, $10 billion project.
Yeah, unexpected problems, what I said. Unexpected problems lead to inaccurate estimates. Honesty is really nothing to do with it. If someone says "it'll take 5 years, give or take", we have no way of knowing if that estimate is true or not. Estimates are guesswork. Since "your guess is as good as mine", no one can say that an estimate is honest or not. No one knows.
But they've run into even more problems than usual, and the end result is a 25 year, $10 billion project.
Yeah, unexpected problems, what I said. Unexpected problems lead to inaccurate estimates. Honesty is really nothing to do with it. If someone says "it'll take 5 years, give or take", we have no way of knowing if that estimate is true or not. Estimates are guesswork. Since "your guess is as good as mine", no one can say that an estimate is honest or not. No one knows.
Of course hindsight is 20/20, we can look back and say a particular estimate was "obviously wrong". But the fundamental problem is how do we create estimates that are not obviously wrong at the time they were made.
You are mainly describing "optimism bias", which affects projects across all industries. Optimism bias is really a corollary to Liebig's Law of the Minimum. The question though was "Why do space projects in particular seem to suffer a lot of delays".
The curious thing is that even though it is well known that estimates are not accurate, and that budgets are shaved to win contracts, program managers keep repeating the same mistakes. It's like the adage "insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result". One could argue that human psychology is itself complex and mysterious, so blaming it on psychology is not much of an explanation.
If you scored all engineering projects on how new, unique, different, and difficult they are, a disproportionate number of space projects would aggregate on the "most challenging" end of the table.
The cookie-cutter space projects like commercial GEO comsats tend to track well on budget and schedule because they are well understood. But relative to most project sectors, space projects have an unusually high fraction of new and unique challenges. "Space is hard" is actually true.
New, unique, different, and difficult projects are almost impossible to accurately budget and schedule, because there's a strong tendency for budget and schedule to expand to use all of the available money and time. Adding margin simply gives more room for this expansion.
The only way around this is to have no margin for schedule/budget error. But this feels extremely risky, so risk-averse organizations dislike that approach.
But they've run into even more problems than usual, and the end result is a 25 year, $10 billion project.
Yeah, unexpected problems, what I said. Unexpected problems lead to inaccurate estimates. Honesty is really nothing to do with it. If someone says "it'll take 5 years, give or take", we have no way of knowing if that estimate is true or not. Estimates are guesswork. Since "your guess is as good as mine", no one can say that an estimate is honest or not. No one knows.
Let me give you a hopefully analogous situation from my experience in software development as a Program Manager.
Over many years, what I learned was that *generally* if I estimated the "smooth sailing" cost/time scenario for a project, I found that a multiplier of 3 was about right in what it usually would actually take. So if I estimated $X and y months if nothing went wrong, it usually ended up around $3x and 3y months.
So for new projects, when asked to estimate, my inclination would be to estimate time and cost and then multiply by 3 to cover unexpected problems, delays, etc. But politically and/or budgetarily, management was usually not willing to initiate the project at that cost or time. But other competitors would estimate way lower than myself and potentially win those awards, even though I and my team KNEW that there was no way they could do the project in that quick of time or money. So our choice was to either never win any contracts, or bid closer to a best case scenario, even though we all knew better that the time it would likely take would be longer. So that is what we did. It wasn't that we wanted to be dishonest, it wasn't that we didn't have a good idea of the time and resources it would take, it wasn't that we were incompetent (we were actually more skilled than most of the competition). It's because the process and system pushed us to this behavior. The alternative was that sometimes we would lose a bid that was too high, and then months or years later we would be called by the same customer to clean up the mess created by the low bidder who did a poor job of execution.
So for new projects, when asked to estimate, my inclination would be [give a realistic quote based on experience]. But politically and/or budgetarily, management was usually not willing to initiate the project at that cost or time. But other competitors would estimate way lower than myself and potentially win those awards, even though I and my team KNEW that there was no way they could do the project in that quick of time or money. So our choice was to either never win any contracts, or bid closer to a best case scenario, even though we all knew better that the time it would likely take would be longer. So that is what we did. It wasn't that we wanted to be dishonest, it wasn't that we didn't have a good idea of the time and resources it would take, it wasn't that we were incompetent [...]. It's because the process and system pushed us to this behavior.
The description of rocket management you are picturing here is quite embarassing: I know that you'll be late but I will act surprised when things will be actually late..
The description of rocket management you are picturing here is quite embarassing: I know that you'll be late but I will act surprised when things will be actually late.......
Frankly speaking this is only understandable when speaking of public contracts where all over the world we know that THAT is the goal: to add delay and force governments to spend more money to close those project that are too advanced to be simply closed.
What I still do not understand is private sector accepting this "worst practice" on their own expenses. ULA is not free of competition: SpaceX is just outside the window with a wide grin in their face waiting for time to pass on RD-180.
Time have changed and in the equation there is a date that ULA, even if well greased within USA political managment, cannot negotiate anymore: 2023 no more RD-180.
This introduce a fixed date that and throw out of the window all these consideration about rocket science or tentative schedules. You have BE-4 ready to go or you won't launch any national payload.
But they've run into even more problems than usual, and the end result is a 25 year, $10 billion project.
Yeah, unexpected problems, what I said. Unexpected problems lead to inaccurate estimates. Honesty is really nothing to do with it. If someone says "it'll take 5 years, give or take", we have no way of knowing if that estimate is true or not. Estimates are guesswork. Since "your guess is as good as mine", no one can say that an estimate is honest or not. No one knows.
Of course hindsight is 20/20, we can look back and say a particular estimate was "obviously wrong". But the fundamental problem is how do we create estimates that are not obviously wrong at the time they were made.
You are mainly describing "optimism bias", which affects projects across all industries. Optimism bias is really a corollary to Liebig's Law of the Minimum. The question though was "Why do space projects in particular seem to suffer a lot of delays".
The curious thing is that even though it is well known that estimates are not accurate, and that budgets are shaved to win contracts, program managers keep repeating the same mistakes. It's like the adage "insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result". One could argue that human psychology is itself complex and mysterious, so blaming it on psychology is not much of an explanation.
If you scored all engineering projects on how new, unique, different, and difficult they are, a disproportionate number of space projects would aggregate on the "most challenging" end of the table.
The cookie-cutter space projects like commercial GEO comsats tend to track well on budget and schedule because they are well understood. But relative to most project sectors, space projects have an unusually high fraction of new and unique challenges. "Space is hard" is actually true.
New, unique, different, and difficult projects are almost impossible to accurately budget and schedule, because there's a strong tendency for budget and schedule to expand to use all of the available money and time. Adding margin simply gives more room for this expansion.
The only way around this is to have no margin for schedule/budget error. But this feels extremely risky, so risk-averse organizations dislike that approach.
Sure, it’s the only way around it because it just kills all projects which encounter the issue.
This is like saying no one in this hospital has cancer - but it’s because you kick them out if you find it.
It doesn’t actually help, it just creates a different nightmare when unexpected things occur, or it creates a world where schedules are padded beyond belief for project safety.
The only solution is careful oversight and constant pressure to move quickly *combined* with a realistic view of potential timelines. Saying “tomorrow!” when it’s going to require a month just makes people spiteful and destroys productivity.
It’s hard, it’s non-simplistic, and it requires good people with understanding and trust.
there's a strong tendency for budget and schedule to expand to use all of the available money and time. Adding margin simply gives more room for this expansion.There is that to consider. And maybe that's the best explanation for "Elon Time"--leave no time for Parkinson's Law. Plus, if you have a government cost-plus program, I think you're specifically prohibited from including margins or padding in your estimate, because that's "soaking the taxpayer".
This shows that the engineers can estimate correctly if given the right incentives - the problem is the process, not the difficulty of estimation or the competence of the estimators.My past experience with providing budget/schedule estimates (granted, for internal projects, not competitive bids) is that Engineering and Manufacturing present a realistic budget and schedule, then Management chops the budget and hacks off each end of the schedule. Then it's Engineering and Manufacturing's fault for not meeting Management's budget/schedule even though the final result is very close to the original estimate. Thus, I tend to believe that such estimates don't originate within Engineering, but within Management, Sales, and Marketing.
we don't really know.No body wants to see the New Glenn fly more than me. It is just so far behind schedule, using DOD money as well as ULA money. It is not going to be easy to recover the first stage. The BE-4 engines are going to have to be fired at least two more burns to slow down for reentry, land on the ship and navigate to the ship. Using natural gas as both a propellant and pressurization may be a problem.
I suspect that Blue trolls these forums (including L2), looking for anyone who might be leaking info.
we don't really know.No body wants to see the New Glenn fly more than me. It is just so far behind schedule, using DOD money as well as ULA money. It is not going to be easy to recover the first stage. The BE-4 engines are going to have to be fired at least two more burns to slow down for reentry, land on the ship and navigate to the ship. Using natural gas as both a propellant and pressurization may be a problem.
I suspect that Blue trolls these forums (including L2), looking for anyone who might be leaking info.
No body wants to see the New Glenn fly more than me. It is just so far behind schedule, using DOD money as well as ULA money. It is not going to be easy to recover the first stage.
we don't really know.No body wants to see the New Glenn fly more than me. It is just so far behind schedule, using DOD money as well as ULA money. It is not going to be easy to recover the first stage. The BE-4 engines are going to have to be fired at least two more burns to slow down for reentry, land on the ship and navigate to the ship. Using natural gas as both a propellant and pressurization may be a problem.
I suspect that Blue trolls these forums (including L2), looking for anyone who might be leaking info.
Actually, New Glenn doesn't have a reentry burn: only two burns per launch, one to go up, and one to stop at the very end. How they plan to handle reentry heating is an open question, since we know the first stage isn't stainless steel.
we don't really know.No body wants to see the New Glenn fly more than me. It is just so far behind schedule, using DOD money as well as ULA money. It is not going to be easy to recover the first stage. The BE-4 engines are going to have to be fired at least two more burns to slow down for reentry, land on the ship and navigate to the ship. Using natural gas as both a propellant and pressurization may be a problem.
I suspect that Blue trolls these forums (including L2), looking for anyone who might be leaking info.
Actually, New Glenn doesn't have a reentry burn: only two burns per launch, one to go up, and one to stop at the very end. How they plan to handle reentry heating is an open question, since we know the first stage isn't stainless steel.
I believe the current consensus is that they plan to use the strakes for lift and re-enter on a shallower angle than F9 to reduce peak heating and avoid the need for a reentry burn.
As per Tory Bruno on Vulcan, they are using LCH4 (i.e. refined LNG to remove impurities). It's like referring to rocket that use RP-1 as using 'Kerosene' (e.g. 'Kerolox'): technically correct, but not the whole story.we don't really know.No body wants to see the New Glenn fly more than me. It is just so far behind schedule, using DOD money as well as ULA money. It is not going to be easy to recover the first stage. The BE-4 engines are going to have to be fired at least two more burns to slow down for reentry, land on the ship and navigate to the ship. Using natural gas as both a propellant and pressurization may be a problem.
I suspect that Blue trolls these forums (including L2), looking for anyone who might be leaking info.
Remember this is a dynamic process, not a static one. Energy over time is important both for TPS performance (e.g. heat soak) and for re-radiation. If your limiting criteria is skin or structure temperature rather than total energy input, a longer entry that allows for a reaching a lower equilibrium temperature may be preferable to a fast rapid entry that minimises total energy but has a thermal peak too high for the structure to survive.we don't really know.No body wants to see the New Glenn fly more than me. It is just so far behind schedule, using DOD money as well as ULA money. It is not going to be easy to recover the first stage. The BE-4 engines are going to have to be fired at least two more burns to slow down for reentry, land on the ship and navigate to the ship. Using natural gas as both a propellant and pressurization may be a problem.
I suspect that Blue trolls these forums (including L2), looking for anyone who might be leaking info.
Actually, New Glenn doesn't have a reentry burn: only two burns per launch, one to go up, and one to stop at the very end. How they plan to handle reentry heating is an open question, since we know the first stage isn't stainless steel.
I believe the current consensus is that they plan to use the strakes for lift and re-enter on a shallower angle than F9 to reduce peak heating and avoid the need for a reentry burn.
Energy is energy. Unless BO has some method for radiating a lot of heat during re-entry (Shuttle is the best example I can think of), the angle of re-entry isn't going to reduce that energy. In fact, it could be even worse if it extends the dwell time spent in the plasma stream.
we don't really know.No body wants to see the New Glenn fly more than me. It is just so far behind schedule, using DOD money as well as ULA money. It is not going to be easy to recover the first stage. The BE-4 engines are going to have to be fired at least two more burns to slow down for reentry, land on the ship and navigate to the ship. Using natural gas as both a propellant and pressurization may be a problem.
I suspect that Blue trolls these forums (including L2), looking for anyone who might be leaking info.
Actually, New Glenn doesn't have a reentry burn: only two burns per launch, one to go up, and one to stop at the very end. How they plan to handle reentry heating is an open question, since we know the first stage isn't stainless steel.
I believe the current consensus is that they plan to use the strakes for lift and re-enter on a shallower angle than F9 to reduce peak heating and avoid the need for a reentry burn.
Energy is energy. Unless BO has some method for radiating a lot of heat during re-entry (Shuttle is the best example I can think of), the angle of re-entry isn't going to reduce that energy. In fact, it could be even worse if it extends the dwell time spent in the plasma stream.
You can see the problem pretty easily. From a May Starlink mission, the booster at MECO had 2175 m/s at 70 km. So the energy per kg can be computed by m x g x h, and 1/2 m v^2. You get 686,000 J/kg from height, and 2,365,000 J/kg from velocity. About 3,000,000 J/kg total. This energy will remain constant until re-entry (though the portion in height and the portion in speed will change). This is enough energy to raise the booster's weight in aluminum by 3340o C.Actually, New Glenn doesn't have a reentry burn: only two burns per launch, one to go up, and one to stop at the very end. How they plan to handle reentry heating is an open question, since we know the first stage isn't stainless steel.I believe the current consensus is that they plan to use the strakes for lift and re-enter on a shallower angle than F9 to reduce peak heating and avoid the need for a reentry burn.
You can see the problem pretty easily. From a May Starlink mission, the booster at MECO had 2175 m/s at 70 km. So the energy per kg can be computed by m x g x h, and 1/2 m v^2. You get 686,000 J/kg from height, and 2,365,000 J/kg from velocity. About 3,000,000 J/kg total. This energy will remain constant until re-entry (though the portion in height and the portion in speed will change). This is enough energy to raise the booster's weight in aluminum by 3340o C.Actually, New Glenn doesn't have a reentry burn: only two burns per launch, one to go up, and one to stop at the very end. How they plan to handle reentry heating is an open question, since we know the first stage isn't stainless steel.I believe the current consensus is that they plan to use the strakes for lift and re-enter on a shallower angle than F9 to reduce peak heating and avoid the need for a reentry burn.
So they do a re-entry burn. At the end, they are at 36.9 km and 1639 m/s. The energy components are now 362,000 J/kg for height and 1,343,000 J/kg for speed. That's a total of 1,700,000 J/kg - about half as much, but still enough to raise its weight in aluminum by 1900o C. But aluminum can take only about 175o C above room temperature. So as they scrub off speed in the atmosphere, about 9/10 of the energy must go into the air, and only about 1/10 into the rocket.
Assuming new New Glenn has a similar MECO and is also made of aluminum, it will have to do about twice as well, dropping 95% of its heat into the air. For comparison, New Shepard goes up 100 km, so about 980,000 J/kg. Its job is twice as easy as F9 after the re-entry burn. The Starship booster will likely separate in similar conditions as F9. So if does as well as the F9, say 9/10 of the heat into the air, it will heat up twice as much. But that's likely OK since it's steel.
Is that for a GTO mission profile? If so, it’s apples to oranges.You can see the problem pretty easily. From a May Starlink mission, the booster at MECO had 2175 m/s at 70 km. So the energy per kg can be computed by m x g x h, and 1/2 m v^2. You get 686,000 J/kg from height, and 2,365,000 J/kg from velocity. About 3,000,000 J/kg total. This energy will remain constant until re-entry (though the portion in height and the portion in speed will change). This is enough energy to raise the booster's weight in aluminum by 3340o C.Actually, New Glenn doesn't have a reentry burn: only two burns per launch, one to go up, and one to stop at the very end. How they plan to handle reentry heating is an open question, since we know the first stage isn't stainless steel.I believe the current consensus is that they plan to use the strakes for lift and re-enter on a shallower angle than F9 to reduce peak heating and avoid the need for a reentry burn.
So they do a re-entry burn. At the end, they are at 36.9 km and 1639 m/s. The energy components are now 362,000 J/kg for height and 1,343,000 J/kg for speed. That's a total of 1,700,000 J/kg - about half as much, but still enough to raise its weight in aluminum by 1900o C. But aluminum can take only about 175o C above room temperature. So as they scrub off speed in the atmosphere, about 9/10 of the energy must go into the air, and only about 1/10 into the rocket.
Assuming new New Glenn has a similar MECO and is also made of aluminum, it will have to do about twice as well, dropping 95% of its heat into the air. For comparison, New Shepard goes up 100 km, so about 980,000 J/kg. Its job is twice as easy as F9 after the re-entry burn. The Starship booster will likely separate in similar conditions as F9. So if does as well as the F9, say 9/10 of the heat into the air, it will heat up twice as much. But that's likely OK since it's steel.
According to the New Glenn payload user's guide, MECO occurs at ~90km and ~2,700m/s.
~4.5MJ/kg, or ~50% higher than F9 booster on Starlink misson
Is that for a GTO mission profile? If so, it’s apples to oranges.You can see the problem pretty easily. From a May Starlink mission, the booster at MECO had 2175 m/s at 70 km. So the energy per kg can be computed by m x g x h, and 1/2 m v^2. You get 686,000 J/kg from height, and 2,365,000 J/kg from velocity. About 3,000,000 J/kg total. This energy will remain constant until re-entry (though the portion in height and the portion in speed will change). This is enough energy to raise the booster's weight in aluminum by 3340o C.Actually, New Glenn doesn't have a reentry burn: only two burns per launch, one to go up, and one to stop at the very end. How they plan to handle reentry heating is an open question, since we know the first stage isn't stainless steel.I believe the current consensus is that they plan to use the strakes for lift and re-enter on a shallower angle than F9 to reduce peak heating and avoid the need for a reentry burn.
So they do a re-entry burn. At the end, they are at 36.9 km and 1639 m/s. The energy components are now 362,000 J/kg for height and 1,343,000 J/kg for speed. That's a total of 1,700,000 J/kg - about half as much, but still enough to raise its weight in aluminum by 1900o C. But aluminum can take only about 175o C above room temperature. So as they scrub off speed in the atmosphere, about 9/10 of the energy must go into the air, and only about 1/10 into the rocket.
Assuming new New Glenn has a similar MECO and is also made of aluminum, it will have to do about twice as well, dropping 95% of its heat into the air. For comparison, New Shepard goes up 100 km, so about 980,000 J/kg. Its job is twice as easy as F9 after the re-entry burn. The Starship booster will likely separate in similar conditions as F9. So if does as well as the F9, say 9/10 of the heat into the air, it will heat up twice as much. But that's likely OK since it's steel.
According to the New Glenn payload user's guide, MECO occurs at ~90km and ~2,700m/s.
~4.5MJ/kg, or ~50% higher than F9 booster on Starlink misson
Is that for a GTO mission profile? If so, it’s apples to oranges.You can see the problem pretty easily. From a May Starlink mission, the booster at MECO had 2175 m/s at 70 km. So the energy per kg can be computed by m x g x h, and 1/2 m v^2. You get 686,000 J/kg from height, and 2,365,000 J/kg from velocity. About 3,000,000 J/kg total. This energy will remain constant until re-entry (though the portion in height and the portion in speed will change). This is enough energy to raise the booster's weight in aluminum by 3340o C.Actually, New Glenn doesn't have a reentry burn: only two burns per launch, one to go up, and one to stop at the very end. How they plan to handle reentry heating is an open question, since we know the first stage isn't stainless steel.I believe the current consensus is that they plan to use the strakes for lift and re-enter on a shallower angle than F9 to reduce peak heating and avoid the need for a reentry burn.
So they do a re-entry burn. At the end, they are at 36.9 km and 1639 m/s. The energy components are now 362,000 J/kg for height and 1,343,000 J/kg for speed. That's a total of 1,700,000 J/kg - about half as much, but still enough to raise its weight in aluminum by 1900o C. But aluminum can take only about 175o C above room temperature. So as they scrub off speed in the atmosphere, about 9/10 of the energy must go into the air, and only about 1/10 into the rocket.
Assuming new New Glenn has a similar MECO and is also made of aluminum, it will have to do about twice as well, dropping 95% of its heat into the air. For comparison, New Shepard goes up 100 km, so about 980,000 J/kg. Its job is twice as easy as F9 after the re-entry burn. The Starship booster will likely separate in similar conditions as F9. So if does as well as the F9, say 9/10 of the heat into the air, it will heat up twice as much. But that's likely OK since it's steel.
According to the New Glenn payload user's guide, MECO occurs at ~90km and ~2,700m/s.
~4.5MJ/kg, or ~50% higher than F9 booster on Starlink misson
It is, however if you look at the burn profile on the payload user's guide, it really appears like New Glenn is designing it's launch profile to have the same MECO point and lower stage trajectory regardless of orbit. On a LEO trajectory the upper stage burns 117 seconds less total than it does for a GEO trajectory. It seems like blue is going to partial fill the upper stage so that the payload + 2S mass is always the same.
It could be that the New Glenn lower stage requires a certain trajectory to wrk.
Is that for a GTO mission profile? If so, it’s apples to oranges.You can see the problem pretty easily. From a May Starlink mission, the booster at MECO had 2175 m/s at 70 km. So the energy per kg can be computed by m x g x h, and 1/2 m v^2. You get 686,000 J/kg from height, and 2,365,000 J/kg from velocity. About 3,000,000 J/kg total. This energy will remain constant until re-entry (though the portion in height and the portion in speed will change). This is enough energy to raise the booster's weight in aluminum by 3340o C.Actually, New Glenn doesn't have a reentry burn: only two burns per launch, one to go up, and one to stop at the very end. How they plan to handle reentry heating is an open question, since we know the first stage isn't stainless steel.I believe the current consensus is that they plan to use the strakes for lift and re-enter on a shallower angle than F9 to reduce peak heating and avoid the need for a reentry burn.
So they do a re-entry burn. At the end, they are at 36.9 km and 1639 m/s. The energy components are now 362,000 J/kg for height and 1,343,000 J/kg for speed. That's a total of 1,700,000 J/kg - about half as much, but still enough to raise its weight in aluminum by 1900o C. But aluminum can take only about 175o C above room temperature. So as they scrub off speed in the atmosphere, about 9/10 of the energy must go into the air, and only about 1/10 into the rocket.
Assuming new New Glenn has a similar MECO and is also made of aluminum, it will have to do about twice as well, dropping 95% of its heat into the air. For comparison, New Shepard goes up 100 km, so about 980,000 J/kg. Its job is twice as easy as F9 after the re-entry burn. The Starship booster will likely separate in similar conditions as F9. So if does as well as the F9, say 9/10 of the heat into the air, it will heat up twice as much. But that's likely OK since it's steel.
According to the New Glenn payload user's guide, MECO occurs at ~90km and ~2,700m/s.
~4.5MJ/kg, or ~50% higher than F9 booster on Starlink misson
It is, however if you look at the burn profile on the payload user's guide, it really appears like New Glenn is designing it's launch profile to have the same MECO point and lower stage trajectory regardless of orbit. On a LEO trajectory the upper stage burns 117 seconds less total than it does for a GEO trajectory. It seems like blue is going to partial fill the upper stage so that the payload + 2S mass is always the same.
It could be that the New Glenn lower stage requires a certain trajectory to wrk.
Are you sure that's not just more payload and more throttle on the LEO trajectory? Although 117 seconds is a big difference.
it really appears like New Glenn is designing it's launch profile to have the same MECO point and lower stage trajectory regardless of orbit. On a LEO trajectory the upper stage burns 117 seconds less total than it does for a GEO trajectory. It seems like blue is going to partial fill the upper stage so that the payload + 2S mass is always the same.Both of these points make perfect sense. The first step of a GEO launch is to put as much mass as possible into LEO (the parking orbit). So the first stage will do the same job in each case.
it really appears like New Glenn is designing it's launch profile to have the same MECO point and lower stage trajectory regardless of orbit. On a LEO trajectory the upper stage burns 117 seconds less total than it does for a GEO trajectory. It seems like blue is going to partial fill the upper stage so that the payload + 2S mass is always the same.Both of these points make perfect sense. The first step of a GEO launch is to put as much mass as possible into LEO (the parking orbit). So the first stage will do the same job in each case.
Also it makes sense the second stage will burn longer for LEO. To maximize LEO mass, it burns all its fuel. For GEO, it needs to save fuel for the GTO (and optional GEO) burn. Apparently this is 117 seconds worth.
The second stage burns longer for GEO.
it really appears like New Glenn is designing it's launch profile to have the same MECO point and lower stage trajectory regardless of orbit. On a LEO trajectory the upper stage burns 117 seconds less total than it does for a GEO trajectory. It seems like blue is going to partial fill the upper stage so that the payload + 2S mass is always the same.Both of these points make perfect sense. The first step of a GEO launch is to put as much mass as possible into LEO (the parking orbit). So the first stage will do the same job in each case.
Also it makes sense the second stage will burn longer for LEO. To maximize LEO mass, it burns all its fuel. For GEO, it needs to save fuel for the GTO (and optional GEO) burn. Apparently this is 117 seconds worth.
The second stage burns longer for GEO.
LEO: 590 second burn
GEO: 608 second burn into parking orbit, then 99 second burn into GTO
The only way this makes sense is that Blue is only partially filling the upper stage so that the weight of the US and payload is always the same, and thus staging speed, otherwise it would stage lower & slower.
Adding a couple BE7s would allow for small orbit changes, especially useful for deploying rideshare payloads.Is that for a GTO mission profile? If so, it’s apples to oranges.You can see the problem pretty easily. From a May Starlink mission, the booster at MECO had 2175 m/s at 70 km. So the energy per kg can be computed by m x g x h, and 1/2 m v^2. You get 686,000 J/kg from height, and 2,365,000 J/kg from velocity. About 3,000,000 J/kg total. This energy will remain constant until re-entry (though the portion in height and the portion in speed will change). This is enough energy to raise the booster's weight in aluminum by 3340o C.Actually, New Glenn doesn't have a reentry burn: only two burns per launch, one to go up, and one to stop at the very end. How they plan to handle reentry heating is an open question, since we know the first stage isn't stainless steel.I believe the current consensus is that they plan to use the strakes for lift and re-enter on a shallower angle than F9 to reduce peak heating and avoid the need for a reentry burn.
So they do a re-entry burn. At the end, they are at 36.9 km and 1639 m/s. The energy components are now 362,000 J/kg for height and 1,343,000 J/kg for speed. That's a total of 1,700,000 J/kg - about half as much, but still enough to raise its weight in aluminum by 1900o C. But aluminum can take only about 175o C above room temperature. So as they scrub off speed in the atmosphere, about 9/10 of the energy must go into the air, and only about 1/10 into the rocket.
Assuming new New Glenn has a similar MECO and is also made of aluminum, it will have to do about twice as well, dropping 95% of its heat into the air. For comparison, New Shepard goes up 100 km, so about 980,000 J/kg. Its job is twice as easy as F9 after the re-entry burn. The Starship booster will likely separate in similar conditions as F9. So if does as well as the F9, say 9/10 of the heat into the air, it will heat up twice as much. But that's likely OK since it's steel.
According to the New Glenn payload user's guide, MECO occurs at ~90km and ~2,700m/s.
~4.5MJ/kg, or ~50% higher than F9 booster on Starlink misson
It is, however if you look at the burn profile on the payload user's guide, it really appears like New Glenn is designing it's launch profile to have the same MECO point and lower stage trajectory regardless of orbit. On a LEO trajectory the upper stage burns 117 seconds less total than it does for a GEO trajectory. It seems like blue is going to partial fill the upper stage so that the payload + 2S mass is always the same.
It could be that the New Glenn lower stage requires a certain trajectory to wrk.
Are you sure that's not just more payload and more throttle on the LEO trajectory? Although 117 seconds is a big difference.
BE-3U can barely throttle at all.... 88% is the lowest it can go
Can someone on this forum go by the Blue Origin rocket engine factory in Huntsville, Alabama to see how many cars are in the parking lot? Someone on the Florida facilities said there wasn't many cars in the parking lot where they were to make the New Glenn rocket.
Seems to me Blue needs to get to hiring and building rocket engines for Vulcan and New Glenn. Get something built tested, blown up, reworked, and tested until they get it fixed.
We want to see more action than just SpaceX. Not whining and litigation. Less lawyers and more engineers.
Can someone on this forum go by the Blue Origin rocket engine factory in Huntsville, Alabama to see how many cars are in the parking lot? Someone on the Florida facilities said there wasn't many cars in the parking lot where they were to make the New Glenn rocket.
Seems to me Blue needs to get to hiring and building rocket engines for Vulcan and New Glenn. Get something built tested, blown up, reworked, and tested until they get it fixed.
We want to see more action than just SpaceX. Not whining and litigation. Less lawyers and more engineers.
I’ll take care of it, it’s worth noting that the HSV plant is undergoing a hiring surge. It was announced within the last few weeks here locally.
HSV?
@torybruno at this point are you considering using RS-25s or even Merlins?
No. BE4 is late, but technical performance is good. Currently in Pre-Qualification testing, while flight engines have begun fabrication.
I'm certain this has been discussed before in earlier forums, but maybe Tony Bruno should seriously consider taking over from Bob Smith.
I'm certain this has been discussed before in earlier forums, but maybe Tony Bruno should seriously consider taking over from Bob Smith.
A lot of people want Jeff to fire Bob Smith and hire Tory Bruno to replace him.
There's more industrial espionage engaged in NSF forums than committed at certain foreign embassies!
If this was directed at me, DM me personally. If this bothers you, you’re going to scratch your head when you ultimately subscribe to L2. BO chose to build their engine plant in between what’s likely the busiest outdoor mall in Alabama and the busiest greenway in the entire town. Thousands upon thousands of cars and outdoor enthusiasts pass by this factory every single day. It is a *very* visible part of town. No one is sneaking past fences or being overly shady. BO literally acquired part of Indian Creek Greenway to build their factory, which happens to be the premier park in town. It’s hard NOT to pay attention to this monstrosity of a building that recently went up and cut into one of the nicest green spaces around. Also, there are several open source tools like google earth that can be utilized if someone wanted a snapshot in time look at personnel numbers at ANY business in the world.
There's more industrial espionage engaged in NSF forums than committed at certain foreign embassies!
If this was directed at me, DM me personally. If this bothers you, you’re going to scratch your head when you ultimately subscribe to L2. BO chose to build their engine plant in between what’s likely the busiest outdoor mall in Alabama and the busiest greenway in the entire town. Thousands upon thousands of cars and outdoor enthusiasts pass by this factory every single day. It is a *very* visible part of town. No one is sneaking past fences or being overly shady. BO literally acquired part of Indian Creek Greenway to build their factory, which happens to be the premier park in town. It’s hard NOT to pay attention to this monstrosity of a building that recently went up and cut into one of the nicest green spaces around. Also, there are several open source tools like google earth that can be utilized if someone wanted a snapshot in time look at personnel numbers at ANY business in the world.
SpaceNerd,
I don’t think this was meant negatively or as criticism - I think it was just a joke.
I think one reason people have kept putting Tory forward for Blue is that he represents something Blue lacks... The face.
I agree, but the ability to be a "face" and competent technical management are highly correlated. If you are the social media face of a company, you're going to get hard questions all the time, including from people that are not friendly towards your cause. To answer these questions in any sort of satisfactory way, you'll need to have a deep technical understanding of your product. You'll also need an honest attitude towards the advantages and disadvantages of your approach, as questioners at press conferences and on the web have pretty good bull**** detectors. So being a good "face" of a technical company implies you have attributes that some people think the management at BO lacks.I think one reason people have kept putting Tory forward for Blue is that he represents something Blue lacks... The face.Blue doesn't need a "face". Their problems won't be solved by a leader that's active on social media. Blue needs competent management that is aware of the current environment.
I agree, but the ability to be a "face" and competent technical management are highly correlated. If you are the social media face of a company, you're going to get hard questions all the time, including from people that are not friendly towards your cause. To answer these questions in any sort of satisfactory way, you'll need to have a deep technical understanding of your product. You'll also need an honest attitude towards the advantages and disadvantages of your approach, as questioners at press conferences and on the web have pretty good bull**** detectors. So being a good "face" of a technical company implies you have attributes that some people think the management at BO lacks.I think one reason people have kept putting Tory forward for Blue is that he represents something Blue lacks... The face.Blue doesn't need a "face". Their problems won't be solved by a leader that's active on social media. Blue needs competent management that is aware of the current environment.
How much money would Bezos have to offer to entice someone like Bruno? Even for someone incompetent like me, it would have to be a very large pile.
A lot of people want Jeff to fire Bob Smith and hire Tory Bruno to replace him.
The problem is he would have to leave ULA for that.
that is also assuming that replacing the ceo of blue would fix anything.
He's dealt Jeff and may not want to work for him. At ULA he is the boss, still has to follower boards guidelines.How much money would Bezos have to offer to entice someone like Bruno? Even for someone incompetent like me, it would have to be a very large pile.
A lot of people want Jeff to fire Bob Smith and hire Tory Bruno to replace him.
The problem is he would have to leave ULA for that.
that is also assuming that replacing the ceo of blue would fix anything.
How much money would Bezos have to offer to entice someone like Bruno? Even for someone incompetent like me, it would have to be a very large pile.
A lot of people want Jeff to fire Bob Smith and hire Tory Bruno to replace him.
The problem is he would have to leave ULA for that.
that is also assuming that replacing the ceo of blue would fix anything.
A "face" shapes the public's perception of those problems.I think one reason people have kept putting Tory forward for Blue is that he represents something Blue lacks... The face.
Blue doesn't need a "face". Their problems won't be solved by a leader that's active on social media. Blue needs competent management that is aware of the current environment.
A "face" shapes the public's perception of those problems.I think one reason people have kept putting Tory forward for Blue is that he represents something Blue lacks... The face.
Blue doesn't need a "face". Their problems won't be solved by a leader that's active on social media. Blue needs competent management that is aware of the current environment.
A "Face" lets SpaceX completely pivot, and gets hailed as a genius.
Oh, they'll still hire tons of good looking recruiters to go around to schools and smooze prospective graduates to get new hires. Its very easy to lie about what the other half of a company is doing. Why do you think Amazon exists as one of the most terrible companies in the country, yet almost everyone here uses it.
not a lot about BE-4 in the BE-4 thread lately, huhWith no updates from Blue or ULA there isn't lot to talk about.
not a lot about BE-4 in the BE-4 thread lately, huhWith no updates from Blue or ULA there isn't lot to talk about.
I have a feeling the next news, however long it takes, is either they have the engine ready or ULA is suing Blue over non-performance. Nothing else would satisfy anyone.not a lot about BE-4 in the BE-4 thread lately, huhWith no updates from Blue or ULA there isn't lot to talk about.
We are in that case where no news is the news.
I have a feeling the next news, however long it takes, is either they have the engine ready or ULA is suing Blue over non-performance. Nothing else would satisfy anyone.not a lot about BE-4 in the BE-4 thread lately, huhWith no updates from Blue or ULA there isn't lot to talk about.
We are in that case where no news is the news.
I have a feeling the next news, however long it takes, is either they have the engine ready or ULA is suing Blue over non-performance. Nothing else would satisfy anyone.not a lot about BE-4 in the BE-4 thread lately, huhWith no updates from Blue or ULA there isn't lot to talk about.
We are in that case where no news is the news.
[..] we present a detailed comparison of two rocket launches in Figure 2. The flights of a Space Shuttle on November 16, 2009 and of a Falcon 9 rocket on January 7, 2020 are recorded at the IMS infrasound array IS51 (Bermuda) at 1580 km distance.
Rocket engine tests are not subtle events, and can often be heard from far away (NASA says (https://www.wwltv.com/article/news/local/nasa-will-test-worlds-most-powerful-rocket-engines-in-mississippi-saturday/289-fada4e36-c423-4f39-ae9f-4d33bbc12f36) up to 100 km, or 60 miles, for the SLS tests).
The BE-4 test site is remote, with Van Horn the nearest town, about 40 km (25 miles) away. Any chance the tests can be heard from there? This could potentially tell how often they are testing, and the duration of the tests, if nothing else.
https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1430232860665991170QuoteTory Bruno with probably his sharpest public words yet on Blue Origin the BE-4 engine delay. Privately he's quite a bit sharper, hah.
"I need them to diligently work through the plans we have and get done on time."
https://www.bizjournals.com/denver/news/2021/08/23/ula-blue-origin-be-4-vulcan-rocket-bezos-bruno.html
Edit to add:
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1430233735090278401QuoteBlue Origin will not deliver the BE-4 engines for the inaugural launch of ULA's Vulcan rocket "before the end of the year," CEO @torybruno tells @GregAveryDenBiz, emphasizing that he needs Bezos' company "to diligently work through the plans we have."
twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1430233912710770694QuoteBruno added that ULA has "been able to accommodate" the delay, "but I’ll be straight with you, the dates we’ve set up for them now— we really don’t have the ability to make any big moves after this."
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1430234270891708463QuoteBruno: "“We really like the engines ... The engines are performing well, and the design has stabilized, and it’s now really a matter of getting through the test program and fabricating the flight engines … It’s the endgame now.”
Bruno added that ULA has "been able to accommodate" the delay, "but I’ll be straight with you, the dates we’ve set up for them now— we really don’t have the ability to make any big moves after this."
QuoteBruno added that ULA has "been able to accommodate" the delay, "but I’ll be straight with you, the dates we’ve set up for them now— we really don’t have the ability to make any big moves after this."
They have been able to do so only because of the payloads slipping. If the first Payloads were on time, this would be a massive issue for ULA (it may still be, depending on how much longer the BE-4 takes)
QuoteBruno added that ULA has "been able to accommodate" the delay, "but I’ll be straight with you, the dates we’ve set up for them now— we really don’t have the ability to make any big moves after this."
They have been able to do so only because of the payloads slipping. If the first Payloads were on time, this would be a massive issue for ULA (it may still be, depending on how much longer the BE-4 takes)
By the way, what is the chance those engines have issues during an actual launch ? I mean, putting a real paid for payload on a maiden flight ?
By the way, what is the chance those engines have issues during an actual launch ?That's a very good question, but nobody knows the answer. Obviously the designers took into account the expected environment during launch. But some environmental factors are hard to test on the ground (multi-G acceleration, operation in vacuum, and so on). Manufacturing defects are also possible - even established engines have these, and the BE-4s will be earlier in the production run, potentially before the last few production bugs are worked out. So it's surely more risky than will be the tenth, or the hundredth, flight of the same engines. But no one knows by how much.
Everyone is ignoring the likely scenario that the engines don't pass acceptance testing right away on the stand. If any changes need to be made, the ones on Vulcan will need to be removed and sent back for adjustments.
By the way, what is the chance those engines have issues during an actual launch ?
I mean, putting a real paid for payload on a maiden flight ?
Jumping ahead of the "surely this will make ULA abandon BE-4" notions, what are the realistic consequences of a hypothetical chain of catastrophic, engine-related failures during acceptance testing?Vulcan is delayed. I can’t imagine there being big enough issues where they just abandon it. Delays do happen all the time in aerospace. Boeing, SpaceX, everyone…
Jumping ahead of the "surely this will make ULA abandon BE-4" notions, what are the realistic consequences of a hypothetical chain of catastrophic, engine-related failures during acceptance testing?
Jumping ahead of the "surely this will make ULA abandon BE-4" notions, what are the realistic consequences of a hypothetical chain of catastrophic, engine-related failures during acceptance testing?
Acceptance testing is done to newly build engines, whose design has passed qualification testing
Could they still launch before engines are qualified?. ULA and customer would be taking risk but these engines aren't likely to fail. The mission wouldn't count towards DoD certification.
Jumping ahead of the "surely this will make ULA abandon BE-4" notions, what are the realistic consequences of a hypothetical chain of catastrophic, engine-related failures during acceptance testing?
These initial customers have Atlas as backup when the contracts were amended switching them to Vulcan from Atlas. If they switch back to Atlas then they lose at minimum the customer of the first certification flight with potential for further loss.QuoteBruno added that ULA has "been able to accommodate" the delay, "but I’ll be straight with you, the dates we’ve set up for them now— we really don’t have the ability to make any big moves after this."
They have been able to do so only because of the payloads slipping. If the first Payloads were on time, this would be a massive issue for ULA (it may still be, depending on how much longer the BE-4 takes)
Latest from Tory:
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1430233735090278401QuoteBlue Origin will not deliver the BE-4 engines for the inaugural launch of ULA's Vulcan rocket "before the end of the year," CEO @torybruno tells @GregAveryDenBiz, emphasizing that he needs Bezos' company "to diligently work through the plans we have."
Any amount of money days this is pr and not trueLatest from Tory:
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1430233735090278401QuoteBlue Origin will not deliver the BE-4 engines for the inaugural launch of ULA's Vulcan rocket "before the end of the year," CEO @torybruno tells @GregAveryDenBiz, emphasizing that he needs Bezos' company "to diligently work through the plans we have."
Tory went ahead and posted that he will have them before end of year, contradicting what was said in the interview
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1430350510071054337?s=21
Wonder how long the gap was between the interview and now, if anything changed or if this is PR
Any amount of money days this is pr and not true
Can someone on this forum go by the Blue Origin rocket engine factory in Huntsville, Alabama to see how many cars are in the parking lot? Someone on the Florida facilities said there wasn't many cars in the parking lot where they were to make the New Glenn rocket.
Seems to me Blue needs to get to hiring and building rocket engines for Vulcan and New Glenn. Get something built tested, blown up, reworked, and tested until they get it fixed.
We want to see more action than just SpaceX. Not whining and litigation. Less lawyers and more engineers.
I’ll take care of it, it’s worth noting that the HSV plant is undergoing a hiring surge. It was announced within the last few weeks here locally.
Latest from Tory:
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1430233735090278401QuoteBlue Origin will not deliver the BE-4 engines for the inaugural launch of ULA's Vulcan rocket "before the end of the year," CEO @torybruno tells @GregAveryDenBiz, emphasizing that he needs Bezos' company "to diligently work through the plans we have."
Tory went ahead and posted that he will have them before end of year, contradicting what was said in the interview
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1430350510071054337?s=21
Wonder how long the gap was between the interview and now, if anything changed or if this is PR
Col. Robert Bongiovi: 'The engine is late but it is performing well. It really is'
he added. “It has a lot of runtime, it’s demonstrated its performance. Sometimes you can get in these negatives swirls and not realize how much is going well,” Bongiovi said
The delays are due to a “multitude of reasons, some of them reasonable for development programs, some of them not as reasonable” he said, although he declined to discuss specific issues
twitter.com/marcushouse/status/1435752787292213251QuoteAre you still confident the BE-4's are on target for launch?
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1436250597305593877QuoteYes
there are literally be-4's attached to a Vulcan first stage, on the launch pad, right now.
calling them vaporware is completely untrue
That picture is from February and those test engines were not flight capable.
actually i think they are flight capable, or very close to it. im sure tory can elaborate more on this
Lots of hot fire time in this pair. Wore them out, but perfect for initial path finding activities
Blue Origin has released an image from a test of a BE-4 engine last week. To my knowledge, this is not a flight engine. But those are up for testing soon.
blueorigin.com/news/gallery
https://twitter.com/DutchSatellites/status/1453641423190904835?t=eib7HHqmc-wMd_h7PsnTCw&s=19QuoteAccording to sources @blueorigin has made a hard promise to @ulalaunch to deliver 2 development BE-4 engines tp ULA no later than the end of November 2021. These 2 development engines are intended to support the first #VulcanRocket static fire at ULA's SLC-41.https://twitter.com/DutchSatellites/status/1453643778762420224?t=iGnrhOrHpPdpLrcTsWrf9A&s=19
1/2QuoteSame sources say that the flight engines for first #VulcanRocket launch will be deliveries "later" and that @ulalaunch has "zero confidence" that the Vulcan flight engines will be ready this year. Availability of BE-4 is the redline on Vulcan's schedule.
2/2
How many promised dates has blue missed?
Of course, "development" engine could be in any condition.
How many promised dates has blue missed?
Of course, "development" engine could be in any condition.
This is a miss. In August, Tory said he would receive “flight engines” in 2021.
How many promised dates has blue missed?
Of course, "development" engine could be in any condition.
How many promised dates has blue missed?
Of course, "development" engine could be in any condition.
This is a miss. In August, Tory said he would receive “flight engines” in 2021.
And in that same month of August, in an interview with BizJournal, Tory explicitly stated that he did not expect the engines for the first flight to arrive before the end of 2021.
As others upthread already pointed out: Tory's statement in the BizJournal interview and his Twitter reaction to it are not similar statements. So, there is really no saying if it is a miss already or not.
How many promised dates has blue missed?
Of course, "development" engine could be in any condition.
I dont think Blue Origin has ever promised any dates. Beyond someone saying they were on track to deliver engines to ULA by years end
There could be some unintentional ambiguity about this date because from an earlier discussion I'd seen here, the "flight ready" engines BO was planning to ship won't have been through full flight qualification before they are shipped. BO will be flight qualifying copies of those shipped engines as ULA does their installation testing on the shipped engines, and IF the engines BO is testing pass their tests, then the ones that ULA is installing on the Vulcan will be retroactively declared "flight ready".How does this gel with that twitter by dutchsatellites that Blue has a hard deadline to deliver "development" engines to ULA by the end of of the year. Are those the same as unqualified flight engines? Its too bad we have to spend so much time guessing at tiny scraps of info.
This was described as "Planning for success.", which I've also seen referred to as "we're out of time so we'll hope everything works the first time."
There could be some unintentional ambiguity about this date because from an earlier discussion I'd seen here, the "flight ready" engines BO was planning to ship won't have been through full flight qualification before they are shipped. BO will be flight qualifying copies of those shipped engines as ULA does their installation testing on the shipped engines, and IF the engines BO is testing pass their tests, then the ones that ULA is installing on the Vulcan will be retroactively declared "flight ready".How does this gel with that twitter by dutchsatellites that Blue has a hard deadline to deliver "development" engines to ULA by the end of of the year. Are those the same as unqualified flight engines? Its too bad we have to spend so much time guessing at tiny scraps of info.
This was described as "Planning for success.", which I've also seen referred to as "we're out of time so we'll hope everything works the first time."
There could be some unintentional ambiguity about this date because from an earlier discussion I'd seen here, the "flight ready" engines BO was planning to ship won't have been through full flight qualification before they are shipped. BO will be flight qualifying copies of those shipped engines as ULA does their installation testing on the shipped engines, and IF the engines BO is testing pass their tests, then the ones that ULA is installing on the Vulcan will be retroactively declared "flight ready".How does this gel with that twitter by dutchsatellites that Blue has a hard deadline to deliver "development" engines to ULA by the end of of the year. Are those the same as unqualified flight engines? Its too bad we have to spend so much time guessing at tiny scraps of info.
This was described as "Planning for success.", which I've also seen referred to as "we're out of time so we'll hope everything works the first time."
“I expect that I will receive flight engines before the end of the year,” Bruno said in an interview with SpaceNews.
…
The pre-qualification program will be followed by more rigorous qualification testing, both of which are happening in parallel to the fabrication of the flight engines. There is some risk involved in this approach but “no major issues” have emerged so far, he said.
“We have done so much testing already that we are comfortable starting the manufacturing and even finishing the manufacturing of the flight engines. What we won’t do is fly those engines before all the testing is done.”
…
The two flight engines may or may not be finished before the qualification program is finished, Bruno said. “We’ll take them as soon as they’re available, and we’ll start integrating them into a flight booster” at ULA’s rocket factory in Decatur, Alabama.
Don't worry, guys, Blue Origin is laser-focused on putting all of its resources into meeting contract obligations!So the bits of Blue that aren't concerned with developing engines should do nothing until they are ready?
https://twitter.com/kmcannon/status/1455931199378001922
The Commercial Crew delays were almost entirely client-driven rather than contractor-driven (a combination of underfunding at the start of the program, delays from greater than expected oversight requirements, and delays from new learnings like the parachute model). One would be hard-pressed to argue that ULA are the source of delays to BE-4 development.Don't worry, guys, Blue Origin is laser-focused on putting all of its resources into meeting contract obligations!So the bits of Blue that aren't concerned with developing engines should do nothing until they are ready?
https://twitter.com/kmcannon/status/1455931199378001922
Remember this?
https://twitter.com/JimBridenstine/status/1177711106300747777
The Commercial Crew delays were almost entirely client-driven rather than contractor-driven (a combination of underfunding at the start of the program, delays from greater than expected oversight requirements, and delays from new learnings like the parachute model).Well, up to a certain point, yes. At this point Boeing's continued delays are a little NASA (trusting Boeing too much) and mostly Boeing (also trusting Boeing too much).
One would be hard-pressed to argue that ULA are the source of delays to BE-4 development.That's putting it mildly.
Remember this?I certainly do. Looks like good 'ol Jimbo called out the wrong contractor, though.
https://twitter.com/JimBridenstine/status/1177711106300747777
The Commercial Crew delays were almost entirely client-driven rather than contractor-driven (a combination of underfunding at the start of the program, delays from greater than expected oversight requirements, and delays from new learnings like the parachute model).Well, up to a certain point, yes. At this point Boeing's continued delays are a little NASA (trusting Boeing too much) and mostly Boeing (also trusting Boeing too much).QuoteOne would be hard-pressed to argue that ULA are the source of delays to BE-4 development.That's putting it mildly.
The source of the delays in BE-4 being delivered to ULA is100% Blue. The ramifications of that delay, and the delay of Vulcan and the responsibility fir that delay are of course partly ULA's responsibility in choosing Blue. But that's not what was being stated.Disagree here. When you decide to outsource a major component instead of doing it yourself, the motivation is typically along the lines of "let the experts do what they do best" rather than "let's have someone to blame if it doesn't go right".The Commercial Crew delays were almost entirely client-driven rather than contractor-driven (a combination of underfunding at the start of the program, delays from greater than expected oversight requirements, and delays from new learnings like the parachute model).Well, up to a certain point, yes. At this point Boeing's continued delays are a little NASA (trusting Boeing too much) and mostly Boeing (also trusting Boeing too much).QuoteOne would be hard-pressed to argue that ULA are the source of delays to BE-4 development.That's putting it mildly.
The primary still retains the responsibility - it doesn't matter whether they chose to develop it themselves or decided to offload the work to a sub. It's ULA's rocket.
The Commercial Crew delays were almost entirely client-driven rather than contractor-driven (a combination of underfunding at the start of the program, delays from greater than expected oversight requirements, and delays from new learnings like the parachute model).Well, up to a certain point, yes. At this point Boeing's continued delays are a little NASA (trusting Boeing too much) and mostly Boeing (also trusting Boeing too much).QuoteOne would be hard-pressed to argue that ULA are the source of delays to BE-4 development.That's putting it mildly.
Disagree here. When you decide to outsource a major component instead of doing it yourself, the motivation is typically along the lines of "let the experts do what they do best" rather than "let's have someone to blame if it doesn't go right".
The primary still retains the responsibility - it doesn't matter whether they chose to develop it themselves or decided to offload the work to a sub. It's ULA's rocket.
Fair enough.The source of the delays in BE-4 being delivered to ULA is100% Blue. The ramifications of that delay, and the delay of Vulcan and the responsibility fir that delay are of course partly ULA's responsibility in choosing Blue. But that's not what was being stated.Disagree here. When you decide to outsource a major component instead of doing it yourself, the motivation is typically along the lines of "let the experts do what they do best" rather than "let's have someone to blame if it doesn't go right".The Commercial Crew delays were almost entirely client-driven rather than contractor-driven (a combination of underfunding at the start of the program, delays from greater than expected oversight requirements, and delays from new learnings like the parachute model).Well, up to a certain point, yes. At this point Boeing's continued delays are a little NASA (trusting Boeing too much) and mostly Boeing (also trusting Boeing too much).QuoteOne would be hard-pressed to argue that ULA are the source of delays to BE-4 development.That's putting it mildly.
The primary still retains the responsibility - it doesn't matter whether they chose to develop it themselves or decided to offload the work to a sub. It's ULA's rocket.
The primary still retains the responsibility - it doesn't matter whether they chose to develop it themselves or decided to offload the work to a sub. It's ULA's rocket.
Not insinuating.The primary still retains the responsibility - it doesn't matter whether they chose to develop it themselves or decided to offload the work to a sub. It's ULA's rocket.
Are you insinuating that it is ULA's fault? Please clarify.
Not insinuating.The primary still retains the responsibility - it doesn't matter whether they chose to develop it themselves or decided to offload the work to a sub. It's ULA's rocket.
Are you insinuating that it is ULA's fault? Please clarify.
Saying
If you choose to go with a subcontractor and they don't deliver, how is it different from having chosen to go with internal development and then having your propulsion department fail to deliver?
Either way, your decision as prime means you're responsible. You should have had more insight/control. You can't shrug it off and say "they're an independent company" because that's one of the downsides you chose to accept when going with a sub.
For every time you argue that "you can't control their priorities", there's a counterargument that says "well you knew that when forming the contract, right?"
Exactly. So even if the source of the problem is within BO, the responsibility and soul-searching belong in ULA. (As agreed upthread)Not insinuating.The primary still retains the responsibility - it doesn't matter whether they chose to develop it themselves or decided to offload the work to a sub. It's ULA's rocket.
Are you insinuating that it is ULA's fault? Please clarify.
Saying
If you choose to go with a subcontractor and they don't deliver, how is it different from having chosen to go with internal development and then having your propulsion department fail to deliver?
Either way, your decision as prime means you're responsible. You should have had more insight/control. You can't shrug it off and say "they're an independent company" because that's one of the downsides you chose to accept when going with a sub.
For every time you argue that "you can't control their priorities", there's a counterargument that says "well you knew that when forming the contract, right?"
ULA hired an engine supplier, not a scapegoat.
The primary still retains the responsibility - it doesn't matter whether they chose to develop it themselves or decided to offload the work to a sub. It's ULA's rocket.
Are you insinuating that it is ULA's fault? Please clarify.
The primary still retains the responsibility - it doesn't matter whether they chose to develop it themselves or decided to offload the work to a sub. It's ULA's rocket.
Are you insinuating that it is ULA's fault? Please clarify.
I don't think MeekGee is implying that.
Any delays to delivery of the hotfire- and flight BE-4 engines is Blue Origin fault. They are prime responsible for the BE-4 system delivery.
But the fallout of such delayed delivery, such as having to postpone Vulcan first launch and thus having to disappoint ULA's customers, falls squarely on ULA.
As MeekGee stated: it's ULA's rocket. ULA gambled when they picked Blue as engine supplier. Any negative fallout from that gamble is ULA's to bear.
But I agree with you that ULA can't be blamed for the severely delayed production of BE-4 flight engines. That rests squarely on Bezos' company.
I think this is just splitting hairs. If ULA doesn't have the engines, they can't launch. They entered the contract many years ago fully expecting to have them by now. It sucks for ULA and they have to deal with the consequences, but this explanation is having its cake and eating it too.The primary still retains the responsibility - it doesn't matter whether they chose to develop it themselves or decided to offload the work to a sub. It's ULA's rocket.
Are you insinuating that it is ULA's fault? Please clarify.
I don't think MeekGee is implying that.
Any delays to delivery of the hotfire- and flight BE-4 engines is Blue Origin fault. They are prime responsible for the BE-4 system delivery.
But the fallout of such delayed delivery, such as having to postpone Vulcan first launch and thus having to disappoint ULA's customers, falls squarely on ULA.
As MeekGee stated: it's ULA's rocket. ULA gambled when they picked Blue as engine supplier. Any negative fallout from that gamble is ULA's to bear.
But I agree with you that ULA can't be blamed for the severely delayed production of BE-4 flight engines. That rests squarely on Bezos' company.
...
Also does ULA have a propulsion department that’s beyond just system level engineering? Like a department capable of designing, fabricating and testing whole engines?
Ok, I can accept that ULA bears the ultimate responsibility (the buck stops here) for the slow pace of the Vulcan deployment that is actually caused by Blue Origin's failure to deliver their flight ready engines per the contract they signed. The vehicle itself is on track to fly. It the the BO engines that are screwing up the works. The buck stops with Tory because he decided to go with BO engines in lieu of AJR engines. In hindsight (which is always 20/20), that was a bad management decision, so the ultimate responsibility is ULA's. That being said, what is the solution? ULA would be within their legal rights to cancel their contract with BO for non compliance but at what cost? How long would it take for AJR to replace the BE-4? Or, thinking outside the box, which I am reasonably certain Tory is open to doing, is it even possible, IF Tory were to inquire, that SpaceX would consider powering the Vulcan with their Raptor? What would that look like?Even if ULA ordered AR-1 today it would be at least 3 more years before a fully redesigned Vulcan would fly.
Ok, I can accept that ULA bears the ultimate responsibility (the buck stops here) for the slow pace of the Vulcan deployment that is actually caused by Blue Origin's failure to deliver their flight ready engines per the contract they signed. The vehicle itself is on track to fly. It the the BO engines that are screwing up the works. The buck stops with Tory because he decided to go with BO engines in lieu of AJR engines. In hindsight (which is always 20/20), that was a bad management decision, so the ultimate responsibility is ULA's. That being said, what is the solution? ULA would be within their legal rights to cancel their contract with BO for non compliance but at what cost? How long would it take for AJR to replace the BE-4? Or, thinking outside the box, which I am reasonably certain Tory is open to doing, is it even possible, IF Tory were to inquire, that SpaceX would consider powering the Vulcan with their Raptor? What would that look like?Even if ULA ordered AR-1 today it would be at least 3 more years before a fully redesigned Vulcan would fly.
Not a realistic option.
Neither is switching to Raptor. First: SpaceX doesn't sell them. Second: Raptor design is not stable. Third: ULA needs at least two years to redesign the Vulcan core stage thrust structure and GSE.
In both cases BE-4 will be ready much sooner. ULA will stick with BE-4.
There's a hostage to fortune if ever I saw one! ;D you may be right or history with the BE-4might repeat itself... we shall seeOk, I can accept that ULA bears the ultimate responsibility (the buck stops here) for the slow pace of the Vulcan deployment that is actually caused by Blue Origin's failure to deliver their flight ready engines per the contract they signed. The vehicle itself is on track to fly. It the the BO engines that are screwing up the works. The buck stops with Tory because he decided to go with BO engines in lieu of AJR engines. In hindsight (which is always 20/20), that was a bad management decision, so the ultimate responsibility is ULA's. That being said, what is the solution? ULA would be within their legal rights to cancel their contract with BO for non compliance but at what cost? How long would it take for AJR to replace the BE-4? Or, thinking outside the box, which I am reasonably certain Tory is open to doing, is it even possible, IF Tory were to inquire, that SpaceX would consider powering the Vulcan with their Raptor? What would that look like?Even if ULA ordered AR-1 today it would be at least 3 more years before a fully redesigned Vulcan would fly.
Not a realistic option.
Neither is switching to Raptor. First: SpaceX doesn't sell them. Second: Raptor design is not stable. Third: ULA needs at least two years to redesign the Vulcan core stage thrust structure and GSE.
In both cases BE-4 will be ready much sooner. ULA will stick with BE-4.
Ok, I can accept that ULA bears the ultimate responsibility (the buck stops here) for the slow pace of the Vulcan deployment that is actually caused by Blue Origin's failure to deliver their flight ready engines per the contract they signed. The vehicle itself is on track to fly. It the the BO engines that are screwing up the works. The buck stops with Tory because he decided to go with BO engines in lieu of AJR engines. In hindsight (which is always 20/20), that was a bad management decision, so the ultimate responsibility is ULA's. That being said, what is the solution? ULA would be within their legal rights to cancel their contract with BO for non compliance but at what cost? How long would it take for AJR to replace the BE-4? Or, thinking outside the box, which I am reasonably certain Tory is open to doing, is it even possible, IF Tory were to inquire, that SpaceX would consider powering the Vulcan with their Raptor? What would that look like?Even if ULA ordered AR-1 today it would be at least 3 more years before a fully redesigned Vulcan would fly.
Not a realistic option.
Neither is switching to Raptor. First: SpaceX doesn't sell them. Second: Raptor design is not stable. Third: ULA needs at least two years to redesign the Vulcan core stage thrust structure and GSE.
In both cases BE-4 will be ready much sooner. ULA will stick with BE-4.
Or lobby congress to allow more RD-180's. "Just for a couple more years".
Ok, I can accept that ULA bears the ultimate responsibility (the buck stops here) for the slow pace of the Vulcan deployment that is actually caused by Blue Origin's failure to deliver their flight ready engines per the contract they signed. The vehicle itself is on track to fly. It the the BO engines that are screwing up the works. The buck stops with Tory because he decided to go with BO engines in lieu of AJR engines. In hindsight (which is always 20/20), that was a bad management decision, so the ultimate responsibility is ULA's. That being said, what is the solution? ULA would be within their legal rights to cancel their contract with BO for non compliance but at what cost? How long would it take for AJR to replace the BE-4? Or, thinking outside the box, which I am reasonably certain Tory is open to doing, is it even possible, IF Tory were to inquire, that SpaceX would consider powering the Vulcan with their Raptor? What would that look like?
Ok, I can accept that ULA bears the ultimate responsibility (the buck stops here) for the slow pace of the Vulcan deployment that is actually caused by Blue Origin's failure to deliver their flight ready engines per the contract they signed. The vehicle itself is on track to fly. It the the BO engines that are screwing up the works. The buck stops with Tory because he decided to go with BO engines in lieu of AJR engines. In hindsight (which is always 20/20), that was a bad management decision, so the ultimate responsibility is ULA's. That being said, what is the solution? ULA would be within their legal rights to cancel their contract with BO for non compliance but at what cost? How long would it take for AJR to replace the BE-4? Or, thinking outside the box, which I am reasonably certain Tory is open to doing, is it even possible, IF Tory were to inquire, that SpaceX would consider powering the Vulcan with their Raptor? What would that look like?Even if ULA ordered AR-1 today it would be at least 3 more years before a fully redesigned Vulcan would fly.
Not a realistic option.
Neither is switching to Raptor. First: SpaceX doesn't sell them. Second: Raptor design is not stable. Third: ULA needs at least two years to redesign the Vulcan core stage thrust structure and GSE.
In both cases BE-4 will be ready much sooner. ULA will stick with BE-4.
Or lobby congress to allow more RD-180's. "Just for a couple more years".
The problem I think is that ULA only has program managers when they also need engine specialists. An integrator is by definition a jack of all trades, master of none.
A bunch of you have clearly never been program managers on huge programs. When your key supplier is late you ship a hoard of engineers and managers to go sit at their office and audit their schedule and technical progress. ULA has plenty of PMs and systems engineers, they never should have let Blue run aground like this. I’m guessing the reality is that Blue has a lot more power in this relationship than a typical supplier would.
The problem I think is that ULA only has program managers when they also need engine specialists.
Since the RD-180 ban is for awards after 31.12.2022 (and I doubt that can be significantly extended), it might (IMO) make sense for the ULA management (due to the extreme importance of the NSSL contract) to bite the bullet and take 2-3 Atlas Vs from Amazon order and use those for NSSL launches awarded in 2022. Otherwise, they would likely have to accept losing those NSSL launches awarded in 2022.
IMO, no matter what ULA does, BE-4 delays will cost them big bucks.
The delivery was planned for 2017, so it is quite late.
The voice of reason in this discussion. Thanks Steve.The delivery was planned for 2017, so it is quite late.
So is just about everyone. Some examples. Falcon Heavy was supposed to launch in 2013, but didn't do so until 2018, five years later. https://www.space.com/11298-spacex-rocket-private-spaceflight-falcon9.html
Starship is already nearly two years late. It was supposed to launch at the beginning of 2020.
Both Dragon 2 and Starliner were supposed to end reliance on Russia by 2017. SpaceX's first crewed flight was in 2020 and was three years late. We're still waiting for Starliner which will be five years late if the first crewed launch is next year.
SLS was supposed to launch in 2016, but will launch next year for a six year delay.
Does BO have a ULA spec engine vs internal New Glenn spec engine in development?
The delivery was planned for 2017, so it is quite late.
So is just about everyone. Some examples. Falcon Heavy was supposed to launch in 2013, but didn't do so until 2018, five years later. https://www.space.com/11298-spacex-rocket-private-spaceflight-falcon9.html
Starship is already nearly two years late. It was supposed to launch at the beginning of 2020.
Both Dragon 2 and Starliner were supposed to end reliance on Russia by 2017. SpaceX's first crewed flight was in 2020 and was three years late. We're still waiting for Starliner which will be five years late if the first crewed launch is next year.
SLS was supposed to launch in 2016, but will launch next year for a six year delay.
It was regarding the igniter, I believe:Does BO have a ULA spec engine vs internal New Glenn spec engine in development?
I do believe there is a difference in the two. There was discussion several months ago implying that BO was prioritising their internal requirements over that of ULA.
Hopefully someone can chime in with some confirmation.
Bruno said he was “dumbfounded” by GAO’s assessment that the engine igniter was a problem.
The igniter is not a technical challenge but a design issue, he said. Blue Origin is making the BE-4 for ULA and also to power its own heavy rocket New Glenn. About a year and a half ago, ULA and Blue Origin decided that the first BE-4s would be made with an igniter suitable for Vulcan but not for New Glenn, which has a reusable first stage and would need a different igniter for propulsive flyback.
“It has always been our intention to have at first a configuration of the engine for Vulcan and a slightly different configuration of the engine for New Glenn,” Bruno said. “The igniter was one of those choices made quite some time ago. And it’s certainly not a technical issue today.”
The delivery was planned for 2017, so it is quite late.
A lot of things are being conflated. In 2015, the engine was supposed to be qualified for flight in 2017 and ready to support a 2019 Vulcan launch, per Rob Meyerson (https://spacenews.com/be-4-engine-remains-front-runner-for-ulas-next-rocket/). The deal with ULA was agreed in 2018 with a first launch expected in 2020 (https://spacenews.com/ula-selects-blue-origin-to-provide-vulcan-main-engine/).The delivery was planned for 2017, so it is quite late.
Based on the fact that Tory Bruno in 2015 said they BE-4 not having its first flight until 2019. Makes me question where you heard this from. Even in the same statement made in 2015 Tory Bruno said the BE-4 wouldnt even be ready for NSSL until 2022-2023.
https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/606815241368772608?lang=enI'm reminded of the reddit sub agedlikemilk
https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/606815241368772608?lang=en
Ooohfff, that's rough. Rockets are hard, but that shows there were other problems.
I want BE4 and Blue to start flying, but the company needs a cultural shift toward results. It must be frustrating to work for a space company that doesn't go to orbit.
I have not followed development of the BE4 closely over the years. Could someone provide a thumbnail summary of what is believed to be delaying BE4? I realize Blue is pretty closed mouthed so details are sparse. Not wanting to start a mudslinging, fingerprinting fest either. Just wondering if the current blocker issue seems to be thrust, stability, structure etc.There is some (somewhat) more informed speculation on this in L2. But it's still speculation...
I have not followed development of the BE4 closely over the years. Could someone provide a thumbnail summary of what is believed to be delaying BE4? I realize Blue is pretty closed mouthed so details are sparse. Not wanting to start a mudslinging, fingerprinting fest either. Just wondering if the current blocker issue seems to be thrust, stability, structure etc.
Ooohfff, that's rough. Rockets are hard, but that shows there were other problems.
I want BE4 and Blue to start flying, but the company needs a cultural shift toward results. It must be frustrating to work for a space company that doesn't go to orbit.
I can't help but wonder, that this is indicative of a loose money rocket development. Design get bogged down in perfecting the product. Each additional year you test and fool around, you increase risks of damaging your equipment, facilities, losing key personnel or competitive edge. So the risks can be found in many other places than only from the quality of your end product. This is the important task for a good manager, who can see the complete picture and react accordingly.
Maybe this is just an observation from my short vantage point, but even looking at the Apollo program, the rush created from space race was probably important for spawning the miracle of moon landing.
We all know what the problem was. Blue put BE-4 on the back burner to compete for military and nasa contracts. They jump at the next shiny and never finish something.
We all know what the problem was. Blue put BE-4 on the back burner to compete for military and nasa contracts. They jump at the next shiny and never finish something.
We all know what the problem was. Blue put BE-4 on the back burner to compete for military and nasa contracts. They jump at the next shiny and never finish something.
I don't find the idea that Blue can't walk and chew gum at the same time a very compelling argument, even though it is frequently repeated here.
It seems to me that the customer (ULA) insisting on a higher performance targets was one the biggest issues? The saying "perfect being the enemy of good enough" would apply here. Basically wanting the Block 2 (or 3) engine before block 1 was up and running. But then ULA really wanted something that could perform Delta IV-Heavy class missions with a single core, so maybe THAT is the real root of the problem.
We all know what the problem was. Blue put BE-4 on the back burner to compete for military and nasa contracts. They jump at the next shiny and never finish something.
I don't find the idea that Blue can't walk and chew gum at the same time a very compelling argument, even though it is frequently repeated here.
It seems to me that the customer (ULA) insisting on a higher performance targets was one the biggest issues? The saying "perfect being the enemy of good enough" would apply here. Basically wanting the Block 2 (or 3) engine before block 1 was up and running. But then ULA really wanted something that could perform Delta IV-Heavy class missions with a single core, so maybe THAT is the real root of the problem.
We all know what the problem was. Blue put BE-4 on the back burner to compete for military and nasa contracts. They jump at the next shiny and never finish something.
I don't find the idea that Blue can't walk and chew gum at the same time a very compelling argument, even though it is frequently repeated here.
It seems to me that the customer (ULA) insisting on a higher performance targets was one the biggest issues? The saying "perfect being the enemy of good enough" would apply here. Basically wanting the Block 2 (or 3) engine before block 1 was up and running. But then ULA really wanted something that could perform Delta IV-Heavy class missions with a single core, so maybe THAT is the real root of the problem.
But Blue promised they could deliver. They haven't yet. That lends credence to the "can't walk and chew gum" argument.
Contractors routinely promise to be able to do things they they are not 100% sure they will be able to accomplish when signing a deal.
Ah, that would be called lying.
Oh puh-lease, you cannot seriously mean that. Sometime one's reach exceeds their grasp.
We all know what the problem was. Blue put BE-4 on the back burner to compete for military and nasa contracts. They jump at the next shiny and never finish something.
I don't find the idea that Blue can't walk and chew gum at the same time a very compelling argument, even though it is frequently repeated here.
It seems to me that the customer (ULA) insisting on a higher performance targets was one the biggest issues? The saying "perfect being the enemy of good enough" would apply here. Basically wanting the Block 2 (or 3) engine before block 1 was up and running. But then ULA really wanted something that could perform Delta IV-Heavy class missions with a single core, so maybe THAT is the real root of the problem.
Blue should get their engine going and their orbital rocket built before they bid on anything else. One sub-orbital rocket in 19 years of work is not enough in todays world. As someone mentioned Bezos bids on every thing out there without knowing if he can deliver or not. Make delivery for yourself first before you start bidding.
Does anyone have any idea when the BE-4 engine will be operational? Logical guessing only please.
Does anyone have any idea when the BE-4 engine will be operational? Logical guessing only please.
Does anyone have any idea when the BE-4 engine will be operational? Logical guessing only please.
"Tory Bruno
@torybruno
Nov 18
Looking good. Major milestones recently passed in prequal testing. Running like a top. All nominal. First flight engines moving through the factory"
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1461337942543126537
That's useful info, but notice the compete lack of dates or even timeframes? Not building as much confidence as it would otherwise.
That's useful info, but notice the compete lack of dates or even timeframes? Not building as much confidence as it would otherwise.
Well, he doesn't have an reason to raise twitterati confidence by releasing a bunch of competition-sensitive information like dates. I am sure that customers like the US DoD have been kept in the loop, and am glad to hear that the difficulties getting BE4 over the final hurtle seem to be behind them.
It remains the case that he has no reason to satisfy twitter's idle curiosity, so his choosing not to tells us nothing.
1. Tory previously (last year or early this one) posted that he expects to get BE-4s in "summer 2021" so clearly the estimate itself isn't that sensitive - but he likely doesn't want to publicly guess again and possibly be wrong.
2. IMO, the only ones stressing about BE-4 availability are ULA and its customers - not ULAs competitors.This grossly underestimates the value of competitive information. ULA's competitors would love to know whether they are bidding against Vulcan, or whether they can try to make an issue of schedule risk, for a launch on a certain date. Not to mention legal risk - remember that court order requiring Tesla lawyers preapprove Elon tweets?
Oh come on....It remains the case that he has no reason to satisfy twitter's idle curiosity, so his choosing not to tells us nothing.
1. Tory previously (last year or early this one) posted that he expects to get BE-4s in "summer 2021" so clearly the estimate itself isn't that sensitive - but he likely doesn't want to publicly guess again and possibly be wrong.2. IMO, the only ones stressing about BE-4 availability are ULA and its customers - not ULAs competitors.This grossly underestimates the value of competitive information. ULA's competitors would love to know whether they are bidding against Vulcan, or whether they can try to make an issue of schedule risk, for a launch on a certain date. Not to mention legal risk - remember that court order requiring Tesla lawyers preapprove Elon tweets?
That's just "plausible deniability". Just like the "BO is a private company and chooses secrecy etc etc".
As posted above, what exactly is the fear? That SpaceX will get alarmed and stop being complacent and lazy?
That's just "plausible deniability". Just like the "BO is a private company and chooses secrecy etc etc".
Well, we can speculate that Tory's horses are sick, because he hasn't tweeted about them in a week - but the reality is we don't know anything - it's just rank speculation.As posted above, what exactly is the fear? That SpaceX will get alarmed and stop being complacent and lazy?
As I already explained, afraid SpaceX will bid high because they know Vulcan won't be ready, or bid low because it will.
We're very spoiled by Elon and SpaceX - he likes to speculate a lot on twitter and in interviews. But most companies don't operate like that. When was the last time Apple tweeted day-to-day updates on their prototyping process for a new phone? Or Nissan did on the production of their new windshield wipers? Tory has tweeted that the testing is going well, and the finalized engines are moving through production now. That is new, and real, information. Everything based on what he didn't say is just silly.
This is called 'supply and demand'. It's a fundamental part of the free market. It is why the same DVD is significantly cheaper in China than in the US and why knowing what other offers your customer is getting is valuable.As I already explained, afraid SpaceX will bid high because they know Vulcan won't be ready, or bid low because it will.
Do you have any evidence SpaceX engages in pricing practices such as those?
In fact, if any businesses have been documented to overcharge it is, well, Blue Origin. Proof? Look at their HLS lawsuit.This discussion is about what we know, or don't know, about the status of the BE4 engine. Not which
So in short, the continuing secrecy is not a sign of continuing delays and development problems but rather a cunning strategy designed to placate competition into a false sense of complacency...This is called 'supply and demand'. It's a fundamental part of the free market. It is why the same DVD is significantly cheaper in China than in the US and why knowing what other offers your customer is getting is valuable.As I already explained, afraid SpaceX will bid high because they know Vulcan won't be ready, or bid low because it will.
Do you have any evidence SpaceX engages in pricing practices such as those?In fact, if any businesses have been documented to overcharge it is, well, Blue Origin. Proof? Look at their HLS lawsuit.This discussion is about what we know, or don't know, about the status of the BE4 engine. Not whichsports teamrocket company we're cheering for. And the fact is, Tory Bruno didn't include dates in his tweet, does not mean he's lying that everything is going well, and that they are on track for their inaugural launch next year.
This is called 'supply and demand'. It's a fundamental part of the free market. It is why the same DVD is significantly cheaper in China than in the US and why knowing what other offers your customer is getting is valuable.As I already explained, afraid SpaceX will bid high because they know Vulcan won't be ready, or bid low because it will.
Do you have any evidence SpaceX engages in pricing practices such as those?In fact, if any businesses have been documented to overcharge it is, well, Blue Origin. Proof? Look at their HLS lawsuit.This discussion is about what we know, or don't know, about the status of the BE4 engine. Not whichsports teamrocket company we're cheering for.
And the fact is, Tory Bruno didn't include dates in his tweet, does not mean he's lying that everything is going well, and that they are on track for their inaugural launch next year.
Everything based on what he didn't say is just silly.Off topic, but this is wrong both in theory and practice. In theory any action, silence or speaking, provides information that can be used to update an estimate of the current state. In practice, people attend to what politicians (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/31/opinion/letters/trump-john-adams.html) and court decisions (https://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/18/opinion/what-the-court-didnt-say.html)don't say. Sherlock Holmes based a story on a dog that did not bark (https://newmr.org/blog/the-dog-that-didnt-bark-a-great-way-to-find-insight-in-information/#:~:text=In%20the%20Sherlock%20Holmes%20story,that%20was%20what%20was%20curious.). Pick up any book on bridge and you will find statements like "If he had the club ace, he would have opened the bidding (https://wacotrib.com/bridge-thursday-july-6/article_b2e0ef24-117d-516a-b752-e7ff1f102f57.html)." People use negative information all the time, and rightfully so.
That is certainly one interpretation of things. Not the one I would choose.
That people do this is obvious – that they do it in a lot of cases they shouldn’t is also. Most of the time, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Your examples are illustrative – fiction full of extremely dubious reasoning, a NYT article full of dubious and unconfirmable speculation about what the court was thinking and what it means, and game-theory for a very tightly constrained statespace. In the real world, there are thousands of reasons Mr. Bruno might have for not sharing a piece of information, some of which I’ve already enumerated – which leaves us no way to know (as opposed to guess wildly) the exact one it happens to be.Everything based on what he didn't say is just silly.Off topic, but this is wrong both in theory and practice. In theory any action, silence or speaking, provides information that can be used to update an estimate of the current state. In practice, people attend to what politicians (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/31/opinion/letters/trump-john-adams.html) and court decisions (https://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/18/opinion/what-the-court-didnt-say.html)don't say. Sherlock Holmes based a story on a dog that did not bark (https://newmr.org/blog/the-dog-that-didnt-bark-a-great-way-to-find-insight-in-information/#:~:text=In%20the%20Sherlock%20Holmes%20story,that%20was%20what%20was%20curious.). Pick up any book on bridge and you will find statements like "If he had the club ace, he would have opened the bidding (https://wacotrib.com/bridge-thursday-july-6/article_b2e0ef24-117d-516a-b752-e7ff1f102f57.html)." People use negative information all the time, and rightfully so.
And soon, any year now, they will pounce.
Did you not raise the issue of SpaceX pricing first? You're also choosing your points to refute very carefully.
That is certainly one interpretation of things. Not the one I would choose.
The main point you're missing here is that if Tory Bruno didn't feel obligated to share any information about ongoing BE-4 progress with the public, why would he post tweets that sound like they're talking about progress but actually contain no information?
"Tory Bruno
@torybruno
Nov 18
Looking good. Major milestones recently passed in prequal testing. Running like a top. All nominal. First flight engines moving through the factory"
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1461337942543126537
The main point you're missing here is that if Tory Bruno didn't feel obligated to share any information about ongoing BE-4 progress with the public, why would he post tweets that sound like they're talking about progress but actually contain no information?
But the tweet in question does contain quite a bit of information
"Tory Bruno
@torybruno
Nov 18
Looking good. Major milestones recently passed in prequal testing. Running like a top. All nominal. First flight engines moving through the factory"
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1461337942543126537
That is real information - they are making progress since their previous static-fire troubles. Everything in the prequals has been nominal, and the production engines are being built. This isn't some "I have full confidence in our team, space is hard, etc, etc." - this is a set of current, definite, and falsifiable statements of fact about progress. So making that out to be some evidence of farther troubles is... really odd.
What that tweet says is "things are still going well." Nothing more, nothing less. I don't think anyone here is suggesting that there was a major disaster behind the scenes which Tory is trying to cover up, but "things are still going well" tells us nothing about timelines, or how much schedule slippage or routine yes-we-will-be-able-to-overcome-this-but-it'll-take-more time issues may have arisen. Frankly, I only include the latter for completeness: I expect the true situation is probably more like "we're still moving forward, although due to small inefficiencies piling up things keep taking longer than anticipated." Nothing that would even rise to the level of "issue."
The main point you're missing here is that if Tory Bruno didn't feel obligated to share any information about ongoing BE-4 progress with the public, why would he post tweets that sound like they're talking about progress but actually contain no information?
But the tweet in question does contain quite a bit of information
"Tory Bruno
@torybruno
Nov 18
Looking good. Major milestones recently passed in prequal testing. Running like a top. All nominal. First flight engines moving through the factory"
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1461337942543126537
That is real information - they are making progress since their previous static-fire troubles. Everything in the prequals has been nominal, and the production engines are being built. This isn't some "I have full confidence in our team, space is hard, etc, etc." - this is a set of current, definite, and falsifiable statements of fact about progress. So making that out to be some evidence of farther troubles is... really odd.
What that tweet says is "things are still going well." Nothing more, nothing less. I don't think anyone here is suggesting that there was a major disaster behind the scenes which Tory is trying to cover up, but "things are still going well" tells us nothing about timelines, or how much schedule slippage or routine yes-we-will-be-able-to-overcome-this-but-it'll-take-more time issues may have arisen. Frankly, I only include the latter for completeness: I expect the true situation is probably more like "we're still moving forward, although due to small inefficiencies piling up things keep taking longer than anticipated." Nothing that would even rise to the level of "issue."
What that tweet says is "things are still going well." Nothing more, nothing less. I don't think anyone here is suggesting that there was a major disaster behind the scenes which Tory is trying to cover up, but "things are still going well" tells us nothing about timelines, or how much schedule slippage or routine yes-we-will-be-able-to-overcome-this-but-it'll-take-more time issues may have arisen. Frankly, I only include the latter for completeness: I expect the true situation is probably more like "we're still moving forward, although due to small inefficiencies piling up things keep taking longer than anticipated." Nothing that would even rise to the level of "issue."
I think it is impossible to make "Running like a top. All nominal." into "yes-we-will-be-able-to-overcome-this-but-it'll-take-more time". I think that would be a lie (and, I think, malfeasance, but IANAL) by Tory Bruno, were it the case. And so I find it very difficult to imagine.
We don't know what the baseline of "nominal" is.
Plus, again, things can be running slower than expected without actual issues
We don't know what the baseline of "nominal" is.
"nominal" will be in reference to the engine specifications in the contract and rocket design documents.Plus, again, things can be running slower than expected without actual issues
Well, saying "Looking good." and "running like a top" while about to tell a paying customer (Astrobotic) that their launch is slipping would likely constitute corporate malfeasance (again, IANAL). That seems quite farfetched to me.
But we've heard exactly that kind of statement before.What that tweet says is "things are still going well." Nothing more, nothing less. I don't think anyone here is suggesting that there was a major disaster behind the scenes which Tory is trying to cover up, but "things are still going well" tells us nothing about timelines, or how much schedule slippage or routine yes-we-will-be-able-to-overcome-this-but-it'll-take-more time issues may have arisen. Frankly, I only include the latter for completeness: I expect the true situation is probably more like "we're still moving forward, although due to small inefficiencies piling up things keep taking longer than anticipated." Nothing that would even rise to the level of "issue."
I think it is impossible to make "Running like a top. All nominal." into "yes-we-will-be-able-to-overcome-this-but-it'll-take-more time". I think that would be a lie (and, I think, malfeasance, but IANAL) by Tory Bruno, were it the case. And so I find it very difficult to imagine.
Running like a top, but at full chamber pressure? Full duration?
Those exact issues are already public knowledge pretty much, as are the promised delivery dates..
So you can't have it both ways.. You can't say his statement is unambiguous, but then say he's being ambiguous since omg competitors will find out. Which is it?
Errr... Where does it say "remain on track"?
Running like a top, but at full chamber pressure? Full duration?
Those exact issues are already public knowledge pretty much, as are the promised delivery dates..
So you can't have it both ways.. You can't say his statement is unambiguous, but then say he's being ambiguous since omg competitors will find out. Which is it?
That tweet is unambiguous - it tells us definite and unambiguous facts. It doesn't tell us everything, obviously - It doesn't tell us the exact turbine geometry or testing process design, or where Tory gets his hats - have to keep some secrets, obviously ;D. But seriously, this tweet is new because it tells us the engines are continuing (as of last week) to meet major milestones successfully and nominally. It tells us that the engines remain on track for their deliver date - that's great news. And this level of access is way more than we would have gotten from any rocket company prior to the rise of SpaceX, so I really don't think trying to read tea leaves on what he didn't tell us is productive.
Errr... Where does it say "remain on track"?
And at this point, what track even?
We'll see what arrives by year's end, and whether Vulcan can make 2022.
maybe the mods could do us a favor and close this thread. Its gotten WAY past bad.Thread is fine, its posts that are problem. Not sure locking it would achieve much as still need BE4 discussion thread.
Don’t know whether to ask this here or the Vulcan thread but here goes. How soon before launch does ULA need the engines?
It looks like Blue are running a lot of BE-4 tests out at Corn Ranch.
This gif of imagery from Sentinel-2 shows a lot of interaction with the ground. Similar effects are seen at other engine test facilities, so hopefully this is a positive sign :)
(Click to play gif)
ULA's competitors would love to know whether they are bidding against Vulcan
ULA's competitors would love to know whether they are bidding against Vulcan
Tory kindly let them know that by telling everyone that the last Atlas V was sold. At this point it's Vulcan or nothing for new bids.
Oh no... So Tory's strategy is to cunningly trick SpaceX into underbidding and leave money on the table...ULA's competitors would love to know whether they are bidding against Vulcan
Tory kindly let them know that by telling everyone that the last Atlas V was sold. At this point it's Vulcan or nothing for new bids.
Which doesn't tell them whether Vulcan will be ready for any particular launch - thus whether they're bidding against Vulcan or against a no-bid by ULA...
Now than Elon is throwing people over guardrails and yelling “you’re fired” like good old times at Model 3 production line, this threat is gone oddly quiet. Don’t worry Elon can’t fire amazing peoples (Unless you are actual employee...)Raptors have flown multiple times, and more than 100 have now been manufactured. Even assuming the purported email is real, it's a case of "not advancing the state of the art fast and cheaply enough" rather than "has anyone seen one of these outside of a test stand or display stand yet?".
So did the New Space take too big a step with staged combustion route, or are both delays just temporary hiccups?
*( Model 3 end up to being extremely profitable and build in speed that VAG can’t keep up...)
I think the dev of raptor and be-4 are similar in ways people overlook.Real world data will always beat analysis, when you can get that sooner it would be an advantage
Raptor is FAR from finished. SpaceX is doing small iterative improvements to the design over many years. Blue wants to have a finished product from the get go. SpaceX is super open about what its doing, while Blue hides everything (progress and problems). Both are huge projects taking mucho dinero and many years.
Raptor is very much a dev engine still. Every launch has shown issues - not always engine outs, but watching the exhaust on assent also shows the engine is not complete yet.
I think the dev of raptor and be-4 are similar in ways people overlook.Real world data will always beat analysis, when you can get that sooner it would be an advantage
Raptor is FAR from finished. SpaceX is doing small iterative improvements to the design over many years. Blue wants to have a finished product from the get go. SpaceX is super open about what its doing, while Blue hides everything (progress and problems). Both are huge projects taking mucho dinero and many years.
Raptor is very much a dev engine still. Every launch has shown issues - not always engine outs, but watching the exhaust on assent also shows the engine is not complete yet.
I think the dev of raptor and be-4 are similar in ways people overlook.That Raptor engines are not finished yet, and won't be for many years, but at the same time they are much closer to being usable than BE-4. The Raptors are doing full thrust full duration static fires and multi-engine static fires, and have operated successfully in flight for a cumulative of around 50 engine-minutes. Not counting the relights and landing burns. And SpaceX has 32x flight-worthy sea level Raptors and 3x vacuum Raptors out at the pad, ready for an orbital launch probably next month.
Raptor is FAR from finished. SpaceX is doing small iterative improvements to the design over many years. Blue wants to have a finished product from the get go. SpaceX is super open about what its doing, while Blue hides everything (progress and problems). Both are huge projects taking mucho dinero and many years.
Raptor is very much a dev engine still. Every launch has shown issues - not always engine outs, but watching the exhaust on assent also shows the engine is not complete yet.
I think the dev of raptor and be-4 are similar in ways people overlook.
Raptor is FAR from finished. SpaceX is doing small iterative improvements to the design over many years. Blue wants to have a finished product from the get go. SpaceX is super open about what its doing, while Blue hides everything (progress and problems). Both are huge projects taking mucho dinero and many years.
Raptor is very much a dev engine still. Every launch has shown issues - not always engine outs, but watching the exhaust on assent also shows the engine is not complete yet.
Interesting premise. I’ll grant you that Raptor is far from its final form. But strong disagree that BE-4 will be finished “from the get go” since all available evidence suggests otherwise. More significantly: only one of these engine development programs is hardware-rich, and only one can boast any flight time at all. These gaps will only grow over time.My understanding is that we already know it won't be finished from the get go. Blue is scrambling to finish a basic variant of BE-4 for Vulcan, and after they start delivering that, then they can start making updates to BE-4 to get something that has the reusability New Glenn requires.
Interesting premise. I’ll grant you that Raptor is far from its final form. But strong disagree that BE-4 will be finished “from the get go” since all available evidence suggests otherwise. More significantly: only one of these engine development programs is hardware-rich, and only one can boast any flight time at all. These gaps will only grow over time.My understanding is that we already know it won't be finished from the get go. Blue is scrambling to finish a basic variant of BE-4 for Vulcan, and after they start delivering that, then they can start making updates to BE-4 to get something that has the reusability New Glenn requires.
In the retracted bid for GOES-U (April 2024) ULA mentioned that they'll change to BE-4 Block 2 at some point in the future. The selection statement made clear that ULA didn't specify clearly when is that supposed to happen.Interesting premise. I’ll grant you that Raptor is far from its final form. But strong disagree that BE-4 will be finished “from the get go” since all available evidence suggests otherwise. More significantly: only one of these engine development programs is hardware-rich, and only one can boast any flight time at all. These gaps will only grow over time.My understanding is that we already know it won't be finished from the get go. Blue is scrambling to finish a basic variant of BE-4 for Vulcan, and after they start delivering that, then they can start making updates to BE-4 to get something that has the reusability New Glenn requires.
Is it a basic variant that they were planning to upgrade? My understanding was that they were finished with this version of the engine as intended and are putting it in pre production while simultaneously doing final qualifications.
Update on the engines.
https://spacenews.com/tory-bruno-ula-wont-get-engines-by-christmas-be-4s-coming-in-early-2022/
Bruno: We're in the endgame now. This is the hardest and most exciting part of any rocket development program. It is being paced by those brand new engines. They're new technology and new fuel. They will be delivered to us early next year, and that will support a launch later in the year -- in fact two launches before the year is out.
Brennan: So early next year. It sounds like Blue Origin is delayed.
Bruno: They are. I was hoping to get those engines for Christmas. I have giant stockings at home, waiting for them! But they've just had a little bit more ... I'll say it's taking them a little longer to fabricate my production engines. They're in the factory now being built at Blue Origin. The covid epidemic has affected them and their supply chain, and it's just taking a little bit longer. But they're doing very, very well. There's been no problems with them, and in fact we're doing the final testing, what we call Certification Testing, and that is just going really, really well.
In the retracted bid for GOES-U (April 2024) ULA mentioned that they'll change to BE-4 Block 2 at some point in the future. The selection statement made clear that ULA didn't specify clearly when is that supposed to happen.Interesting premise. I’ll grant you that Raptor is far from its final form. But strong disagree that BE-4 will be finished “from the get go” since all available evidence suggests otherwise. More significantly: only one of these engine development programs is hardware-rich, and only one can boast any flight time at all. These gaps will only grow over time.My understanding is that we already know it won't be finished from the get go. Blue is scrambling to finish a basic variant of BE-4 for Vulcan, and after they start delivering that, then they can start making updates to BE-4 to get something that has the reusability New Glenn requires.
Is it a basic variant that they were planning to upgrade? My understanding was that they were finished with this version of the engine as intended and are putting it in pre production while simultaneously doing final qualifications.
What that tweet says is "things are still going well." Nothing more, nothing less. I don't think anyone here is suggesting that there was a major disaster behind the scenes which Tory is trying to cover up, but "things are still going well" tells us nothing about timelines, or how much schedule slippage or routine yes-we-will-be-able-to-overcome-this-but-it'll-take-more time issues may have arisen. Frankly, I only include the latter for completeness: I expect the true situation is probably more like "we're still moving forward, although due to small inefficiencies piling up things keep taking longer than anticipated." Nothing that would even rise to the level of "issue."
I think it is impossible to make "Running like a top. All nominal." into "yes-we-will-be-able-to-overcome-this-but-it'll-take-more time". I think that would be a lie (and, I think, malfeasance, but IANAL) by Tory Bruno, were it the case. And so I find it very difficult to imagine.
Looks like the track that engine development unambiguously remains on has shifted again...
What was the word you used? malfeasance? I'm just asking because that was less than 2 weeks ago..
I believe Bruno stated "by end of year" a couple of weeks prior to the "all is well" tweet, and we all noted that the ambivalent soft-phrased tweet probably meant it's slipping again - and not that they're being tight-lipped about confidential/propriatery stuff.
Looks like the track that engine development unambiguously remains on has shifted again...
What was the word you used? malfeasance? I'm just asking because that was less than 2 weeks ago..
That tweet did not claim, and I never claimed, that he would have them by Christmas. I held (and still hold) two things about his tweet. The first was that he was unambiguous that things were going well, and the second was that "going well" must mean not currently threatening the Peregrine launch. That tweet said nothing about Christmas. And, of course, he may then have known that the engines would not be ready by Christmas. He didn't talk about farther slips - just that they had slipped, and he had hoped to have his engines for Christmas, and didn't quite get there. That doesn't even say when he had been hoping that. He also said in that interview that final qualification testing was going great. So, more good news, at least on the testing front. :)
It may be that BO slips farther. They haven't exactly established a track record of completing things on time :) - but I will stand by my claim that when he made that tweet, Tory Bruno didn't know of anything that would threaten the Peregrine launch.
I believe Bruno stated "by end of year" a couple of weeks prior to the "all is well" tweet, and we all noted that the ambivalent soft-phrased tweet probably meant it's slipping again - and not that they're being tight-lipped about confidential/propriatery stuff.
From the article:In fairness, it's better to stick to what Bruno actually said (see upthread) than a journalist's paraphrasing:
"Bruno had previously said he expected the engines in late 2021 but on Friday he confirmed the BE-4s will not arrive until early 2022. "
"The first two engines will be used for Vulcan’s first launch some time in 2022, said Bruno. He said Vulcan will fly two missions before the year ends."
Looking at it one way, those are pretty definite statements about the availability of the flight ready BE-4 engines. I guess Tony isn't worried any more about the loss of a competitive advantage through information release.
Looking at it the other way, stating that ULA will have receipt of flight engines "sometime in 2022" is really vague for the second statement. We can at least discern the information that ULA expects to have 4 flight engines from Blue Origin in 2022.
Maybe someone else can determine what this all means.
They will be delivered to us early next year, and that will support a launch later in the year -- in fact two launches before the year is out.
Blue Origin's current plan involves testing two more development engines at its facility near Van Horn, Texas, this fall. These are close to, but not the, final version of the BE-4 engine.
After these tests, a fully assembled flight engine no. 1 will be shipped to Texas to undergo a fairly brief round of tests, known as acceptance testing. If this engine passes, as expected, it will be shipped to ULA. Then a virtually identical BE-4 engine will be sent from Kent to Texas. This "qual" engine will undergo a much more rigorous series of tests, known as qualification testing. The idea is to push the engine through its paces to find any flaws. Then a similar process will follow with flight engine no. 2, followed by a second "qual" engine.
Bruno described the current tests as "the final testing, what we call Certification Testing." Doesn't seem likely they'd be doing this on Not-Quite-BE4s, and the acceptance testing is on the engines that are going to ULA, which are still getting made. Fair to assume therefore that these are the "qual" engines, and the plan given by Berger's source has been modified somewhat?Qual testing != Cert testing.
Bruno described the current tests as "the final testing, what we call Certification Testing." Doesn't seem likely they'd be doing this on Not-Quite-BE4s, and the acceptance testing is on the engines that are going to ULA, which are still getting made. Fair to assume therefore that these are the "qual" engines, and the plan given by Berger's source has been modified somewhat?Qual testing != Cert testing.
Cert testing is testing the engine design to confirm it meets all performance requirements.
Qual testing is testing a specific engine to confirm it meets production tolerances.
As per the last plan from Tory, BO will produce an engine to ship to ULA (Qual tested before shipment), a second engine to run through Cert testing, a third engine to ship to ULA (Qual tested before shipment), then a fourth engine for Cert testing. The plan is that if the two Cert test engines pass, the other two are therefore good for flight.
Blue Origin is unlikely to deliver two flight-ready versions of the BE-4 rocket engine to United Launch Alliance (ULA) before at least the second quarter of 2022, two sources say. This increases the possibility that the debut flight of ULA's much-anticipated new rocket, Vulcan, could slip into 2023.
[...]
A reasonable "no-earlier-than" date for the engines' arrival at the rocket manufacturer is now April 2022, and this assumes a smooth final production and testing phase.
Why does he even bother, hes starting to sound like a fool with EVERY announcement .........
Not sure why anyone believes anything Tory says about schedules. His guesses are more wild than SLS schedules are. Each time he seems to assume zero margin loss and never a single problem.
Why does he even bother, hes starting to sound like a fool with EVERY announcement being obviously overly optimistic.
Not sure why anyone believes anything Tory says about schedules. His guesses are more wild than SLS schedules are. Each time he seems to assume zero margin loss and never a single problem.
Why does he even bother, hes starting to sound like a fool with EVERY announcement being obviously overly optimistic.
That's just "plausible deniability". Just like the "BO is a private company and chooses secrecy etc etc".
Well, we can speculate that Tory's horses are sick, because he hasn't tweeted about them in a week - but the reality is we don't know anything - it's just rank speculation.As posted above, what exactly is the fear? That SpaceX will get alarmed and stop being complacent and lazy?
As I already explained, afraid SpaceX will bid high because they know Vulcan won't be ready, or bid low because it will.
We're very spoiled by Elon and SpaceX - he likes to speculate a lot on twitter and in interviews. But most companies don't operate like that. When was the last time Apple tweeted day-to-day updates on their prototyping process for a new phone? Or Nissan did on the production of their new windshield wipers? Tory has tweeted that the testing is going well, and the finalized engines are moving through production now. That is new, and real, information. Everything based on what he didn't say is just silly.
i dont see why they would suddenly switch back to individual component testing after testing full engines for 4 years.It might be for a successor version block or one of the other variants in development. Keep in mind that the first Sea level BE-4 block version being offered to ULA is only reusable during certain testing and expendable in other testing and during the flight itself. The fully reusable BE-4 block version is in development. This is required for ULA SMART and BO New Glenn and so on.
i dont see why they would suddenly switch back to individual component testing after testing full engines for 4 years.
i dont see why they would suddenly switch back to individual component testing after testing full engines for 4 years.It might be for a successor version block or one of the other variants in development. Keep in mind that the first Sea level BE-4 block version being offered to ULA is only reusable during certain testing and expendable in other testing and during the flight itself. The fully reusable BE-4 block version is in development. This is required for ULA SMART and BO New Glenn and so on.
This article from local Florida news outlet News13, while covering the commissioning of LC-36 at Cape Canaveral, and the work to ready New Glenn for launch, it does have some interesting information in it that is also pertinent to Vulcan progress. Namely reference to the BE-4 progress, the progress being made to bring the engine factory in Huntsville, and bringing online the refurbished test stand at Marshall Spaceflight Center:
https://www.mynews13.com/fl/orlando/news/2021/12/21/brevard-co--commission-s-resolution-commends-blue-origin-s-reconstruction-of-launch-pad-for-new-glenn-rocket
......
Refurbishment on a 1960’s era test stand is being finished up at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville to be able to test the rate production of BE-4 and BE-3U engines. The team aims to have the first test performed in the first quarter of 2022.
“The Huntsville factory is ramping up to speed. They’ve built their first flight engine hardware there and it’s on the test stand. We’re currently testing in Texas,” Henderson said."[/i]
It is well documented on the forum and elsewhere 2021 and earlier that while Block-1 is designed for reuse the engines are not yet achieving the reuse case requirements for full reuse at flight levels, pressures and durations. The intial Vulcan flights will use standard BE-4 Block-1's. During Block-1 development a while back a fork was created to explore and develop an fully expendable block-1 version for ULA until they are ready to implement SMART into the Vulcan booster in which will ULA switch to the fully reusable BE-4 block-2 or a later BE-4 block or sub-block.i dont see why they would suddenly switch back to individual component testing after testing full engines for 4 years.It might be for a successor version block or one of the other variants in development. Keep in mind that the first Sea level BE-4 block version being offered to ULA is only reusable during certain testing and expendable in other testing and during the flight itself. The fully reusable BE-4 block version is in development. This is required for ULA SMART and BO New Glenn and so on.
It is known through publicly available sources that a Block 2 BE-4 is in the works. However, there is nothing I know of that has stated that the current run of BE-4 engines is not capable of reuse. In fact, in the Blue Origin video covering testing at Corn Ranch's XEEx facility states the opposite: the engines are all designed for reuse:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgPIYT-w4zU
From what I have seen, the only real difference between the BE-4s used on Vulcan and those on New Glenn, is the ignition system. One can ignite only once and the other multiple times.
not yet achieving the reuse case requirements for full reuse at flight levels, pressures and durations.
During Block-1 development a while back a fork was created to explore and develop an fully expendable block-1 version for ULA
It is well documented on the forum and elsewhere 2021 and earlier that while Block-1 is designed for reuse the engines are not yet achieving the reuse case requirements for full reuse at flight levels, pressures and durations. The intial Vulcan flights will use standard BE-4 Block-1's. During Block-1 development a while back a fork was created to explore and develop an fully expendable block-1 version for ULA until they are ready to implement SMART into the Vulcan booster in which will ULA switch to the fully reusable BE-4 block-2 or a later BE-4 block or sub-block.i dont see why they would suddenly switch back to individual component testing after testing full engines for 4 years.It might be for a successor version block or one of the other variants in development. Keep in mind that the first Sea level BE-4 block version being offered to ULA is only reusable during certain testing and expendable in other testing and during the flight itself. The fully reusable BE-4 block version is in development. This is required for ULA SMART and BO New Glenn and so on.
It is known through publicly available sources that a Block 2 BE-4 is in the works. However, there is nothing I know of that has stated that the current run of BE-4 engines is not capable of reuse. In fact, in the Blue Origin video covering testing at Corn Ranch's XEEx facility states the opposite: the engines are all designed for reuse:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgPIYT-w4zU
From what I have seen, the only real difference between the BE-4s used on Vulcan and those on New Glenn, is the ignition system. One can ignite only once and the other multiple times.
It is well documented on the forum and elsewhere 2021 and earlier that while Block-1 is designed for reuse the engines are not yet achieving the reuse case requirements for full reuse at flight levels, pressures and durations. The intial Vulcan flights will use standard BE-4 Block-1's. During Block-1 development a while back a fork was created to explore and develop an fully expendable block-1 version for ULA until they are ready to implement SMART into the Vulcan booster in which will ULA switch to the fully reusable BE-4 block-2 or a later BE-4 block or sub-block.
Where is this well-documented? I have seen this speculation on other forums to this effect, but I cannot find it here on either the public forums, nor in L2 after spending a great deal of time diving through the discussions.
The igniter is not a technical challenge but a design issue, he said. Blue Origin is making the BE-4 for ULA and also to power its own heavy rocket New Glenn. About a year and a half ago, ULA and Blue Origin decided that the first BE-4s would be made with an igniter suitable for Vulcan but not for New Glenn, which has a reusable first stage and would need a different igniter for propulsive flyback.
“It has always been our intention to have at first a configuration of the engine for Vulcan and a slightly different configuration of the engine for New Glenn,” Bruno said. “The igniter was one of those choices made quite some time ago. And it’s certainly not a technical issue today.”
It is well documented on the forum and elsewhere 2021 and earlier that while Block-1 is designed for reuse the engines are not yet achieving the reuse case requirements for full reuse at flight levels, pressures and durations. The intial Vulcan flights will use standard BE-4 Block-1's. During Block-1 development a while back a fork was created to explore and develop an fully expendable block-1 version for ULA until they are ready to implement SMART into the Vulcan booster in which will ULA switch to the fully reusable BE-4 block-2 or a later BE-4 block or sub-block.
Where is this well-documented? I have seen this speculation on other forums to this effect, but I cannot find it here on either the public forums, nor in L2 after spending a great deal of time diving through the discussions.
I think it comes from Tony Bruno interview with spacenews:
https://spacenews.com/tory-bruno-says-the-challenges-with-be-4-are-real-but-the-engine-is-moving-forward/QuoteThe igniter is not a technical challenge but a design issue, he said. Blue Origin is making the BE-4 for ULA and also to power its own heavy rocket New Glenn. About a year and a half ago, ULA and Blue Origin decided that the first BE-4s would be made with an igniter suitable for Vulcan but not for New Glenn, which has a reusable first stage and would need a different igniter for propulsive flyback.
“It has always been our intention to have at first a configuration of the engine for Vulcan and a slightly different configuration of the engine for New Glenn,” Bruno said. “The igniter was one of those choices made quite some time ago. And it’s certainly not a technical issue today.”
And there is also one ULA bid where they mentioned that they will switch to Block2 engines at some undefined point later. But can't find it right now.
It is well documented on the forum and elsewhere 2021 and earlier that while Block-1 is designed for reuse the engines are not yet achieving the reuse case requirements for full reuse at flight levels, pressures and durations. The intial Vulcan flights will use standard BE-4 Block-1's. During Block-1 development a while back a fork was created to explore and develop an fully expendable block-1 version for ULA until they are ready to implement SMART into the Vulcan booster in which will ULA switch to the fully reusable BE-4 block-2 or a later BE-4 block or sub-block.
Where is this well-documented? I have seen this speculation on other forums to this effect, but I cannot find it here on either the public forums, nor in L2 after spending a great deal of time diving through the discussions.
I think it comes from Tony Bruno interview with spacenews:
https://spacenews.com/tory-bruno-says-the-challenges-with-be-4-are-real-but-the-engine-is-moving-forward/QuoteThe igniter is not a technical challenge but a design issue, he said. Blue Origin is making the BE-4 for ULA and also to power its own heavy rocket New Glenn. About a year and a half ago, ULA and Blue Origin decided that the first BE-4s would be made with an igniter suitable for Vulcan but not for New Glenn, which has a reusable first stage and would need a different igniter for propulsive flyback.
“It has always been our intention to have at first a configuration of the engine for Vulcan and a slightly different configuration of the engine for New Glenn,” Bruno said. “The igniter was one of those choices made quite some time ago. And it’s certainly not a technical issue today.”
And there is also one ULA bid where they mentioned that they will switch to Block2 engines at some undefined point later. But can't find it right now.
...Yes! That's it:
IIRC, that Block 2 mention was in the Europa Clipper selection statement.
Finally, the proposal did not define the BE-4 engine block version proposed.
Lack of detail on performance reserve methodology and vehicle upgrades with undefined performance benefits leads to uncertainty in the Vulcan Centaur mass-to-orbit capability.
With respect, this is nothing new to me and it says nothing about the reusability of BE-4 Block-1s, nor to what precisely is involved with Block 2's requirements. The igniter issue also is no longer an issue as well according to Bruno since he spoke in-depth about this in an Aviation Week and Space Technology podcast interview.
https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/podcast-interview-ulas-tory-bruno
...
The igniter issue is not an open one.
It is well documented on the forum and elsewhere 2021 and earlier that while Block-1 is designed for reuse the engines are not yet achieving the reuse case requirements for full reuse at flight levels, pressures and durations. The intial Vulcan flights will use standard BE-4 Block-1's. During Block-1 development a while back a fork was created to explore and develop an fully expendable block-1 version for ULA until they are ready to implement SMART into the Vulcan booster in which will ULA switch to the fully reusable BE-4 block-2 or a later BE-4 block or sub-block.
Where is this well-documented? I have seen this speculation on other forums to this effect, but I cannot find it here on either the public forums, nor in L2 after spending a great deal of time diving through the discussions.
I think it comes from Tony Bruno interview with spacenews:
https://spacenews.com/tory-bruno-says-the-challenges-with-be-4-are-real-but-the-engine-is-moving-forward/QuoteThe igniter is not a technical challenge but a design issue, he said. Blue Origin is making the BE-4 for ULA and also to power its own heavy rocket New Glenn. About a year and a half ago, ULA and Blue Origin decided that the first BE-4s would be made with an igniter suitable for Vulcan but not for New Glenn, which has a reusable first stage and would need a different igniter for propulsive flyback.
“It has always been our intention to have at first a configuration of the engine for Vulcan and a slightly different configuration of the engine for New Glenn,” Bruno said. “The igniter was one of those choices made quite some time ago. And it’s certainly not a technical issue today.”
And there is also one ULA bid where they mentioned that they will switch to Block2 engines at some undefined point later. But can't find it right now.
IIRC, that Block 2 mention was in the Europa Clipper selection statement.
I read through the Europa Clipper selection. It does not define what block BE-4 is being used as a determining factor in the selection or what, if any, significant differences there were. In fact, it specifically seems to avoid it.Well, that's the point - they know the blocks are going to change, but don't know when. Absense of specificity is the news.
I read through the Europa Clipper selection. It does not define what block BE-4 is being used as a determining factor in the selection or what, if any, significant differences there were. In fact, it specifically seems to avoid it.Well, that's the point - they know the blocks are going to change, but don't know when. Absense of specificity is the news.
ULA now projects receiving engines in mid-2022https://spacenews.com/space-and-national-security-what-to-expect-in-2022/
Recent update video on Blue. Huntsville engine factory has produced first flight engine which will be tested should. I assumed it was BE4 but might be BE3, video didn't say.
edit/gongora: trimmed
Recent update video on Blue. Huntsville engine factory has produced first flight engine which will be tested should. I assumed it was BE4 but might be BE3, video didn't say.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=n1KQTQqTOlw
[Edit: Ninja'd by Dr. Floyd.]Recent update video on Blue. Huntsville engine factory has produced first flight engine which will be tested should. I assumed it was BE4 but might be BE3, video didn't say.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=n1KQTQqTOlw
That video is a word-for-word reading of the complete Dec. 21, 2021 Spectrum News 13 (Orlando) article, Brevard County Commission’s resolution commends Blue Origin’s reconstruction of launch pad for New Glenn rocket (https://www.mynews13.com/fl/orlando/news/2021/12/21/brevard-co--commission-s-resolution-commends-blue-origin-s-reconstruction-of-launch-pad-for-new-glenn-rocket), by Will Robinson-Smith (Brevard County).
So not only is the video's horrible click-bait headline, "OMG! Jeff Bezos BlueOrigin To Launch New Glenn To Orbit Before SpaceX Starship 20 & B4 Reach Orbit," not supported by anything in the article (though it does says that BO is "aiming for a late 2022 launch of New Glenn"), but it is also a flagrant copyright violation. Is this par for the course with this so-called "SpaceX Community" YouTube channel?
Recent update video on Blue. Huntsville engine factory has produced first flight engine which will be tested should. I assumed it was BE4 but might be BE3, video didn't say.
edit/gongora: trimmed
This is not new, as I shared the original article from a month ago on reddit...
Recent update video on Blue. Huntsville engine factory has produced first flight engine which will be tested should. I assumed it was BE4 but might be BE3, video didn't say.
edit/gongora: trimmed
This is not new, as I shared the original article from a month ago on reddit...
The article says a few things specifically:
"Current manufacturing is happening in Kent, Wash., but production is shifting to Blue Origin’s engine manufacturing facility in Huntsville, Ala."
And
"“The Huntsville factory is ramping up to speed. They’ve built their first flight engine hardware there and it’s on the test stand. We’re currently testing in Texas,” Henderson said."
Engine hardware, not first (Huntsville produced) engine period. The question remains: after the first pair of flight engines how soon can they hit the production cadence required?
Recent update video on Blue. Huntsville engine factory has produced first flight engine which will be tested should. I assumed it was BE4 but might be BE3, video didn't say.
edit/gongora: trimmed
This is not new, as I shared the original article from a month ago on reddit...
The article says a few things specifically:
"Current manufacturing is happening in Kent, Wash., but production is shifting to Blue Origin’s engine manufacturing facility in Huntsville, Ala."
And
"“The Huntsville factory is ramping up to speed. They’ve built their first flight engine hardware there and it’s on the test stand. We’re currently testing in Texas,” Henderson said."
Engine hardware, not first (Huntsville produced) engine period. The question remains: after the first pair of flight engines how soon can they hit the production cadence required?
I would suggest once the Test Stand 4670 at Hunstville is fully operational it will really pick up their production cadence as they will not have to ship the engines to Texas, and could test them in a near system configuration as they did when this test stand was used to do full up tests of the Saturn 5 first stage....
Recent update video on Blue. Huntsville engine factory has produced first flight engine which will be tested should. I assumed it was BE4 but might be BE3, video didn't say.
edit/gongora: trimmed
This is not new, as I shared the original article from a month ago on reddit...
The article says a few things specifically:
"Current manufacturing is happening in Kent, Wash., but production is shifting to Blue Origin’s engine manufacturing facility in Huntsville, Ala."
And
"“The Huntsville factory is ramping up to speed. They’ve built their first flight engine hardware there and it’s on the test stand. We’re currently testing in Texas,” Henderson said."
Engine hardware, not first (Huntsville produced) engine period. The question remains: after the first pair of flight engines how soon can they hit the production cadence required?
I would suggest once the Test Stand 4670 at Hunstville is fully operational it will really pick up their production cadence as they will not have to ship the engines to Texas, and could test them in a near system configuration as they did when this test stand was used to do full up tests of the Saturn 5 first stage....
Actually this is from Jul. 03, 2020...
[ https://www.al.com/news/2020/07/blue-origins-big-job-restoring-an-apollo-test-stand-in-huntsville.html#:~:text=Historic%20stand,Historic%20Places%2C%20but%20it's%20eligible.]
"Blue Origin will use the stand to perform “acceptance tests” on each of the BE-3u and BE-4 engines it will build at a new rocket engine plant also in Huntsville. The engines will help boost Blue Origin’s own New Glenn rocket and also the giant Vulcan Centaur rocket being developed at United Launch Alliance in Decatur.
An acceptance test fires each production engine for roughly 300 seconds or about 5 minutes. It proves the engine can reach and maintain the thrust it was designed for and is structurally sound. Each engine must be acceptance-tested, and Blue Origin will test roughly one a week on the stand at Marshall...."
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1494342938436018177
Notice the tacit slip.
In January they said mid year, now its "this year".
Erm, what indications do we have that it's NOT BE-4 that's the delay?
Erm, what indications do we have that it's NOT BE-4 that's the delay?
Depends on how far back in time you do, at this point in time I would say BE-4 isn't the only delay but is looking to be the primary.
Payloads are a red herring, the only ones that matter are NSSL (USAF) as they are ULA's primary customer and funding source for development. ULA can fly anything so long as they get those 2 certifications done - if not Astrobotic or Sierra then its ULA's responsibility to find another way.
But we can also see evidence of delays elsewhere.
The first GEM63XL booster only (announced as) completed last month: https://twitter.com/northropgrumman/status/1482045103292178434
Centaur V only shipped for cryogenic testing last month: https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1483848808853245955
They couldn't have launched in 2021 without either of those.
Of course they still need BE-4s, and at least a few months after receiving before an actual flight. Can't remember the static fire/flight schedule. Regardless I expect BE-4 to still be the primary delay as it will be the last item to check off the list.
All this is superficial to the original development plan which was for Vulcan to be a straight up core replacement of Atlas V, flying with all existing hardware as it was originally announced in 2015 with a debut of 2019. The wide diameter Centaur and SRB upgrades were all to come later. After it was clear BE-4 would be very delayed the other hardware development was bumped up so that Vulcan would come out as a true heavy lift vehicle at its debut.
https://www.space.com/29100-vulcan-rocket-united-launch-alliance.html
In the complete picture of things BE-4 is the sole delay of Vulcan and it is 2-3 years late.
Erm, what indications do we have that it's NOT BE-4 that's the delay?
Tory Bruno tweeted ULA has dropped out of bidding for the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope.
IIRC that mission is NET 2027, so what if anything does this indicate for Vulcan getting its engines?
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1493650584209174529?s=20&t=Wfkhubfe-0_gYYpnoh4QMA (https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1493650584209174529?s=20&t=Wfkhubfe-0_gYYpnoh4QMA)
Tory Bruno tweeted ULA has dropped out of bidding for the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope.
IIRC that mission is NET 2027, so what if anything does this indicate for Vulcan getting its engines?
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1493650584209174529?s=20&t=Wfkhubfe-0_gYYpnoh4QMA (https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1493650584209174529?s=20&t=Wfkhubfe-0_gYYpnoh4QMA)
Not much. The bidding for that is likely this year and the launcher has to be already certified to be entered. Vulcan is not and no more available Atlas's and Delta heavy with be a distant memory by 2027.
Tory Bruno tweeted ULA has dropped out of bidding for the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope.
IIRC that mission is NET 2027, so what if anything does this indicate for Vulcan getting its engines?
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1493650584209174529?s=20&t=Wfkhubfe-0_gYYpnoh4QMA (https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1493650584209174529?s=20&t=Wfkhubfe-0_gYYpnoh4QMA)
Not much. The bidding for that is likely this year and the launcher has to be already certified to be entered. Vulcan is not and no more available Atlas's and Delta heavy with be a distant memory by 2027.
The main thing is that this will likely be done on a case by case basis. NASA is probably selecting RST's LV half a decade early because it's uniquely sensitive to the launch environment and needs to be designed for exact conditions. I imagine other upcoming payloads may be able to wait much closer to launch. Psyche was awarded 2.5 years in advance and Europa Clipper 3 years in advance, for example.
That should give ULA enough time to certify Vulcan and compete for most NASA missions in the mid to late 2020s.
...
Tory Bruno
@torybruno
Replying to
@jaysit
In Blue’s production factory getting built. So far so good. Qual testing in parallel. Gazillion seconds of run time and starts. Better performance than I expected. Supports Vulcan flying this year
...
Tory Bruno
@torybruno
Replying to
@jaysit
In Blue’s production factory getting built. So far so good. Qual testing in parallel. Gazillion seconds of run time and starts. Better performance than I expected. Supports Vulcan flying this year
This is pure conjecture, and doubtful. Bob Smith has already hinted that engines will come well past mid year. There is also the assumption that qual on engines will be DONE before ULA gets them. However, that isn't necessarily the case. ULA will also need several months to do a first time integration and testing of them too.y
Unless engines come in the next 2-3 months, I seriously doubt Vulcan this year.
This is also not the first time tory was quite wrong about schedules. While he knows his technical stuff, he is like any CEO and gets ... excessively optimistic about timelines.
Vulcan is not expected to require this much time to incorporate the BE-4 rocket engine, however. During a reporters roundtable in December 2020, ULA Chief Executive Tory Bruno explained why in response to a question from Ars. Earlier that year, ULA had taken delivery of "pathfinder" engines, which are nearly identical to the flight engines but not designed to be ignited.
This is also not the first time tory was quite wrong about schedules. While he knows his technical stuff, he is like any CEO and gets ... excessively optimistic about timelines.
This is also not the first time tory was quite wrong about schedules. While he knows his technical stuff, he is like any CEO and gets ... excessively optimistic about timelines.
Every time Tory tweets that the Vulcan flight engines are being built, it makes me wonder: who actually sees that as good news? Sure, it's not bad news, but we know they're being built. We've known for many months now. So Tory saying "yup, they're still being worked on" shouldn't be considered an update, or change your expectations about progress.
Do you suppose that ULA have any small teams sequestered in a basement office working on a plan B? Okay so maybe direct replacement with 2 x Raptors is never going to happen and use of RP-1/LOX engines is a non-starter since it would change almost every other part of the vehicle, but 4 x Aeon R? Prometheus? I realize those engines are still a long way off but if BE-4 needs another two years, three years, eventually ULA will lose the ability to compete for the next EELV (forget the replacement acronym) contract.
This is also not the first time tory was quite wrong about schedules. While he knows his technical stuff, he is like any CEO and gets ... excessively optimistic about timelines.Every time Tory tweets that the Vulcan flight engines are being built, it makes me wonder: who actually sees that as good news? Sure, it's not bad news, but we know they're being built. We've known for many months now. So Tory saying "yup, they're still being worked on" shouldn't be considered an update, or change your expectations about progress.
I think its kinda non-news. All rockets have a history of being just around the corner for several years. There is also the fact that Q4 in space ALWAYS translates to "not this year". This isn't a ULA thing, its all space companies.This is also not the first time tory was quite wrong about schedules. While he knows his technical stuff, he is like any CEO and gets ... excessively optimistic about timelines.Every time Tory tweets that the Vulcan flight engines are being built, it makes me wonder: who actually sees that as good news? Sure, it's not bad news, but we know they're being built. We've known for many months now. So Tory saying "yup, they're still being worked on" shouldn't be considered an update, or change your expectations about progress.
I see it as good news, along with his revelation that the development engines are now in the qualification phase of the static test firings. The qualification phase being the final and most critical leg of testing means they are close to finishing so long as nothing serious happens.
I think its kinda non-news. All rockets have a history of being just around the corner for several years. There is also the fact that Q4 in space ALWAYS translates to "not this year". This isn't a ULA thing, its all space companies.This is also not the first time tory was quite wrong about schedules. While he knows his technical stuff, he is like any CEO and gets ... excessively optimistic about timelines.Every time Tory tweets that the Vulcan flight engines are being built, it makes me wonder: who actually sees that as good news? Sure, it's not bad news, but we know they're being built. We've known for many months now. So Tory saying "yup, they're still being worked on" shouldn't be considered an update, or change your expectations about progress.
I see it as good news, along with his revelation that the development engines are now in the qualification phase of the static test firings. The qualification phase being the final and most critical leg of testing means they are close to finishing so long as nothing serious happens.
This is also not the first time tory was quite wrong about schedules. While he knows his technical stuff, he is like any CEO and gets ... excessively optimistic about timelines.
Every time Tory tweets that the Vulcan flight engines are being built, it makes me wonder: who actually sees that as good news? Sure, it's not bad news, but we know they're being built. We've known for many months now. So Tory saying "yup, they're still being worked on" shouldn't be considered an update, or change your expectations about progress.
Yeah until we hear some probable dates for delivery it's not really news, Bruno has been saying Vulcan could launch this year for years.
Every time Tory tweets that the Vulcan flight engines are being built, it makes me wonder: who actually sees that as good news? Sure, it's not bad news, but we know they're being built. We've known for many months now. So Tory saying "yup, they're still being worked on" shouldn't be considered an update, or change your expectations about progress.
I see it as good news, along with his revelation that the development engines are now in the qualification phase of the static test firings. The qualification phase being the final and most critical leg of testing means they are close to finishing so long as nothing serious happens.
I understand how you feel. But I see at least some real progress. Yes, by itself, the news of the flight engines being built seems like non-news. But pairing that with the information that qualification testing going on now, lots of starts and run time now built up, and the engines' performance is better than expected is good news all together.
Every time Tory tweets that the Vulcan flight engines are being built, it makes me wonder: who actually sees that as good news? Sure, it's not bad news, but we know they're being built. We've known for many months now. So Tory saying "yup, they're still being worked on" shouldn't be considered an update, or change your expectations about progress.
I see it as good news, along with his revelation that the development engines are now in the qualification phase of the static test firings. The qualification phase being the final and most critical leg of testing means they are close to finishing so long as nothing serious happens.
I understand how you feel. But I see at least some real progress. Yes, by itself, the news of the flight engines being built seems like non-news. But pairing that with the information that qualification testing going on now, lots of starts and run time now built up, and the engines' performance is better than expected is good news all together.
Hmmmmm
"better than expected" is a very vague term.
Maybe Tory 'expected' them to blow up after ten seconds firing, so running for a whole minute would be much better than expected? ;)
If Tory said performance is "better than specified", I'd be much more optimistic
If this were the only reference to it, I might agree. But it is not and Tory Bruno has mentioned in interviews that the engines have been performing slightly higher in terms of thrust and ISP.
If this were the only reference to it, I might agree. But it is not and Tory Bruno has mentioned in interviews that the engines have been performing slightly higher in terms of thrust and ISP.
Although the fact that he's said it before corroborates my point about this not actually being news.
If this were the only reference to it, I might agree. But it is not and Tory Bruno has mentioned in interviews that the engines have been performing slightly higher in terms of thrust and ISP.
Although the fact that he's said it before corroborates my point about this not actually being news.
The engines continuing to perform above specification is news. It bodes well for BE-4 in operation since it will have higher thrust and ISP than the original goals require and thus higher mission reserves.
That's not what he said. "Better performance than I expected." If it was above spec he would have said that, because that's a better message. There's no telling what he was meaning by "than I expected". Performance in satisfying requirements? Performance in recovering schedule? Performance in meeting interim goals towards satisfying minimum first flight goals? Who knows?
The manager of Blue Origin’s rocket engine program has left the company
https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/03/the-manager-of-blue-origins-rocket-engine-program-has-left-the-company/
Probably not a great sign
The manager of Blue Origin’s rocket engine program has left the companyWe don't why, could be health or personal reasons unrelated to Blue.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/03/the-manager-of-blue-origins-rocket-engine-program-has-left-the-company/
Probably not a great sign
Vilja hired Linda Cova to serve as his deputy. She will now lead, at least on an interim basis, the Engines team at Blue Origin. Cova came to the company in 2021 after working on various propulsion programs at Aerojet Rocketdyne for 35 years. Among her duties, she led the development of the AR1 engine, which lost out to the BE-4 engine in a competition held by United Launch Alliance for its new Vulcan rocket.
The manager of Blue Origin’s rocket engine program has left the companyWe don't [know] why, could be health or personal reasons unrelated to Blue.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/03/the-manager-of-blue-origins-rocket-engine-program-has-left-the-company/ (https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/03/the-manager-of-blue-origins-rocket-engine-program-has-left-the-company/)
Probably not a great sign
Professionally would've been nice to see first engine fly before leaving.
Vilja is said to be leaving Blue to pursue his "many" interests and hobbies outside of work.
Vilja’s departure would have no effect on the production of BE-4 engines.
During his tenure, Vilja hired Linda Cova to serve as his deputy. She will now lead, at least on an interim basis, the Engines team at Blue Origin. Cova came to the company in 2021 after working on various propulsion programs at Aerojet Rocketdyne for 35 years. Among her duties, she led the development of the AR1 engine, which lost out to the BE-4 engine in a competition held by United Launch Alliance for its new Vulcan rocket.
According to company sources, the first two BE-4 flight engines are in final production at Blue Origin's factory in Kent, Washington. The first of these engines is scheduled to be shipped to a test site in May for "acceptance testing" to ensure its flight readiness. A second should follow in reasonably short order. On this schedule, Blue Origin could conceivably deliver both flight engines to United Launch Alliance in June or July.
“reasonably short order”When they said June or July I noticed they didn't specify in what year. :(
“conceivably deliver”
Good way to express and inspire confidence! :P
Weren’t the flight engines going to be made in pairs and one of each pair was to be shipped to ULA at the same time as the other was delivered for test?
Now they are back in sequence, with delivery in “June or July”?
these dates are.... incredibly unlikely? Aside from the amazingly tight timeline, there is a history of announcements of completion that goes back years.
Dev and testing isn't done, so its silly to assume everything will go perfectly when it NEVER has to this point.
these dates are.... incredibly unlikely? Aside from the amazingly tight timeline, there is a history of announcements of completion that goes back years.
Dev and testing isn't done, so its silly to assume everything will go perfectly when it NEVER has to this point.
However, there is an important caveat that we should keep in mind over previous years: there are actual flight engines being built at Kent and Huntsville has transitioned to building production engines after having built parts to support Kent for about a year. Even if there are further delays, it is not as if there are only development engines built.
these dates are.... incredibly unlikely? Aside from the amazingly tight timeline, there is a history of announcements of completion that goes back years.
Dev and testing isn't done, so its silly to assume everything will go perfectly when it NEVER has to this point.
However, there is an important caveat that we should keep in mind over previous years: there are actual flight engines being built at Kent and Huntsville has transitioned to building production engines after having built parts to support Kent for about a year. Even if there are further delays, it is not as if there are only development engines built.
They are building "flight" engines at the same time they are still doing qual testing. Anything that happens in qual testing affects the "flight" engines. You also make the assumption that building these flight engines will go according to plan and happen in Blue's proclaimed timeline. Exhibit A - literally EVERY date Blue has given about the be-4s or ng has been totally inaccurate. Why believe differently this time? The same argument comes up every time that "this time" will be different, yet we always see that it wasn't different.
I don't disagree that Musk's timelines are ludicrous. This isn't a spaceX vs Blue thing. I think its equally annoying when people slavishly believe unrealistic spaceX timelines as they do Blue Origin timelines.these dates are.... incredibly unlikely? Aside from the amazingly tight timeline, there is a history of announcements of completion that goes back years.
Dev and testing isn't done, so its silly to assume everything will go perfectly when it NEVER has to this point.
However, there is an important caveat that we should keep in mind over previous years: there are actual flight engines being built at Kent and Huntsville has transitioned to building production engines after having built parts to support Kent for about a year. Even if there are further delays, it is not as if there are only development engines built.
They are building "flight" engines at the same time they are still doing qual testing. Anything that happens in qual testing affects the "flight" engines. You also make the assumption that building these flight engines will go according to plan and happen in Blue's proclaimed timeline. Exhibit A - literally EVERY date Blue has given about the be-4s or ng has been totally inaccurate. Why believe differently this time? The same argument comes up every time that "this time" will be different, yet we always see that it wasn't different.
You seem to be projecting a certain mindset on me. I will tell you that I simply do not care about any targeted timelines, except as a point of reference. This I do also with Elon Musk's more outrageous claims, and I suppose Peter Beck's as well. But I do acknowledge that the building of the flight engines and their near completion, at least ones up at Kent, is an important milestone. And yes, it is dependent on the continued success with the development engine testing, but they are being built, and Huntsville also started building production engines as well.
endless concern trolling. tiresome. delays affected SpaceX too. often.Yup.
endless concern trolling. tiresome. delays affected SpaceX too. often.Then Tony Bruno is the one doing the concern trolling. Given how he's the one who keeps bringing up the delays.
endless concern trolling. tiresome. delays affected SpaceX too. often.Yup.
And SpaceX too will at some point get to orbit. Or fly people there. Or reuse rockets. Or build a comsat constellation. Or do any of the above commercially and for profit. Or move on to a next generation spaceflight system. One day. One can dream.
Seriously?
The last thing BO should be thinking is "but SpaceX is late to its own schedules too".
s Second, Musk is an engineer or at least a physics major as well as a business major. Bezos with Amazon was an internet book selling company. Bezos has no engineering experience and relies on others, mostly old school space people.
s Second, Musk is an engineer or at least a physics major as well as a business major. Bezos with Amazon was an internet book selling company. Bezos has no engineering experience and relies on others, mostly old school space people.
Bezos has Electrical and Computer Sciences degree from Princeton.
He has been interested in space forever and was member of Oneil Society. Would have very good understanding of aerospace and rocket engines.
Neither Bezos or Musk were hands on rocket engineers unlike Beck and Bruno who built them from scratch in their garages.
Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk
I have never once heard Bezos speak and come across as an engineer, or as having detailed knowledge about his projects.s Second, Musk is an engineer or at least a physics major as well as a business major. Bezos with Amazon was an internet book selling company. Bezos has no engineering experience and relies on others, mostly old school space people.
Bezos has Electrical and Computer Sciences degree from Princeton.
He has been interested in space forever and was member of Oneil Society. Would have very good understanding of aerospace and rocket engines.
Neither Bezos or Musk were hands on rocket engineers unlike Beck and Bruno who built them from scratch in their garages.
Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk
I know people who graduated with an engineering degree and can't engineer shit.And the converse - I know folks without an engineering degree who are great engineers. I recall reading once that engineering had one of the lowest rates of people found with false academic credentials. I believe this is not because engineers are more honest than other professions, it's because no one really cares about degrees. If your stuff is designed well and works well, no one cares where you (did or did not) graduate. Likewise, if your stuff fails you're out of a job no matter what your degree says.
endless concern trolling. tiresome. delays affected SpaceX too. often.Yup.
And SpaceX too will at some point get to orbit. Or fly people there. Or reuse rockets. Or build a comsat constellation. Or do any of the above commercially and for profit. Or move on to a next generation spaceflight system. One day. One can dream.
Seriously?
The last thing BO should be thinking is "but SpaceX is late to its own schedules too".
Agreed
The “endless concern trolling” will end when Blue accomplishes something new again.
But it’s not so much concern as exasperation.
It would go a long way if Blue would just check some things off their list faster then they announce additions.
At least show some real hardware!
We are either going to talk about hardware or the lack of hardware.
s Second, Musk is an engineer or at least a physics major as well as a business major. Bezos with Amazon was an internet book selling company. Bezos has no engineering experience and relies on others, mostly old school space people.
Bezos has Electrical and Computer Sciences degree from Princeton.
He has been interested in space forever and was member of Oneil Society. Would have very good understanding of aerospace and rocket engines.
Neither Bezos or Musk were hands on rocket engineers unlike Beck and Bruno who built them from scratch in their garages.
Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk
Didn't know that about Bezos. However, he is still not a hands on person like Musk. Bezos' seems to have an abrasive personality with a huge ego. Musk seems to be more likeable and humble. What else is wrong with Blue Origin? 5-7 years ago, I though it was great to have two competing billionaire in a new space race. Blue has disappointed me.
Musk seems to be more likeable and humble.
Both SpaceX and Blue Origin are about the same age. Blue has gotten New Sheppard going and the BE-3 engine working on it.
SpaceX has built Merlin, Falcon 1, Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, Dragon I, Dragon II, Tested Starships, Started Starlink and has over 2,000 satellites in orbit, landed Falcon 9 boosters over 110 times. All in the same time frame and age as Blue Origin. Yes, Musk has been late on most of these, but he has accomplished so much more in the same time frame.
Why? I see Musk as more focused on Mars and everything he does, is focused on the goal of Mars. Second, Musk is an engineer or at least a physics major as well as a business major. Bezos with Amazon was an internet book selling company. Bezos has no engineering experience and relies on others, mostly old school space people. He also spends a lot of time partying with his girlfriend, and has a yacht. Musk has sold his mansions, and lives frugally compared to Bezos. Musk works 16 hours a day. There is a huge difference in objectives and goals to reach vs a hobby space company.
What has Blue Origin done?Both SpaceX and Blue Origin are about the same age. Blue has gotten New Sheppard going and the BE-3 engine working on it.
SpaceX has built Merlin, Falcon 1, Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, Dragon I, Dragon II, Tested Starships, Started Starlink and has over 2,000 satellites in orbit, landed Falcon 9 boosters over 110 times. All in the same time frame and age as Blue Origin. Yes, Musk has been late on most of these, but he has accomplished so much more in the same time frame.
Why? I see Musk as more focused on Mars and everything he does, is focused on the goal of Mars. Second, Musk is an engineer or at least a physics major as well as a business major. Bezos with Amazon was an internet book selling company. Bezos has no engineering experience and relies on others, mostly old school space people. He also spends a lot of time partying with his girlfriend, and has a yacht. Musk has sold his mansions, and lives frugally compared to Bezos. Musk works 16 hours a day. There is a huge difference in objectives and goals to reach vs a hobby space company.
This completely ignores everything else that Blue Origin has done, and its history.
Always keep in mind that Blue Origin was a tiny research and development company for its first ten years or so. It didn't even have more than 10 employees in its first three years of existence.
Stop talking about Bezos! The biggest Ego currently surrounding Blue Origin are all the people outside of Blue Origin thinking they know anything about the employees, management, owner or operations of Blue Origin.
Anyway, this is the BE-4 and from my point of view BE-4 is on schedule for an engine of its size and capability.
What has Blue Origin done?Both SpaceX and Blue Origin are about the same age. Blue has gotten New Sheppard going and the BE-3 engine working on it.
SpaceX has built Merlin, Falcon 1, Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, Dragon I, Dragon II, Tested Starships, Started Starlink and has over 2,000 satellites in orbit, landed Falcon 9 boosters over 110 times. All in the same time frame and age as Blue Origin. Yes, Musk has been late on most of these, but he has accomplished so much more in the same time frame.
Why? I see Musk as more focused on Mars and everything he does, is focused on the goal of Mars. Second, Musk is an engineer or at least a physics major as well as a business major. Bezos with Amazon was an internet book selling company. Bezos has no engineering experience and relies on others, mostly old school space people. He also spends a lot of time partying with his girlfriend, and has a yacht. Musk has sold his mansions, and lives frugally compared to Bezos. Musk works 16 hours a day. There is a huge difference in objectives and goals to reach vs a hobby space company.
This completely ignores everything else that Blue Origin has done, and its history.
Always keep in mind that Blue Origin was a tiny research and development company for its first ten years or so. It didn't even have more than 10 employees in its first three years of existence.
Operational systems:
New Shepard, a suborbital rocket (essentially a large reusable sounding rocket), 4 crew launches and 5 non-crew payload launches. Using the BE-3 engine, a Hdrolox tap-off cycle engine. This engine is not used on any other systems in development.
Development:
Charon, a VTVL testbed using 3x jet engines. No longer in use.
Goddard, a VTVL testbed using a monoprop peroxide engine. No longer in use.
BE-4, a Methalox ORSC engine in development since 2011. Yet to fly.
BE-3U, a Hydrolox expander cycle engine named similarly to the BE-3. Yet to fly.
New Glenn, a two-stage partially reusable vehicle powered by BE-4 and BE-3U. One boilerplate test article built.
BE-7, a Hydrolox expander cycle engine. Yet to fly
Blue Moon, a non-crewed lunar lander using BE-7. Yet to fly.
ILV Descent Element, landing stage of the ILV crewed lunar lander, using BE-7. Defunct.
Stop talking about Bezos! The biggest Ego currently surrounding Blue Origin are all the people outside of Blue Origin thinking they know anything about the employees, management, owner or operations of Blue Origin.Funny thing, previous versions of you were equally indignant when NG was racing FH some 5 years ago...
Anyway, this is the BE-4 and from my point of view BE-4 is on schedule for an engine of its size and capability.
Ok, here's Terran Space Academy's take:If that's true, and there have been rumours supporting it, that means NG is even further away than we thought.
Ok, here's Terran Space Academy's take:Oh my Goddard, I hate YouTube clickbait.
https://youtu.be/6zjdAQef3oY
(I don't agree with the title)
Ok, here's Terran Space Academy's take:If that's true, and there have been rumours supporting it, that means NG is even further away than we thought.
Ok, here's Terran Space Academy's take:If that's true, and there have been rumours supporting it, that means NG is even further away than we thought.
That video is pretty shoddy, if the analysis is anywhere near the background research, I would ignore pretty much anything they said. Just off the top of my head:
- BE-4 does not run on LNG, it's pure methane
- Gasoline is not rated by octane content
- RP-1 certainly is not pure carbon chains
- V-2 did not run on gasoline/kerosene, it used 70% ethanol
And many more, these are just the ones I can remember 2+ hours after skipping through the video.
That video is pretty shoddy, if the analysis is anywhere near the background research, I would ignore pretty much anything they said. Just off the top of my head:To be fair, to quote BO website - https://www.blueorigin.com/engines/be-4
- BE-4 does not run on LNG, it's pure methane
BE-4 is the most powerful liquefied natural gas (LNG) fueled rocket engine ever developed.
It is click bait, they were elaborating a theory about why could BE-4 be running into combustion instability problems, and ignored the most fundamental difference in combustion between the two engines. Namely, that BE-4 is liquid-gas and Raptor gas-gas. I do think that they had good intentions but with somewhat limited knowledge of rocket engines and a pretty clickbaity title.Ok, here's Terran Space Academy's take:If that's true, and there have been rumours supporting it, that means NG is even further away than we thought.
That video is pretty shoddy, if the analysis is anywhere near the background research, I would ignore pretty much anything they said. Just off the top of my head:
- BE-4 does not run on LNG, it's pure methane
- Gasoline is not rated by octane content
- RP-1 certainly is not pure carbon chains
- V-2 did not run on gasoline/kerosene, it used 70% ethanol
And many more, these are just the ones I can remember 2+ hours after skipping through the video.
I watched the video and it was an Ok summary of fuels for rockets.
The only problem with the video I noted was the octane rating which is a comparison of a gasoline grade's anti knock to pure octane hydrocarbon.
The other problems with the video are also true(and I remembered the correct answer after being alerted here) and I didn't catch them.
The conclusions are total guesses.
It is click bait, they were elaborating a theory about why could BE-4 be running into combustion instability problems, and ignored the most fundamental difference in combustion between the two engines. Namely, that BE-4 is liquid-gas and Raptor gas-gas. I do think that they had good intentions but with somewhat limited knowledge of rocket engines and a pretty clickbaity title.What do you think about their turbopump claims?
I think the video was really very simplified so a lot of people who are not engineers could understand the basics.
I skimmed over it so I didn't watched that. What I did found surprising was that they claimed they had the MCC+nozzle weight for each engine. Given that we don't even know the BE-4 isp, I seriously doubt that info is nothing short of Top Secret. Besides, he didn't mentioned any of the L2 info, either. So, I ignore its sources.It is click bait, they were elaborating a theory about why could BE-4 be running into combustion instability problems, and ignored the most fundamental difference in combustion between the two engines. Namely, that BE-4 is liquid-gas and Raptor gas-gas. I do think that they had good intentions but with somewhat limited knowledge of rocket engines and a pretty clickbaity title.What do you think about their turbopump claims?
Read one article (can't find it now) that says Blue plan on having 4 boosters early on.
Assuming thats 4 operational boosters, that means they will need far more than 4 right away.SpaceX also had the two test boosters to develop and refine their landing algorithms procedures and hardware for the terminal landing process. Have we heard anything about whether Blue has similar plans or not?
There will be recovery problems. SpaceX Still has recovery issues after like 100 times. To imagine NG is gonna have flawless recovery for the first few landings is just plain silly.
Assuming thats 4 operational boosters, that means they will need far more than 4 right away.SpaceX also had the two test boosters to develop and refine their landing algorithms procedures and hardware for the terminal landing process. Have we heard anything about whether Blue has similar plans or not?
There will be recovery problems. SpaceX Still has recovery issues after like 100 times. To imagine NG is gonna have flawless recovery for the first few landings is just plain silly.
Well, that's a good point. The NG booster is much bigger, different engines etc, but the basic principles should be the same. Will be interesting to see how successful the first few attempts are in the various regimes.Assuming thats 4 operational boosters, that means they will need far more than 4 right away.SpaceX also had the two test boosters to develop and refine their landing algorithms procedures and hardware for the terminal landing process. Have we heard anything about whether Blue has similar plans or not?
There will be recovery problems. SpaceX Still has recovery issues after like 100 times. To imagine NG is gonna have flawless recovery for the first few landings is just plain silly.
New Shepard?
- BE-4 does not run on LNG, it's pure methane
Yup. Technically, pure methane is a grade of LNG. I think Tory or someone acknowledged the BE-4 does, indeed, run on pure methane. It’s not technically incorrect to call it LNG. In fact, it might arguably be better (more truthful) than calling it methane as LNG is by definition sources from fossil gas but calling it methane could make the source less clear. Also, more people are familiar with LNG than liquid methane as a rocket fuel.
- BE-4 does not run on LNG, it's pure methane
https://www.ulalaunch.com/rockets/vulcan-centaur
Yup. Technically, pure methane is a grade of LNG. I think Tory or someone acknowledged the BE-4 does, indeed, run on pure methane. It’s not technically incorrect to call it LNG. In fact, it might arguably be better (more truthful) than calling it methane as LNG is by definition sources from fossil gas but calling it methane could make the source less clear. Also, more people are familiar with LNG than liquid methane as a rocket fuel.
- BE-4 does not run on LNG, it's pure methane
https://www.ulalaunch.com/rockets/vulcan-centaur
It is, in this case of BE-4. But I guess now I’ll have to search for the citation.Yup. Technically, pure methane is a grade of LNG. I think Tory or someone acknowledged the BE-4 does, indeed, run on pure methane. It’s not technically incorrect to call it LNG. In fact, it might arguably be better (more truthful) than calling it methane as LNG is by definition sources from fossil gas but calling it methane could make the source less clear. Also, more people are familiar with LNG than liquid methane as a rocket fuel.
- BE-4 does not run on LNG, it's pure methane
https://www.ulalaunch.com/rockets/vulcan-centaur
I am correcting that. It is not pure methane. "LNG" term is not being used as a substitute for Methane
It's never "pure" methane. You tolerate certain amount of traces. But LNG, due to the liquefaction process, is about 95% methane, with some amount of other semi compatible light hydrocarbons. BE-4 is probably certified for some very high grade (probably 98 or 99) methane content. Which does make it an LNG. RP-1 is also a very special grade of kerosene. They have to control the sulfur content, mainly. So is not wrong to call them kerosene rockets.Yup. Technically, pure methane is a grade of LNG. I think Tory or someone acknowledged the BE-4 does, indeed, run on pure methane. It’s not technically incorrect to call it LNG. In fact, it might arguably be better (more truthful) than calling it methane as LNG is by definition sources from fossil gas but calling it methane could make the source less clear. Also, more people are familiar with LNG than liquid methane as a rocket fuel.
- BE-4 does not run on LNG, it's pure methane
https://www.ulalaunch.com/rockets/vulcan-centaur
Can the BE-4 throttle deep enough that NG is expected to do a hover landing as opposed to the F9's "hoverslam" approach?
Can the BE-4 throttle deep enough that NG is expected to do a hover landing as opposed to the F9's "hoverslam" approach?
That is what can be surmised from this 2017 New Glenn video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkPT_xCYTzQ) and the video currently on Blue's New Glenn page (https://www.blueorigin.com/new-glenn/).
Not that Blue needs it, but NS could get a few more kilometers of altitude and a few more seconds of weightlessness if they expended in the boost phase the fuel reserved for the 5-10 seconds of hover.
NG could get some additional payload to orbit in the same manner.
Therefore it would seem to benefit both NS and NG for Blue to expand the NS envelope and reduce the hover time.
However, that does not seem to be the happening.
So is Blue really using NS to develop the landing technology for NG?
Per Tory Bruno:Yup. Technically, pure methane is a grade of LNG. I think Tory or someone acknowledged the BE-4 does, indeed, run on pure methane. It’s not technically incorrect to call it LNG. In fact, it might arguably be better (more truthful) than calling it methane as LNG is by definition sources from fossil gas but calling it methane could make the source less clear. Also, more people are familiar with LNG than liquid methane as a rocket fuel.
- BE-4 does not run on LNG, it's pure methane
https://www.ulalaunch.com/rockets/vulcan-centaur
I am correcting that. It is not pure methane. "LNG" term is not being used as a substitute for Methane
Actually, BE4 runs on methane. We sometimes use LNG as a shorthand. But, as you point out, that’s not strictly accurate.
Per Tory Bruno:Yup. Technically, pure methane is a grade of LNG. I think Tory or someone acknowledged the BE-4 does, indeed, run on pure methane. It’s not technically incorrect to call it LNG. In fact, it might arguably be better (more truthful) than calling it methane as LNG is by definition sources from fossil gas but calling it methane could make the source less clear. Also, more people are familiar with LNG than liquid methane as a rocket fuel.
- BE-4 does not run on LNG, it's pure methane
https://www.ulalaunch.com/rockets/vulcan-centaur
I am correcting that. It is not pure methane. "LNG" term is not being used as a substitute for Methane
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1174788727870083072QuoteActually, BE4 runs on methane. We sometimes use LNG as a shorthand. But, as you point out, that’s not strictly accurate.
Per Tory Bruno:Yup. Technically, pure methane is a grade of LNG. I think Tory or someone acknowledged the BE-4 does, indeed, run on pure methane. It’s not technically incorrect to call it LNG. In fact, it might arguably be better (more truthful) than calling it methane as LNG is by definition sources from fossil gas but calling it methane could make the source less clear. Also, more people are familiar with LNG than liquid methane as a rocket fuel.
- BE-4 does not run on LNG, it's pure methane
https://www.ulalaunch.com/rockets/vulcan-centaur
I am correcting that. It is not pure methane. "LNG" term is not being used as a substitute for Methane
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1174788727870083072QuoteActually, BE4 runs on methane. We sometimes use LNG as a shorthand. But, as you point out, that’s not strictly accurate.
That was 2 1/2 years ago. Things have changed.
Per Tory Bruno:Yup. Technically, pure methane is a grade of LNG. I think Tory or someone acknowledged the BE-4 does, indeed, run on pure methane. It’s not technically incorrect to call it LNG. In fact, it might arguably be better (more truthful) than calling it methane as LNG is by definition sources from fossil gas but calling it methane could make the source less clear. Also, more people are familiar with LNG than liquid methane as a rocket fuel.
- BE-4 does not run on LNG, it's pure methane
https://www.ulalaunch.com/rockets/vulcan-centaur
I am correcting that. It is not pure methane. "LNG" term is not being used as a substitute for Methane
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1174788727870083072QuoteActually, BE4 runs on methane. We sometimes use LNG as a shorthand. But, as you point out, that’s not strictly accurate.
That was 2 1/2 years ago. Things have changed.
Can you elaborate on this?
If it separates out, will that mean the first few percent of the fuel will be heavier, giving higher thrust but lower ISP?
LNG is at least 95% methane. Once liquid, easy to extract pure methane from the middle. Other gases and or liquids either go to the top (helium for instance) or settle near the bottom (butane or ethane). So basically liquid methane is pulled from LNG. Not hard to separate the various 5% impurities, once liquified and ran through a separation tower. They can be separated in gas form in a separation tower which is called a separator. LNG and methane are used interchangeably in the industry. Sometimes people on here split hairs over the name.
If it separates out, will that mean the first few percent of the fuel will be heavier, giving higher thrust but lower ISP?Top and bottom refer to the separation tower, or the boiling point of the "cut". Not to a liquid column or tank.
We did not boil the gas, we just let it go through the separator to get the liquids out mostly. Butane and ethane are liquid under pressure, methane is not, thus separating out the liquids. This was done with 500 lbs/sq. inch pressure or about 34 bar. Helium is separated out near the well heads because it has value. Usually butane and ethane are also. Very little is left by the time it gets to the end user.I think Blue Origin and ULA will have LNG in the meaning of cryogenic methane directly delivered. I don’t think they will tap into a gas pipeline and liquify on site.
Yes, it is LNG and not 100% methane.
LNG is at least 95% methane. Once liquid, easy to extract pure methane from the middle. Other gases and or liquids either go to the top (helium for instance) or settle near the bottom (butane or ethane). So basically liquid methane is pulled from LNG. Not hard to separate the various 5% impurities, once liquified and ran through a separation tower. They can be separated in gas form in a separation tower which is called a separator. LNG and methane are used interchangeably in the industry. Sometimes people on here split hairs over the name.If it separates out, will that mean the first few percent of the fuel will be heavier, giving higher thrust but lower ISP?Top and bottom refer to the separation tower, or the boiling point of the "cut". Not to a liquid column or tank.
The non-methane impurities are completely soluble in methane.
Just as beer salt is completely soluble in beer :-)
As spacenut posted. It is more complicated that just letting them settle out.
http://naturalgas.org/naturalgas/processing-ng/ (http://naturalgas.org/naturalgas/processing-ng/)
You can run a CH4/ethane/propane/butane/<insert stuff here> mix in CEA to see the change in Isp. It probably won't do much.Yes, it is LNG and not 100% methane.LNG is at least 95% methane. Once liquid, easy to extract pure methane from the middle. Other gases and or liquids either go to the top (helium for instance) or settle near the bottom (butane or ethane). So basically liquid methane is pulled from LNG. Not hard to separate the various 5% impurities, once liquified and ran through a separation tower. They can be separated in gas form in a separation tower which is called a separator. LNG and methane are used interchangeably in the industry. Sometimes people on here split hairs over the name.If it separates out, will that mean the first few percent of the fuel will be heavier, giving higher thrust but lower ISP?Top and bottom refer to the separation tower, or the boiling point of the "cut". Not to a liquid column or tank.
The non-methane impurities are completely soluble in methane.
Just as beer salt is completely soluble in beer :-)
As spacenut posted. It is more complicated that just letting them settle out.
http://naturalgas.org/naturalgas/processing-ng/ (http://naturalgas.org/naturalgas/processing-ng/)
So what is an educated guess as to the level of Methane purity in the BE-4 propellant between that "at least 95%" LNG and "not 100%"?
Is there any practical significance to the lack of purity, the presence of ethane, etc.?
there is a spec on it and all the analyses for flight performance are based on it
I doubt they made the spec public.there is a spec on it and all the analyses for flight performance are based on it
Please
What is that spec?
Typing just a dozen more keystrokes, ">9#.#% & <#.#% ISP" would be of immense assistance to those of us not educated in the engineering, modeling and analysis.
If, as said above and expected, the impact on performance of easily minimized impurities is negligible, this is a lot of posting over a non-issue.
The impurities are probably not a huge issue for performance per se, but they could be more likely to cause coking issues in regenerative cooling situations.I doubt they made the spec public.there is a spec on it and all the analyses for flight performance are based on it
Please
What is that spec?
Typing just a dozen more keystrokes, ">9#.#% & <#.#% ISP" would be of immense assistance to those of us not educated in the engineering, modeling and analysis.
If, as said above and expected, the impact on performance of easily minimized impurities is negligible, this is a lot of posting over a non-issue.
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1518965639272177665Nice to see progress on them. Hopfully they can have then finished by the end of June
I'm guessing it's that one in the backgound with the powerhead attached?
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1518965639272177665
I'm guessing it's that one in the backgound with the powerhead attached?
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1518965639272177665Nice to see progress on them. Hopfully they can have then finished by the end of June
I'm guessing it's that one in the backgound with the powerhead attached?
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1518965639272177665Nice to see progress on them. Hopfully they can have then finished by the end of June
I'm guessing it's that one in the backgound with the powerhead attached?
Did you happen to notice that this is relatively old photo? There is a screen with January 8 on it or nearly 3.5 months ago. I would expect the engine assembly is much further along than this by now.
They said May/June, and I'm just assuming things will not go at optimal speed (not because its blue, but because its life and the real world). End of June is still in their schedule after all.
Nice to see progress on them. Hopfully they can have then finished by the end of June
Did you happen to notice that this is relatively old photo? There is a screen with January 8 on it or nearly 3.5 months ago. I would expect the engine assembly is much further along than this by now.
They said May/June, and I'm just assuming things will not go at optimal speed (not because its blue, but because its life and the real world). End of June is still in their schedule after all.
Nice to see progress on them. Hopfully they can have then finished by the end of June
Did you happen to notice that this is a relatively old photo? There is a screen with January 8 on it or nearly 3.5 months ago. I would expect the engine assembly is much further along than this by now.
Important question: where will they do the factory certification testing for flight of these engines before hand over to ULA? Does anyone know the status of the Test Stand 4670 in Huntsville... is it ready to start testing BE-4 Engines? Or will they send the engines down to Texas to test them?
When I saw Tory Bruno's tweet, I asked him, but he did not respond... so I am assuming the answer is no...
I don't know how you can tell its January 8! Looks like a big blur to me.
I don't know how you can tell its January 8! Looks like a big blur to me.Much of our reading is based on ascenders, descenders, word length and character density.
I don't know how you can tell its January 8! Looks like a big blur to me.
(snip)
There was Michal Radwill replying to Tory who also brought up the January 8 date:
1:37 Saturday, January 8th? I'm afraid that Jeff sent you an old photo.
https://twitter.com/Michal_Radwill/status/1518998409155428353 (https://twitter.com/Michal_Radwill/status/1518998409155428353)
At the latest, this was taken first week of February.
(snip)
There was Michal Radwill replying to Tory who also brought up the January 8 date:
1:37 Saturday, January 8th? I'm afraid that Jeff sent you an old photo.
https://twitter.com/Michal_Radwill/status/1518998409155428353 (https://twitter.com/Michal_Radwill/status/1518998409155428353)
At the latest, this was taken first week of February.
Ferociter tenesmos (https://glosbe.com/la/en/tenesmos) ;)
PQE-602 was the first of Blue Origin’s flight-configuration BE-4 engines that we assembled and tested, achieving consistent and repeated mission duty cycle hotfires for over 2,500 seconds of test.
https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1521204209516834816
PQE-900 accumulated over 5,000 seconds of test & 36 starts, while completing combustion stability rating, engine gimbal & engine restart. After minor refurbishment, it will be the first BE-4 tested at the historic Marshall Space Flight Center Test Stand 4670 since its renovation.
PQE-802 characterized unit to unit variation in the different flight-configuration builds. This engine configuration achieved sustained 104% power level operation (572,000 lbf thrust).
*snip tweet*
Does "flight-configuration" mean "this specific engine, PQE-602, will be mounted onto Vulcan for that vehicle's first launch"? That Q in its name (which I assume stands for Qualification) makes me think not. I recall a while back that the plan was "deliver one engine to ULA while running qualification tests on a second engine, built the same way at the same time; then do it again for another pair of engines." With the result that ULA has two engines that weren't themselves tested but which should match ones that were (and those two tested engines could later be used on the second Vulcan launch). If that's the case, this still isn't a "Tory has his engines" moment.
Edit: Ah, reading Robert_the_Doll's post which follows this one, I see now that they weren't trying to imply anything about the readiness of the specific flight engines, just talking about how much testing they've done on flight-configuration engines. That makes more sense.
My take is its same build as flight engines.https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1521204209516834816
Does "flight-configuration" mean "this specific engine, PQE-602, will be mounted onto Vulcan for that vehicle's first launch"? That Q in its name (which I assume stands for Qualification) makes me think not. I recall a while back that the plan was "deliver one engine to ULA while running qualification tests on a second engine, built the same way at the same time; then do it again for another pair of engines." With the result that ULA has two engines that weren't themselves tested but which should match ones that were (and those two tested engines could later be used on the second Vulcan launch). If that's the case, this still isn't a "Tory has his engines" moment.
Edit: Ah, reading Robert_the_Doll's post which follows this one, I see now that they weren't trying to imply anything about the readiness of the specific flight engines, just talking about how much testing they've done on flight-configuration engines. That makes more sense.
PQE-900 accumulated over 5,000 seconds of test & 36 starts, while completing combustion stability rating, engine gimbal & engine restart. After minor refurbishment, it will be the first BE-4 tested at the historic Marshall Space Flight Center Test Stand 4670 since its renovation.
stand(s) at LC-11, and wanting to take over a stand at MSFC.They don't have the test stand at Launch pad. The stand at MSFC let them test engine vertically. It's also really close to the engine factory.
What is Blue even doing with all of these BE-4 test stands? They've got 3 at Corn Ranch (including the capability for full-duration and full-power firings), but also the stand(s) at LC-11, and wanting to take over a stand at MSFC.
What is Blue even doing with all of these BE-4 test stands? They've got 3 at Corn Ranch (including the capability for full-duration and full-power firings), but also the stand(s) at LC-11, and wanting to take over a stand at MSFC.They built 2 at ranch early on for BE4 testing to help speed up development. Didn't want months of downtime rebuilding a stand after engine failure.
stand(s) at LC-11, and wanting to take over a stand at MSFC.They don't have the test stand at Launch pad. The stand at MSFC let them test engine vertically. It's also really close to the engine factory.
Earlier this year, a BE-4 flight-configuration engine gimballed 8 degrees while operating at 100% power level. 🔥🔥🔥
What is Blue even doing with all of these BE-4 test stands? They've got 3 at Corn Ranch (including the capability for full-duration and full-power firings), but also the stand(s) at LC-11, and wanting to take over a stand at MSFC.
Yes, they do. (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/09/blue-origin-work-new-glenn-launch-facilities/) Although perhaps "at the launch pad" is the confusing part, it isn't literally on the launch pad, they acquired the adjacent launch pad and converted it into a test stand.
A test stand at KFC doesn't make too much sense.
They would have to cease activities all the time when anyone is getting ready to launch. It'd be a really disruptive place to test, when you can go other places and not have unpredictable loses of schedule.
Whatever you think I guess...A test stand at KFC doesn't make too much sense.
They would have to cease activities all the time when anyone is getting ready to launch. It'd be a really disruptive place to test, when you can go other places and not have unpredictable loses of schedule.
No, a rocket engine stand at Kentucky Fried Chicken does not make sense, unless you want to have one hell of a marketing gimmick involving how you cook your chicken.
But at LC-11, it makes some sense since originally engines were to be shipped to and tested there near the Exploration Park factory for New Glenn. Once the BE-4 was selected for Vulcan, then the need to supply ULA's Decatur factory necessitated acceptance testing be carried out close to there.
You asked for video – we listened. Notable milestones for this #BE4 test included: 🔥Warm LOX/cold LNG start transient demonstration (bounding condition) 🔥First engine to eclipse 4000 seconds of accumulated hotfire test time, ultimately achieving 5000+ seconds.
https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1524386115511324672QuoteYou asked for video – we listened. Notable milestones for this #BE4 test included: 🔥Warm LOX/cold LNG start transient demonstration (bounding condition) 🔥First engine to eclipse 4000 seconds of accumulated hotfire test time, ultimately achieving 5000+ seconds.
Well played Blue Origin!! Excellent piece of SpaceX trolling when the video of the BE-4 equivalent, Raptor 2 shows it exploding yesterday… you present this video… Well Played, Well played Blue Origin, well played!!!
Well played Blue Origin!! Excellent piece of SpaceX trolling when the video of the BE-4 equivalent, Raptor 2 shows it exploding yesterday… you present this video… Well Played, Well played Blue Origin, well played!!!
Did I miss something??
That part I knew, it was the video reference that has me confused.Shrug. Even if the test stand events were not planned, the responses were... odd... for what is a routine engine vid.
Funny, in the video they don't show the shut down. Don't sometimes strange and telling things happen during shut down?
Where's the cost per ton to orbit calc?https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1524386115511324672QuoteYou asked for video – we listened. Notable milestones for this #BE4 test included: Warm LOX/cold LNG start transient demonstration (bounding condition) First engine to eclipse 4000 seconds of accumulated hotfire test time, ultimately achieving 5000+ seconds.
Well played Blue Origin!! Excellent piece of SpaceX trolling when the video of the BE-4 equivalent, Raptor 2 shows it exploding yesterday… you present this video… Well Played, Well played Blue Origin, well played!!!
Where's the cost per ton to orbit calc?Hiding in Tim Dodd’s back pocket.
Where's the cost per ton to orbit calc?
Our dual test cell architecture allows parallel processing of our BE-4 rocket engines. The second test cell was built in less than a year back in 2015.
Both test cells have been hard at work pushing BE-4's performance even higher as we enter the flight engine and qualification testing phase. When a single test cell is scheduled for maintenance, the other cell is ready for hotfire.
Our test team is preparing to receive the first flight engines for acceptance testing prior to delivery to @ulalaunch. We’ve worked hand in hand with our ULA partners and recently hosted their team for a Test Stand Flight Engine Readiness Review.
So, make sure I've got this straight:This is rushing schedule that comes with an inherent risk. If a change needs to be made for qual testing, that means the ones given to ULA need to be taking off Vulcan and returned.
1. BO is about ready to start acceptance testing of the first 2 flight configuration engines, assumed to be destined for ULA.
2. Once the flight config engines pass acceptance testing, they will then ship to ULA
3. BO will then begin qualification testing of two identical flight configuration engines while ULA is integrating the two engines they receive into Vulcan
4. Assuming no show-stopper qualification test failures, ULA will then be that much further towards launch, rather than waiting for qual testing to complete satisfactorily.
If all that's still the plan, how long will qual and integration take?
So, make sure I've got this straight:
1. BO is about ready to start acceptance testing of the first 2 flight configuration engines, assumed to be destined for ULA.
2. Once the flight config engines pass acceptance testing, they will then ship to ULA
3. BO will then begin qualification testing of two identical flight configuration engines while ULA is integrating the two engines they receive into Vulcan
4. Assuming no show-stopper qualification test failures, ULA will then be that much further towards launch, rather than waiting for qual testing to complete satisfactorily.
If all that's still the plan, how long will qual and integration take?
Both test cells have been hard at work pushing BE-4's performance even higher as we enter the flight engine and qualification testing phase. When a single test cell is scheduled for maintenance, the other cell is ready for hotfire.
QuoteBoth test cells have been hard at work pushing BE-4's performance even higher as we enter the flight engine and qualification testing phase. When a single test cell is scheduled for maintenance, the other cell is ready for hotfire.
Emphasis mine. My understanding (and errors can abound) is that the flight engines would be delivered to ULA for integration while identical configuration engines would be undergoing qual testing. Which kinda aligns with the above tweet text. That concurrency usually gains some schedule and pays for it in rework, especially if hardware changes are needed to the flight engines.
My understanding was 4 "flight" engines were to be made at one time. 2 sent to ULA and 2 sent for QUAL testing. If QUAL testing passes, the ULA engines are good for first flight. If not...well...more waiting.
My understanding was 4 "flight" engines were to be made at one time. 2 sent to ULA and 2 sent for QUAL testing. If QUAL testing passes, the ULA engines are good for first flight. If not...well...more waiting.
Blue Origin has posted pictures and video of the qualification engines undergoing testing on Twitter, so.... isn't that already done?
Very good news indeed. I do not think we have seen both test cells occupied like this. Does anyone know the significance of one engine with a blue cover and the other with red?
Very good news indeed. I do not think we have seen both test cells occupied like this. Does anyone know the significance of one engine with a blue cover and the other with red?
Very good news indeed. I do not think we have seen both test cells occupied like this. Does anyone know the significance of one engine with a blue cover and the other with red?
Very good news indeed. I do not think we have seen both test cells occupied like this. Does anyone know the significance of one engine with a blue cover and the other with red?
I am interested as to what will be the new development, system, and user acceptance testing workflows now that Test Stand 4670 is coming onstream and the volume of testing given that NG will need four [ proposed first stage boosters] *7, and ongoing ULA flight engines ...
I don't think so, but got the testing process from this article:My understanding was 4 "flight" engines were to be made at one time. 2 sent to ULA and 2 sent for QUAL testing. If QUAL testing passes, the ULA engines are good for first flight. If not...well...more waiting.
Blue Origin has posted pictures and video of the qualification engines undergoing testing on Twitter, so.... isn't that already done?
I don't think so, but got the testing process from this article:My understanding was 4 "flight" engines were to be made at one time. 2 sent to ULA and 2 sent for QUAL testing. If QUAL testing passes, the ULA engines are good for first flight. If not...well...more waiting.
Blue Origin has posted pictures and video of the qualification engines undergoing testing on Twitter, so.... isn't that already done?
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/08/blue-origins-powerful-be-4-engine-is-more-than-four-years-late-heres-why/
Since ULA hasn't gotten the "flight" set yet...that means the QUAL engines are not done either if that article is true.
twitter.blueorigin/status/1526600813182734341
https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1526600822557011968QuoteOur test team is preparing to receive the first flight engines for acceptance testing prior to delivery to @ulalaunch. We’ve worked hand in hand with our ULA partners and recently hosted their team for a Test Stand Flight Engine Readiness Review.
Deep-throttling and rapidly-responding rocket engines enable a rocket launch vehicle to land vertically. Here we tested those capabilities for the #BE4, resting at a 40% power level before being commanded back to full power just milliseconds later.
From the BO tweet:How does this compare to Raptor 2? Raptor 2 also throttles down to 40%. Is it less responsive than BE-4?QuoteDeep-throttling and rapidly-responding rocket engines enable a rocket launch vehicle to land vertically. Here we tested those capabilities for the #BE4, resting at a 40% power level before being commanded back to full power just milliseconds later.
From the BO tweet:How does this compare to Raptor 2? Raptor 2 also throttles down to 40%. Is it less responsive than BE-4?QuoteDeep-throttling and rapidly-responding rocket engines enable a rocket launch vehicle to land vertically. Here we tested those capabilities for the #BE4, resting at a 40% power level before being commanded back to full power just milliseconds later.
Depending on how you measure it, BE-4 and Raptor 2 are at effectively the same level of development: Multiple pre-flight engines available, thousands of seconds on the test stand, first flight before the end of 2022. Since I'm not in the industry, I don't know how to evaluate it.We don't have actual numbers from either company. More so, Raptor2 is still in ongoing development, so the actually achieved numbers are likely not set in stone.From the BO tweet:How does this compare to Raptor 2? Raptor 2 also throttles down to 40%. Is it less responsive than BE-4?QuoteDeep-throttling and rapidly-responding rocket engines enable a rocket launch vehicle to land vertically. Here we tested those capabilities for the #BE4, resting at a 40% power level before being commanded back to full power just milliseconds later.
Except that one engine has already been mounted to vehicles and flown, has somewhere in the region of 100 units manufactured based on public observation (more may have never been seen in the public eye), and is on its second block iteration. The other has not flown, has never fired attached to a vehicle (though engines not suitable for firing have been mounted to a pathfinder), and has had an unknown number manufactured (as seen in the public eye, on the order of 10 unique engines).Depending on how you measure it, BE-4 and Raptor 2 are at effectively the same level of development: Multiple pre-flight engines available, thousands of seconds on the test stand, first flight before the end of 2022. Since I'm not in the industry, I don't know how to evaluate it.We don't have actual numbers from either company. More so, Raptor2 is still in ongoing development, so the actually achieved numbers are likely not set in stone.From the BO tweet:How does this compare to Raptor 2? Raptor 2 also throttles down to 40%. Is it less responsive than BE-4?QuoteDeep-throttling and rapidly-responding rocket engines enable a rocket launch vehicle to land vertically. Here we tested those capabilities for the #BE4, resting at a 40% power level before being commanded back to full power just milliseconds later.
Except that one engine has already been mounted to vehicles and flown, has somewhere in the region of 100 units manufactured based on public observation (more may have never been seen in the public eye), and is on its second block iteration. The other has not flown, has never fired attached to a vehicle (though engines not suitable for firing have been mounted to a pathfinder), and has had an unknown number manufactured (as seen in the public eye, on the order of 10 unique engines).Depending on how you measure it, BE-4 and Raptor 2 are at effectively the same level of development: Multiple pre-flight engines available, thousands of seconds on the test stand, first flight before the end of 2022. Since I'm not in the industry, I don't know how to evaluate it.We don't have actual numbers from either company. More so, Raptor2 is still in ongoing development, so the actually achieved numbers are likely not set in stone.From the BO tweet:How does this compare to Raptor 2? Raptor 2 also throttles down to 40%. Is it less responsive than BE-4?QuoteDeep-throttling and rapidly-responding rocket engines enable a rocket launch vehicle to land vertically. Here we tested those capabilities for the #BE4, resting at a 40% power level before being commanded back to full power just milliseconds later.
SpaceXs willingness to destroy test vehicle doesn't mean the engine is more advance.
BE4 and LV it's on is likely to be DoD certified first. Dreamchaser will be 2nd launch and is NASA funded mission.
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
SpaceXs willingness to destroy test vehicle doesn't mean the engine is more advance.DoD seems to procure launches under two programs: NSSL and STP.
BE4 and LV it's on is likely to be DoD certified first. Dreamchaser will be 2nd launch and is NASA funded mission.
SpaceXs willingness to destroy test vehicle doesn't mean the engine is more advance.
BE4 and LV it's on is likely to be DoD certified first. Dreamchaser will be 2nd launch and is NASA funded mission.
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
Why do you think DoD is going to certify either vehicle?
SpaceXs willingness to destroy test vehicle doesn't mean the engine is more advance.Let’s wait and see, shall we? The smart money used to be on Vulcan getting to orbit way before Starship. Now you’re saying in effect: “well, Starship may get to orbit first, but won’t be certified before Vulcan…”
BE4 and LV it's on is likely to be DoD certified first. Dreamchaser will be 2nd launch and is NASA funded mission.
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
This is all from Wikipedia, so you should check the sources if it's important to you.Well, the plan of record is for a bunch of NSSL launches to go up on Vulcan, so... I mean, it seems likely? It's the stated plan?SpaceXs willingness to destroy test vehicle doesn't mean the engine is more advance.Why do you think DoD is going to certify either vehicle?
BE4 and LV it's on is likely to be DoD certified first. Dreamchaser will be 2nd launch and is NASA funded mission.
SpaceXs willingness to destroy test vehicle doesn't mean the engine is more advance.
BE4 and LV it's on is likely to be DoD certified first. Dreamchaser will be 2nd launch and is NASA funded mission.
Back by popular demand – we’re sharing the video of the rapid throttle up from 40% power level. Our team has extensively tested combustion stability across the entire throttle range and designated mixture ratios.
https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1531650290604294145Oh, did 'we' know it was designed to operate at different mixture ratios? (presumambly the same thrust ISP trade-offs as Satuen?)QuoteBack by popular demand – we’re sharing the video of the rapid throttle up from 40% power level. Our team has extensively tested combustion stability across the entire throttle range and designated mixture ratios.
The flight BE4s are in the assembly stand @blueorigin . Here's a view from the upper platform of one of the pair with the very cool additively manufactured GOX dome installed. #VulcanRocket #VulcanCentaur
BE-4 runs above 3300 KN now? unless this is its operational capability in vacuum which ...still wouldnt make sense
Spectacular power...That's 750klbs each compared to original 550k.
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1533912186225049600
The flight BE4s are in the assembly stand ...
The flight BE4s are in the assembly stand ...
So that implies that the flight engines haven't gone through their acceptance tests yet.
BE-4 runs above 3300 KN now? unless this is its operational capability in vacuum which ...still wouldnt make sense
Possibly, but achieving a higher operational thrust or both is also possible given that one engine, PQE-802, was tested to 104% or 572,000 lbf (2544.38 kN.
. But when Tory last showed us a photo of the two flight engines, the photo was taken back in January of this year.
BE-4 runs above 3300 KN now? unless this is its operational capability in vacuum which ...still wouldnt make sense
Possibly, but achieving a higher operational thrust or both is also possible given that one engine, PQE-802, was tested to 104% or 572,000 lbf (2544.38 kN.
750 klbf vs 550 klbf is ~136%
Spectacular power...
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1533912186225049600
Vague as the thrust is one engine or the combination of two?I'd say two - if you divide by two you get 2446 kN. Which is what was announced.
PS: If true, SpaceX have a lot of catching up to do to catch BE-4?Compare the physical sizes of BE-4 and Raptor2. BE-4 is significantly larger.
Spectacular power...
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1533912186225049600
Now says...
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1534118354449219585?s=20&t=yiXk0SDCL8Gva2lL5sbCdQ (https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1534118354449219585?s=20&t=yiXk0SDCL8Gva2lL5sbCdQ)
Vague as the thrust is one engine or the combination of two?
PS: If true, SpaceX have a lot of catching up to do to catch BE-4?
Vague as the thrust is one engine or the combination of two?SpaceX has no "catching up" to do. It's not a race between these engines. Raptor 2 is apparently meeting its design goals, and we can hope BE-4 is meeting its design goals. In each case the rockets that depend on these engines and their specifications have already been designed and (except for New Glenn) have been built.
PS: If true, SpaceX have a lot of catching up to do to catch BE-4?
He quite clearly said they were still under assembly. How can they be undergoing testing if they are still being built?The flight BE4s are in the assembly stand ...
So that implies that the flight engines haven't gone through their acceptance tests yet.
It's kind of hard to tell as the XEEx stand was undergoing a flight engine readiness review a couple weeks ago and involved ULA personnel. But when Tory last showed us a photo of the two flight engines, the photo was taken back in January of this year. Unfortunately, there's no big monitors with the date on them in this one, so we don't know anything other than it shows some time after the January photo. Also, for all we know, one engine may be progressing faster than the other.
But at least we know they are both in the final build up stand and at least one is making progress.
And why all this sudden releasing of BE-4 photos and info? I just have a feeling something really big is up. Hope it's something good.
He quite clearly said they were still under assembly. How can they be undergoing testing if they are still being built?The flight BE4s are in the assembly stand ...
So that implies that the flight engines haven't gone through their acceptance tests yet.
It's kind of hard to tell as the XEEx stand was undergoing a flight engine readiness review a couple weeks ago and involved ULA personnel. But when Tory last showed us a photo of the two flight engines, the photo was taken back in January of this year. Unfortunately, there's no big monitors with the date on them in this one, so we don't know anything other than it shows some time after the January photo. Also, for all we know, one engine may be progressing faster than the other.
But at least we know they are both in the final build up stand and at least one is making progress.
And why all this sudden releasing of BE-4 photos and info? I just have a feeling something really big is up. Hope it's something good.
Isp proprietary is kind of silly & sad.While I agree with your suspicion in general, do we know the exact Isp of Raptor2?
My guess is it’s just not that good if it’s proprietary. In fact, I suspect it could even be worse than the RD-180 in spite of using a lower molecular weight, because RD-180 is much higher pressure.
SNIP
What he said is this:
"The flight BE4s are in the assembly stand @blueorigin."
He has in the same tweet a photo of one of the two engines being built up, but we don't know when the photo was taken. Previously, Tory tweeted a 3.5 month old photo. Tory in this same tweet's thread also stated he expects the engines mid-year.
We also know from the official Blue Origin tweet from May 17 this:
"Our test team is preparing to receive the first flight engines for acceptance testing prior to delivery to @ulalaunch. We’ve worked hand in hand with our ULA partners and recently hosted their team for a Test Stand Flight Engine Readiness Review."
So, it's possible the engines are still in work in some capacity. But the XEEx team and ULA are preparing for an imminent test firing. Which implies one or both engines are close to being finished and shipped for a test firing.
It's just as likely as anything else that the engines are assembled, but undergoing final factory testing before shipping to XEEx for the final and most important test before shipping from there to ULA.
Right now, we've been teased badly with an incredibly awesome photo of flight hardware and not much else. Last time Tory did this, it lead to a huge deluge of BE-4 info and photo porn.
I would think another acceptable interpretation is that this is a flight engine in the build stand, but not necessarily one of the two that are going to ULA.
That or it's an old picture. Not knowing when the picture was taken is a limiting factor. If the picture was taken ~3 months ago, there's no discrepancy in the known information.
SNIP
What he said is this:
"The flight BE4s are in the assembly stand @blueorigin."
He has in the same tweet a photo of one of the two engines being built up, but we don't know when the photo was taken. Previously, Tory tweeted a 3.5 month old photo. Tory in this same tweet's thread also stated he expects the engines mid-year.
We also know from the official Blue Origin tweet from May 17 this:
"Our test team is preparing to receive the first flight engines for acceptance testing prior to delivery to @ulalaunch. We’ve worked hand in hand with our ULA partners and recently hosted their team for a Test Stand Flight Engine Readiness Review."
So, it's possible the engines are still in work in some capacity. But the XEEx team and ULA are preparing for an imminent test firing. Which implies one or both engines are close to being finished and shipped for a test firing.
It's just as likely as anything else that the engines are assembled, but undergoing final factory testing before shipping to XEEx for the final and most important test before shipping from there to ULA.
Right now, we've been teased badly with an incredibly awesome photo of flight hardware and not much else. Last time Tory did this, it lead to a huge deluge of BE-4 info and photo porn.
He said the engines are in that place where they assemble stuff. I understand being excited about them moving along, but everything else is basically wishing and dreaming.
Why would they officially state that the XEEx is undergoing a Test Stand Flight Engine Readiness Review, if the engines aren't anywhere near ready for it?
Why would they officially state that the XEEx is undergoing a Test Stand Flight Engine Readiness Review, if the engines aren't anywhere near ready for it?
Um, because the test stand has to be certified as ready for testing before you load a test article into it for acceptance testing of said article?
None of those "new" photos show an engine with a power pack. I guess they decided to go with Elon's mantra that no part is a good part?
There would be no point in doing so if nothing was reasonably close to being shipped, nor in saying in the same tweet that "Our test team is preparing to receive the first flight engines for acceptance testing prior to delivery to @ulalaunch."
That would seem a waste of the test team and facility's time when they could be carrying out testing the development engines instead.
There would be no point in doing so if nothing was reasonably close to being shipped, nor in saying in the same tweet that "Our test team is preparing to receive the first flight engines for acceptance testing prior to delivery to @ulalaunch."
That would seem a waste of the test team and facility's time when they could be carrying out testing the development engines instead.
ISTM that you're assuming the test stand development team also works on the engines. Bruno tweeted on June 6th that the flight engines were in the assembly stands, so it seems fairly obvious they haven't gone through their acceptance tests. That doesn't discount the readiness review the test stands went through back in May.
There would be no point in doing so if nothing was reasonably close to being shipped, nor in saying in the same tweet that "Our test team is preparing to receive the first flight engines for acceptance testing prior to delivery to @ulalaunch."
That would seem a waste of the test team and facility's time when they could be carrying out testing the development engines instead.
ISTM that you're assuming the test stand development team also works on the engines. Bruno tweeted on June 6th that the flight engines were in the assembly stands, so it seems fairly obvious they haven't gone through their acceptance tests. That doesn't discount the readiness review the test stands went through back in May.
However, that picture could be ~3 months old, like we know the other pictures were.
However, that picture could be ~3 months old, like we know the other pictures were.
As I mentioned above, I give no credence to the picture itself; rather the text of the tweet and when that tweet was published.
The problem with that is the text in the tweet is describing a picture that may be ~3 months old. IOW the tweet could be ~3 months out of date.
The interpretation that the engines are currently still in the build stands doesn't match up with the other information we know.
The problem with that is the text in the tweet is describing a picture that may be ~3 months old. IOW the tweet could be ~3 months out of date.
The interpretation that the engines are currently still in the build stands doesn't match up with the other information we know.
Then, in all seriousness, why would Bruno post that tweet on June 6th? What am I missing?
You're taking what Bruno said at face value, others are projecting hopes and wishes onto it
The problem with that is the text in the tweet is describing a picture that may be ~3 months old. IOW the tweet could be ~3 months out of date.
The interpretation that the engines are currently still in the build stands doesn't match up with the other information we know.
Then, in all seriousness, why would Bruno post that tweet on June 6th? What am I missing?
You're taking what Bruno said at face value, others are projecting hopes and wishes onto it
The problem with that is the text in the tweet is describing a picture that may be ~3 months old. IOW the tweet could be ~3 months out of date.
The interpretation that the engines are currently still in the build stands doesn't match up with the other information we know.
Then, in all seriousness, why would Bruno post that tweet on June 6th? What am I missing?
You're taking what Bruno said at face value, others are projecting hopes and wishes onto it
The problem with that is the text in the tweet is describing a picture that may be ~3 months old. IOW the tweet could be ~3 months out of date.
The interpretation that the engines are currently still in the build stands doesn't match up with the other information we know.
Then, in all seriousness, why would Bruno post that tweet on June 6th? What am I missing?
The issue is the "face value" information does not line up with other information we know.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/06/the-large-vulcan-rocket-is-unlikely-to-make-its-debut-in-2022/
still being built and no expectation of even acceptance testing before august.
Sounds like Vulcan will be ready by end of 2022, just not payload.https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/06/the-large-vulcan-rocket-is-unlikely-to-make-its-debut-in-2022/
still being built and no expectation of even acceptance testing before august.
Yeah, I "liked" your update; thanks for it, BTW. Didn't like the news, though. <sigh>
Sounds like Vulcan will be ready by end of 2022, just not payload.Well the article says:
There are two main issues holding Vulcan back from making its debut: the readiness of its main engines and the payload that it will carry. At this point, neither appear likely to support a 2022 launch.
Sounds like Vulcan will be ready by end of 2022, just not payload.Well the article says:QuoteThere are two main issues holding Vulcan back from making its debut: the readiness of its main engines and the payload that it will carry. At this point, neither appear likely to support a 2022 launch.
You have to search for it, it is hiding between the title and the fourth paragraph.
.....Third paragraph from the bottom.
The Centaur V upper stage to be used for Vulcan shares a lot of commonality with earlier versions of Centaur, but it too will include new technology. A source said Centaur is not yet ready for launch, either.
So, riddle me this Deadman. Why would they officially state that the XEEx is undergoing a Test Stand Flight Engine Readiness Review, if the engines aren't anywhere near ready for it?
So, riddle me this Deadman. Why would they officially state that the XEEx is undergoing a Test Stand Flight Engine Readiness Review, if the engines aren't anywhere near ready for it?
A readiness review is just that. a readiness review. it doesn't mean product is ready for test, its a readiness review of the test stand for flight engine acceptance test, nothing more.
Preparing happens in advance of something happening. There is no demand it happen immediately before that thing happens, and leaving your preparation as late as possible is generally a bad idea and something to be avoided.
So, riddle me this Deadman. Why would they officially state that the XEEx is undergoing a Test Stand Flight Engine Readiness Review, if the engines aren't anywhere near ready for it?
A readiness review is just that. a readiness review. it doesn't mean product is ready for test, its a readiness review of the test stand for flight engine acceptance test, nothing more.
Ah, but that misses the context of the tweet:
"Our test team is preparing to receive the first flight engines for acceptance testing prior to delivery to @ulalaunch. We’ve worked hand in hand with our ULA partners and recently hosted their team for a Test Stand Flight Engine Readiness Review."
Then why would they say that? There's no reason for them to prepare to receive the engines if the engines aren't close enough for them to do so. Sure, there can be delays, but the implication is that they're near or were enough for such a thing to matter.
Then why would they say that? There's no reason for them to prepare to receive the engines if the engines aren't close enough for them to do so.
Then why would they say that? There's no reason for them to prepare to receive the engines if the engines aren't close enough for them to do so. Sure, there can be delays, but the implication is that they're near or were enough for such a thing to matter.
Then why would they say that? There's no reason for them to prepare to receive the engines if the engines aren't close enough for them to do so.
Sorry if this sounds rude, but I think you're dismissing the task involved in getting a test stand certified for acceptance/qualification testing. Control systems, fuel, power, instrumentation, etc. not only has to be functionally checked out but also validated to provide accurate data during the test execution. In my prior career we had dedicated teams just to develop, certify, and maintain test stands for various levels of software & hardware integration.
You don't want to have the test articles waiting on the test stands. And don't forget any action items the test stand team will have to work that comes out of the Readiness Review.
Then why would they say that? There's no reason for them to prepare to receive the engines if the engines aren't close enough for them to do so.
Sorry if this sounds rude, but I think you're dismissing the task involved in getting a test stand certified for acceptance/qualification testing. Control systems, fuel, power, instrumentation, etc. not only has to be functionally checked out but also validated to provide accurate data during the test execution. In my prior career we had dedicated teams just to develop, certify, and maintain test stands for various levels of software & hardware integration.
You don't want to have the test articles waiting on the test stands. And don't forget any action items the test stand team will have to work that comes out of the Readiness Review.
And I think people are missing out my point here. That expectation of completing all of that is in conjunction with an expecting delivery and receiving of the engines. Why not have the test stand ready to do this, oh say, last year?
And when was the review done? Weeks, months ago? There has to be a good reason for why it's happened now and not put off for later. In other words, possibly because the flight engines are near enough to ready that they want to have the stands in Texas ready.
On May 17th Bruno tweeted that the test team was preparing to receive the first flight engines and they had "recently" hosted the readiness review.
Bruno did not tweet that on May 17, that was tweeted by Blue Origin.
In 2016, we developed our #BE4 start sequence and tested initial preburner injector hardware. While we ran 596 seconds of deep throttle over 82 tests, this high-speed camera captured the very first stable element-by-element ignition through its start sequence. #ThrowbackThursday
So is this a photo of the main injector (in the MCC) or the injector in the preburner(O2 rich)?The tweet says "preburner injector hardware" (bold added)
Here is the pre-burner in all its glory! Are they using vanes like in the F-1 for combustion stability?My uniformed speculation is that those are temperature/pressure probes for this developmental ignition test.
Here is the pre-burner in all its glory! Are they using vanes like in the F-1 for combustion stability?
Looks like it. The black lines are likely posts for holding sensors in different flow regions. The 'vanes' are the raised areas that segments the injector face. See the attached image of the F-1's (in)famous injector plate vanes. Adding vanes can be a pain if you have an existing engine you are retrofitting them to with a fixed injector plate size (because they eat into that limited surface area that could instead be injecting more propellant), but if you design them in from the start they're a simple and effective solution to instability.Here is the pre-burner in all its glory! Are they using vanes like in the F-1 for combustion stability?My uniformed speculation is that those are temperature/pressure probes for this developmental ignition test.
I live in Huntsville and I can assure they have been doing a LOT of hiring here, and adding new buildings to their Engine plant. It's very obvious here in HSV at least that they are really getting ready to start pumping out engines at a good pace.
Yep. While the BE-4 engine has taken awhile to get off the ground, Blue Origin is making the necessary investments to scale its production.
For the first time, our Huntsville engines team has installed a #BE4 engine into Blue Origin’s refurbished and historic MSFC Test Stand 4670 preparing for commissioning tests.
Good for Blue. And I'm sure they didn't originate this use of terminology, but I have to say it...
"Historic" regarding the location from which humans first departed Earth for another planetary body? Yes.
"Historic" with respect to the engines that lifted those humans off the Earth? Sure.
"Historic" for a test stand? um... no
Good for Blue. And I'm sure they didn't originate this use of terminology, but I have to say it...
"Historic" regarding the location from which humans first departed Earth for another planetary body? Yes.
"Historic" with respect to the engines that lifted those humans off the Earth? Sure.
"Historic" for a test stand? um... no
The 4670 test stand is historic. It was where the all-up Saturn V S-IC first stage static fire testing was conducted:
https://twitter.com/NASAhistory/status/1118212488791777280?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1118212488791777280%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nasaspaceflight.com%2F2019%2F04%2Fblue-historic-test-stand-engine-testing%2F
It is very doubtful that Saturn and Apollo would ever have been successful without 4076's big contribution.
The famous final product of this test stand? Yes, historic.
All the machine tools, equipment, and infrastructure that led to that final product? No IMO
Who cares how historic the test stand is? I sure don't. How soon are they going to test fire engines on it? How does this affect shipping flight engines to ULA?Once the BE-4 engines are delivered to ULA, then this will influence a decision on when in H2 the first Vulcan launch will be carried out.
Who cares how historic the test stand is? I sure don't. How soon are they going to test fire engines on it? How does this affect shipping flight engines to ULA?
Our #BE4 and West Texas test teams love an engine hotfire test! 🔥🔥🔥
Is this a qualification test firing or a test run with an engine nearly identical to the flight engines to pave the way for the acceptance tests?
Is this a qualification test firing or a test run with an engine nearly identical to the flight engines to pave the way for the acceptance tests?The first firing at the "new" stand was going to be a development engine with a lot of seconds on the clock.
Is this a qualification test firing or a test run with an engine nearly identical to the flight engines to pave the way for the acceptance tests?The first firing at the "new" stand was going to be a development engine with a lot of seconds on the clock.
Is this a qualification test firing or a test run with an engine nearly identical to the flight engines to pave the way for the acceptance tests?The first firing at the "new" stand was going to be a development engine with a lot of seconds on the clock.
Just so that nobody is confused or gets confused:
The test stand in the image in reply #1753 is Blue's own double test stand at their ranch in Texas. It is NOT an image from the refurbished 4670 test stand at MSFC.
Is this a qualification test firing or a test run with an engine nearly identical to the flight engines to pave the way for the acceptance tests?The first firing at the "new" stand was going to be a development engine with a lot of seconds on the clock.
Just so that nobody is confused or gets confused:
The test stand in the image in reply #1753 is Blue's own double test stand at their ranch in Texas. It is NOT an image from the refurbished 4670 test stand at MSFC.
That was never an issue, especially in light of the tweet's own statement and the fact that the engine being tested is horizontal, not vertical.
My question has been around the nature of the testing, which is whether it is another qualification test or a practice run (with a development engine, of course) in preparation for the upcoming flight engines' acceptance tests. The two Kent-built flight BE-4s are solidly confirmed that their acceptance tests will be done in West Texas, not all the way over at Huntsville in 4670.
Then it's most likely an acceptance test. Perhaps even the final one. No particular reason for a big crowd to be watching it otherwise.It may well be, but that's not a particularly big crowd. Isn't "engines are awesome" enough reason to be watching?
Then it's most likely an acceptance test. Perhaps even the final one. No particular reason for a big crowd to be watching it otherwise.It may well be, but that's not a particularly big crowd. Isn't "engines are awesome" enough reason to be watching?
Harrier vertical take off, hover, translate, rotate and vertical land demonstrations were always well attended, as are SpaceX launches, despite there being no particular reason to be watching.
There is a history of every photo or release from Blue being called "the last one/time/thing/ect".Is this a qualification test firing or a test run with an engine nearly identical to the flight engines to pave the way for the acceptance tests?The first firing at the "new" stand was going to be a development engine with a lot of seconds on the clock.
Just so that nobody is confused or gets confused:
The test stand in the image in reply #1753 is Blue's own double test stand at their ranch in Texas. It is NOT an image from the refurbished 4670 test stand at MSFC.
That was never an issue, especially in light of the tweet's own statement and the fact that the engine being tested is horizontal, not vertical.
My question has been around the nature of the testing, which is whether it is another qualification test or a practice run (with a development engine, of course) in preparation for the upcoming flight engines' acceptance tests. The two Kent-built flight BE-4s are solidly confirmed that their acceptance tests will be done in West Texas, not all the way over at Huntsville in 4670.
Then it's most likely an acceptance test. Perhaps even the final one. No particular reason for a big crowd to be watching it otherwise.
Then it's most likely an acceptance test. Perhaps even the final one. No particular reason for a big crowd to be watching it otherwise.It may well be, but that's not a particularly big crowd. Isn't "engines are awesome" enough reason to be watching?
Harrier vertical take off, hover, translate, rotate and vertical land demonstrations were always well attended, as are SpaceX launches, despite there being no particular reason to be watching.
Then it's most likely an acceptance test. Perhaps even the final one. No particular reason for a big crowd to be watching it otherwise.It may well be, but that's not a particularly big crowd. Isn't "engines are awesome" enough reason to be watching?
Harrier vertical take off, hover, translate, rotate and vertical land demonstrations were always well attended, as are SpaceX launches, despite there being no particular reason to be watching.
You might have a few people watching for any given random engine test fire, but the tweet says "teams" and I count 27 people in the picture. So these aren't just random people, they are Blue Origin employees. Why would a crowd of Blue Origin employees be watching a random engine test fire? Why would Blue Origin post a tweet about their "teams" watching a test fire? And why is Blue Origin okay with a bunch of people taking time out of their day to stand around and watch the test fire? It really only makes sense if this is a more significant test fire.
Then it's most likely an acceptance test. Perhaps even the final one. No particular reason for a big crowd to be watching it otherwise.It may well be, but that's not a particularly big crowd. Isn't "engines are awesome" enough reason to be watching?
Harrier vertical take off, hover, translate, rotate and vertical land demonstrations were always well attended, as are SpaceX launches, despite there being no particular reason to be watching.
You might have a few people watching for any given random engine test fire, but the tweet says "teams" and I count 27 people in the picture. So these aren't just random people, they are Blue Origin employees. Why would a crowd of Blue Origin employees be watching a random engine test fire? Why would Blue Origin post a tweet about their "teams" watching a test fire? And why is Blue Origin okay with a bunch of people taking time out of their day to stand around and watch the test fire? It really only makes sense if this is a more significant test fire.
Or a PR shot.
Then it's most likely an acceptance test. Perhaps even the final one. No particular reason for a big crowd to be watching it otherwise.It may well be, but that's not a particularly big crowd. Isn't "engines are awesome" enough reason to be watching?
Harrier vertical take off, hover, translate, rotate and vertical land demonstrations were always well attended, as are SpaceX launches, despite there being no particular reason to be watching.
You might have a few people watching for any given random engine test fire, but the tweet says "teams" and I count 27 people in the picture. So these aren't just random people, they are Blue Origin employees. Why would a crowd of Blue Origin employees be watching a random engine test fire? Why would Blue Origin post a tweet about their "teams" watching a test fire? And why is Blue Origin okay with a bunch of people taking time out of their day to stand around and watch the test fire? It really only makes sense if this is a more significant test fire.
Or a PR shot.
Why have a PR shot if it's just a random test?
Then it's most likely an acceptance test. Perhaps even the final one. No particular reason for a big crowd to be watching it otherwise.It may well be, but that's not a particularly big crowd. Isn't "engines are awesome" enough reason to be watching?
Harrier vertical take off, hover, translate, rotate and vertical land demonstrations were always well attended, as are SpaceX launches, despite there being no particular reason to be watching.
You might have a few people watching for any given random engine test fire, but the tweet says "teams" and I count 27 people in the picture. So these aren't just random people, they are Blue Origin employees. Why would a crowd of Blue Origin employees be watching a random engine test fire? Why would Blue Origin post a tweet about their "teams" watching a test fire? And why is Blue Origin okay with a bunch of people taking time out of their day to stand around and watch the test fire? It really only makes sense if this is a more significant test fire.
Or a PR shot.
Why have a PR shot if it's just a random test?
Why ever have a PR shot? Recruitment? PR team finished other tasks?
I’m not saying you’re necessarily wrong but I just don’t think there’s very strong evidence here.
SpaceX have crowds of employees watching each launch in the webcast backgrounds. Why would a crowd of SpaceX employees be watching a random launch? And why would SpaceX show them on camera? Clearly it must indicate something important or be a PR stunt, not because employees of a rocket launch company are self-selected for people who think rockets are cool!Then it's most likely an acceptance test. Perhaps even the final one. No particular reason for a big crowd to be watching it otherwise.It may well be, but that's not a particularly big crowd. Isn't "engines are awesome" enough reason to be watching?
Harrier vertical take off, hover, translate, rotate and vertical land demonstrations were always well attended, as are SpaceX launches, despite there being no particular reason to be watching.
You might have a few people watching for any given random engine test fire, but the tweet says "teams" and I count 27 people in the picture. So these aren't just random people, they are Blue Origin employees. Why would a crowd of Blue Origin employees be watching a random engine test fire? Why would Blue Origin post a tweet about their "teams" watching a test fire? And why is Blue Origin okay with a bunch of people taking time out of their day to stand around and watch the test fire? It really only makes sense if this is a more significant test fire.
Ok. Based on the survey results (and assuming the 5% who voted that “space is boring” just had hotdog fingers), here is a pic of BE4 flight 1. Standard Brian is busy in Decatur building the booster, so this fine @blueorigin gentleman kindly stood in for scale.
Ok, since you asked, here’s a close up of the @blueorigin Flight 1 #BE4
Any ETA on when you think you'll have flight qualified engines to start integrating onto Vulcan's first stage?
It’s so close now…
So, ULA has now received the first flight-ready BE4 or am I understanding it incorrectly?
This engine is in final assembly at Blue in Kent, WA
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1543393904116043777QuoteOk, since you asked, here’s a close up of the @blueorigin Flight 1 #BE4
<snip>For reference, one of the tweet replies shows a better view of the annotated BE-4 drawing on the engineer's T-shirt:QuoteOk, since you asked, here’s a close up of the @blueorigin Flight 1 #BE4
Hmm, Tory says BE-4 delivery is ‘so close now’:
.
.
Yet still in final assembly:
.
.
Don’t Blue have a load of testing to do after final assembly before delivery? Or is final assembly more like finishing touches after testing prior to delivery?
Hmm, Tory says BE-4 delivery is ‘so close now’:
.
.
Yet still in final assembly:
.
.
Don’t Blue have a load of testing to do after final assembly before delivery? Or is final assembly more like finishing touches after testing prior to delivery?
Final Assembly is before going into acceptance testing. Assuming Blue is still on the path of concurrent acceptance testing and delivery while conduction qualification testing, this BE-4 should be delivered to ULA after the successful completion of final assembly and acceptance testing.
Since this will be their first delivery, I expect that delivery process (which has a lot of ULA work as well) to be quite a bit slower than normal.
Ask and you shall receive. The second of the pair of @blueorigin flight #BE4 engines
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1543338042739548160QuoteOk. Based on the survey results (and assuming the 5% who voted that “space is boring” just had hotdog fingers), here is a pic of BE4 flight 1. Standard Brian is busy in Decatur building the booster, so this fine @blueorigin gentleman kindly stood in for scale.
You guys have clearly revealed yourselves to be passionate about space. So, here’s a bonus picture just because you’re awesome: two #BE’s at once in @blueorigin ‘s Kent Factory
How long do you think the BO System Testing on the engines will take to fix any factory first run issue, and once these engines pass those, then how long do you think it will take ULA to do their acceptance tests?
From this, you see the time it takes to build the two engines from the end of April [12:50 AM · Apr 27, 2022] to date, and so these flight engines are almost complete, and go to system and then acceptance testing.... fingers crossed...
How long do you think the BO System Testing on the engines will take to fix any factory first run issue, and once these engines pass those, then how long do you think it will take ULA to do their acceptance tests?
The second engine appears to require some more assembly as it appears to be incomplete compared to the other engine... I wonder why the assembly of this engine is delayed compared to the first?
As Jim said, ULA won't do any kind of qualification/acceptance tests, but what they *will* do are integration tests when they get the flight engines, which may/may not find problems with the engine design that could require correction
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1543566095180865538QuoteAsk and you shall receive. The second of the pair of @blueorigin flight #BE4 engines
One is in the cell closest to the wall and next one is one cell further away on the same row of integration cells.https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1543566095180865538QuoteAsk and you shall receive. The second of the pair of @blueorigin flight #BE4 engines
If both photos are of the same engine, then we've been given our first look at an engine at two different phases of assembly, including the addition of inlet lines, insulation, and avionics.
Quote from: VettedrmrAs Jim said, ULA won't do any kind of qualification/acceptance tests, but what they *will* do are integration tests when they get the flight engines, which may/may not find problems with the engine design that could require correction
Which is probably something that occurred during the integration of the development BE-4s back in 2020, and may have contributed to flight hardware changes that contributed to slowing the work down.
How long do you think the BO System Testing on the engines will take to fix any factory first run issue, and once these engines pass those, then how long do you think it will take ULA to do their acceptance tests?
ULA doesn't do acceptance tests.
Qualification tests qualify the engine for its intended use.
Acceptances tests are done on new engines built to the same design as above.
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1543566095180865538QuoteAsk and you shall receive. The second of the pair of @blueorigin flight #BE4 engines
Any idea why doesn't BO ship the engines fully assembled?They shipped fully integrated pathfinder engines and these shouldn't be any different. Also they haven't shipped yet.
That somehow looks bigger than I expected (yeah, it seems perspective at work too).
the important question after assembly, how long will the testing phase take so as verify that the assembled BE-4 engine meets ULA requirements ie "...is fit for purpose", as defined in the contractual requirements between ULA [the customer], and Blue Origin [The vendor] ?
From my own experience as a software tester, by the time you get to commence acceptance testing, with the testing down to that phase, you have identified and resolved all the "show stopper" issues, ...
How long do you think the BO System Testing on the engines will take to fix any factory first run issue, and once these engines pass those, then how long do you think it will take ULA to do their acceptance tests?
ULA doesn't do acceptance tests.
Qualification tests qualify the engine for its intended use.
Acceptances tests are done on new engines built to the same design as above.
Semantics..
" Qualification tests follow and are conducted on flight-quality hardware at load levels and for durations that
usually exceed flight conditions to demonstrate that all structural design requirements have been achieved. Acceptance tests are the final series of tests conducted in a typical hardware program..
Qualification [Test] {Structural}: To verify structural adequacy.
Acceptance [Test] {Structural} : To ensure hardware meets specification. "
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19710021557/downloads/19710021557.pdf
Hmm, Tory says BE-4 delivery is ‘so close now’:QuoteIt’s so close now…
Yet still in final assembly:QuoteThis engine is in final assembly at Blue in Kent, WA
You seem to be implying that these two statements are, in some way, contradictory.
Tory Bruno tweeted some, to paraphrase my 15-year-old daughter, bussin images of the BE-4 flight engines. Per a source, given final production and test time, the earliest likely delivery to ULA is late August.
Deep throttling, fine-tuned, and rapid response engines are key to reusability. #BE4 steadily ran for over 256 seconds in this transient power level demo test across varying mixture ratios and power levels between 45% and 100%. The exhaust plume length adjusts with power level.
It is throttling like never BE4An Original joke!
I think this is by far the most convincing video they have shown. 100% power and long duration, roughly as long as first stage burn. It's not quite a ULA use case (which would be full power, throttle bucket, full power, then taper off to keep acceleration constant), but it's close. Looks like they are very, very, close to a product.
I think this is by far the most convincing video they have shown. 100% power and long duration, roughly as long as first stage burn. It's not quite a ULA use case (which would be full power, throttle bucket, full power, then taper off to keep acceleration constant), but it's close. Looks like they are very, very, close to a product.
I think this is by far the most convincing video they have shown. 100% power and long duration, roughly as long as first stage burn. It's not quite a ULA use case (which would be full power, throttle bucket, full power, then taper off to keep acceleration constant), but it's close. Looks like they are very, very, close to a product.
That's what I was thinking as well. Watching a video of significant throttle activity is sexy, but it can hide thermal issues of a full run. I expect (hope) that BO have run a Vulcan launch profile test, but it's not as cool to watch.
Still, much more than we've seen from BO, maybe ever.
First completed flight engine.
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1553198911212457985?s=20&t=95gb98IMQZJaCv3MhNyyAg
With this:
Assume 4-6 weeks of qualification testing and adjustments, and then acceptance testing... this will be done in texas initially, but later at the Test Stand 4760 in Huntsville...
Presumably acceptance testing still needs to be done. How long does this normally take? It's not many firings, if my understanding is correct.
With this:
Assume 4-6 weeks of qualification testing and adjustments, and then acceptance testing... this will be done in texas initially, but later at the Test Stand 4760 in Huntsville...
Unless plans have changed, there are going to be two same configuration engines going through qualification tests while the first flight engines are being integrated into Vulcan.
So, as I see it, this needs to happen:
1. Two flight-configuration engines need to be completed, pass their acceptance tests, and ship to ULA
2. Two more flight-configuration engines need to be completed and pass their qualification tests
2b. Concurrently with #2, ULA integrates the first two engines and starts pre-flight tests
3. Once qualification tests are complete and acceptable to ULA (note I didn't say "passed"), then ULA can press for Vulcan's first launch.
They've completed 1, how long for the other 3?
Wow. You guys really do like seeing rocket engines. OK, Flight Engine #1 (fully assembled) on the left. #2 (almost done) on the right.
The fact that the two flight engines are so close together in terms of their stage in production makes me wonder what their current production capacity is. If there is only a week or two between the completion of the engines, and if this is consistent with the current production rates, then the BE-4 production rate might be a couple of dozen engines per year, which is excellent considering that they only just started churning out production engines. Of course, the engines being finished so close together could be just the result of the rush to get the flight engines out in which case it probably isn't representative of the normal production rate....or that there are two parallel assembly flows terminating in those two assembly stations we see, and who knows what their rates are.
Off we go. @blueorigin First Flight FE1 engine off to Texas for a quick acceptance test firing, then on to the Rocket Factory in Decatur. #Vulcan.
Damn, that's a good looking engine.
Acceptance testing at the West Texas site and not Marshall is an interesting note per flow path. Vulcan's obviously going to ship with both engines installed ahead of arriving at the Cape.
All good info. Thanks for the pics, Tory!
Marshall’s not quite ready yet
In my opinion, Blue Origin might be preparing to increase production output for the BE-4 engine even as it prepares for delivery of its first completed BE-4s to ULA.The fact that the two flight engines are so close together in terms of their stage in production makes me wonder what their current production capacity is. If there is only a week or two between the completion of the engines, and if this is consistent with the current production rates, then the BE-4 production rate might be a couple of dozen engines per year, which is excellent considering that they only just started churning out production engines. Of course, the engines being finished so close together could be just the result of the rush to get the flight engines out in which case it probably isn't representative of the normal production rate....or that there are two parallel assembly flows terminating in those two assembly stations we see, and who knows what their rates are.
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1553478588078338049QuoteOff we go. @blueorigin First Flight FE1 engine off to Texas for a quick acceptance test firing, then on to the Rocket Factory in Decatur. #Vulcan.
The fact that the two flight engines are so close together in terms of their stage in production makes me wonder what their current production capacity is. If there is only a week or two between the completion of the engines, and if this is consistent with the current production rates, then the BE-4 production rate might be a couple of dozen engines per year, which is excellent considering that they only just started churning out production engines. Of course, the engines being finished so close together could be just the result of the rush to get the flight engines out in which case it probably isn't representative of the normal production rate....or that there are two parallel assembly flows terminating in those two assembly stations we see, and who knows what their rates are.
The fact that the two flight engines are so close together in terms of their stage in production makes me wonder what their current production capacity is. If there is only a week or two between the completion of the engines, and if this is consistent with the current production rates, then the BE-4 production rate might be a couple of dozen engines per year, which is excellent considering that they only just started churning out production engines. Of course, the engines being finished so close together could be just the result of the rush to get the flight engines out in which case it probably isn't representative of the normal production rate....or that there are two parallel assembly flows terminating in those two assembly stations we see, and who knows what their rates are.
Or the first flight engine assemblies could be far more boutique, with overlapping flows and pauses and the engines finished “special” with some non-standard (or at least not intended to stay) steps in there, including possible rework. That wouldn’t even be that concerning, to me at least; it’s literally the first flight engine and non-standard assembly of early examples of complex products isn’t ideal but it’s not rare either. We just have no idea.
They are already doing qualification tests and have been since December
If this image is like any of the other Tory Bruno images he posted initially. Then this engine was finished a while ago.
The photos EXIF data tends not to lie unless modified.
They are already doing qualification tests and have been since December
If this image is like any of the other Tory Bruno images he posted initially. Then this engine was finished a while ago.
So you're saying qualification tests are still undergoing and have taken 8+ months, and that's a good thing? And, BTW, you do qualification tests on the actual flight hardware, not bits and pieces. I've seen nothing to say that flight-configuration engines have even started qual tests.
Also, I don't understand the dogged determination posts in this thread have had on claiming that Bruno, a man that has the most to gain by providing latest and greatest posts, uses photos that are out of date. Seems much more likely that the photos he shows are up to date and is showing the actual status of the engines.
First completed flight engine.
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1553198911212457985?s=20&t=95gb98IMQZJaCv3MhNyyAg
The Kent factory production is not necessarily a good yardstick for how fast production engines can be built since it does not seem to be on par with the facilities known to be available at the much larger Huntsville factory.
The fact that it is known that Huntsville had to produce many, if not all the parts for, the two engines seen in the photo is quite telling.
We will have to see after these two are shipped to Decatur if we will be given the same look into the processes there and the progress of the engines being fabricated and assembled there as we have recently with these two engines to truly get an understanding of the rate of production.
That's a gorgeous engine! I don't want to see it and its twin destroyed! They're built to be reused and they'll get tossed in the ocean after they're finished boosting the first stage.... If only SMART were available right now. :'(Agree it looks very nice - but it also looks expensive. Lots of hand work to assemble that complexity.
Also, I don't understand the dogged determination posts in this thread have had on claiming that Bruno, a man that has the most to gain by providing latest and greatest posts, uses photos that are out of date. Seems much more likely that the photos he shows are up to date and is showing the actual status of the engines.
The photos EXIF data tends not to lie unless modified.
https://exiv2.org/tags.htmlThe photos EXIF data tends not to lie unless modified.
The EXIF data is not telling us the date. I use IrfanView (https://www.irfanview.com/) -> Image -> Information... -> EXIF Info. This is from the images uploaded to NSF. When I try to download the images from Twitter, they don't have any EXIF data.
Filename - 5F32AB0F-154E-46FF-8C25-AD0C33536C26.jpeg
XResolution - 72
YResolution - 72
ResolutionUnit - Inch
YCbCrPositioning - Centered
ExifOffset - 90
ExifVersion - 0221
ComponentsConfiguration - YCbCr
FlashPixVersion - 0100
ColorSpace - sRGB
ExifImageWidth - 2048
ExifImageHeight - 1364
SceneCaptureType - Standard
Thumbnail: -
Compression - 6 (JPG)
XResolution - 72
YResolution - 72
ResolutionUnit - Inch
JpegIFOffset - 274
JpegIFByteCount - 8964
They are already doing qualification tests and have been since December
If this image is like any of the other Tory Bruno images he posted initially. Then this engine was finished a while ago.
So you're saying qualification tests are still undergoing and have taken 8+ months, and that's a good thing? And, BTW, you do qualification tests on the actual flight hardware, not bits and pieces. I've seen nothing to say that flight-configuration engines have even started qual tests.
Also, I don't understand the dogged determination posts in this thread have had on claiming that Bruno, a man that has the most to gain by providing latest and greatest posts, uses photos that are out of date. Seems much more likely that the photos he shows are up to date and is showing the actual status of the engines.
It will be interesting to see how this workflow evolves, whether Kent will be allocated to servicing returning NG BE-4 engines, and Huntsville allocated to manufacturing new engines for new NG stages, and for ULA, or even other clients? Or will Kent be used for development new variants of updates of the BE-4 engine.... just as the Raptor is evolving, I am sure that the BE-4 architecture could be evolved to a 1Mill lb thrust engine for perhaps .... New Armstrong? We will see!!
It will be interesting to see how this workflow evolves, whether Kent will be allocated to servicing returning NG BE-4 engines, and Huntsville allocated to manufacturing new engines for new NG stages, and for ULA, or even other clients? Or will Kent be used for development new variants of updates of the BE-4 engine.... just as the Raptor is evolving, I am sure that the BE-4 architecture could be evolved to a 1Mill lb thrust engine for perhaps .... New Armstrong? We will see!!
I think they will build new development version of BE4 in Kent. They've started working on BE4 block 2 already.
Notice now that even though one of the photo above has those same big monitors in full view, they are conveniently and probably quite intentionally not displaying that information.
OK... now the important question... with 38 confirmed orders for Vulcan/Kuiper [ as ULA have dropped their plans for helicopter recovery... I do not believe BE-4 engine recovery will happen during this... as it imposes too much risk...] that means Blue will need to deliver 76 engines; and with possibly four New Glenn booster, that means that program will need 28 engines.... which is a total of 104 engines ... while I believe that Blue has the manufacturing capacity... what would be the acceptance testing workflow ... that is an awful lot of engine testing for the Huntsville test stand [4670]: could the demand exceed availability ?Don't see why this should overload 4670. I believe acceptance testing is just one firing. They need to uncrate the engine, attach it, fire it, review the results, un-attach and re-crate it. So maybe the process takes 2 weeks (just a guess). That's 26 engines per year, or 4 years for 104 engines. That should be enough for the known Vulcan and New Glenn launches, and if the pace increases I'm sure the process can be streamlined.
Thank you so much for these pictures, Tory! When are they going to be installed? Do you have a timeline for tests on the Vulcan first stage?
Again, thank you for all the info we're getting!
Now in Texas. Static acceptance firing, then straight to Decatur for immediate installation
OK... now the important question... with 38 confirmed orders for Vulcan/Kuiper [ as ULA have dropped their plans for helicopter recovery... I do not believe BE-4 engine recovery will happen during this... as it imposes too much risk...] that means Blue will need to deliver 76 engines; and with possibly four New Glenn booster, that means that program will need 28 engines.... which is a total of 104 engines ... while I believe that Blue has the manufacturing capacity... what would be the acceptance testing workflow ... that is an awful lot of engine testing for the Huntsville test stand [4670]: could the demand exceed availability ?Don't see why this should overload 4670. I believe acceptance testing is just one firing. They need to uncrate the engine, attach it, fire it, review the results, un-attach and re-crate it. So maybe the process takes 2 weeks (just a guess). That's 26 engines per year, or 4 years for 104 engines. That should be enough for the known Vulcan and New Glenn launches, and if the pace increases I'm sure the process can be streamlined.
Means these engines will be delivered to ULA by mid to late august, and so first flight could be mid to late October!
Means these engines will be delivered to ULA by mid to late august, and so first flight could be mid to late October!
AIUI qual testing has to be completed before launch. Note I didn't say all qual tests have to pass (most times our qual tests had test failures that had to be mitigated and accepted by our customer before the system in question was given a flight cert.
Since as early as October 2019, the public plan of record has been that the first Vulcan launch would launch the Peregrine lander.Means these engines will be delivered to ULA by mid to late august, and so first flight could be mid to late October!
AIUI qual testing has to be completed before launch. Note I didn't say all qual tests have to pass (most times our qual tests had test failures that had to be mitigated and accepted by our customer before the system in question was given a flight cert.
I would be interested if you could elaborate in your opinion what qualification testing would be needed to undertaken to certify and release Vulcan for Launch? Also, for first launch, will Vulcan launch with a payload from a customer, or a dummy payload?
Means these engines will be delivered to ULA by mid to late august, and so first flight could be mid to late October!
AIUI qual testing has to be completed before launch. Note I didn't say all qual tests have to pass (most times our qual tests had test failures that had to be mitigated and accepted by our customer before the system in question was given a flight cert.
I would be interested if you could elaborate in your opinion what qualification testing would be needed to undertaken to certify and release Vulcan for Launch? Also, for first launch, will Vulcan launch with a payload from a customer, or a dummy payload?
I assume Vettedrmr was talking about the plan to run full qualification testing on the second flight pair of BE-4 engines, concurrently with acceptance testing and integration of the first pair onto the Vulcan slated to launch the Peregrine lander. With the idea that if qualification tests pass (for whatever definition of "pass" they choose), they'd fly Vulcan's first mission without having qualification-tested the specific engines for that flight.
I assume Vettedrmr was talking about the plan to run full qualification testing on the second flight pair of BE-4 engines, concurrently with acceptance testing and integration of the first pair onto the Vulcan slated to launch the Peregrine lander. With the idea that if qualification tests pass (for whatever definition of "pass" they choose), they'd fly Vulcan's first mission without having qualification-tested the specific engines for that flight.
Correct. In fact, the engines used for qual test may never fly if the qual tests go beyond operational limits. If the qual tests only go to the limits then they may be good for flight.
OK... now the important question... with 38 confirmed orders for Vulcan/Kuiper [ as ULA have dropped their plans for helicopter recovery... I do not believe BE-4 engine recovery will happen during this... as it imposes too much risk...] that means Blue will need to deliver 76 engines; and with possibly four New Glenn booster, that means that program will need 28 engines.... which is a total of 104 engines ... while I believe that Blue has the manufacturing capacity... what would be the acceptance testing workflow ... that is an awful lot of engine testing for the Huntsville test stand [4670]: could the demand exceed availability ?Don't see why this should overload 4670. I believe acceptance testing is just one firing. They need to uncrate the engine, attach it, fire it, review the results, un-attach and re-crate it. So maybe the process takes 2 weeks (just a guess). That's 26 engines per year, or 4 years for 104 engines. That should be enough for the known Vulcan and New Glenn launches, and if the pace increases I'm sure the process can be streamlined.
Yeah about right... about a week or two...
*snip tweet*
Means these engines will be delivered to ULA by mid to late august, and so first flight could be mid to late October!
Means these engines will be delivered to ULA by mid to late august, and so first flight could be mid to late October!
AIUI qual testing has to be completed before launch. Note I didn't say all qual tests have to pass (most times our qual tests had test failures that had to be mitigated and accepted by our customer before the system in question was given a flight cert.
I would be interested if you could elaborate in your opinion what qualification testing would be needed to undertaken to certify and release Vulcan for Launch? Also, for first launch, will Vulcan launch with a payload from a customer, or a dummy payload?
My experience is with fighter aircraft, so keep that in mind. Each subsystem has to complete its qual tests prior to flight. As I mentioned above, it's not that the tests have to be completely successful, but you've got to run all the tests so you can characterize how the given subsystem reacts to the various test stimuli.
So, IMO, the BE-4 flight configuration has to run the full qualification test suite, and any test failures will need to be accepted (usually with some operating limitations) by, in this case, ULA. Each BE-4 engine shipped to ULA will have to run all its acceptance tests, again with ULA's acceptance of any test fail mitigations.
One difference between qual and acceptance tests (again in my experience) is that acceptance tests usually test to the nominal limits, while qual tests will test all the edges of the operating envelope, so the acceptance tests are usually shorter in duration and not as stressful.
As far as what tests ULA needs to do on Vulcan, it should be similar for each subsystem.
HTH, and have a good one,
Mike
1..From your experience, what qualification tests do you think ULA will have to do to verify and validate Vulcan and BE-4 are operating correctly against the Vulcan design specifications?
2. Would they do Acceptance tests to certify that Vulcan is ready for launch, and if so, what would they be?
1..From your experience, what qualification tests do you think ULA will have to do to verify and validate Vulcan and BE-4 are operating correctly against the Vulcan design specifications?
2. Would they do Acceptance tests to certify that Vulcan is ready for launch, and if so, what would they be?
I assume Vettedrmr was talking about the plan to run full qualification testing on the second flight pair of BE-4 engines, concurrently with acceptance testing and integration of the first pair onto the Vulcan slated to launch the Peregrine lander. With the idea that if qualification tests pass (for whatever definition of "pass" they choose), they'd fly Vulcan's first mission without having qualification-tested the specific engines for that flight.
Yes.I assume Vettedrmr was talking about the plan to run full qualification testing on the second flight pair of BE-4 engines, concurrently with acceptance testing and integration of the first pair onto the Vulcan slated to launch the Peregrine lander. With the idea that if qualification tests pass (for whatever definition of "pass" they choose), they'd fly Vulcan's first mission without having qualification-tested the specific engines for that flight.
I might be confused on this. Isn't qualification testing for the design and manufacturing of the part and its system (stuff its attached to). So that it only is done once and not for every engine/widget made?
Side question - is it standard for all engines to be test fired before use (ignoring spacex which I know does this).Yes, if the engine design allows for being fired more than once. Not an option for solids, and not some liquid propellant engines. e.g. the NK-15 used pyrotechnic valves for simplicity and weight, but this meant that after ignition the engine would have needed to be disassembled and undergone major part replacement before it could be fired again (and all the new parts and reassembly process would then be untested, and you'd be back to square one).
I assume Vettedrmr was talking about the plan to run full qualification testing on the second flight pair of BE-4 engines, concurrently with acceptance testing and integration of the first pair onto the Vulcan slated to launch the Peregrine lander. With the idea that if qualification tests pass (for whatever definition of "pass" they choose), they'd fly Vulcan's first mission without having qualification-tested the specific engines for that flight.
I might be confused on this. Isn't qualification testing for the design and manufacturing of the part and its system (stuff its attached to). So that it only is done once and not for every engine/widget made?
Side question - is it standard for all engines to be test fired before use (ignoring spacex which I know does this).
1..From your experience, what qualification tests do you think ULA will have to do to verify and validate Vulcan and BE-4 are operating correctly against the Vulcan design specifications?
2. Would they do Acceptance tests to certify that Vulcan is ready for launch, and if so, what would they be?
The BE4 Flight engine #1 is in Texas for its acceptance firing. But I forgot to share this picture taken right before it left Kent. Standard Reference included for scale…
So the Flight Readiness Firing(FRF) that will be performed on the pad following the completed WDR is separate from engine qualification and acceptance testing?
1..From your experience, what qualification tests do you think ULA will have to do to verify and validate Vulcan and BE-4 are operating correctly against the Vulcan design specifications?
2. Would they do Acceptance tests to certify that Vulcan is ready for launch, and if so, what would they be?
The acceptance test for the BE-4 engine is a 500 second burn, which verifies the engine works and performs to spec. There will be some specific parameters they'd have to hit in terms of thrust, throttle setting, duration, etc. as you'd expect. Setting up the engine on the test stand, doing the burn, and tear down should not take very long to do.
Integration of the engines into the Vulcan rocket also won't take very long, it's the processing and testing after that's done, all the integrated testing that needs to be done once the booster and upper stages are combined, that will take some time, since it will be the first time that a Centaur V will be put through its paces on the launch pad.
The Vulcan acceptance test will be a completed Wet Dress Rehearsal on the launch pad.
There was a minor (but correctable) issue in testing the first BE-4 flight engine for Vulcan. May set the timeline back a week or so. ULA is still likely to take delivery of both engines during the next four to six weeks, allowing Vulcan to debut during the first half of 2023.
So the Flight Readiness Firing(FRF) that will be performed on the pad following the completed WDR is separate from engine qualification and acceptance testing?
1..From your experience, what qualification tests do you think ULA will have to do to verify and validate Vulcan and BE-4 are operating correctly against the Vulcan design specifications?
2. Would they do Acceptance tests to certify that Vulcan is ready for launch, and if so, what would they be?
The acceptance test for the BE-4 engine is a 500 second burn, which verifies the engine works and performs to spec. There will be some specific parameters they'd have to hit in terms of thrust, throttle setting, duration, etc. as you'd expect. Setting up the engine on the test stand, doing the burn, and tear down should not take very long to do.
Integration of the engines into the Vulcan rocket also won't take very long, it's the processing and testing after that's done, all the integrated testing that needs to be done once the booster and upper stages are combined, that will take some time, since it will be the first time that a Centaur V will be put through its paces on the launch pad.
The Vulcan acceptance test will be a completed Wet Dress Rehearsal on the launch pad.
What kind of duration will the FRF be? Shuttle was approx. 20 seconds in duration.
Correct, that's separate. Every engine built will have an acceptance firing, while the Vulcan is likely to do a FRF hot fire on the pad only once. Historically, this has been the case with most rockets, SpaceX is the odd one out.
The Delta IV FRF hot fire test was about 5 seconds.
There was a minor (but correctable) issue in testing the first BE-4 flight engine for Vulcan. May set the timeline back a week or so. ULA is still likely to take delivery of both engines during the next four to six weeks, allowing Vulcan to debut during the first half of 2023.
There was a minor (but correctable) issue in testing the first BE-4 flight engine for Vulcan. May set the timeline back a week or so. ULA is still likely to take delivery of both engines during the next four to six weeks, allowing Vulcan to debut during the first half of 2023.
4-6 weeks would be early-mid September. Still close, though!
Frasier Cain interviewed Tory Bruno today:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKVv9hasAyY
While some information has been repeated, such as BE-4 is going to exceed thrust and ISP, it also has some interesting insights on the first two flight BE-4s in Texas and 36:05, he mentions that in addition to those first two, that the next couple of pairs are being built in the factory (Huntsville?).
It is getting very close to Tory Bruno receiving into ULA factory the first of many BE-4 engines to come....I estimate it will be this week, or early next week.
It is getting very close to Tory Bruno receiving into ULA factory the first of many BE-4 engines to come....I estimate it will be this week, or early next week.
The issue mentioned in Eric Berger's tweet (see upthread) has set back the schedule a few weeks.
@blueorigin 's BE4 Flight Engine #2 is on the test stand in Texas for acceptance testing prior to installation on #Vulcan 's first flight vehicle. Should I get a picture for you guys? Any interest?
Ok, then. I spy a BE4 Flight Engine #2 on the test stand...
I don’t understand, why horizontal?:) Image fits on the screen better. :)
I guess I meant how does an engine that will only operationally ever fire in a vertical orientation benefit from testing in a horizontal orientation?
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1562090869158707200?t=szcy4Vj9LTqrku0eXUmOww&s=19
"OK. Going very well. Second flight engine is at the ATP hot fire stand in Texas. FE1 cold ATP found a minor assembly issue we wanted to adjust. It'll hot fire after FE2 is done. Pre-qual testing completed a few weeks ago. Super pleased with the results and BE4's performance."
I don’t understand, why horizontal?
I don’t understand, why horizontal?
Because it is easier. Don't need a flame trench. Orientation doesn't affect the engine operation
Well, SX DID build a Raptor vertical stand after their initial horizontal one. Maybe gimbal tests?I don’t understand, why horizontal?
Because it is easier. Don't need a flame trench. Orientation doesn't affect the engine operation
I don't know if that's 100% true. There was a comment from Elon a while back (if I recall correctly) where he mentioned some challenges with Raptor horizontal testing due to propellants pooling in wrong places.
It might not be a huge issue, and it's probably possible to design around it, but it's apparently not completely irrelevant.
Well, SX DID build a Raptor vertical stand after their initial horizontal one. Maybe gimbal tests?I don’t understand, why horizontal?
Because it is easier. Don't need a flame trench. Orientation doesn't affect the engine operation
I don't know if that's 100% true. There was a comment from Elon a while back (if I recall correctly) where he mentioned some challenges with Raptor horizontal testing due to propellants pooling in wrong places.
It might not be a huge issue, and it's probably possible to design around it, but it's apparently not completely irrelevant.
I don’t understand, why horizontal?
Because it is easier. Don't need a flame trench. Orientation doesn't affect the engine operation
I don't know if that's 100% true. There was a comment from Elon a while back (if I recall correctly) where he mentioned some challenges with Raptor horizontal testing due to propellants pooling in wrong places.
It might not be a huge issue, and it's probably possible to design around it, but it's apparently not completely irrelevant.
Harry Stranger is reporting the following regarding Flight Engine 2's test firing:Some higher resolution imagery of the possible test :)
https://twitter.com/nasaspaceflight/status/1564961942975938560
Hopefully Blue Origin and or Tory Bruno will give us an update regarding how well it went.
Big launch panel coming up at #WSBW, with executives from Arianespace, Blue Origin, ILS, MHI, SpaceX and ULA.
Mark Peller, ULA: making good progress on Vulcan, should get BE-4 flight engines in the “coming weeks” and then send it to the launch site. (Does not commit to a specific launch date for first Vulcan launch.)
Mark Peller, ULA: making good progress on Vulcan, should get BE-4 flight engines in the “coming weeks” and then send it to the launch site. (Does not commit to a specific launch date for first Vulcan launch.)
QuoteMark Peller, ULA: making good progress on Vulcan, should get BE-4 flight engines in the “coming weeks” and then send it to the launch site. (Does not commit to a specific launch date for first Vulcan launch.)
We have heard this before.....
QuoteMark Peller, ULA: making good progress on Vulcan, should get BE-4 flight engines in the “coming weeks” and then send it to the launch site. (Does not commit to a specific launch date for first Vulcan launch.)
We have heard this before.....
I tried to do a search of this thread on the number of hits on "week", but failed miserably.
BTW, does anyone know if FE-2 has run it's acceptance test firing?
Sources told Ars that the first engine was put onto the test stand in Texas early in August, but almost as soon as work began to hot-fire the powerful engine, an issue was discovered with the engine build. This necessitated a shipment back to Blue Origin's factory in mid-August, as the company's test stands in Texas do not allow for more than minor work.
As a result of this technical issue, ULA now appears likely to get one flight engine this month, but it probably will not receive the other one for installation onto the Vulcan rocket before mid-October, assuming a clean battery of tests in Texas.
Almost certainly, this will preclude the debut of the Vulcan rocket in 2022. It will simply not be possible for ULA to install and test the engines, move the rocket to Florida, and stand it up for launch in less than three months. However, Rye said that remains the company's goal. "ULA is planning for a launch by the end of the year," she said.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/09/as-summer-turns-to-fall-ula-still-waiting-for-its-be-4-rocket-engines/
QuoteSources told Ars that the first engine was put onto the test stand in Texas early in August, but almost as soon as work began to hot-fire the powerful engine, an issue was discovered with the engine build. This necessitated a shipment back to Blue Origin's factory in mid-August, as the company's test stands in Texas do not allow for more than minor work.
As a result of this technical issue, ULA now appears likely to get one flight engine this month, but it probably will not receive the other one for installation onto the Vulcan rocket before mid-October, assuming a clean battery of tests in Texas.
Almost certainly, this will preclude the debut of the Vulcan rocket in 2022. It will simply not be possible for ULA to install and test the engines, move the rocket to Florida, and stand it up for launch in less than three months. However, Rye said that remains the company's goal. "ULA is planning for a launch by the end of the year," she said.
I still would like to know when Berger spoke to Rye since buried deep in the article is this:
"In fact, the first flight engine had to be sent back to Blue Origin's production facilities in Kent, Washington, after a minor problem was found on the test stand. ULA's director of external communications, Jessica Rye, said the flight engine presently in Washington is expected to leave for Texas "shortly." She confirmed that the other flight engine is undergoing "final acceptance testing" in Texas before shipment to Alabama.
"We are very pleased with where we are from a technical standpoint with the new BE-4 engines, and its great performance," Rye said."
I still would like to know when Berger spoke to Rye since buried deep in the article is this:
"In fact, the first flight engine had to be sent back to Blue Origin's production facilities in Kent, Washington, after a minor problem was found on the test stand. ULA's director of external communications, Jessica Rye, said the flight engine presently in Washington is expected to leave for Texas "shortly." She confirmed that the other flight engine is undergoing "final acceptance testing" in Texas before shipment to Alabama.
"We are very pleased with where we are from a technical standpoint with the new BE-4 engines, and its great performance," Rye said."
1. The quote isn't "buried deep", it's in the first section.
2. Your answer is literally in the next paragraph (I'm assuming you really want to know when the problem was found, not when Berger talked to his source): early August.
For all we know, he talked to her several days ago and FE-1 is back in Texas and therefore it is prudent to keep an eye out for the telltale signs in the satellite of its ATP.
Were FE-1 tested on the same stand previously used for FE-2 would satellite imagery detect any additional change in the surrounding terrain?
Were FE-1 tested on the same stand previously used for FE-2 would satellite imagery detect any additional change in the surrounding terrain?
I do believe that the engines use the same test stand; otherwise we wouldn't have had the comments about FE-2 moving up in testing while FE-1 was/is being repaired.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-16/bezos-s-rocket-engine-nears-debut-ending-us-reliance-on-russia?leadSource=uverify%20wall
Since no press release has been made about FE-2 completing its acceptance testing (does anyone have an update?), I assume it's still on the stand. No idea if FE-1 is back on the stand in TX.All we really know is that FE-1 failed before even firing, that they switched to FE-2 and maybe fired it some, but that so far nobody said "FE-2 passed acceptable testing".
Since no press release has been made about FE-2 completing its acceptance testing (does anyone have an update?), I assume it's still on the stand. No idea if FE-1 is back on the stand in TX.All we really know is that FE-1 failed before even firing, that they switched to the FE-2 and maybe fired it some, but that so far nobody said "FE 2 passed acceptable testing".
Another week and we're into October.
Maybe FE-2 is ok but acceptable testing is taking a while since it's the first one. Maybe FE-1 is already fixed and is back on a second test stand. Maybe a lot of things, but there's no evidence to support any of them.
I'm hearing good things about Blue Origin's testing of the second BE-4 flight engine, which United Launch Alliance is eagerly waiting for. First flight engine should ship back to Texas soon. Hopefully Blue will release some images or video of the BE-4 in action
First flight engine should ship back to Texas soon.
First flight engine should ship back to Texas soon.
My initial thought was "dang, that "minor assembly issue" sure is taking a long time to correct. Then I look back and the tweet commenting on that was August 27th, so just about a month. Probably not too bad for shipping, receiving, correcting, verifying, etc.
IF FE-2's acceptance tests take a month, then hopefully FE-1 will complete by maybe Thanksgiving?
When will ULA have at least the first flight engine delivered to them?
First flight engine should ship back to Texas soon.
My initial thought was "dang, that "minor assembly issue" sure is taking a long time to correct. Then I look back and the tweet commenting on that was August 27th, so just about a month. Probably not too bad for shipping, receiving, correcting, verifying, etc.
IF FE-2's acceptance tests take a month, then hopefully FE-1 will complete by maybe Thanksgiving?
I think your initial thought is correct. Shipping? This is the most important visible thing going on in your company for a very important customer. If Blue didn't charter a flight to return the engine it better be because it can only be shipped on land. Even so, a day and a half back to Washington and receiving??? non existant - the engineers will be there waiting to escort it back to the build area for repair. So most of a month...for a "minor assembly issue". As I said, your initial thought is correct here.
Satellite imagery shows that Blue Origin fired a BE-4 engine sometime between the 22nd and 24th of September.
This is almost one month after the last sign of a firing, which occurred between the 26th and 27th of August.
This is also seen in Sentinel-2 imagery which you can browse on @soar_earth for free: api.soar.earth/short/s41r1417…
As usual, excellent observations by Harry:
twitter.com/harry__stranger/status/1575111924802416642QuoteSatellite imagery shows that Blue Origin fired a BE-4 engine sometime between the 22nd and 24th of September.
This is almost one month after the last sign of a firing, which occurred between the 26th and 27th of August.
https://twitter.com/harry__stranger/status/1575111940501667840QuoteThis is also seen in Sentinel-2 imagery which you can browse on @soar_earth for free: api.soar.earth/short/s41r1417…
Anybody feel like seeing a full Misson duration BE4 engine video?
Looks like the BE-4 flight engine two video I mentioned a few days ago is finally being released.
Found it! Ok, since you asked so nicely... here is a full duration @BlueOrigin #BE4 firing. #VulcanRocket #CountDownToVulcan. Enjoy...
Not stated: whether this was FE-1, FE-2, or a different engine. Although I suspect if this were one of the flight engines, that would have been made explicit. (That said, I'm not even sure if the final tests for those engines are supposed to be full duration, so possibly that alone tells us this isn't them.)
This is BE-4 flight engine two, shown here passing the first of two firing tests before it is shipped to ULA's facility in Alabama. After repairs, flight engine one should ship back to Texas for its tests soon.
Not stated: whether this was FE-1, FE-2, or a different engine. Although I suspect if this were one of the flight engines, that would have been made explicit. (That said, I'm not even sure if the final tests for those engines are supposed to be full duration, so possibly that alone tells us this isn't them.)
https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1575233586885689357QuoteThis is BE-4 flight engine two, shown here passing the first of two firing tests before it is shipped to ULA's facility in Alabama. After repairs, flight engine one should ship back to Texas for its tests soon.
Not stated: whether this was FE-1, FE-2, or a different engine. Although I suspect if this were one of the flight engines, that would have been made explicit. (That said, I'm not even sure if the final tests for those engines are supposed to be full duration, so possibly that alone tells us this isn't them.)
https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1575233586885689357QuoteThis is BE-4 flight engine two, shown here passing the first of two firing tests before it is shipped to ULA's facility in Alabama. After repairs, flight engine one should ship back to Texas for its tests soon.
Odd, Tory usually isn't shy about this kind of thing. But Eric knows his stuff, so I'll trust him on this.
(Also, note timestamps: I made my comment two minutes before Eric's tweet. Nonetheless, I thank you for bringing it to my attention.)
Not stated: whether this was FE-1, FE-2, or a different engine. Although I suspect if this were one of the flight engines, that would have been made explicit. (That said, I'm not even sure if the final tests for those engines are supposed to be full duration, so possibly that alone tells us this isn't them.)
Excellent video. Now for an episode of "let's teach Vettedrmr some stuff." Can someone tell me what was the white fluid being vented off from the left side (as looking down on the bell of the engine), and what does the yellow color of the exhaust mean?
TIA, and have a good one,
Mike
Not stated: whether this was FE-1, FE-2, or a different engine. Although I suspect if this were one of the flight engines, that would have been made explicit. (That said, I'm not even sure if the final tests for those engines are supposed to be full duration, so possibly that alone tells us this isn't them.)
https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1575233586885689357QuoteThis is BE-4 flight engine two, shown here passing the first of two firing tests before it is shipped to ULA's facility in Alabama. After repairs, flight engine one should ship back to Texas for its tests soon.
Odd, Tory usually isn't shy about this kind of thing. But Eric knows his stuff, so I'll trust him on this.
(Also, note timestamps: I made my comment two minutes before Eric's tweet. Nonetheless, I thank you for bringing it to my attention.)
Not stated: whether this was FE-1, FE-2, or a different engine. Although I suspect if this were one of the flight engines, that would have been made explicit. (That said, I'm not even sure if the final tests for those engines are supposed to be full duration, so possibly that alone tells us this isn't them.)
*snip tweet*QuoteThis is BE-4 flight engine two, shown here passing the first of two firing tests before it is shipped to ULA's facility in Alabama. After repairs, flight engine one should ship back to Texas for its tests soon.
Odd, Tory usually isn't shy about this kind of thing. But Eric knows his stuff, so I'll trust him on this.
(Also, note timestamps: I made my comment two minutes before Eric's tweet. Nonetheless, I thank you for bringing it to my attention.)
Something isn't quite right here. We were told that only one ATP was needed, so why now is it two?
Something isn't quite right here. We were told that only one ATP was needed, so why now is it two?
Did I hear a "honk" as it shut down?
Did I hear a "honk" as it shut down?I've heard rocket engines "honk" as they shutdown before. Back when the Rocket racing league was a trying to be a thing, one of their rocket powered planes was flying over the EAA AirVenture and would fire several burst during its flight. At each time the engine would shutdown, it would sound kind of like a "honk."
Something isn't quite right here. We were told that only one ATP was needed, so why now is it two?
I never heard anything about how many firings were required for the acceptance testing. Could be one firing for a nominal flight profile, one off-nominal.
That was the shutdown purge, a lot of XCOR engines did that.Did I hear a "honk" as it shut down?I've heard rocket engines "honk" as they shutdown before. Back when the Rocket racing league was a trying to be a thing, one of their rocket powered planes was flying over the EAA AirVenture and would fire several burst during its flight. At each time the engine would shutdown, it would sound kind of like a "honk."
As usual, excellent observations by Harry:It says something about BE-4 development that you can keep track of test firings with a calendar. With at least one competitor, you need a stopwatch (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=53555.msg2413891#msg2413891).
twitter.com/harry__stranger/status/1575111924802416642QuoteSatellite imagery shows that Blue Origin fired a BE-4 engine sometime between the 22nd and 24th of September.
This is almost one month after the last sign of a firing, which occurred between the 26th and 27th of August.
In fact, a calendar which only lets you write one entry per month would be sufficient...As usual, excellent observations by Harry:It says something about BE-4 development that you can keep track of test firings with a calendar. With at least one competitor, you need a stopwatch (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=53555.msg2413891#msg2413891).
twitter.com/harry__stranger/status/1575111924802416642QuoteSatellite imagery shows that Blue Origin fired a BE-4 engine sometime between the 22nd and 24th of September.
This is almost one month after the last sign of a firing, which occurred between the 26th and 27th of August.
Signs of possibly another testIt's hard to say for sure whether the BE-4 shown in this satellite image is the FE-1 or FE-2.
https://twitter.com/Harry__Stranger/status/1576563722708914178
It's hard to say for sure whether the BE-4 shown in this satellite image is the FE-1 or FE-2.
Outstanding! Now ULA can get started on integrating this engine (FE-2?) while the other goes through its acceptance tests.Once FE-1 passes acceptance tests and is delivered to ULA, the next step for ULA in preparing the Vulcan rocket for its first launch besides integrating the BE-4s is to wait for delivery of the Peregrine spacecraft.
The other step is actually getting Centaur V ready. Peregrine is actually unnecessary at this point since the mass simulator is built and can be flown in its place if needed.The question is how much time will they give Peregrine before they switch to the mass simulator after the whole launch vehicle is ready to go.
Vulcan's core booster has been ready for months. Blue Origin delivered its first BE-4 flight engine to ULA late last night, and Bruno expects the other engine to arrive in November after Blue had to fix a manufacturing defect. Targeting first Vulcan firings on FL pad in December
I'm a little fuzzy on the details. Wasn't the plan that there would be 4 engines, 2 for ULA, and 2 for further testing - which would happen at the same time as ULA getting Vulcan ready? So aren't there 2 more engines coming for stand testing?
I'm a little fuzzy on the details. Wasn't the plan that there would be 4 engines, 2 for ULA, and 2 for further testing - which would happen at the same time as ULA getting Vulcan ready? So aren't there 2 more engines coming for stand testing?
Yes, those engines are expected to undergo qualification testing, which AIUI are considerably more strenuous than the acceptance tests. THE UNSTATED expectation was that the two qualification engines have to complete their qual tests (i.e. don't skip anything), and the result of those tests have to be good enough to go forward with a launch.
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1579617777559949314Fast is last word to describe anything to do with BE4 program.
Prime delivery fast furious...
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1579617777559949314Fast is last word to describe anything to do with BE4 program.
Prime delivery fast furious...
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1579617777559949314
Prime delivery fast furious...
Confident in the performance and robustness of the engine?
It's great to see these beautiful BE-4s arrive in Decatur though!
Yes. Performing better than I expected
A bone fide victory party no less... This is entirely comic.
Tory’s view of BE-4:
twitter.com/kerballaunch/status/1579618172294270976QuoteConfident in the performance and robustness of the engine?
It's great to see these beautiful BE-4s arrive in Decatur though!
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1579620565819981824QuoteYes. Performing better than I expected
A bone fide victory party no less... This is entirely comic.
what could be very comical for their orbital party, is that the Starship, perhaps needing a Raptor 3...will see...
Don't forget the other Staged Combustion engine's development which began over 50 years ago for STS.Fast is last word to describe anything to do with BE4 program.
Prime delivery fast furious...
Let's see, when we see another engine like BE-4 in power, be ready for orbital flight...and compare the timeline...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Raptor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BE-4
Well, kind of, sort of, not quite operational.Don't forget the other Staged Combustion engine's development which began over 50 years ago for STS.Fast is last word to describe anything to do with BE4 program.
Prime delivery fast furious...
Let's see, when we see another engine like BE-4 in power, be ready for orbital flight...and compare the timeline...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Raptor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BE-4
RS-25
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-25#Development
It's a great time in spaceflight to have all 3 Staged Combustion engine variants in operational status. (Fuel Rich, Full Flow and Oxidizer Rich)
There's only one engine that's currently operational.(as of the time this post is time/date stamped)Well, kind of, sort of, not quite operational.Don't forget the other Staged Combustion engine's development which began over 50 years ago for STS.Fast is last word to describe anything to do with BE4 program.
Prime delivery fast furious...
Let's see, when we see another engine like BE-4 in power, be ready for orbital flight...and compare the timeline...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Raptor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BE-4
RS-25
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-25#Development
It's a great time in spaceflight to have all 3 Staged Combustion engine variants in operational status. (Fuel Rich, Full Flow and Oxidizer Rich)
I'd call it operational when there's an accepted flight set of engines, and they've completed qualification testing.
It's not a bad idea to wait for completion of a first flight either.
Well, kind of, sort of, not quite operational.
I'd call it operational when there's an accepted flight set of engines, and they've completed qualification testing.
It's not a bad idea to wait for completion of a first flight either.
Yup. Crew Dragon was not operational until Crew-1. Starliner will not be operational until Starliner-1. NSSL will not consider Vulcan Centaur to be operational until after the first two successful flights. by historical analogy, SLS/Orion should not be considered operational until Artemis III at the earliest. I shudder to think how NASA and launch customers will evaluate the operational status of Starship, given SpaceX' testing philosophy. Elon appears to think that many flights will be needed prior to "operational" crew certification, although I guess the engine's status is evaluated differently.Well, kind of, sort of, not quite operational.
I'd call it operational when there's an accepted flight set of engines, and they've completed qualification testing.
It's not a bad idea to wait for completion of a first flight either.
To me, "operational" means "in service". So neither BE-4 nor Raptor are "operational". Heck, NASA didn't call the Shuttle operational until STS-5.
Agreed. I never said Raptor was operational.There's only one engine that's currently operational.(as of the time this post is time/date stamped)Well, kind of, sort of, not quite operational.Don't forget the other Staged Combustion engine's development which began over 50 years ago for STS.Fast is last word to describe anything to do with BE4 program.
Prime delivery fast furious...
Let's see, when we see another engine like BE-4 in power, be ready for orbital flight...and compare the timeline...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Raptor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BE-4
RS-25
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-25#Development
It's a great time in spaceflight to have all 3 Staged Combustion engine variants in operational status. (Fuel Rich, Full Flow and Oxidizer Rich)
I'd call it operational when there's an accepted flight set of engines, and they've completed qualification testing.
It's not a bad idea to wait for completion of a first flight either.
Alas, the nits are there to be picked and enthusiasm to be doused-fixed.
But certainly if the first acceptance article is so broken that it basically has to be returned to sender before being fired, you've got issues.
But certainly if the first acceptance article is so broken that it basically has to be returned to sender before being fired, you've got issues.
Wait, does the general public know if this accurately reflects events? For all I've seen they might have taken this engine all the way to ignition and it shut itself down before, you know, the mach diamonds formed in the exhaust.
Why would they run over their own cat? They're slow, not evil!But certainly if the first acceptance article is so broken that it basically has to be returned to sender before being fired, you've got issues.
Wait, does the general public know if this accurately reflects events? For all I've seen they might have taken this engine all the way to ignition and it shut itself down before, you know, the mach diamonds formed in the exhaust.
MeekGee posts like Blue Origin as a company personified and ran over their cat 20 years ago.
As far as we can tell there was a minor issue, and it was sent back
Why would they run over their own cat? They're slow, not evil!But certainly if the first acceptance article is so broken that it basically has to be returned to sender before being fired, you've got issues.
Wait, does the general public know if this accurately reflects events? For all I've seen they might have taken this engine all the way to ignition and it shut itself down before, you know, the mach diamonds formed in the exhaust.
MeekGee posts like Blue Origin as a company personified and ran over their cat 20 years ago.
As far as we can tell there was a minor issue, and it was sent back
And I never said it was a major issue. I said it was rejected by ULA, and whatever it was ULA found, somehow BO missed it on OQC.
For a highly controlled product, where all inspections are so well defined, it's not something you should see, unless it was damaged in transit, and I haven't seen any such language used in describing the problem.
BE-4 is still evolving as well. The current iteration is not reusable, even if you figure out a SMART way to get them back after launch.Why would they run over their own cat? They're slow, not evil!But certainly if the first acceptance article is so broken that it basically has to be returned to sender before being fired, you've got issues.
Wait, does the general public know if this accurately reflects events? For all I've seen they might have taken this engine all the way to ignition and it shut itself down before, you know, the mach diamonds formed in the exhaust.
MeekGee posts like Blue Origin as a company personified and ran over their cat 20 years ago.
As far as we can tell there was a minor issue, and it was sent back
And I never said it was a major issue. I said it was rejected by ULA, and whatever it was ULA found, somehow BO missed it on OQC.
For a highly controlled product, where all inspections are so well defined, it's not something you should see, unless it was damaged in transit, and I haven't seen any such language used in describing the problem.
But you imply it...
No problem when the "slow" Blue gets up and running and flies the "problematic" BE-4...the "fast" and "efficient and perfect" Raptor may still be evolving...
We'll see...
BE-4 is still evolving as well. The current iteration is not reusable, even if you figure out a SMART way to get them back after launch.
Errr.. imply what exactly? and where? You're losing me. I think you even forgot what you wanted to say except "BE4 shiny".Why would they run over their own cat? They're slow, not evil!But certainly if the first acceptance article is so broken that it basically has to be returned to sender before being fired, you've got issues.
Wait, does the general public know if this accurately reflects events? For all I've seen they might have taken this engine all the way to ignition and it shut itself down before, you know, the mach diamonds formed in the exhaust.
MeekGee posts like Blue Origin as a company personified and ran over their cat 20 years ago.
As far as we can tell there was a minor issue, and it was sent back
And I never said it was a major issue. I said it was rejected by ULA, and whatever it was ULA found, somehow BO missed it on OQC.
For a highly controlled product, where all inspections are so well defined, it's not something you should see, unless it was damaged in transit, and I haven't seen any such language used in describing the problem.
But you imply it...
No problem when the "slow" Blue gets up and running and flies the "problematic" BE-4...the "fast" and "efficient and perfect" Raptor may still be evolving...
We'll see...
BE-4 is still evolving as well. The current iteration is not reusable, even if you figure out a SMART way to get them back after launch.Why would they run over their own cat? They're slow, not evil!But certainly if the first acceptance article is so broken that it basically has to be returned to sender before being fired, you've got issues.
Wait, does the general public know if this accurately reflects events? For all I've seen they might have taken this engine all the way to ignition and it shut itself down before, you know, the mach diamonds formed in the exhaust.
MeekGee posts like Blue Origin as a company personified and ran over their cat 20 years ago.
As far as we can tell there was a minor issue, and it was sent back
And I never said it was a major issue. I said it was rejected by ULA, and whatever it was ULA found, somehow BO missed it on OQC.
For a highly controlled product, where all inspections are so well defined, it's not something you should see, unless it was damaged in transit, and I haven't seen any such language used in describing the problem.
But you imply it...
No problem when the "slow" Blue gets up and running and flies the "problematic" BE-4...the "fast" and "efficient and perfect" Raptor may still be evolving...
We'll see...
Single BE-4s have been test fired many times each and for thousands of seconds in total. Therefore, BE-4 is reusable. All the more the shame that Vulcan SMART is not ready.The quote above stated the qualification engine has been fired for 2,500 seconds. For a single Vulcan mission (assuming an Atlas-like profile) the booster phase lasts about 257 seconds. So they have tested the BE-4 out to about 10 missions. But Blue intends to use each first stage 25 times (https://www.blueorigin.com/about-blue/). So they have not yet tested BE-4 in the way they intend to use on their reusable booster. Of course this does not mean it cannot do it - I'm sure that at this time, they've concentrated on what they need to do make sure the engine lasts for one flight, not 25.
Single BE-4s have been test fired many times each and for thousands of seconds in total. Therefore, BE-4 is reusable. All the more the shame that Vulcan SMART is not ready.The quote above stated the qualification engine has been fired for 2,500 seconds. For a single Vulcan mission (assuming an Atlas-like profile) the booster phase lasts about 257 seconds. So they have tested the BE-4 out to about 10 missions. But Blue intends to use each first stage 25 times (https://www.blueorigin.com/about-blue/). So they have not yet tested BE-4 in the way they intend to use on their reusable booster. Of course this does not mean it cannot do it - I'm sure that at this time, they've concentrated on what they need to do make sure the engine lasts for one flight, not 25.
PQE-900 accumulated over 5,000 seconds of test & 36 starts [...]Sure, Blue working on it, but even 5,000 seconds is not enough for what they intend. SpaceX qualifies parts for 15 launches by subjecting each component to 4x the lifetime expected. By this standard, at least one BE-4 should be tested to 25,000 seconds and 200 starts (assuming 2 starts per reusable mission).
But certainly if the first acceptance article is so broken that it basically has to be returned to sender before being fired, you've got issues.
What was it that ULA did that BO couldn't have caught before shipping it out? This was the first article, the one that had all eyes on, 110% scrutiny and all.
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1580014463318601728QuoteI had to step in for Standard Brian today. He was busy building rockets elsewhere in the plant. (And, I can neither confirm nor deny rumors that I was seen hugging this @blueorigin BE4 flight engine in Decatur moments before). #VulcanRocket #CountdowntoVulcan
PQE-900 accumulated over 5,000 seconds of test & 36 starts [...]Sure, Blue working on it, but even 5,000 seconds is not enough for what they intend. SpaceX qualifies parts for 15 launches by subjecting each component to 4x the lifetime expected. By this standard, at least one BE-4 should be tested to 25,000 seconds and 200 starts (assuming 2 starts per reusable mission).
X number of seconds, but we don't know the power levels or other constraints during that time frame. How many of those seconds were actually launch conditions? Its 100% blind guess work because Blue hides everything. Thus the reason we doubt everything is perfect because Blue would be crowing that everything was perfect if it was.PQE-900 accumulated over 5,000 seconds of test & 36 starts [...]Sure, Blue working on it, but even 5,000 seconds is not enough for what they intend. SpaceX qualifies parts for 15 launches by subjecting each component to 4x the lifetime expected. By this standard, at least one BE-4 should be tested to 25,000 seconds and 200 starts (assuming 2 starts per reusable mission).
It seems that you are pushing the goal posts further to the right. The point is that BE-4 is very reusable, for dozens of starts and therefore the loss of the engines on Vulcan after they are used to power a mission is a waste.
X number of seconds, but we don't know the power levels or other constraints during that time frame. How many of those seconds were actually launch conditions? Its 100% blind guess work because Blue hides everything. Thus the reason we doubt everything is perfect because Blue would be crowing that everything was perfect if it was.PQE-900 accumulated over 5,000 seconds of test & 36 starts [...]Sure, Blue working on it, but even 5,000 seconds is not enough for what they intend. SpaceX qualifies parts for 15 launches by subjecting each component to 4x the lifetime expected. By this standard, at least one BE-4 should be tested to 25,000 seconds and 200 starts (assuming 2 starts per reusable mission).
It seems that you are pushing the goal posts further to the right. The point is that BE-4 is very reusable, for dozens of starts and therefore the loss of the engines on Vulcan after they are used to power a mission is a waste.
PQE-900 accumulated over 5,000 seconds of test & 36 starts [...]Sure, Blue working on it, but even 5,000 seconds is not enough for what they intend. SpaceX qualifies parts for 15 launches by subjecting each component to 4x the lifetime expected. By this standard, at least one BE-4 should be tested to 25,000 seconds and 200 starts (assuming 2 starts per reusable mission).
X number of seconds, but we don't know the power levels or other constraints during that time frame. How many of those seconds were actually launch conditions? Its 100% blind guess work because Blue hides everything. Thus the reason we doubt everything is perfect because Blue would be crowing that everything was perfect if it was.PQE-900 accumulated over 5,000 seconds of test & 36 starts [...]Sure, Blue working on it, but even 5,000 seconds is not enough for what they intend. SpaceX qualifies parts for 15 launches by subjecting each component to 4x the lifetime expected. By this standard, at least one BE-4 should be tested to 25,000 seconds and 200 starts (assuming 2 starts per reusable mission).
It seems that you are pushing the goal posts further to the right. The point is that BE-4 is very reusable, for dozens of starts and therefore the loss of the engines on Vulcan after they are used to power a mission is a waste.
Here's what I think I know. Please correct me where I'm wrong:
1. One motor (call it FE-2) has completed acceptance testing and has been shipped to ULA
2. One motor (call it FE-1) had a problem that was found at the test stand prior to firing, was significant enough that repairs couldn't be affected at the test site, was shipped back for repairs. I haven't seen that it's been returned to the test site, but not sure about that.
3. Plans are for two additional flight configuration motors to undergo qualification testing, but I've not heard if that testing has actually started or not (my guess is "No").
What do we know that I need to add to that list?
Have a good one,
Mike
That adds or adjusts nothing, but merely restates that there is one engine that has passed acceptance testing and has been delivered (FE-2), one that has not yet passed acceptance testing (FE-1), and none so that have passed qual testing (which may or may not be ongoing, as we do not know whether the plume changes observed are part of a qual testing programme or an acceptance testing programme).Here's what I think I know. Please correct me where I'm wrong:
1. One motor (call it FE-2) has completed acceptance testing and has been shipped to ULA
2. One motor (call it FE-1) had a problem that was found at the test stand prior to firing, was significant enough that repairs couldn't be affected at the test site, was shipped back for repairs. I haven't seen that it's been returned to the test site, but not sure about that.
3. Plans are for two additional flight configuration motors to undergo qualification testing, but I've not heard if that testing has actually started or not (my guess is "No").
What do we know that I need to add to that list?
Have a good one,
Mike
Let me, ahem, make some adjustments to your information:
* FE-1 was delivered down to Corn Ranch Texas first. It was found during cold ATP to have a problem and was sent back to the factory in Kent.
* FE-2 was delivered about two weeks later and has undergone a very rigorous set of ATP tests, all apparently very successfully and was then shipped to ULA's factory in Decatur, Alabama for integration with the Vulcan 1st stage core.
* We do know that pre-qual testing wrapped up about two months ago, per Tory Bruno.
* Qual testing has possibly been going on since there have been more testing firings confirmed to have happened (See Harry Stranger's posted satellite imagery)
* Word has it FE-1 is back and is also undergoing testing.
Here's what I think I know. Please correct me where I'm wrong:
1. One motor (call it FE-2) has completed acceptance testing and has been shipped to ULA
2. One motor (call it FE-1) had a problem that was found at the test stand prior to firing, was significant enough that repairs couldn't be affected at the test site, was shipped back for repairs. I haven't seen that it's been returned to the test site, but not sure about that.
3. Plans are for two additional flight configuration motors to undergo qualification testing, but I've not heard if that testing has actually started or not (my guess is "No").
What do we know that I need to add to that list?
Have a good one,
Mike
Let me, ahem, make some adjustments to your information:
* FE-1 was delivered down to Corn Ranch Texas first. It was found during cold ATP to have a problem and was sent back to the factory in Kent.
* FE-2 was delivered about two weeks later and has undergone a very rigorous set of ATP tests, all apparently very successfully and was then shipped to ULA's factory in Decatur, Alabama for integration with the Vulcan 1st stage core.
* We do know that pre-qual testing wrapped up about two months ago, per Tory Bruno.
* Qual testing has possibly been going on since there have been more testing firings confirmed to have happened (See Harry Stranger's posted satellite imagery)
* Word has it FE-1 is back and is also undergoing testing.
Blue Origin's development pace for this engine makes NASA's development pace of the SLS look positively speedy (yawn!!). Wake me when they actually have a DELIVERED - fully operational product - that actually flies. Be gentle when you shake me. Old age may have made me fragile by then.
Nice BE-4 shot at ULA:https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1580014463318601728QuoteI had to step in for Standard Brian today. He was busy building rockets elsewhere in the plant. (And, I can neither confirm nor deny rumors that I was seen hugging this @blueorigin BE4 flight engine in Decatur moments before). #VulcanRocket #CountdowntoVulcan
Man is my OCD for neatness losing it looking at the all the pipes and wires on that engine. That is the most complex tangle of stuff I've seen on a rocket engine in years.
Man is my OCD for neatness losing it looking at the all the pipes and wires on that engine. That is the most complex tangle of stuff I've seen on a rocket engine in years.
My experience in the test flight industry is that, for first flight articles, there's a lot of additional instrumentation that won't be there on the production articles.
Man is my OCD for neatness losing it looking at the all the pipes and wires on that engine. That is the most complex tangle of stuff I've seen on a rocket engine in years.
My experience in the test flight industry is that, for first flight articles, there's a lot of additional instrumentation that won't be there on the production articles.
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1580508306887520257?t=Cm0ErwhSYtXrZjbjIPPOlw&s=19
What does ATP mean?
Here's what I think I know. Please correct me where I'm wrong:
1. One motor (call it FE-2) has completed acceptance testing and has been shipped to ULA
2. One motor (call it FE-1) had a problem that was found at the test stand prior to firing, was significant enough that repairs couldn't be affected at the test site, was shipped back for repairs. I haven't seen that it's been returned to the test site, but not sure about that.
3. Plans are for two additional flight configuration motors to undergo qualification testing, but I've not heard if that testing has actually started or not (my guess is "No").
What do we know that I need to add to that list?
Have a good one,
Mike
Let me, ahem, make some adjustments to your information:
* FE-1 was delivered down to Corn Ranch Texas first. It was found during cold ATP to have a problem and was sent back to the factory in Kent.
* FE-2 was delivered about two weeks later and has undergone a very rigorous set of ATP tests, all apparently very successfully and was then shipped to ULA's factory in Decatur, Alabama for integration with the Vulcan 1st stage core.
* We do know that pre-qual testing wrapped up about two months ago, per Tory Bruno.
* Qual testing has possibly been going on since there have been more testing firings confirmed to have happened (See Harry Stranger's posted satellite imagery)
* Word has it FE-1 is back and is also undergoing testing.
You amended nothing, just did the job of BOs PR department.
- Added "very" before positive adjectives.
- Replaced "didn't do qual tests" with "completed pre-qual tests".
- Added two rumors at the end.
The facts remain unchanged though.
EDIT: Ninja'd by Edzieba
First of all, he did exactly what I said he did.
You amended nothing, just did the job of BOs PR department.
- Added "very" before positive adjectives.
- Replaced "didn't do qual tests" with "completed pre-qual tests".
- Added two rumors at the end.
The facts remain unchanged though.
EDIT: Ninja'd by Edzieba
It did change and he was right.
https://twitter.com/hubert25696308/status/1580275622202421249
First of all, he did exactly what I said he did.
You amended nothing, just did the job of BOs PR department.
- Added "very" before positive adjectives.
- Replaced "didn't do qual tests" with "completed pre-qual tests".
- Added two rumors at the end.
The facts remain unchanged though.
EDIT: Ninja'd by Edzieba
It did change and he was right.
https://twitter.com/hubert25696308/status/1580275622202421249
But more importantly:
Back a few years ago, I would look at the ULA supporters going through verbal gymnastics to prove how reusability was bunk, vertical integration was stupid and generally SpaceX was actually behind and not a threat to ULA.
It didn't matter what those posters thought. What mattered was that they echoed the sentiments from ULA HQ. And that caused ULA management to make bad (in)decisions, and they've landed where they did.
So the current group of BO enthusiasts here can spend all day proving to themselves how BE-4 is ahead of Raptor, and how NG is almost flying. In and of itself, it's entertaining and harmless.
But if the sentiment at BO HQ is similar, then to quote Han Solo, it's going to be a very short ride for them.
BO (and ULA) needs to exhibit the same kind of urgency that ironically SpaceX exhibits...
First of all, he did exactly what I said he did.
First of all, he did exactly what I said he did.
You amended nothing, just did the job of BOs PR department.
- Added "very" before positive adjectives.
- Replaced "didn't do qual tests" with "completed pre-qual tests".
- Added two rumors at the end.
The facts remain unchanged though.
EDIT: Ninja'd by Edzieba
It did change and he was right.
twitter (https://twitter.com/hubert25696308/status/1580275622202421249)
But more importantly:
Back a few years ago, I would look at the ULA supporters going through verbal gymnastics to prove how reusability was bunk, vertical integration was stupid and generally SpaceX was actually behind and not a threat to ULA.
It didn't matter what those posters thought. What mattered was that they echoed the sentiments from ULA HQ. And that caused ULA management to make bad (in)decisions, and they've landed where they did.
So the current group of BO enthusiasts here can spend all day proving to themselves how BE-4 is ahead of Raptor, and how NG is almost flying. In and of itself, it's entertaining and harmless.
But if the sentiment at BO HQ is similar, then to quote Han Solo, it's going to be a very short ride for them.
BO (and ULA) needs to exhibit the same kind of urgency that ironically SpaceX exhibits...
No, he did not. I do find it intriguing that a point he made about FE-1 being back in Texas and undergoing ATP (in line with independent watcher Harry Stranger's work with the satellite imagery that shows test firings that are not from FE-2 and the only other thing it could be besides FE-1 are qualification engine firings) has been now directly verified.
This is no worse than the entertainment provided by the SpaceX fans telling me that any day of any week of any year is when Starship and Super Heavy will fly. This time for sure. What matters, because know that in something as difficult as spaceflight, that the schedule will always slide to the right. But what bothers me greatly is when people, like yourself, jump in, attack and do not provide any meaningful insight or criticism, especially when the person you attack are balanced and fair towards Blue Origin and ULA.
You seem to enjoy doing that. That is sadistic and it is shameful that the NASA Spaceflight moderators do not recognize what you are doing.
More disgusting, you do not recognize when real progress is being made. I make note of it, no matter who it is; SpaceX, Blue Origin, NASA, Firefly Aerospace, Astrobotics, Masten Aerospace, Stoke, Astra Aerospace, Roscosmos, Virgin Galactic, China National Space Administration, etc.
Has Blue Origin delivered an flight, production engine? Yes. Is FE-1 undergoing testing at XEEx in Texas again? Yes. Are there ways to verify it independently? Yes.
I do not understand how you can be so petty that you cannot acknowledge such things.
They didnt have the money to make a reusable launch vehicle, unless said reusable launch vehicle was suborbital.That's an old argument, a tale twice told, and it's probably better rehashed in a different thread.
There’s a BE4 vs Raptor thread for all of the super tiresome methane engine wars/discussions. Can we leave this one just for BE4?Probably not.
True, but I'll promise to abstain until there's something new to talk about.There’s a BE4 vs Raptor thread for all of the super tiresome methane engine wars/discussions. Can we leave this one just for BE4?Probably not.
Oh, I get that entirely. I know, I was there. But I also recognize that Apollo as a program had a in adjusted for inflation terms a mind boggling quarter trillion dollars in funding!
It's staggering when you think of that!
Now, in todays terms, 33 gigabucks for SLS and Orion sounds like a bargain. And what SpaceX and Blue Origin have done with their resources to produce BE-4 and Raptor and have success in producing methlox engines that use two different approaches and are far cheaper than Old Space is nothing short of astounding. Even 30 years ago, if some came to you and told you that two 2 meganewton engines were produced for so little, by private companies, and within 10 years with sci-fi technology like 3D printing... well... you'd probably be dismissed in all but a few little corners of the industry as a naïve dreamer at best and a kook at worst.
And keep in mind, no matter what the SpaceX fans and Bezo haters think, Blue has actually gotten far less overall funding over the decades than SpaceX has. That effects speed. Part of that is Bezo's fault for not finding customers earlier, as Elon did, but that's what it is. I wish that Blue had been able to stay in Commercial Crew and developed the much smaller rocket they were planning to loft their biconic capsule with. Again, that's water under the bridge. We can't change that now and it's either give up or keep moving forward. If they keep moving on, it's because they see past the hell they're in. It might be hope or they may walk into another hell.
Only the people that keep moving forward will know.
Finally, it's been solidly confirmed now that BE-4 FE-1 is back in Texas and finally doing its ATP. We can't say with a 100% confirmation that the mystery test firings that Harry's posted the satellite photos of are FE-1, but given the timing of when we were told the engine would be back, and now thanks to Tory's tweet, I'd say it's a real possibility.
Blue Origin did start work on an orbital class rocket. Its name is New Glenn. Unfortunately, it can be argued that it was far too much to take on.Why Blue Origin started design work on the New Glenn rocket a year after conceiving the BE-4 remains puzzling. Blue Origin might have privately stressed that the New Glenn, being designed to be powered by the BE-4, would need to wait several years to reach design maturity in order to enter full-scale development. Indeed, delays in the BE-4 program and the fact that Blue Origin has just delivered the first BE-4 engines qualified for flight to ULA shows that Blue Origin might have started contemplating a privately-funded design for a mega SLV as assurance against delays in the SLS program.
I personally believe, based on the images seen in original Commercial Crew Program slides, that New Shepard was intended to be the basis for a medium class rocket in the Atlas V and Falcon 9 v.1 range, and it is known that the BE-3s being developed for New Shepard were to power that vehicle. With respect to BE-4, I am of the suspicion it was intended for what might be New Armstrong. It only was changed in priority later.
The additional challenges of taking on ULA's requirements for BE-4 was indeed a mistake, and it is why I think that Elon Musk and SpaceX generally avoid offering Raptor or any of their other engines out since that could mean someone trying to impose too many requirements on it. BE-4 changes in performance seem to have had a huge knock on effect where New Glenn's design is concerned, and it has had an effect in delaying both engine and rocket far more than intended.
But with little government funding for either engine or rocket, I can understand why the gamble was taken, for right or wrong.
...Blue Origin has just delivered the first BE-4 engines qualified for flight to ULA...
BO is going to qual test two other engines separately. Once those qual tests are passed then the engines at ULA (assuming BO doesn't have to do any design changes to the qual test engines) will be qualified for flight.
Quote from:BO is going to qual test two other engines separately. Once those qual tests are passed then the engines at ULA (assuming BO doesn't have to do any design changes to the qual test engines) will be qualified for flight.
We do not know if the qualification testing has been in parallel with the flight engines' acceptance tests. The firings seen the satellite images provided by Harry Stranger indicates there have been tests conducted very recently that cannot be tied directly to those done for FE-2 and may either be FE-1 or the qualification engine that is intended to qualify FE-2.
Highly doubtful they are happening at the same time. That would require 4 engines to be complete already. They had to give the first 2 to ULA right away because vulcan still requires alot of integration with the engines as well as its the first time.Quote from:BO is going to qual test two other engines separately. Once those qual tests are passed then the engines at ULA (assuming BO doesn't have to do any design changes to the qual test engines) will be qualified for flight.
We do not know if the qualification testing has been in parallel with the flight engines' acceptance tests. The firings seen the satellite images provided by Harry Stranger indicates there have been tests conducted very recently that cannot be tied directly to those done for FE-2 and may either be FE-1 or the qualification engine that is intended to qualify FE-2.
Also, if there was 4 fully completed engines, Blue would've been posting about it.They haven't exactly been the most transparent company about what they do. So I wouldn't count on them posting about it whenever they get to that point.
They went from We are preparing for acceptance test of the BE-4 in may to acceptance test finished and off to ULA like 3 days ago. What Blue origin says is completely randomHighly doubtful they are happening at the same time. That would require 4 engines to be complete already. They had to give the first 2 to ULA right away because vulcan still requires alot of integration with the engines as well as its the first time.Quote from:BO is going to qual test two other engines separately. Once those qual tests are passed then the engines at ULA (assuming BO doesn't have to do any design changes to the qual test engines) will be qualified for flight.
We do not know if the qualification testing has been in parallel with the flight engines' acceptance tests. The firings seen the satellite images provided by Harry Stranger indicates there have been tests conducted very recently that cannot be tied directly to those done for FE-2 and may either be FE-1 or the qualification engine that is intended to qualify FE-2.
Also, if there was 4 fully completed engines, Blue would've been posting about it.
This is a reasonable comment, but I think it reflects different development methods. SpaceX first tested their engine for a single mission, though planning for re-use. This is where Blue is now.I'd like to see the citation that shows SpaceX tested the Merlin 1D to 200 starts / 25,000 seconds prior to its first flight in 2013.PQE-900 accumulated over 5,000 seconds of test & 36 starts [...]Sure, Blue working on it, but even 5,000 seconds is not enough for what they intend. SpaceX qualifies parts for 15 launches by subjecting each component to 4x the lifetime expected. By this standard, at least one BE-4 should be tested to 25,000 seconds and 200 starts (assuming 2 starts per reusable mission).
So the next pair of BE-4 engines, the ones that will go through the qual tests, which will retroactively qual FE-1 and FE-2, what will those be called? Will they be used for the next Vulcan flight? Or only for the “side-qual” of FE1&2? Will they be FE-3 & FE-4? Or QE-1 & QE-2 maybe?
My guess is that the Qualification engines will go to the New Glenn assembly building for engineering test fits and etc., while Vulcan gets the next couple sets of Flight engines.
ULA might want the Qual engines for Vulcan, but probably not. Blue Origin's Huntsville production facility should be ready to start cranking out Flight engines.
This is a reasonable comment, but I think it reflects different development methods. SpaceX first tested their engine for a single mission, though planning for re-use. This is where Blue is now.I'd like to see the citation that shows SpaceX tested the Merlin 1D to 200 starts / 25,000 seconds prior to its first flight in 2013.PQE-900 accumulated over 5,000 seconds of test & 36 starts [...]Sure, Blue working on it, but even 5,000 seconds is not enough for what they intend. SpaceX qualifies parts for 15 launches by subjecting each component to 4x the lifetime expected. By this standard, at least one BE-4 should be tested to 25,000 seconds and 200 starts (assuming 2 starts per reusable mission).
Then once they recovered a booster, they fired it for 8 mission profiles on the test stand (if I recall right). Then they announced it was surely good for reflight. But they did not freeze this as the final design - they also made engine changes as a result of looking at the recovered engines.
Since then, as they do more testing, they keep upping the booster mission limit. A year ago it was 10 missions, but a recent AvWeek article described how they are raising it to 15 by doing additional testing of 4x the expected duration, and still tweaking the engines in the process.
Blue, on the other hand, seems to set requirements first, then design to them. So since they've set a goal of 25 missions, I'd expect them to test the engines to that duration, then freeze the design.
Both of these design philosophies are matters of degree. I'm sure SpaceX tries to limit the number of design changes, and I equally sure Blue will incorporate lessons learned once they get recovered boosters back. But it is consistent with both companies development philosophies to expect Blue to do testing to the final requirements up front, and SpaceX to do so incrementally as needed.
My guess is that the Qualification engines will go to the New Glenn assembly building for engineering test fits and etc., while Vulcan gets the next couple sets of Flight engines.
ULA might want the Qual engines for Vulcan, but probably not. Blue Origin's Huntsville production facility should be ready to start cranking out Flight engines.
The plan was (dang, what, 15+ months ago?) was to concurrently test two flight-configuration engines through qual tests and two through ATP. AIUI Vulcan can't fly until both the qual and acceptance tests are completed and test failures characterized.
Qual tests are typically more rigorous and potentially damaging than acceptance tests, usually rendering the qual units unfit for delivery.
Whether that test plan has changed or not IDK. If anyone knows anything different I'd like to know.
Have a good one,
Mike
Also, I've seen comments that say the current version of the BE-4 is not capable of relight in flight, a capability it will need to have for New Glenn. IOW there will need to be some modifications to the BE-4 design for the New Glenn.Yes. The BE-4 Block 2 has been confirmed by ULA.
BE-4 is also confirmed by Blue Origin. They want to achieve 100 flights on one engine.
A look at how far things have come.
1. First development engine delivered. Note the orange harnesses.
2. Pathfinder core with the two development engines installed.
3. Flight Engine-2 delivered. Note far few harnesses.
4. FE-2 installed.
There is quite a bit of piping that has changed, new manifold sections that bolt together that didn't on the first engine, way more cables wrapped in insulation. All of which makes sense being those old engines had been handed to ULA quite a while ago at this point.Can you mark which pipes was changed, because I can't see any difference?
There is quite a bit of piping that has changed, new manifold sections that bolt together that didn't on the first engine, way more cables wrapped in insulation. All of which makes sense being those old engines had been handed to ULA quite a while ago at this point.Can you mark which pipes was changed, because I can't see any difference?
There is quite a bit of piping that has changed, new manifold sections that bolt together that didn't on the first engine, way more cables wrapped in insulation. All of which makes sense being those old engines had been handed to ULA quite a while ago at this point.Can you mark which pipes was changed, because I can't see any difference?
Has anyone got idea why there is so much difference in colour of nozzle?Most likely the angle of the photo taken versus the light fixtures above it. That can change the color quite a bit.
@torybruno why there is so much difference in nozzle comparing to pathfinder BE4?
The nozzles are pretty much the same. Just looks different from the picture angle. The powerpack looks very different because of all the extra instrumentation. There is some of that on the Flight article to support the Flight Readiness Firing. (The orange cabling will go away)
Hearing good things about testing of the second BE-4 flight engine that will be used to power the debut Vulcan rocket. It may soon be ready to join its twin in Decatur, Alabama. 🚀
Colleagues, we have a separate thread for BE-4 vs. Raptor. Please move the comparisons over there.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47513.0
@torybruno how are the tests with the BE-4 FE1 engine going?
Going really well. A little ahead of plan
The interesting question is how's the qualification proceeding.
Mind everyone, the delivery of flight engines is "front-loaded" before the engine qualification (which is being done on a separate set of engines, specifically set aside for qualification since going through qualification tests makes them not flight worthy anymore). It's being done this way (with a pressure from DoD) to accelerate already significantly delayed schedule. They take the risk of even more increased delay in the case of relatively less likely qualification failure vs shortening the optimistic (but also more probable) path towards launch in the case the qualification passes. But pass it must first.
So, the engines delivered are only conditionally flight worthy, as if qualification fails, they are not anymore. So victory dances are premature. Yes it's likely the qualification will pass, but it's not just a rubber stamp, it takes actual tests, way more stringent and aggressive than acceptance tests used on flight engines being currently delivered. Qualification tests do stuff like testing operational margins (including contingency operations) and the engines are supposed to be put under enough stress which, while not causing a RUD (RUD be a qualification test failure), will render not flightworthy anymore.
The interesting question is how's the qualification proceeding.
Mind everyone, the delivery of flight engines is "front-loaded" before the engine qualification (which is being done on a separate set of engines, specifically set aside for qualification since going through qualification tests makes them not flight worthy anymore). It's being done this way (with a pressure from DoD) to accelerate already significantly delayed schedule. They take the risk of even more increased delay in the case of relatively less likely qualification failure vs shortening the optimistic (but also more probable) path towards launch in the case the qualification passes. But pass it must first.
So, the engines delivered are only conditionally flight worthy, as if qualification fails, they are not anymore. So victory dances are premature. Yes it's likely the qualification will pass, but it's not just a rubber stamp, it takes actual tests, way more stringent and aggressive than acceptance tests used on flight engines being currently delivered. Qualification tests do stuff like testing operational margins (including contingency operations) and the engines are supposed to be put under enough stress which, while not causing a RUD (RUD be a qualification test failure), will render not flightworthy anymore.
But the qualification test can still take place before the first flight of the Vulcan, right?
But the qualification test can still take place before the first flight of the Vulcan, right?
The interesting question is how's the qualification proceeding.
Mind everyone, the delivery of flight engines is "front-loaded" before the engine qualification (which is being done on a separate set of engines, specifically set aside for qualification since going through qualification tests makes them not flight worthy anymore). It's being done this way (with a pressure from DoD) to accelerate already significantly delayed schedule. They take the risk of even more increased delay in the case of relatively less likely qualification failure vs shortening the optimistic (but also more probable) path towards launch in the case the qualification passes. But pass it must first.
So, the engines delivered are only conditionally flight worthy, as if qualification fails, they are not anymore. So victory dances are premature. Yes it's likely the qualification will pass, but it's not just a rubber stamp, it takes actual tests, way more stringent and aggressive than acceptance tests used on flight engines being currently delivered. Qualification tests do stuff like testing operational margins (including contingency operations) and the engines are supposed to be put under enough stress which, while not causing a RUD (RUD be a qualification test failure), will render not flightworthy anymore.
But the qualification test can still take place before the first flight of the Vulcan, right?
Not only can. Must.
The interesting question is how's the qualification proceeding.
Mind everyone, the delivery of flight engines is "front-loaded" before the engine qualification (which is being done on a separate set of engines, specifically set aside for qualification since going through qualification tests makes them not flight worthy anymore). It's being done this way (with a pressure from DoD) to accelerate already significantly delayed schedule. They take the risk of even more increased delay in the case of relatively less likely qualification failure vs shortening the optimistic (but also more probable) path towards launch in the case the qualification passes. But pass it must first.
So, the engines delivered are only conditionally flight worthy, as if qualification fails, they are not anymore. So victory dances are premature. Yes it's likely the qualification will pass, but it's not just a rubber stamp, it takes actual tests, way more stringent and aggressive than acceptance tests used on flight engines being currently delivered. Qualification tests do stuff like testing operational margins (including contingency operations) and the engines are supposed to be put under enough stress which, while not causing a RUD (RUD be a qualification test failure), will render not flightworthy anymore.
But the qualification test can still take place before the first flight of the Vulcan, right?
For example, the qualification test for the LE-9 is currently being prepared.
The qualification engine shall be tested 4 times.
The two flight engines are already installed on the H3 first stage.
We can basically garuntee that the qual tests haven't start yet, because the first 2 engines are going to ULA. That was always the plan.
For the first time, our Huntsville engines team has installed a #BE4 engine into Blue Origin’s refurbished and historic MSFC Test Stand 4670 preparing for commissioning tests.
Blue Origin appears to have test fired a BE-4 engine on the XEEx test stand in West Texas last week. This should be Flight Engine 2 for ULA's Vulcan rocket.
You can browse Sentinel-2 imagery of the facility here: api.soar.earth/short/279r1r742
This is further backed up by higher resolution imagery showing the visible change happening on either the 21st or 22nd.
If my analysis of this imagery is correct, it lines up well with Eric's tweet below. Let's hope we hear more soon 🚀
I trust that people will make the appropriate vote.
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1586036406538756096?cxt=HHwWgICjyazt3YIsAAAA
Interesting. This clearly was either very early in the morning or late enough in the evening that it's dark out. This obviously means this test wasn't done at the same time of day as the test firing seen in the recent Sentinel satellite images provided by Harry Stranger.Or the shutter angle was set narrow enough to capture plume dynamics and not the sky. Rockets are bright.
Interesting. This clearly was either very early in the morning or late enough in the evening that it's dark out. This obviously means this test wasn't done at the same time of day as the test firing seen in the recent Sentinel satellite images provided by Harry Stranger.Or the shutter angle was set narrow enough to capture plume dynamics and not the sky. Rockets are bright.
Interesting. This clearly was either very early in the morning or late enough in the evening that it's dark out. This obviously means this test wasn't done at the same time of day as the test firing seen in the recent Sentinel satellite images provided by Harry Stranger.Just remember that the satellite images show the before/after changes that the firing of the engine causes to the area, not the actual firing itself :) So this should be the same test.
The first shipset. The first of many.
#BE4 flight engines are now being integrated into the @ulalaunch #VulcanRocket. bit.ly/3zvAVET
NEWS | OCT 31, 2022
Blue Origin Completes the Delivery of Flight Engines to ULA for Vulcan’s Initial Launch
Blue Origin completed its delivery of the first BE-4 shipset for United Launch Alliance (ULA), shipping the engines to ULA’s factory in Decatur, AL after final acceptance testing.
Each BE-4 engine provides 550,000 pounds of thrust and has completed an extensive development program. This state-of-the-art engine will end reliance on Russian engines and power a new generation of U.S. launch vehicles. Dozens of these engines are now in production to support a large and growing demand for civil, commercial, and defense launches.
“We’re excited to see ULA’s Vulcan fly,” said Bob Smith, CEO, Blue Origin. “The BE-4 is a great engine, and we’re proud of Team Blue for achieving this milestone as part of ULA’s team. It’s been a wonderful partnership, and this shipset is the first of many more to come.”
“We are very pleased to receive the first two engines for Vulcan’s inaugural flight,” said Tory Bruno, ULA president and CEO. “Development of this new engine is complete, and the performance of the engine is outstanding. It has been a great team effort working together with our partners at Blue Origin and we can’t wait to see Vulcan fly.”
About Blue Origin’s BE-4 Engine
Blue Origin’s BE-4 is the most powerful liquid natural gas (LNG) fueled, oxygen-rich staged combustion engine made in the U.S., powering the next generation of rocket launch vehicles. The engines are manufactured in Kent, WA and in Huntsville, AL. They are tested in West Texas and at the historic 4670 Test Stand at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville.
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1587152163750322177QuoteBE4 is in the house!!
FE2 is on. FE1 will join it momentarily. #VulcanRocket #CountdownToVulcan #BE4 @blueorigin
https://www.blueorigin.com/news/blue-origin-completes-the-delivery-of-flight-engines-to-ula-for-vulcan-initial-launch/QuoteNEWS | OCT 31, 2022
Blue Origin Completes the Delivery of Flight Engines to ULA for Vulcan’s Initial Launch
Blue Origin completed its delivery of the first BE-4 shipset for United Launch Alliance (ULA), shipping the engines to ULA’s factory in Decatur, AL after final acceptance testing.
Each BE-4 engine provides 550,000 pounds of thrust and has completed an extensive development program. This state-of-the-art engine will end reliance on Russian engines and power a new generation of U.S. launch vehicles. Dozens of these engines are now in production to support a large and growing demand for civil, commercial, and defense launches.
“We’re excited to see ULA’s Vulcan fly,” said Bob Smith, CEO, Blue Origin. “The BE-4 is a great engine, and we’re proud of Team Blue for achieving this milestone as part of ULA’s team. It’s been a wonderful partnership, and this shipset is the first of many more to come.”
“We are very pleased to receive the first two engines for Vulcan’s inaugural flight,” said Tory Bruno, ULA president and CEO. “Development of this new engine is complete, and the performance of the engine is outstanding. It has been a great team effort working together with our partners at Blue Origin and we can’t wait to see Vulcan fly.”
About Blue Origin’s BE-4 Engine
Blue Origin’s BE-4 is the most powerful liquid natural gas (LNG) fueled, oxygen-rich staged combustion engine made in the U.S., powering the next generation of rocket launch vehicles. The engines are manufactured in Kent, WA and in Huntsville, AL. They are tested in West Texas and at the historic 4670 Test Stand at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville.
With the first two flight-ready BE-4s delivered to ULA at last, it's probable that Blue Origin is working on sub-assemblies for additional flight-ready BE-4s, including a few that could be earmarked for the first New Glenn launch tentatively planned for next year.
Fine looking BE4 engines. #VulcanRocket #CountdownToVulcan #BE4 @BlueOrigin
The unboxing video is very interesting.
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1589659097800245248?cxt=HHwWgIDQ5d2hzY8sAAAA
I wonder why they carry the container inside the truck like they did instead of just on a trailer as is regularly done.
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1589653625080451072QuoteFine looking BE4 engines. #VulcanRocket #CountdownToVulcan #BE4 @BlueOrigin
ULA are showing 2 BE4 engines are ready for fitting to Vulcan. Don't over think it.https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1589653625080451072QuoteFine looking BE4 engines. #VulcanRocket #CountdownToVulcan #BE4 @BlueOrigin
What's happening here? The aft bulkhead is blurred out, the engines don't appear to be connected, etc. What am I looking at? If the aft bulkhead is PI, then why is the previous picture of it clear?
Not too long now:https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1587152163750322177QuoteBE4 is in the house!!
FE2 is on. FE1 will join it momentarily. #VulcanRocket #CountdownToVulcan #BE4 @blueorigin
Except here FE-2 is at least mechanically mounted to the aft bulkhead. Why disconnect it?Why do you think either engine is unmounted?Not too long now:https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1587152163750322177QuoteBE4 is in the house!!
FE2 is on. FE1 will join it momentarily. #VulcanRocket #CountdownToVulcan #BE4 @blueorigin
*snip tweet*QuoteFine looking BE4 engines. #VulcanRocket #CountdownToVulcan #BE4 @BlueOrigin
What's happening here? The aft bulkhead is blurred out, the engines don't appear to be connected, etc. What am I looking at? If the aft bulkhead is PI, then why is the previous picture of it clear?
It's also true that even if the release process goes amok and an image is released that has details that should have been restricted, that doesn't allow subsequent releases to do the same.Generally true.
The deletion between the original text and the Princeton version concerning the poisoning effect was soon noticed by the Russian translators, and only served to highlight its importance to the Soviet project.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smyth_Report
It's also true that even if the release process goes amok and an image is released that has details that should have been restricted, that doesn't allow subsequent releases to do the same.Generally true.
However, a subsequently blurred image sort of says "Under no circumstances should you look HERE, right HERE".
Have they added something secret since the earlier picture?
John
In the recent Dude Perfect video, Colby arrives at Corn Ranch in time to watch what appears to be a BE-4 test firing. Is there any satellite or other imagery that matches up with a test firing at the day and time?
ULA are showing 2 BE4 engines are ready for fitting to Vulcan. Don't over think it.https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1589653625080451072QuoteFine looking BE4 engines. #VulcanRocket #CountdownToVulcan #BE4 @BlueOrigin
What's happening here? The aft bulkhead is blurred out, the engines don't appear to be connected, etc. What am I looking at? If the aft bulkhead is PI, then why is the previous picture of it clear?
The unboxing video is very interesting.
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1589659097800245248?cxt=HHwWgIDQ5d2hzY8sAAAA
Here is an unblurred image from the Twitter unboxing video that shows the left engine is mounted. I don't anything special that needed blurring in the first place though!
It could also simply be inconsistent IP control. One person thought it should be scensored, another didn't.Here is an unblurred image from the Twitter unboxing video that shows the left engine is mounted. I don't anything special that needed blurring in the first place though!
The resolution is somewhat less than the censored photo, and it is being viewed from further away. Apparently there is some small detail or details at the closer range and higher resolution that someone does not want us to see.
In the recent Dude Perfect video, Colby arrives at Corn Ranch in time to watch what appears to be a BE-4 test firing. Is there any satellite or other imagery that matches up with a test firing at the day and time?
thats a vertical test stand. BE-4 is horizontal.
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1591130522314764288QuoteNow that is one handsome roman god namesaked rocket...#VulcanRocket #CountdowntoVulcan #BE4 @blue_origin
Blurred BE-4 bits again?
In the recent Dude Perfect video, Colby arrives at Corn Ranch in time to watch what appears to be a BE-4 test firing. Is there any satellite or other imagery that matches up with a test firing at the day and time?
thats a vertical test stand. BE-4 is horizontal.
This is a vertical BE-3U test. As you can see, there is cloud of white steam instead of the brownish dusty plume. BE-4 engines kick off a lot of dust that way because they are horizontal.
Imagine that New Glenn is going to look like with seven BE-4 rockets?
Blurred BE-4 bits again?looks like the gimbal mechanism, which would be ULA, presumably.
The two flight engines already delivered to ULA?
https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1595115466548465665
I think the question was, are the engines in this picture the same two engines which have been delivered to ULA and mounted on Vulcan, or two totally new engines we've never seen before? My money would be on the first option.The two flight engines already delivered to ULA?
https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1595115466548465665
And mounted on Vulcan. Look above at post #2110
Ned
it's the first set of enginesThat's what I was thinking. The photos of the BE-4 engines behind the students date to the summer of this year because the first flight-ready BE-4s have been mated to the first stage of the first Vulcan rocket.
it matches the picture Tory Bruno posted in July when flight engine 1 was fully assembled
The fact that alot of people are holding 1 finger makes me think this was taken to commemorate the first engine being completed
probably on the same day considering the position of mundane objects haven't changed.
Sentinel-2 satellite imagery shows evidence of a @blueorigin BE-4 engine test fire in the past week.
Probably. @blueorigin has made BE4 engine testing pretty routine. Hot firings every week…
Are they testing your engines
Yes
The Tory comments are a bit vague and cryptic as usual, but still interesting. Bruno uses a plural here "hot firings every week", so if there's been a least two engine firings each week, then why aren't more firing indications showing up on the Sentinel-2 images? Or are we only seeing what Harry has time to go through?
The "yes" he gives to the second question begs the question; does he mean test firing qual engines or did another flight set get delivered?
The "yes" he gives to the second question begs the question; does he mean test firing qual engines or did another flight set get delivered?
These would be flight 2 engines?
No. This was a half scale demo
Tory, i think that you confused this question about the second pair of the BE-4 with LOFTID.
The Tory comments are a bit vague and cryptic as usual, but still interesting. Bruno uses a plural here "hot firings every week", so if there's been a least two engine firings each week, then why aren't more firing indications showing up on the Sentinel-2 images? Or are we only seeing what Harry has time to go through?
The "yes" he gives to the second question begs the question; does he mean test firing qual engines or did another flight set get delivered?
The satellite passes over every few days. So, you can only tell if something may have happened after several day intervals. Plus not every image is usable so you might be waiting more than 1 interval per image
Working on a fix for daily, or as close as possible :)The Tory comments are a bit vague and cryptic as usual, but still interesting. Bruno uses a plural here "hot firings every week", so if there's been a least two engine firings each week, then why aren't more firing indications showing up on the Sentinel-2 images? Or are we only seeing what Harry has time to go through?The satellite passes over every few days. So, you can only tell if something may have happened after several day intervals. Plus not every image is usable so you might be waiting more than 1 interval per image
The "yes" he gives to the second question begs the question; does he mean test firing qual engines or did another flight set get delivered?
If the limiter in obtaining images is cutouts of Sentinel satellite coverage over a given area, then perhaps seeking images from other satellites, such as Worldview, RapidEye, or Landsat, etc. which could have coverage when Sentinel does not might be in order.
The Tory comments are a bit vague and cryptic as usual, but still interesting. Bruno uses a plural here "hot firings every week",
The Tory comments are a bit vague and cryptic as usual, but still interesting. Bruno uses a plural here "hot firings every week",
No, a single firing a week would be legitimately described as "hot firings every week"
What's up with all the pedantry?
If the comment was describing a period of weeks, firing at only one per week, over that period of time any mention of firing cadence would indeed be proper to describe firings- as over that period of weeks there will be multiple firings.
This won't happen. All statements are intentionally vague so that exact status cannot be determined. We're just reading tea leaves.What's up with all the pedantry?
If the comment was describing a period of weeks, firing at only one per week, over that period of time any mention of firing cadence would indeed be proper to describe firings- as over that period of weeks there will be multiple firings.
But that is why I believe that looking to see what is true matters. Either to get Tory Bruno to tell us, show us more videos, and or to see if increased satellite imagery can give us the data we need to pin this down.
This is the BE-4 engine.
https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1604886172215705600QuoteThis is the BE-4 engine.
https://youtu.be/hdS4azOaF2M
Does Blue Origin expect to overcome the problems it had faced during manufactured the first stage BE-4 engines for the first Vulcan rocket when it conducts low-rate initial production of the BE-4 engines.
It is good to hear them mention the Marshall 4670 Test stand... which I am guessing will be operational in 2023? Yet except for reduced testing workflows, what additional capabilities will Blue Origin gain from having the operational 4670 test stand at Huntsville? Will there be noise restrictions that would restrict BE-4 testing at Huntsville?
Which makes perfect sense... until you look a little further to the east, at another Texas rocket engine test site. One where more engines per week are tested than Blue manufactures per year, and who have been shipping engines the same (technically slightly further) distance from their manufacturing plant to their test site and back as between Huntsville & Corn Ranch, for the better part of two decades and on the order of 1000 individual engines (not counting pressure fed motors). And where developmental engine testing and production engine acceptance testing proceed side by side without issue, even with noise-level and time-of-test constraints that Corn Ranch is not subject to, and also hosting full stage acceptance testing.Quote from: DrHeywoodFloydIt is good to hear them mention the Marshall 4670 Test stand... which I am guessing will be operational in 2023? Yet except for reduced testing workflows, what additional capabilities will Blue Origin gain from having the operational 4670 test stand at Huntsville? Will there be noise restrictions that would restrict BE-4 testing at Huntsville?
This has been gone over several times already, but it can be summed up very simply as this:
It is all about logistics.
They have this stand to acceptance test the production engines from the nearby Huntsville factory, which cannot be done regularly over at Corn Ranch because that facility in Texas is much, much further away than Marshall (adding greatly to transport risks), and the XEEx facility at Corn Ranch is needed to stay focused on continuing development efforts for the Block II and further upgrades of BE-4. It cannot do that well if it has to handle at least a new production engine ATP a week. Being further away, Corn Ranch means a longer trip to ULA's factory in Alabama (slowing their production of Vulcan down) and to Florida eventually for New Glenn.
The original plan was to have BE-4 and BE-3U rate tested up at LC-11 at Cape Canaveral solely for New Glenn, but the partnership with ULA for BE-4s for Vulcan changed all of that, so they needed for political as well as logistical reasons to have engines built and tested in Alabama.
It is good to hear them mention the Marshall 4670 Test stand... which I am guessing will be operational in 2023? Yet except for reduced testing workflows, what additional capabilities will Blue Origin gain from having the operational 4670 test stand at Huntsville? Will there be noise restrictions that would restrict BE-4 testing at Huntsville?
Quote from: DrHeywoodFloydIt is good to hear them mention the Marshall 4670 Test stand... which I am guessing will be operational in 2023? Yet except for reduced testing workflows, what additional capabilities will Blue Origin gain from having the operational 4670 test stand at Huntsville? Will there be noise restrictions that would restrict BE-4 testing at Huntsville?
This has been gone over several times already, but it can be summed up very simply as this:
It is all about logistics.
They have this stand to acceptance test the production engines from the nearby Huntsville factory, which cannot be done regularly over at Corn Ranch because that facility in Texas is much, much further away than Marshall (adding greatly to transport risks), and the XEEx facility at Corn Ranch is needed to stay focused on continuing development efforts for the Block II and further upgrades of BE-4. It cannot do that well if it has to handle at least a new production engine ATP a week. Being further away, Corn Ranch means a longer trip to ULA's factory in Alabama (slowing their production of Vulcan down) and to Florida eventually for New Glenn.
The original plan was to have BE-4 and BE-3U rate tested up at LC-11 at Cape Canaveral solely for New Glenn, but the partnership with ULA for BE-4s for Vulcan changed all of that, so they needed for political as well as logistical reasons to have engines built and tested in Alabama.
https://twitter.com/felixschlang/status/1605241242283016193QuoteThanks, Tory! My non native English didn’t sort the word „gravy“ correctly. 😆
I know, there’s likely little to no data on it right now. Would it still be possible to give out a rough estimate on how often the SMART system could possibly be reused without major refurbishments?
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1605249752861491202QuoteA dozen would not surprise me
As per the post above, it's not the stand that's holding anything up.Quote from: DrHeywoodFloydIt is good to hear them mention the Marshall 4670 Test stand... which I am guessing will be operational in 2023? Yet except for reduced testing workflows, what additional capabilities will Blue Origin gain from having the operational 4670 test stand at Huntsville? Will there be noise restrictions that would restrict BE-4 testing at Huntsville?
This has been gone over several times already, but it can be summed up very simply as this:
It is all about logistics.
They have this stand to acceptance test the production engines from the nearby Huntsville factory, which cannot be done regularly over at Corn Ranch because that facility in Texas is much, much further away than Marshall (adding greatly to transport risks), and the XEEx facility at Corn Ranch is needed to stay focused on continuing development efforts for the Block II and further upgrades of BE-4. It cannot do that well if it has to handle at least a new production engine ATP a week. Being further away, Corn Ranch means a longer trip to ULA's factory in Alabama (slowing their production of Vulcan down) and to Florida eventually for New Glenn.
The original plan was to have BE-4 and BE-3U rate tested up at LC-11 at Cape Canaveral solely for New Glenn, but the partnership with ULA for BE-4s for Vulcan changed all of that, so they needed for political as well as logistical reasons to have engines built and tested in Alabama.
Thanks.... one major benefit and reason why I believe Blue refurbished this test stand is so they can do an all up test of the New Glenn seven engine configuration as NASA did on this test stand with the Saturn Five, and the F1 engines. I would posit that test will be a major milestone for the New Glenn booster. I posit this test will happen in late 2023, early 2024 - providing new engine issues come out of the ULA Vulcan program...
Maybe the other benefit, would be the development of more powerful iterations of the BE-4, but that would be 5-10 years away...
Doesn't NG use 7 BE-4s?They might, actually. But they only need one engine capable of relight for the first stage.
One reason that the block upgrade is needed for NG is that the Vulcan version can't reignite. I doubt that they would want to fly early NG missions without even trying to test landing the booster.
Right now, they don't even have the Vulcan version of BE-4 qualified,...
Doesn't NG use 7 BE-4s?The first stage of the New Glenn uses seven BE-4s, while the second stage is to use two BE-3Us.
One reason that the block upgrade is needed for NG is that the Vulcan version can't reignite. I doubt that they would want to fly early NG missions without even trying to test landing the booster.
So, confirmation of qual testing, which by extension means that qual engines exist. The delivery of Vulcan to the Cape also confirms that qual testing is going well enough that ULA willing to go ahead with such a big milestone.
So, confirmation of qual testing, which by extension means that qual engines exist. The delivery of Vulcan to the Cape also confirms that qual testing is going well enough that ULA willing to go ahead with such a big milestone.Tell me you haven't read the tweet without saying you haven't read the tweet.
That's not what Tory said, only that the test stand will be occupied with qual testing before the next batch of engines undergoes acceptance testing. The implication (but not stated) is that the qual testing engines are undergoing testing while the next batch of flight engines are being built, not that the qual testing engines are being built.So, confirmation of qual testing, which by extension means that qual engines exist. The delivery of Vulcan to the Cape also confirms that qual testing is going well enough that ULA willing to go ahead with such a big milestone.Tell me you haven't read the tweet without saying you haven't read the tweet.
There is no qual testing because the engines don't exist yet. They are still being built
did you read the tweet? He literally said "SOON. IN BUILD NOW" as the first 4 words. He literally said they are being built currently. I know people want to have progress for blue, but come back to reality.That's not what Tory said, only that the test stand will be occupied with qual testing before the next batch of engines undergoes acceptance testing. The implication (but not stated) is that the qual testing engines are undergoing testing while the next batch of flight engines are being built, not that the qual testing engines are being built.So, confirmation of qual testing, which by extension means that qual engines exist. The delivery of Vulcan to the Cape also confirms that qual testing is going well enough that ULA willing to go ahead with such a big milestone.Tell me you haven't read the tweet without saying you haven't read the tweet.
There is no qual testing because the engines don't exist yet. They are still being built
did you read the tweet? He literally said "SOON. IN BUILD NOW" as the first 4 words. He literally said they are being built currently. I know people want to have progress for blue, but come back to reality.That's not what Tory said, only that the test stand will be occupied with qual testing before the next batch of engines undergoes acceptance testing. The implication (but not stated) is that the qual testing engines are undergoing testing while the next batch of flight engines are being built, not that the qual testing engines are being built.So, confirmation of qual testing, which by extension means that qual engines exist. The delivery of Vulcan to the Cape also confirms that qual testing is going well enough that ULA willing to go ahead with such a big milestone.Tell me you haven't read the tweet without saying you haven't read the tweet.
There is no qual testing because the engines don't exist yet. They are still being built
So, confirmation of qual testing, which by extension means that qual engines exist. The delivery of Vulcan to the Cape also confirms that qual testing is going well enough that ULA willing to go ahead with such a big milestone.
Maybe, but not necessarily. That's the risk of concurrent testing. The times we did concurrent testing on flight test programs I was involved with we pressed all testing paths forward as far as they could go, and when we had to do rework the relevant test paths would have to reset appropriately.
But, I sure hope you're correct!
So, confirmation of qual testing, which by extension means that qual engines exist. The delivery of Vulcan to the Cape also confirms that qual testing is going well enough that ULA willing to go ahead with such a big milestone.
Maybe, but not necessarily. That's the risk of concurrent testing. The times we did concurrent testing on flight test programs I was involved with we pressed all testing paths forward as far as they could go, and when we had to do rework the relevant test paths would have to reset appropriately.
But, I sure hope you're correct!
There's no real point in moving the whole Vulcan vehicle to the Cape with the intent to move all that hardware into a full launch campaign after the tanking and static firing are complete.
If there was anything seriously amiss, it would mean having to pack everything back up and ship it back to Decatur, since, If what Jim says is true, there's no way to remove potentially defective BE-4s at the Cape, only at Decatur.
So, that being the case, it makes sense that things are going well enough (so far) that sending Vulcan to the Cape is worth the risk.
Essentially, Acceptance Test Procedures (ATPs)are done on every unit, think of it as a production quality check. Qualification tests are done on every design of a product. Qual tests exercise all of the "outside corners" of the operational envelope, including responses to failure modes, temperature exceedances, etc.
Units that run through ATP are expected to have a full operational life. Qual test units are typically NEVER used in an operational environment, and may actually be subjected to "test to failure" scenarios.
Typically you won't use an operational unit until that unit's design (i.e. configuration) has completed its qual tests and all test failures are understood and accepted.
HTH, and have a good one,
Mike
So, confirmation of qual testing, which by extension means that qual engines exist. The delivery of Vulcan to the Cape also confirms that qual testing is going well enough that ULA willing to go ahead with such a big milestone.
Maybe, but not necessarily. That's the risk of concurrent testing. The times we did concurrent testing on flight test programs I was involved with we pressed all testing paths forward as far as they could go, and when we had to do rework the relevant test paths would have to reset appropriately.
But, I sure hope you're correct!
There's no real point in moving the whole Vulcan vehicle to the Cape with the intent to move all that hardware into a full launch campaign after the tanking and static firing are complete.
If there was anything seriously amiss, it would mean having to pack everything back up and ship it back to Decatur, since, If what Jim says is true, there's no way to remove potentially defective BE-4s at the Cape, only at Decatur.
So, that being the case, it makes sense that things are going well enough (so far) that sending Vulcan to the Cape is worth the risk.
This is what's known as a "success-oriented" schedule: they're shipping Vulcan (with its two acceptance-tested engines) to the Cape, assuming that the qualification tests on the second pair of engines will go successfully. If they do, hurray, they've saved time by doing things in parallel instead of sitting around waiting. If the qualification tests fail, however...
And since we've known they planned to use a success-oriented schedule this whole time, the fact that they've moved ahead with shipping Vulcan to the Cape tells us nothing about the progress of the qualification testing (other than, we know it hasn't failed yet).
Essentially, Acceptance Test Procedures (ATPs)are done on every unit, think of it as a production quality check. Qualification tests are done on every design of a product. Qual tests exercise all of the "outside corners" of the operational envelope, including responses to failure modes, temperature exceedances, etc.Thanks
Units that run through ATP are expected to have a full operational life. Qual test units are typically NEVER used in an operational environment, and may actually be subjected to "test to failure" scenarios.
Typically you won't use an operational unit until that unit's design (i.e. configuration) has completed its qual tests and all test failures are understood and accepted.
HTH, and have a good one,
Mike
And, as Vettedrmr correctly points out, the loss of one or both of the qual engines doesn't necessarily equate to failure if they were intentionally being pushed to the breaking point.
And nothing you wrote above even invalidates anything I wrote.
The original statement was shipping to the cape meant qualification testing was going well, which meant qualification testing was in progress; the counterpoint was that shipping to the cape meant nothing other than integration was complete (and an implication that qualification hadn't failed yet)
(and an implication that qualification hadn't failed yet)
It doesn't even mean that.
That's probably true if ULA can reliably replace an Engine at the Cape. If they already knew they would need to send the rocket back to Huntsville (i.e., a known qual test failure) I doubt they would have shipped it just to validate the shipping and integration process.The original statement was shipping to the cape meant qualification testing was going well, which meant qualification testing was in progress; the counterpoint was that shipping to the cape meant nothing other than integration was complete (and an implication that qualification hadn't failed yet)It doesn't even mean that. Even if there was a BE-4 qual failure, you might want to continue running Vulcan through the rest of the process to start fleshing out any additional issues that you could work in parallel.
That's probably true if ULA can reliably replace an Engine at the Cape. If they already knew they would need to send the rocket back to Huntsville (i.e., a known qual test failure) I doubt they would have shipped it just to validate the shipping and integration process.The original statement was shipping to the cape meant qualification testing was going well, which meant qualification testing was in progress; the counterpoint was that shipping to the cape meant nothing other than integration was complete (and an implication that qualification hadn't failed yet)It doesn't even mean that. Even if there was a BE-4 qual failure, you might want to continue running Vulcan through the rest of the process to start fleshing out any additional issues that you could work in parallel.
Blue Origin should have the means to do so at the Exploration Park New Glenn factory, and they might be able to adapt equipment to remove any defective BE-4(s) from a Vulcan core in-situ
And just to hammer the point home:Which makes perfect sense... until you look a little further to the east, at another Texas rocket engine test site. One where more engines per week are tested than Blue manufactures per year, and who have been shipping engines the same (technically slightly further) distance from their manufacturing plant to their test site and back as between Huntsville & Corn Ranch, for the better part of two decades and on the order of 1000 individual engines (not counting pressure fed motors). And where developmental engine testing and production engine acceptance testing proceed side by side without issue, even with noise-level and time-of-test constraints that Corn Ranch is not subject to, and also hosting full stage acceptance testing.Quote from: DrHeywoodFloydIt is good to hear them mention the Marshall 4670 Test stand... which I am guessing will be operational in 2023? Yet except for reduced testing workflows, what additional capabilities will Blue Origin gain from having the operational 4670 test stand at Huntsville? Will there be noise restrictions that would restrict BE-4 testing at Huntsville?
This has been gone over several times already, but it can be summed up very simply as this:
It is all about logistics.
They have this stand to acceptance test the production engines from the nearby Huntsville factory, which cannot be done regularly over at Corn Ranch because that facility in Texas is much, much further away than Marshall (adding greatly to transport risks), and the XEEx facility at Corn Ranch is needed to stay focused on continuing development efforts for the Block II and further upgrades of BE-4. It cannot do that well if it has to handle at least a new production engine ATP a week. Being further away, Corn Ranch means a longer trip to ULA's factory in Alabama (slowing their production of Vulcan down) and to Florida eventually for New Glenn.
The original plan was to have BE-4 and BE-3U rate tested up at LC-11 at Cape Canaveral solely for New Glenn, but the partnership with ULA for BE-4s for Vulcan changed all of that, so they needed for political as well as logistical reasons to have engines built and tested in Alabama.
McGregor Live has been running since April 28, 2022 and we've just seen engine test 1000 live at the company's test and development center in McGregor, Texas. That is some test cadence!
You cant compare them like thatI made no claims about test firing rates at Corn Ranch. My point was that if BO are limited by their test capability at Corn Ranch and require MSFC to not be limited by test capacity, then that would be entirely a problem of their own making.
You have a camera on space X counting the literal seconds of tests. Blue Origin has a satellite that passes over once every 3-4 days. you don't know if they are testing once, or multiple times. Only Yyes, No and sometimes you can't even tell from the images
You cant compare them like thatWhile we cannot make a direct comparison, we all know that Blue isn't testing as frequently. There are Notums and such when testing aren't there? Plus I thought people in the area could hear it.
You have a camera on space X counting the literal seconds of tests. Blue Origin has a satellite that passes over once every 3-4 days. you don't know if they are testing once, or multiple times. Only Yyes, No and sometimes you can't even tell from the images
You cant compare them like thatWhile we cannot make a direct comparison, we all know that Blue isn't testing as frequently. There are Notums and such when testing aren't there? Plus I thought people in the area could hear it.
You have a camera on space X counting the literal seconds of tests. Blue Origin has a satellite that passes over once every 3-4 days. you don't know if they are testing once, or multiple times. Only Yyes, No and sometimes you can't even tell from the images
Notams are rather public.You cant compare them like thatWhile we cannot make a direct comparison, we all know that Blue isn't testing as frequently. There are Notums and such when testing aren't there? Plus I thought people in the area could hear it.
You have a camera on space X counting the literal seconds of tests. Blue Origin has a satellite that passes over once every 3-4 days. you don't know if they are testing once, or multiple times. Only Yyes, No and sometimes you can't even tell from the images
Corn Ranch is in the middle of nowhere on a massive plot of land (670 square kilometers) privately owned by Jeff Bezos. The BE-4 engine test site is about 35 miles North from Van Horn, TX, with a range of hills in between. I don't think the residents of Van Horn could hear the test firings. I also don't think there's anywhere you could go that would be A. reasonably accessible and / or B. legal to view test firings.
Notams are rather public.You cant compare them like thatWhile we cannot make a direct comparison, we all know that Blue isn't testing as frequently. There are Notums and such when testing aren't there? Plus I thought people in the area could hear it.
You have a camera on space X counting the literal seconds of tests. Blue Origin has a satellite that passes over once every 3-4 days. you don't know if they are testing once, or multiple times. Only Yyes, No and sometimes you can't even tell from the images
Corn Ranch is in the middle of nowhere on a massive plot of land (670 square kilometers) privately owned by Jeff Bezos. The BE-4 engine test site is about 35 miles North from Van Horn, TX, with a range of hills in between. I don't think the residents of Van Horn could hear the test firings. I also don't think there's anywhere you could go that would be A. reasonably accessible and / or B. legal to view test firings.
There is no reason for a NOTAM since static engine test firings on a stand do not involve a vehicle in flight. New Shepard flights, on the other hand, do require one in addition to FAA approval because the vehicle flies to space and back again.
There is no need to close the highway or other such restrictions since Van Horn is so far away and the size of Corn Ranch itself precludes any need.
There is no reason for a NOTAM since static engine test firings on a stand do not involve a vehicle in flight. New Shepard flights, on the other hand, do require one in addition to FAA approval because the vehicle flies to space and back again.
There is no need to close the highway or other such restrictions since Van Horn is so far away and the size of Corn Ranch itself precludes any need.
Actually there are NOTAMS issued for at least some static fires even when they are on a test stand. The one for McGregor is renewed every 6 months or so and requires that pilots coordinate with ATC before entering the 2 mile diameter circle when below 2,000 feet. see https://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_2_8951.html
There is no reason for a NOTAM since static engine test firings on a stand do not involve a vehicle in flight. New Shepard flights, on the other hand, do require one in addition to FAA approval because the vehicle flies to space and back again.
There is no need to close the highway or other such restrictions since Van Horn is so far away and the size of Corn Ranch itself precludes any need.
Actually there are NOTAMS issued for at least some static fires even when they are on a test stand. The one for McGregor is renewed every 6 months or so and requires that pilots coordinate with ATC before entering the 2 mile diameter circle when below 2,000 feet. see https://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_2_8951.html
I wouldn't necessarily expect one for static tests at Corn Ranch versus McGregor, since the former is very isolated compared to the latter (lots of ranches, homes, and farms nearby), and the only reason that a NOTM might be needed at Corn Ranch is to keep the curiosity seekers from trying to buzz around in small aircraft at or below 2000 ft.
I wouldn't necessarily expect one for static tests at Corn Ranch versus McGregor, since the former is very isolated compared to the latter (lots of ranches, homes, and farms nearby), and the only reason that a NOTM might be needed at Corn Ranch is to keep the curiosity seekers from trying to buzz around in small aircraft at or below 2000 ft.
That's not how NOTAMs work. If there's some activity that might be hazardous to aircraft that could be legally flying in an area (which could be as low as 500 ft. in unpopulated areas), NOTAMs are used to document that activity. Not to prohibit anyone from flying in that area (there are other methods to control that), but to make sure they know about it.
Now, back to BE-4!
Okay, I'll keep going. NOTAMs don't have to be long-term in nature, but are usually out for a few days ahead of time, as opposed to the long-term ones at McGregor. The long-term ones come when activity is frequent or long-lasting in nature. So, if we're not seeing any at Corn Ranch, either they're so short in nature that we're missing them, or they're infrequent enough that we're missing them, or maybe some combination.
Short version: we haven't (at least I haven't) heard much of anything about qual testing of BE-4, and BO has been quick to announce successful test conclusions (which they should). My conclusion? Either BO is working on their qual test procedures, or they're having difficulties with actually getting the engine through Qual.
And I want to point out that qual test failures don't necessarily mean ULA can't use the BE-4 engines they have installed in Vulcan. They might, but it's not a given.
HTH, and have a good one,
Mike
If they were testing at Corn Ranch, why would they refurbish the test stand at MSFC?I believe 4670 is going to be where they acceptance test the production BE-4s and BE-3Us. It's not yet operational, and I imagine they'll still use the Texas site for development even when it is.
If they were testing at Corn Ranch, why would they refurbish the test stand at MSFC?
There is plenty of space on Corn Ranch to do all the testing B.O. could ever want to do.Do you know how much time and money is saved by not shipping engines to Texas and back before delivery to ULA and to Blue's manufacturing facility in Florida? If not, then you don't know if money is being wasted by testing in Alabama.
4670 is “required” so that money is wasted in Alabama to sway certain influential pols, imo.
There is plenty of space on Corn Ranch to do all the testing B.O. could ever want to do.
4670 is “required” so that money is wasted in Alabama to sway certain influential pols, imo.
There is plenty of space on Corn Ranch to do all the testing B.O. could ever want to do.
4670 is “required” so that money is wasted in Alabama to sway certain influential pols, imo.
Let's be reasonable. The new BE-4 factory is in Huntsville. MSFC is in Huntsville. They intend to use 4670 for acceptance testing, which is done on every engine. the engines will be delivered to ULA's Vulcan factory in Decatur, which is about 25 miles away. Corn Ranch (Van Horn, TX) is about 1200 miles away, so they save a lot of money, and more importantly time, by testing at MSFC.
Because it's an acceptance test, each engine goes through the identical test series in a scheduled way, so 4670 should be easily able to keep up with the projected production rate of 42/yr. Probably a fixed weekly schedule, One engine a week with some weeks not used.
If there was politics involved, it was about the site of the factory, not the site of the test stand.
Why? Huntsville is a nice comm unity and it is probably much easier than most places to find qualified employees. There are plenty of good honest reasons to locate a rocket engine factory there.There is plenty of space on Corn Ranch to do all the testing B.O. could ever want to do.
4670 is “required” so that money is wasted in Alabama to sway certain influential pols, imo.
Let's be reasonable. The new BE-4 factory is in Huntsville. MSFC is in Huntsville. They intend to use 4670 for acceptance testing, which is done on every engine. the engines will be delivered to ULA's Vulcan factory in Decatur, which is about 25 miles away. Corn Ranch (Van Horn, TX) is about 1200 miles away, so they save a lot of money, and more importantly time, by testing at MSFC.
Because it's an acceptance test, each engine goes through the identical test series in a scheduled way, so 4670 should be easily able to keep up with the projected production rate of 42/yr. Probably a fixed weekly schedule, One engine a week with some weeks not used.
If there was politics involved, it was about the site of the factory, not the site of the test stand.
Obviously. If the factory wasn’t located in Alabama, testing there would make no sense. All B.O. presence in Alabama can be described as light corruption.
At least for the last decade, just about every new factory location, for any industry, is subject to politics, and we do not call it "corruption".
If there was politics involved, it was about the site of the factory, not the site of the test stand.
Obviously. If the factory wasn’t located in Alabama, testing there would make no sense. All B.O. presence in Alabama can be described as light corruption.
At least for the last decade, just about every new factory location, for any industry, is subject to politics, and we do not call it "corruption".
If there was politics involved, it was about the site of the factory, not the site of the test stand.
Obviously. If the factory wasn’t located in Alabama, testing there would make no sense. All B.O. presence in Alabama can be described as light corruption.
So you think the world should be a utopia where every decision by every person can only be interpreted by everyone else as having perfectly pure intent otherwise we have to assume it is corrupt. Got it.At least for the last decade, just about every new factory location, for any industry, is subject to politics, and we do not call it "corruption".
If there was politics involved, it was about the site of the factory, not the site of the test stand.
Obviously. If the factory wasn’t located in Alabama, testing there would make no sense. All B.O. presence in Alabama can be described as light corruption.
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
If only the world was so black and white...So you think the world should be a utopia where every decision by every person can only be interpreted by everyone else as having perfectly pure intent otherwise we have to assume it is corrupt. Got it.At least for the last decade, just about every new factory location, for any industry, is subject to politics, and we do not call it "corruption".
If there was politics involved, it was about the site of the factory, not the site of the test stand.
Obviously. If the factory wasn’t located in Alabama, testing there would make no sense. All B.O. presence in Alabama can be described as light corruption.
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
All B.O. presence in Alabama can be described as light corruption.
I agree. Regardless of money influencing politics, Alabama currently has rocket facilities and lots of people who do rocket stuff. Blue went there because there are the resources they need (facilities and people).
All B.O. presence in Alabama can be described as light corruption.
Not true at all.
Their only outside customer is ULA's Vulcan facility and it will consume the bulk of the BE-4 production for several years. It's a few miles down the road from their site. That is a pretty good reason to locate there separate from any political or governmental decision. All the political pressure and governmental incentives (tax breaks, etc.) probably mostly balance out between the competing sites, leaving the actual physical criteria to dominate the decision.I agree. Regardless of money influencing politics, Alabama currently has rocket facilities and lots of people who do rocket stuff. Blue went there because there are the resources they need (facilities and people).
All B.O. presence in Alabama can be described as light corruption.
Not true at all.
Political corruption may have influenced the growth of the facilities, but its hardly "corrupt" for another company to want to use the facilities once they exist.
Their only outside customer is ULA's Vulcan facility and it will consume the bulk of the BE-4 production for several years. It's a few miles down the road from their site. That is a pretty good reason to locate there separate from any political or governmental decision. All the political pressure and governmental incentives (tax breaks, etc.) probably mostly balance out between the competing sites, leaving the actual physical criteria to dominate the decision.I agree. Regardless of money influencing politics, Alabama currently has rocket facilities and lots of people who do rocket stuff. Blue went there because there are the resources they need (facilities and people).
All B.O. presence in Alabama can be described as light corruption.
Not true at all.
Political corruption may have influenced the growth of the facilities, but its hardly "corrupt" for another company to want to use the facilities once they exist.
Hubert @Hubert25696308
@torybruno
what is going on with BE-4 qualification tests? Have they already passed those tests?
Tory Bruno @torybruno
Replying to
@Hubert25696308
Not yet.
The BE4s have successfully completed pre-qual testing, which goes beyond formal qual, providing an understanding of margins and behavior under unusual conditions. Formal qual is underway now.
For the record, the selection of Huntsville for the BE-4 and BE-3 engine production facility was made in 2017.In hindsight. It would been better to build the BE-4 factory in Washington state. Since setting up and staffing a new Alabama or Florida facility probably contributed to the delay in BE-4 availability, IMO.
Per this Geekwire article, the alternate sites were in Washington state (I would guess near Kent, where the prototype, development, first flight, and qualification engines were made) and Florida (probably near the New Glenn production facility).
"Washington state and Florida had been under consideration for the engine factory as well, but the nod went instead to Huntsville – which has a rich heritage in rocket engine development"
https://www.geekwire.com/2017/jeff-bezos-blue-origin-picks-huntsville-alabama-rocket-city-4-engine/
Per this Verge article, "[Blue Origin] says it will only build the facility once ULA officially selects the BE-4 as the Vulcan’s main engine."
https://www.theverge.com/2017/6/26/15873354/blue-origin-be-4-rocket-engine-huntsville-alabama-nasa
The Verge article also goes into some detail on the political entanglements associated with selecting Huntsville as the site for their engine factory.
I doubt it caused much of a delay. Most of what needed to be done in Alabama would have needed to be done at any other site. If this caused a delay, it was a small price to pay compared to the long term savings from being in a low cost state like Alabama.For the record, the selection of Huntsville for the BE-4 and BE-3 engine production facility was made in 2017.In hindsight. It would been better to build the BE-4 factory in Washington state. Since setting up and staffing a new Alabama or Florida facility probably contributed to the delay in BE-4 availability, IMO.
Per this Geekwire article, the alternate sites were in Washington state (I would guess near Kent, where the prototype, development, first flight, and qualification engines were made) and Florida (probably near the New Glenn production facility).
"Washington state and Florida had been under consideration for the engine factory as well, but the nod went instead to Huntsville – which has a rich heritage in rocket engine development"
https://www.geekwire.com/2017/jeff-bezos-blue-origin-picks-huntsville-alabama-rocket-city-4-engine/
Per this Verge article, "[Blue Origin] says it will only build the facility once ULA officially selects the BE-4 as the Vulcan’s main engine."
https://www.theverge.com/2017/6/26/15873354/blue-origin-be-4-rocket-engine-huntsville-alabama-nasa
The Verge article also goes into some detail on the political entanglements associated with selecting Huntsville as the site for their engine factory.
twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1628894298950324224QuoteBruno: Pacing item for the launch date is finishing up the formal qualification of the BE-4 rocket engine. It' going well in general, but it’s taking a little longer than anticipated.
https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1628894884982579201QuoteBruno says the current plan for additional testing will require about six more weeks. This would put Vulcan in a mid-April timeframe. However there is payload readiness to consider.
While all pre-qualification BE-4 engines performed essentially the same, one of the two qualification engines' oxygen pump was performing about 5% better than expected. Testing paused to make sure this was well understood.
Was thinking it would been easier to expanded the BE-4 prototype production facility at Washington state than to set up and staffed new facility. Also got to remember that Blue Origin got the Amazon infrastructure to draw resources from in Washington.I doubt it caused much of a delay. Most of what needed to be done in Alabama would have needed to be done at any other site. If this caused a delay, it was a small price to pay compared to the long term savings from being in a low cost state like Alabama.For the record, the selection of Huntsville for the BE-4 and BE-3 engine production facility was made in 2017.In hindsight. It would been better to build the BE-4 factory in Washington state. Since setting up and staffing a new Alabama or Florida facility probably contributed to the delay in BE-4 availability, IMO.
Per this Geekwire article, the alternate sites were in Washington state (I would guess near Kent, where the prototype, development, first flight, and qualification engines were made) and Florida (probably near the New Glenn production facility).
"Washington state and Florida had been under consideration for the engine factory as well, but the nod went instead to Huntsville – which has a rich heritage in rocket engine development"
https://www.geekwire.com/2017/jeff-bezos-blue-origin-picks-huntsville-alabama-rocket-city-4-engine/
Per this Verge article, "[Blue Origin] says it will only build the facility once ULA officially selects the BE-4 as the Vulcan’s main engine."
https://www.theverge.com/2017/6/26/15873354/blue-origin-be-4-rocket-engine-huntsville-alabama-nasa
The Verge article also goes into some detail on the political entanglements associated with selecting Huntsville as the site for their engine factory.
I doubt it caused much of a delay. Most of what needed to be done in Alabama would have needed to be done at any other site. If this caused a delay, it was a small price to pay compared to the long term savings from being in a low cost state like Alabama.
I doubt it caused much of a delay. Most of what needed to be done in Alabama would have needed to be done at any other site. If this caused a delay, it was a small price to pay compared to the long term savings from being in a low cost state like Alabama.
As someone living in a “low cost area,” I will point out that the high cost areas cost more because many many more people want to live there.
"Gentrification" = more people want to live in an area and housing supply is limited (due to zoning restrictions or whatever). It's not a magic, separate thing. It literally is supply-demand, just with the supply artificially limited, which pushes upper middle class people into what would otherwise be middle- or working-class housing.I doubt it caused much of a delay. Most of what needed to be done in Alabama would have needed to be done at any other site. If this caused a delay, it was a small price to pay compared to the long term savings from being in a low cost state like Alabama.
As someone living in a “low cost area,” I will point out that the high cost areas cost more because many many more people want to live there.
There's more to it than just market supply-demand. Gentrification of an area is also a thing that can further drive up property values.
While all pre-qualification BE-4 engines performed essentially the same, one of the two qualification engines' oxygen pump was performing about 5% better than expected. Testing paused to make sure this was well understood.
The article said that the BO engineers would tear down the engine and analyze it. To me, that implies that they think that understanding the off-nominal operation requires more than just looking at the blueprints, and is an actual concern. Basically, something weird happened and they don't yet know what it was. After they understand it, they may conclude that no change is needed, but they cannot say that yet, so the rest of us just have to wait.While all pre-qualification BE-4 engines performed essentially the same, one of the two qualification engines' oxygen pump was performing about 5% better than expected. Testing paused to make sure this was well understood.
I would not call an oxygen pump on one of four (supposedly) identical engines pumping 5% more oxygen than intended to be "Better than expected", more does not equal better. They are supposed to be way past the engine development phase - ULA needs engines that perform as designed and are delivered on schedule. This is supposed to be an anti-SpaceX development philosophy that doesn't rely on binning matched sets of mass-produced engines. They are supposed to just work as advertised.
You don't pause testing to understand behavior that is "better than expected". For this engine and this customer, expected behavior = best behavior. Tony Bruno isn't sitting back and thinking that it's just wonderful news that one of the two qualification engines has an out-of-family oxygen pump.
The article said that the BO engineers would tear down the engine and analyze it. To me, that implies that they think that understanding the off-nominal operation requires more than just looking at the blueprints, and is an actual concern. Basically, something weird happened and they don't yet know what it was. After they understand it, they may conclude that no change is needed, but they cannot say that yet, so the rest of us just have to wait.While all pre-qualification BE-4 engines performed essentially the same, one of the two qualification engines' oxygen pump was performing about 5% better than expected. Testing paused to make sure this was well understood.
I would not call an oxygen pump on one of four (supposedly) identical engines pumping 5% more oxygen than intended to be "Better than expected", more does not equal better. They are supposed to be way past the engine development phase - ULA needs engines that perform as designed and are delivered on schedule. This is supposed to be an anti-SpaceX development philosophy that doesn't rely on binning matched sets of mass-produced engines. They are supposed to just work as advertised.
You don't pause testing to understand behavior that is "better than expected". For this engine and this customer, expected behavior = best behavior. Tony Bruno isn't sitting back and thinking that it's just wonderful news that one of the two qualification engines has an out-of-family oxygen pump.
ULA and Blue Origin decided to take the engine off the test stand and disassemble it. Engineers concluded that the higher performance was just “unit-to-unit variation” and not a problem with the engine itself, Bruno said.
“Now we’re satisfied and will resume testing shortly with the other engine,” he said.
"Gentrification" = more people want to live in an area and housing supply is limited (due to zoning restrictions or whatever). It's not a magic, separate thing. It literally is supply-demand, just with the supply artificially limited, which pushes upper middle class people into what would otherwise be middle- or working-class housing.I doubt it caused much of a delay. Most of what needed to be done in Alabama would have needed to be done at any other site. If this caused a delay, it was a small price to pay compared to the long term savings from being in a low cost state like Alabama.
As someone living in a “low cost area,” I will point out that the high cost areas cost more because many many more people want to live there.
There's more to it than just market supply-demand. Gentrification of an area is also a thing that can further drive up property values.
We need a BO gentrification thread"Gentrification" = more people want to live in an area and housing supply is limited (due to zoning restrictions or whatever). It's not a magic, separate thing. It literally is supply-demand, just with the supply artificially limited, which pushes upper middle class people into what would otherwise be middle- or working-class housing.I doubt it caused much of a delay. Most of what needed to be done in Alabama would have needed to be done at any other site. If this caused a delay, it was a small price to pay compared to the long term savings from being in a low cost state like Alabama.
As someone living in a “low cost area,” I will point out that the high cost areas cost more because many many more people want to live there.
There's more to it than just market supply-demand. Gentrification of an area is also a thing that can further drive up property values.
Normal free mark demand would solve the problem one way or the other on its own. You yourself admit that gentrification does, in fact, involve artificial influence from a government.
Sometimes this results in a good thing and sometimes it leads to very bad things happening, such as the mass displacement of low and middle income families as well as businesses.
However, the area being referenced in the original post has often been on the higher value of the property scale. Until recently. Hence having Blue Origin and ULA open an engine factory in Huntsville or anywhere else makes reasonable sense.
While all pre-qualification BE-4 engines performed essentially the same, one of the two qualification engines' oxygen pump was performing about 5% better than expected. Testing paused to make sure this was well understood.How can a pump with no design changes perform BETTER than expected? The only obvious candidate (to me anyway) is that the clearances between the moving impellers and the casing are smaller than usual, resulting in less loss due to leakage.
so they have been testing that engine since December 2021
so they have been testing that engine since December 2021
The video time stamps show December 9, 2022.
so they have been testing that engine since December 2021
The video time stamps show December 9, 2022.
No, a video has a time stamp of December 9 2022. That doesn't mean it was the first hot firing of said engine. In an interview in 2021 they said the first engine was built and on the test stand
Blue Origin shows a new video highlighting testing and development work on New Glenn, including a BE-4 engine test. ULA's Tory Bruno chimes in: was that your engine or mine?
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1636087533489516545QuoteBruno: BE-4 engines for second Vulcan launch "are being built right now" in Blue Origin's factory and "proceeding along well."
After debut flight, will "take a couple of months" to study data before launching again.
Bruno: still confident in a Vulcan launch in May. A little more than halfway through qualification testing of BE-4; likely the pacing item for launch.
We don't have a solid date for exactly when Qual testing started, but we know from past Tory tweets that 'pre-Qual testing' was underway mid-August (2022) and Qual testing was underway mid-September (2022), so being ~6 months into Qual testing and "little more than halfway through" does not inspire the greatest confidence for a rapid completion of Qual testing in the near future.
We don't have a solid date for exactly when Qual testing started, but we know from past Tory tweets that 'pre-Qual testing' was underway mid-August (2022) and Qual testing was underway mid-September (2022), so being ~6 months into Qual testing and "little more than halfway through" does not inspire the greatest confidence for a rapid completion of Qual testing in the near future.
I wouldn't interpret it quite that negatively. My personal experience with qual testing is that you start, fail, fix, restart (from the beginning because of a new design configuration), go farther, fail differently, fix, rinse, and repeat.
So I'd say we still don't know how long a given design's qual test suite takes, but I'd doubt seriously it's 6 months.
We don't have a solid date for exactly when Qual testing started, but we know from past Tory tweets that 'pre-Qual testing' was underway mid-August (2022) and Qual testing was underway mid-September (2022), so being ~6 months into Qual testing and "little more than halfway through" does not inspire the greatest confidence for a rapid completion of Qual testing in the near future.
I wouldn't interpret it quite that negatively. My personal experience with qual testing is that you start, fail, fix, restart (from the beginning because of a new design configuration), go farther, fail differently, fix, rinse, and repeat.
So I'd say we still don't know how long a given design's qual test suite takes, but I'd doubt seriously it's 6 months.
"Continuously failing tests" isn't exactly a positive outcome either. If only because it means there's no way to know how much more time remains, since it's entirely dependent on how many more tests fail, and there's already a track record of failing lots of tests.
Also, if they keep making changes to the design configuration, how would that impact the BE-4s which are already installed on Vulcan? Do they need to remove them to make the corresponding changes before launch?
aye, if qual testing forces engine changes, those changes will need to be made to vulcan.We don't have a solid date for exactly when Qual testing started, but we know from past Tory tweets that 'pre-Qual testing' was underway mid-August (2022) and Qual testing was underway mid-September (2022), so being ~6 months into Qual testing and "little more than halfway through" does not inspire the greatest confidence for a rapid completion of Qual testing in the near future.
I wouldn't interpret it quite that negatively. My personal experience with qual testing is that you start, fail, fix, restart (from the beginning because of a new design configuration), go farther, fail differently, fix, rinse, and repeat.
So I'd say we still don't know how long a given design's qual test suite takes, but I'd doubt seriously it's 6 months.
"Continuously failing tests" isn't exactly a positive outcome either. If only because it means there's no way to know how much more time remains, since it's entirely dependent on how many more tests fail, and there's already a track record of failing lots of tests.
Also, if they keep making changes to the design configuration, how would that impact the BE-4s which are already installed on Vulcan? Do they need to remove them to make the corresponding changes before launch?
Cross-post:QuoteBruno: BE-4 engines for second Vulcan launch "are being built right now" in Blue Origin's factory and "proceeding along well."
After debut flight, will "take a couple of months" to study data before launching again.
QuoteBruno: still confident in a Vulcan launch in May. A little more than halfway through qualification testing of BE-4; likely the pacing item for launch.
We don't have a solid date for exactly when Qual testing started, but we know from past Tory tweets that 'pre-Qual testing' was underway mid-August (2022) and Qual testing was underway mid-September (2022), so being ~6 months into Qual testing and "little more than halfway through" does not inspire the greatest confidence for a rapid completion of Qual testing in the near future.
*snip*
Doesn't it seems unlikely that Blue could make any significant changes motivated by the Qual testing to the BE-4's at the Cape or while they are mounted on Vulcan?
One strong possibility is that Blue will pause the build of the Vulcan #2 engines to implement those changes necessitated in the Qual testing and swap them into Vulcan #1.
That seems faster than removing, returning, modifying those two engines.
*snip*
There is no capability at the Cape to remove or modify the BE-4 engines. Vulcan would have to be shipped back to Decatur for that.
There is no capability at the Cape to remove or modify the BE-4 engines. Vulcan would have to be shipped back to Decatur for that.
In normal operations of an expendable booster, there is never a need to do this, so that's a whole lot of expensive equipment and floor space that will never be used after Vulcan becomes operational. This might change if SMART is ever implemented, but probably not, because the retrieved engines could be shipped back to the factory by truck, not barge.There is no capability at the Cape to remove or modify the BE-4 engines. Vulcan would have to be shipped back to Decatur for that.
How much could it cost to build (duplicate) or ship the required gear? Seems nutty to not have that ability at the Cape.
In normal operations of an expendable booster, there is never a need to do this, so that's a whole lot of expensive equipment and floor space that will never be used after Vulcan becomes operational. This might change if SMART is ever implemented, but probably not, because the retrieved engines could be shipped back to the factory by truck, not barge.There is no capability at the Cape to remove or modify the BE-4 engines. Vulcan would have to be shipped back to Decatur for that.
How much could it cost to build (duplicate) or ship the required gear? Seems nutty to not have that ability at the Cape.
In normal operations of an expendable booster, there is never a need to do this, so that's a whole lot of expensive equipment and floor space that will never be used after Vulcan becomes operational. This might change if SMART is ever implemented, but probably not, because the retrieved engines could be shipped back to the factory by truck, not barge.There is no capability at the Cape to remove or modify the BE-4 engines. Vulcan would have to be shipped back to Decatur for that.
How much could it cost to build (duplicate) or ship the required gear? Seems nutty to not have that ability at the Cape.
I’m not buying it. It’s a few jigs or fixtures or whatnot. If something goes wrong with an engine during a static fire or before the clamps release on launch day, swapping out an engine is critical. Shipping stages all over the country is slow, keeps shipping facilities tied up, keeps gear grounded, etc.
Smart planning means planning for stuff to go wrong, not predicating schedule on everything going right. A round trip or two for a stage to swap engines will likely pay for a second set of kit.
I’m not buying it. It’s a few jigs or fixtures or whatnot.
*snip*
That makes more sense. The "field replacable unit" is the booster itself, not any booster component like the engine. ULA is aiming for at least 70 Vulcan launches in the next five years for a cadence of more than once a month. Queueing a spare booster on site (by ordering boosters a month in advance) will not be a high incremental cost.
I think ULA hasn't ever had to do an engine swap. I can only think of a couple of times when they had to swap boosters for a launch. Removing an engine at the launch site is just not a normal part of their operations.
I’m not buying it. It’s a few jigs or fixtures or whatnot.
*snip*
Pictured: a few fixtures and jigs. (Blue Origin's Kent, WA facility for working on BE-4s)
I’m not buying it. It’s a few jigs or fixtures or whatnot.
*snip*
Pictured: a few fixtures and jigs. (Blue Origin's Kent, WA facility for working on BE-4s)
Sorry to belabor this, but the point seems obvious. All the space and stuff shown above is for BUILDING BE4s, not swapping one.
Engine is easy and cheap to ship, stage is hard and expensive to ship. Parallel build/testing is potentially a LOT less costly if an engine can be swapped at the Cape.
…are we waiting the long days needed for an engine to be shipped over from Decatur?
…are we waiting the long days needed for an engine to be shipped over from Decatur?
Shipping an engine Vs shipping a stage? 🙄
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1636086726811590656QuoteBruno: still confident in a Vulcan launch in May. A little more than halfway through qualification testing of BE-4; likely the pacing item for launch.
We don't have a solid date for exactly when Qual testing started, but we know from past Tory tweets that 'pre-Qual testing' was underway mid-August (2022) and Qual testing was underway mid-September (2022), so being ~6 months into Qual testing and "little more than halfway through" does not inspire the greatest confidence for a rapid completion of Qual testing in the near future.
We don't have a solid date for exactly when Qual testing started, but we know from past Tory tweets that 'pre-Qual testing' was underway mid-August (2022) and Qual testing was underway mid-September (2022), so being ~6 months into Qual testing and "little more than halfway through" does not inspire the greatest confidence for a rapid completion of Qual testing in the near future.
I wouldn't interpret it quite that negatively. My personal experience with qual testing is that you start, fail, fix, restart (from the beginning because of a new design configuration), go farther, fail differently, fix, rinse, and repeat.
So I'd say we still don't know how long a given design's qual test suite takes, but I'd doubt seriously it's 6 months.
"Continuously failing tests" isn't exactly a positive outcome either. If only because it means there's no way to know how much more time remains, since it's entirely dependent on how many more tests fail, and there's already a track record of failing lots of tests.
Also, if they keep making changes to the design configuration, how would that impact the BE-4s which are already installed on Vulcan? Do they need to remove them to make the corresponding changes before launch?
We don't have a solid date for exactly when Qual testing started, but we know from past Tory tweets that 'pre-Qual testing' was underway mid-August (2022) and Qual testing was underway mid-September (2022), so being ~6 months into Qual testing and "little more than halfway through" does not inspire the greatest confidence for a rapid completion of Qual testing in the near future.
I wouldn't interpret it quite that negatively. My personal experience with qual testing is that you start, fail, fix, restart (from the beginning because of a new design configuration), go farther, fail differently, fix, rinse, and repeat.
So I'd say we still don't know how long a given design's qual test suite takes, but I'd doubt seriously it's 6 months.
"Continuously failing tests" isn't exactly a positive outcome either. If only because it means there's no way to know how much more time remains, since it's entirely dependent on how many more tests fail, and there's already a track record of failing lots of tests.
Also, if they keep making changes to the design configuration, how would that impact the BE-4s which are already installed on Vulcan? Do they need to remove them to make the corresponding changes before launch?
Keep in mind, that BE-4 is not "continuously failing tests". If it was, then everything going on at Cape Canaveral would have ground to a halt and the Vulcan Certification-1 booster sent back to Decatur for the engines to be removed, modified, and re-qualified. Or, given from the Facebook, now YouTube video, we know Qualification-1 engine was firing at least as early as December 9th, Vulcan would never have shipped at all.
But there is no evidence of this. Tory Bruno when asked on Twitter stated that the qualification was doing well overall with the only issue being the consistent 5% performance improvement on one of the two engines. That engine we know was taken apart and thoroughly examined, determined to be a unit-to-unit variation, and the test program was then allowed to proceed with a probable completion in mid to late April. Or well before that since Tory put it in the context of Vulcan being ready to go for launch by mid-April, but the next available launch window for the lunar trajectory would not be open again until May 4th.
Also, assuming Foust is accurately quoting here, the implication is that the testing is currently on-going with little or no trouble as it is over halfway done.
We don't have a solid date for exactly when Qual testing started, but we know from past Tory tweets that 'pre-Qual testing' was underway mid-August (2022) and Qual testing was underway mid-September (2022), so being ~6 months into Qual testing and "little more than halfway through" does not inspire the greatest confidence for a rapid completion of Qual testing in the near future.
I wouldn't interpret it quite that negatively. My personal experience with qual testing is that you start, fail, fix, restart (from the beginning because of a new design configuration), go farther, fail differently, fix, rinse, and repeat.
So I'd say we still don't know how long a given design's qual test suite takes, but I'd doubt seriously it's 6 months.
"Continuously failing tests" isn't exactly a positive outcome either. If only because it means there's no way to know how much more time remains, since it's entirely dependent on how many more tests fail, and there's already a track record of failing lots of tests.
Also, if they keep making changes to the design configuration, how would that impact the BE-4s which are already installed on Vulcan? Do they need to remove them to make the corresponding changes before launch?
Keep in mind, that BE-4 is not "continuously failing tests". If it was, then everything going on at Cape Canaveral would have ground to a halt and the Vulcan Certification-1 booster sent back to Decatur for the engines to be removed, modified, and re-qualified. Or, given from the Facebook, now YouTube video, we know Qualification-1 engine was firing at least as early as December 9th, Vulcan would never have shipped at all.
But there is no evidence of this. Tory Bruno when asked on Twitter stated that the qualification was doing well overall with the only issue being the consistent 5% performance improvement on one of the two engines. That engine we know was taken apart and thoroughly examined, determined to be a unit-to-unit variation, and the test program was then allowed to proceed with a probable completion in mid to late April. Or well before that since Tory put it in the context of Vulcan being ready to go for launch by mid-April, but the next available launch window for the lunar trajectory would not be open again until May 4th.
Also, assuming Foust is accurately quoting here, the implication is that the testing is currently on-going with little or no trouble as it is over halfway done.
I was mostly responding to Vettedrmr's suggestion that the tests seemed slow because they were in a repeated fail-fix-test cycle. Vettedrmr proposed that this was why qual testing has taken six months so far and is still only halfway done: not that a full year's worth of qual tests were planned, but that due to fail-fix-test, they'd only gotten through half of the tests successfully so far.
If you don't think there's a fail-fix-test cycle, what do you think explains qual testing being only halfway done after six months? A full year of testing?
They did have to stop, disassemble an engine, and then presumably reassemble it to continue the qual testing.
We don't have a solid date for exactly when Qual testing started, but we know from past Tory tweets that 'pre-Qual testing' was underway mid-August (2022) and Qual testing was underway mid-September (2022), so being ~6 months into Qual testing and "little more than halfway through" does not inspire the greatest confidence for a rapid completion of Qual testing in the near future.
I wouldn't interpret it quite that negatively. My personal experience with qual testing is that you start, fail, fix, restart (from the beginning because of a new design configuration), go farther, fail differently, fix, rinse, and repeat.
So I'd say we still don't know how long a given design's qual test suite takes, but I'd doubt seriously it's 6 months.
"Continuously failing tests" isn't exactly a positive outcome either. If only because it means there's no way to know how much more time remains, since it's entirely dependent on how many more tests fail, and there's already a track record of failing lots of tests.
Also, if they keep making changes to the design configuration, how would that impact the BE-4s which are already installed on Vulcan? Do they need to remove them to make the corresponding changes before launch?
Keep in mind, that BE-4 is not "continuously failing tests". If it was, then everything going on at Cape Canaveral would have ground to a halt and the Vulcan Certification-1 booster sent back to Decatur for the engines to be removed, modified, and re-qualified. Or, given from the Facebook, now YouTube video, we know Qualification-1 engine was firing at least as early as December 9th, Vulcan would never have shipped at all.
But there is no evidence of this. Tory Bruno when asked on Twitter stated that the qualification was doing well overall with the only issue being the consistent 5% performance improvement on one of the two engines. That engine we know was taken apart and thoroughly examined, determined to be a unit-to-unit variation, and the test program was then allowed to proceed with a probable completion in mid to late April. Or well before that since Tory put it in the context of Vulcan being ready to go for launch by mid-April, but the next available launch window for the lunar trajectory would not be open again until May 4th.
Also, assuming Foust is accurately quoting here, the implication is that the testing is currently on-going with little or no trouble as it is over halfway done.
I was mostly responding to Vettedrmr's suggestion that the tests seemed slow because they were in a repeated fail-fix-test cycle. Vettedrmr proposed that this was why qual testing has taken six months so far and is still only halfway done: not that a full year's worth of qual tests were planned, but that due to fail-fix-test, they'd only gotten through half of the tests successfully so far.
If you don't think there's a fail-fix-test cycle, what do you think explains qual testing being only halfway done after six months? A full year of testing?
The one real issue we know of is the stopping to examine the 5% over performance of one engine and then testing resumed.This was 5% overperformance of one pump, not one engine. And overperformance of one pump will not directly translate into higher performance of the engine as a whole. It can't pump faster, otherwise the tanks won't empty at the same time. And it can't pump at higher pressure into the combustion chamber, since that would also result in increased flow as well. And you can't even spin the shaft slower (to make the job easier on the turbine) since the other pump is on the same shaft and needs to spin at the normal speed.
The one real issue we know of is the stopping to examine the 5% over performance of one engine and then testing resumed.This was 5% overperformance of one pump, not one engine. And overperformance of one pump will not directly translate into higher performance of the engine as a whole. It can't pump faster, otherwise the tanks won't empty at the same time. And it can't pump at higher pressure into the combustion chamber, since that would also result in increased flow as well. And you can't even spin the shaft slower (to make the job easier on the turbine) since the other pump is on the same shaft and needs to spin at the normal speed.
Rocket engines are the Olympic athletes of the mechanical world. And when an Olympic athlete suddenly increases performance by 5%, you don't say he's having a great day, you send him to drug testing. It's exactly the same here - since these pumps have already been extensively optimized, an unexpected 5% increase is cause for concern, not for celebration.
Drug testing, or a hospital.The one real issue we know of is the stopping to examine the 5% over performance of one engine and then testing resumed.This was 5% overperformance of one pump, not one engine. And overperformance of one pump will not directly translate into higher performance of the engine as a whole. It can't pump faster, otherwise the tanks won't empty at the same time. And it can't pump at higher pressure into the combustion chamber, since that would also result in increased flow as well. And you can't even spin the shaft slower (to make the job easier on the turbine) since the other pump is on the same shaft and needs to spin at the normal speed.
Rocket engines are the Olympic athletes of the mechanical world. And when an Olympic athlete suddenly increases performance by 5%, you don't say he's having a great day, you send him to drug testing. It's exactly the same here - since these pumps have already been extensively optimized, an unexpected 5% increase is cause for concern, not for celebration.
Where in any way does that contravene what I wrote? Nowhere did I say that the issue was not looked at or dismissed out of hand.
And I hope that you do not make an athlete go to drug testing when they have the very best day of their career!
Where in any way does that contravene what I wrote? Nowhere did I say that the issue was not looked at or dismissed out of hand.Two ways: In facts, it was not the engine that overperformed, but one of the pumps (and this will result in negligible overperformance of the engine).
And I hope that you do not make an athlete go to drug testing when they have the very best day of their career!Most bicyclists would describe winning the Tour de France, or even a single stage of the Tour de France, as the very best day of their career. But by the rules (https://www.businessinsider.com/tour-de-france-drug-testing-2016-7), "The winner of the day's stage and the overall race leader are automatically tested, as well as six or seven additional riders."
In the Olympics every medalist is tested very shortly after winning.QuoteAnd I hope that you do not make an athlete go to drug testing when they have the very best day of their career!Most bicyclists would describe winning the Tour de France, or even a single stage of the Tour de France, as the very best day of their career. But by the rules (https://www.businessinsider.com/tour-de-france-drug-testing-2016-7), "The winner of the day's stage and the overall race leader are automatically tested, as well as six or seven additional riders."
Where in any way does that contravene what I wrote? Nowhere did I say that the issue was not looked at or dismissed out of hand.Two ways: In facts, it was not the engine that overperformed, but one of the pumps (and this will result in negligible overperformance of the engine).
And in attitude: "Overperformance" sounds like a positive. "Unintended part-to-part variation" sounds like a negative. I was pointing out that both interpretations are possible.QuoteAnd I hope that you do not make an athlete go to drug testing when they have the very best day of their career!Most bicyclists would describe winning the Tour de France, or even a single stage of the Tour de France, as the very best day of their career. But by the rules (https://www.businessinsider.com/tour-de-france-drug-testing-2016-7), "The winner of the day's stage and the overall race leader are automatically tested, as well as six or seven additional riders."
"And I hope that you do not make an athlete go to drug testing when they have the very best day of their career!"
There's a reason the authorities routinely drug check winners of sporting events, both human and animal.
Did you ever hear the name Lance Armstrong, amongst others?
Interesting you mention Armstrong in the context of unexplained 5% performance improvements."And I hope that you do not make an athlete go to drug testing when they have the very best day of their career!"Yes, and I followed his case for a while. I would say that there has never been any hard laboratory-based evidence to indicate that he ever did any performance enhancing drugs.
There's a reason the authorities routinely drug check winners of sporting events, both human and animal.
Did you ever hear the name Lance Armstrong, amongst others?
Colleagues, we are not proposing to do drug testing of the BE-4 and we do not think the engine will enter the tour de France. Please stay on topic.
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1636086726811590656QuoteBruno: still confident in a Vulcan launch in May. A little more than halfway through qualification testing of BE-4; likely the pacing item for launch.
We don't have a solid date for exactly when Qual testing started, but we know from past Tory tweets that 'pre-Qual testing' was underway mid-August (2022) and Qual testing was underway mid-September (2022), so being ~6 months into Qual testing and "little more than halfway through" does not inspire the greatest confidence for a rapid completion of Qual testing in the near future.
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1636086726811590656QuoteBruno: still confident in a Vulcan launch in May. A little more than halfway through qualification testing of BE-4; likely the pacing item for launch.
We don't have a solid date for exactly when Qual testing started, but we know from past Tory tweets that 'pre-Qual testing' was underway mid-August (2022) and Qual testing was underway mid-September (2022), so being ~6 months into Qual testing and "little more than halfway through" does not inspire the greatest confidence for a rapid completion of Qual testing in the near future.
I'm not quite sure where you get this. The very earliest possible test firing of one of the two qual engines was caught by an imaging satellite in late November:
https://twitter.com/Harry__Stranger/status/1598106301363781632?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1598106301363781632%7Ctwgr%5E29e5a2e81b847add7145dffae144860fc11e7418%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fforum.nasaspaceflight.com%2Findex.php%3Ftopic%3D39674.2120
The Qual-1 engine firing seen in the recent video took place a little over two weeks later on December 9 (a rare instance of the timestamps being left in the video).
It's very possible that there were qual engine firings well before then, but we have little evidence. We only know by late September or early October that development work was done per the official press release (https://www.blueorigin.com/news/blue-origin-completes-the-delivery-of-flight-engines-to-ula-for-vulcan-initial-launch/), and the spin up to starting the qual testing began, presumably with cold flow tests, maybe an ATP for each engine to ensure they'd work, and then full on qual testing by November. We also don't know how the qual testing here is structured and what exact objectives are being looked for with each firing.
February 23rd we were told that 6 more weeks was needed:
https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1628894884982579201?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1628894884982579201%7Ctwgr%5E2e73094a8e56cadf274eb82d5310fdba857b116a%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fforum.nasaspaceflight.com%2Findex.php%3Ftopic%3D39674.2220
So, it's about 3 weeks or so later, and we should be hearing in about two to three weeks if everything is finished or if more time is needed.
Without [sight] of the stand the only thing that can be said with any certainty is occasional an engine is test fired there. It's about as clear as mud beyond that.It's clear as mud even with sight of the test stand(s). With SpaceX we can see each firing in real time, but still don't know what they are for. Presumably some are acceptance tests of completed engines, some are qualification tests, some are limit-finding, some are testing proposed changes, and so on. Occasionally it's clear from the test (rapid restart, thrust vectoring), but usually it's not. Plus we don't know which engine is being tested for each test.
The problem being is we have no way to tell if that's a qual firing, or some other engine test, we can guess, but that's about al it is, a guess, the firings might have started in late November... or they could have started earlier and had a break in between.
Without site of the stand the only thing that can be said with any certainty is occasional an engine is test fired there. It's about as clear as mud beyond that.
We know the BE-4 version that will be used for New Glenn differs from that for Vulcan (air restart, if nothing else). Presumably this needs to be tested, and it would make sense to do this in parallel with Vulcan qualification, rather than waiting until the last minute.Quote from: WindnWarThe problem being is we have no way to tell if that's a qual firing, or some other engine test, we can guess, but that's about al it is, a guess, the firings might have started in late November... or they could have started earlier and had a break in between.What other engine test would it be around that time frame?
Without site of the stand the only thing that can be said with any certainty is occasional an engine is test fired there. It's about as clear as mud beyond that.
Where in any way does that contravene what I wrote? Nowhere did I say that the issue was not looked at or dismissed out of hand.Two ways: In facts, it was not the engine that overperformed, but one of the pumps (and this will result in negligible overperformance of the engine).
And in attitude: "Overperformance" sounds like a positive. "Unintended part-to-part variation" sounds like a negative. I was pointing out that both interpretations are possible.
We know the BE-4 version that will be used for New Glenn differs from that for Vulcan (air restart, if nothing else). Presumably this needs to be tested, and it would make sense to do this in parallel with Vulcan qualification, rather than waiting until the last minute.Quote from: WindnWarThe problem being is we have no way to tell if that's a qual firing, or some other engine test, we can guess, but that's about al it is, a guess, the firings might have started in late November... or they could have started earlier and had a break in between.What other engine test would it be around that time frame?
Without site of the stand the only thing that can be said with any certainty is occasional an engine is test fired there. It's about as clear as mud beyond that.
Does anyone here know the scale of subsystem variabilities in established engines like the RS-25 or Merlin, and how launcher programs accommodate these variations?
Does anyone here know the scale of subsystem variabilities in established engines like the RS-25 or Merlin, and how launcher programs accommodate these variations?
There is a difference between a head start engine like the RS-25 and spin start engine like Merlin. The complexity for a head start is evident in the video. Spin start are easy.
Does anyone here know the scale of subsystem variabilities in established engines like the RS-25 or Merlin, and how launcher programs accommodate these variations?
There is a difference between a head start engine like the RS-25 and spin start engine like Merlin. The complexity for a head start is evident in the video. Spin start are easy.
Do we know anything about how the BE-4 starts?
"Easy" is relative. Spin or no spin it's still a whole lot of stuff to get up and keep stable through all of the transients.
"Easy" is relative. Spin or no spin it's still a whole lot of stuff to get up and keep stable through all of the transients.
The transients and interrelations are much less on a spin start. Spin start are used on open cycle engines and there is less feed back
Head start on BE-4 seems technically much harder than on a fuel rich preburner such as RS-25. To do a head start they would have to let the LOX flow first, let it flash into vapor, and let the vapor start the turbine. However since LOX is not used to cool the nozzle, there's a lot less surface area to boil the LOX, so the flow would be a lot less. In addition this would mean an oxygen-rich main chamber start, which would need to transit through stochiometric to get to the steady state. That seems dangerous. In addition it would need to work for both a ground start (engine at room temperature) and when starting the landing burn (engine was running a few minutes earlier). These seem like very different thermal states."Easy" is relative. Spin or no spin it's still a whole lot of stuff to get up and keep stable through all of the transients.The transients and interrelations are much less on a spin start. Spin start are used on open cycle engines and there is less feed back
"Easy" is relative. Spin or no spin it's still a whole lot of stuff to get up and keep stable through all of the transients.
The transients and interrelations are much less on a spin start. Spin start are used on open cycle engines and there is less feed back
We may not know details about how BE-4 starts, but we do know it isn't an open-cycle engine.
I know there's been some talk here about the 4670 test stand at Marshall.
This sat imagery from March 7 shows two trucks at the propellant tanks next to the stand: https://soar.earth/maps/14677?pos=34.63068488866966%2C-86.67247900467149%2C19.66
Can anyone gain any extra insight into this imagery than I can? :)
https://twitter.com/Harry__Stranger/status/1641812040456224768
In the latest video from Blue Origin about three brothers working on New Shepard, we get a blurry glimpse of a BE-4 in the final assembly stands at the Kent factory in Washington. It's clear that the engine is fairly advanced in the final build phase, but because the background is blurred, it is hard to see just how far exactly it is.
A now deleted reddit post by a Blue employee seemed to imply a rivalry between the 2 facilities, and that Huntsville can "suck it" lol.
It might not necessarily be for Vulcan. Could be a New Glenn specific variant. The Huntsville facility should be doing the majority of production.
But on the other hand it's also a strong possibility they have some major catch up to do, and Huntsville isn't producing at full swing. A now deleted reddit post by a Blue employee seemed to imply a rivalry between the 2 facilities, and that Huntsville can "suck it" lol. If that's the case then it might be a case of Kent picking up the slack.
I don't see why they would be delivering units to ULA when they haven't successfully completed qualification testing. OTOH, they've done so much concurrency I guess delivering hardware that may require changes to match the qualified configuration isn't that much of a stretch.
I don't see why they would be delivering units to ULA when they haven't successfully completed qualification testing. OTOH, they've done so much concurrency I guess delivering hardware that may require changes to match the qualified configuration isn't that much of a stretch.
How do you know that BE-4 qualification is not done?
I don't see why they would be delivering units to ULA when they haven't successfully completed qualification testing. OTOH, they've done so much concurrency I guess delivering hardware that may require changes to match the qualified configuration isn't that much of a stretch.
How do you know that BE-4 qualification is not done?
Because ULA and/or BO would be letting everyone know; it's that important a milestone. ULA sure did when they passed acceptance testing, and that's a subset of qual test.
I'd love to believe that qual testing is done, and the Centaur STA "incident" did gather a lot of attention, but I can't imagine passing such a big milestone and NOT letting people know.
And, quite honestly, why do you think a video made months earlier is giving an accurate depiction of acceptance and/or qual testing? It makes much more sense to interpret the announcements as just that, announcements of completion of a significant milestone.
In any case, last I heard Vulcan's hopefully on track for a late summer launch; can't wait to see it!
I also am very offended you dismissed my evidence, including Tory's own tweet.
.
.
You may disagree with their choice or my analysis, but please don't just handwave evidence away.
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1636086726811590656QuoteBruno: still confident in a Vulcan launch in May. A little more than halfway through qualification testing of BE-4; likely the pacing item for launch.
We don't have a solid date for exactly when Qual testing started, but we know from past Tory tweets that 'pre-Qual testing' was underway mid-August (2022) and Qual testing was underway mid-September (2022), so being ~6 months into Qual testing and "little more than halfway through" does not inspire the greatest confidence for a rapid completion of Qual testing in the near future.
I also am very offended you dismissed my evidence, including Tory's own tweet.
.
.
You may disagree with their choice or my analysis, but please don't just handwave evidence away.
Youi mean, like this?https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1636086726811590656QuoteBruno: still confident in a Vulcan launch in May. A little more than halfway through qualification testing of BE-4; likely the pacing item for launch.
We don't have a solid date for exactly when Qual testing started, but we know from past Tory tweets that 'pre-Qual testing' was underway mid-August (2022) and Qual testing was underway mid-September (2022), so being ~6 months into Qual testing and "little more than halfway through" does not inspire the greatest confidence for a rapid completion of Qual testing in the near future.
As someone who rarely comments on this forum, this section and especially this thread never ceases to amaze me.
Is it possible that the BE4 is already certified? Is it possible that they already have the New Glenn version ready too? Is it possible that New Glenn is already ready to launch just waiting for rollout in the hanagar behind those doors? Is it possible that this is all "done and over"?
I suppose in some world it is possible, but is it probable? There really isn't much to suggest so, and attacking eachother over interpretation of vauge tweets is not productive to anything in absence of concrete info.
And regarding "I understand that accepting BE-4 being finally done and over with is hard for some folks,", that is one hell of a loaded statement. I think this is possibly the only section of this form where I regularly see ridiculous suggestions that something that hasn't even flown yet is "done and over"... I hope those reading can keep their common sense about them, and realize that this is an evolving sitatuion where we lack concrete info as the company in question prefers to be opaque, speculation is nothing but that, and we should wait for more information as it becomes available.
Personal attacks aren't cool.
I suppose in some world it is possible, but is it probable? There really isn't much to suggest so, and attacking eachother over interpretation of vauge tweets is not productive to anything in absence of concrete info.
I think we'll accept it when we see it.Quote from: YetAnotherLurkerI suppose in some world it is possible, but is it probable? There really isn't much to suggest so, and attacking eachother over interpretation of vauge tweets is not productive to anything in absence of concrete info.
Blue Origin, especially BE-4, seems to unfortunately be a highly contentious matter, particularly the closer the engine is now than ever before of flying. I would respectfully say that it is very probable it is done in this world given our last concrete statements and the video touting the Huntsville factory in full production.
I don't feel most ill feelings towards BE-4 the "closer it is to flying". I feel the contention is more in how late BE-4 is.I think what really matters long term is how reliable this engine is, especially relative to its competitors. So far, the methane-base launch attempts that beat BE-4 to the pad have all failed.
I don't feel most ill feelings towards BE-4 the "closer it is to flying". I feel the contention is more in how late BE-4 is.I think what really matters long term is how reliable this engine is, especially relative to its competitors. So far, the methane-base launch attempts that beat BE-4 to the pad have all failed.
- Ed Kyle
I don't feel most ill feelings towards BE-4 the "closer it is to flying". I feel the contention is more in how late BE-4 is.I think what really matters long term is how reliable this engine is, especially relative to its competitors. So far, the methane-base launch attempts that beat BE-4 to the pad have all failed.
- Ed Kyle
Ed, not to hijack this thread, but would you count Raptor's flight on SH/SS, or the engines on Terran 1 (sorry, don't remember their names) as failures? Sure, Raptors failed for unknown reasons, and Terran 1's 2nd stage failed, but how would you rate those engine's performance?
Thanks, and have a good one,
Mike
I don't feel most ill feelings towards BE-4 the "closer it is to flying". I feel the contention is more in how late BE-4 is.I think what really matters long term is how reliable this engine is, especially relative to its competitors. So far, the methane-base launch attempts that beat BE-4 to the pad have all failed.
- Ed Kyle
Ed, not to hijack this thread, but would you count Raptor's flight on SH/SS, or the engines on Terran 1 (sorry, don't remember their names) as failures? Sure, Raptors failed for unknown reasons, and Terran 1's 2nd stage failed, but how would you rate those engine's performance?
Thanks, and have a good one,
Mike
We know now that three of the failed Raptor 2 engines were failed before launch, but the SpaceX launch team pressed forward towards launch anyway because the loss of those was deemed not enough a performance hit to preclude launch.
That is a 1-in-11 failure rate, if no other factors are taken into account.
Terran-1's first stage was near perfect with its nine engines, but the second stage Aeon-Vac failure would put it in the 1-in-10 range, again no other factors accounted for.
BE-4 will only provide first stage boost, unlike the original plan for New Glenn where it was to have a vacuum optimized variant, so it will be hard to judge reliability across the spectrum going forward.
I don't feel most ill feelings towards BE-4 the "closer it is to flying". I feel the contention is more in how late BE-4 is.I think what really matters long term is how reliable this engine is, especially relative to its competitors. So far, the methane-base launch attempts that beat BE-4 to the pad have all failed.
- Ed Kyle
Ed, not to hijack this thread, but would you count Raptor's flight on SH/SS, or the engines on Terran 1 (sorry, don't remember their names) as failures? Sure, Raptors failed for unknown reasons, and Terran 1's 2nd stage failed, but how would you rate those engine's performance?
Thanks, and have a good one,
Mike
We know now that three of the failed Raptor 2 engines were failed before launch, but the SpaceX launch team pressed forward towards launch anyway because the loss of those was deemed not enough a performance hit to preclude launch.
That is a 1-in-11 failure rate, if no other factors are taken into account.
Terran-1's first stage was near perfect with its nine engines, but the second stage Aeon-Vac failure would put it in the 1-in-10 range, again no other factors accounted for.
BE-4 will only provide first stage boost, unlike the original plan for New Glenn where it was to have a vacuum optimized variant, so it will be hard to judge reliability across the spectrum going forward.
And five more Raptors failed in flight. We know that those Raptors were earlier builds, but 8/33 doesn't paint a very rosy picture.
Well, Q3 starts in July, and the report states that tests moving towards a launch should commence on July 1. Are you thinking August to allow for Peregrine integration after a WDR?Tanking tests were performed in the Vulcan rocket last March and were flawless, but if a new WDR test of the Centaur upper stage is done in early July, then early August could be a probable launch window for the Peregrine rocket.
ZQ-2, Terran 1, and SH/SS all failed due to, or while suffering, engine or propulsion system failures. I'm not even sure that any of the Starship subsonic prototype flights were completed without engines misbehaving. The way things have gone, BE-4 still has a chance to prove most reliable of the bunch - or not. As we've seen with Falcon 9 and other successful launch vehicles, engine reliability is paramount.I don't feel most ill feelings towards BE-4 the "closer it is to flying". I feel the contention is more in how late BE-4 is.I think what really matters long term is how reliable this engine is, especially relative to its competitors. So far, the methane-base launch attempts that beat BE-4 to the pad have all failed.
- Ed Kyle
Ed, not to hijack this thread, but would you count Raptor's flight on SH/SS, or the engines on Terran 1 (sorry, don't remember their names) as failures? Sure, Raptors failed for unknown reasons, and Terran 1's 2nd stage failed, but how would you rate those engine's performance?
Thanks, and have a good one,
Mike
It might not necessarily be for Vulcan. Could be a New Glenn specific variant. The Huntsville facility should be doing the majority of production.
But on the other hand it's also a strong possibility they have some major catch up to do, and Huntsville isn't producing at full swing. A now deleted reddit post by a Blue employee seemed to imply a rivalry between the 2 facilities, and that Huntsville can "suck it" lol. If that's the case then it might be a case of Kent picking up the slack.
With regards to the project to revive the historic Saturn V test stand [4670], at Huntsville...
https://newatlas.com/blue-origin-saturn-v-test-stand/59381/
What is it's current status? I would have thought by now that Blue Origin would have completed the remediation of the test stand, and it would be operation by now to test BE-3, BE-4 engines out of the factory at Huntsville. Have other significant issues arisen that have pushed back the completion and bringing back into operation this test stand? Does anyone have any inside news?
Hello I posted this and did not get a response... does any one know the status of Test Stand 4670?The ARS Technica article from a month ago about the ULA Centaur RUD had a picture of it with the mushroom cloud in the background at:It might not necessarily be for Vulcan. Could be a New Glenn specific variant. The Huntsville facility should be doing the majority of production.
But on the other hand it's also a strong possibility they have some major catch up to do, and Huntsville isn't producing at full swing. A now deleted reddit post by a Blue employee seemed to imply a rivalry between the 2 facilities, and that Huntsville can "suck it" lol. If that's the case then it might be a case of Kent picking up the slack.
With regards to the project to revive the historic Saturn V test stand [4670], at Huntsville...
https://newatlas.com/blue-origin-saturn-v-test-stand/59381/
What is it's current status? I would have thought by now that Blue Origin would have completed the remediation of the test stand, and it would be operation by now to test BE-3, BE-4 engines out of the factory at Huntsville. Have other significant issues arisen that have pushed back the completion and bringing back into operation this test stand? Does anyone have any inside news?
Hello I posted this and did not get a response... does any one know the status of Test Stand 4670?The ARS Technica article from a month ago about the ULA Centaur RUD had a picture of it with the mushroom cloud in the background at:It might not necessarily be for Vulcan. Could be a New Glenn specific variant. The Huntsville facility should be doing the majority of production.
But on the other hand it's also a strong possibility they have some major catch up to do, and Huntsville isn't producing at full swing. A now deleted reddit post by a Blue employee seemed to imply a rivalry between the 2 facilities, and that Huntsville can "suck it" lol. If that's the case then it might be a case of Kent picking up the slack.
With regards to the project to revive the historic Saturn V test stand [4670], at Huntsville...
https://newatlas.com/blue-origin-saturn-v-test-stand/59381/
What is it's current status? I would have thought by now that Blue Origin would have completed the remediation of the test stand, and it would be operation by now to test BE-3, BE-4 engines out of the factory at Huntsville. Have other significant issues arisen that have pushed back the completion and bringing back into operation this test stand? Does anyone have any inside news?
https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/04/ula-continues-investigation-of-centaur-stage-anomaly/ (https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/04/ula-continues-investigation-of-centaur-stage-anomaly/)
"The anomaly was captured on video cameras operated by Blue Origin, which is restoring a nearby test stand. Located about 100 meters from the United Launch Alliance facility, Blue Origin has invested more than $100 million in NASA's old Test Stand 4670 for acceptance testing of its BE-4 and BE-3U rocket engines."
Other than this update that says they have sunk $100 million into it, I haven't heard anything recent.
Thank you... I think it is a bit of a mystery that it is not yet in use... one does wonder why, when June last year Blue released showing a BE-4 engine in the test stand.... stating ...I think one of the reasons Blue is slow on things is that they are trying to do too much at the same time. As rich as Jeff Bezos is, he isn't pouring unlimited amounts of cash into the company. I suspect that they are slowing some things down so resources can be put elsewhere.
" For the first time, our Huntsville engines team has installed a [BE-4] engine into Blue Origin’s refurbished and historic MSFC Test Stand 4670 preparing for commissioning tests,” the company said .... "
https://spaceexplored.com/2022/06/21/blue-origin-be-4-engine-test-stand-photos/
Clearly there are some still un resolved issues...
Congratulations Blue Origin on finishing BE-4 Block 1 development
With that said this is the most unceremonious finish to an engine development process. And people here were talking about how Blue Origin would shout from the rooftops of qualification being finished. And in the end, we just get a 'yes' to a question on twitter, A response that you wouldn't even see unless you went deep in his replies.
That is unless it passed A firing. and not the test firing program itself.
Congratulations Blue Origin on finishing BE-4 Block 1 developmentNot to be a nattering nabob of negativism, but I wonder if the lack of celebration is that the engine is not yet qualified for Blue's own purposes. If they announce it's qualified, the obvious next questions would be "Is it air-restartable?" and "How many flights is it qualified for?". If the answers are "no" and "one", then the BE-4 could be qualified for Vulcan, but not qualified in general. So the team might regard this as "Meh, we're partway there. We'll celebrate when we are done.", sort of like a sports team not celebrating when they win the semifinal - there's more work to do before declaring victory.
With that said this is the most unceremonious finish to an engine development process. And people here were talking about how Blue Origin would shout from the rooftops of qualification being finished. And in the end, we just get a 'yes' to a question on twitter, A response that you wouldn't even see unless you went deep in his replies.
Not to be a nattering nabob of negativism, but I wonder if the lack of celebration is that the engine is not yet qualified for Blue's own purposes. If they announce it's qualified, the obvious next questions would be "Is it air-restartable?" and "How many flights is it qualified for?". If the answers are "no" and "one", then the BE-4 could be qualified for Vulcan, but not qualified in general. So the team might regard this as "Meh, we're partway there. We'll celebrate when we are done.", sort of like a sports team not celebrating when they win the semifinal - there's more work to do before declaring victory.
QuoteAwesome news! Does this mean the BE-4 quals are all complete now?
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1656612692097138688QuoteYes. BE qual was complete several weeks ago
Hey, I'm the one that thought they'd make more of a deal about it, and with it being such a huge milestone IDK why they didn't. But, I'm gonna take that tweet that BE-4's passed its qual tests, and am REALLY relieved to have that behind them.
Next up: Vulcan's static fire. Fingers crossed!
Y'all have a good one,
Mike
Congratulations Blue Origin on finishing BE-4 Block 1 developmentNot to be a nattering nabob of negativism, but I wonder if the lack of celebration is that the engine is not yet qualified for Blue's own purposes. If they announce it's qualified, the obvious next questions would be "Is it air-restartable?" and "How many flights is it qualified for?". If the answers are "no" and "one", then the BE-4 could be qualified for Vulcan, but not qualified in general. So the team might regard this as "Meh, we're partway there. We'll celebrate when we are done.", sort of like a sports team not celebrating when they win the semifinal - there's more work to do before declaring victory.
With that said this is the most unceremonious finish to an engine development process. And people here were talking about how Blue Origin would shout from the rooftops of qualification being finished. And in the end, we just get a 'yes' to a question on twitter, A response that you wouldn't even see unless you went deep in his replies.
I have not been paying attention, so I don't know what BO's plan is for missions. Has a BO person said whether or not they intend to do booster boost-back and RTLS for some or all missions?Congratulations Blue Origin on finishing BE-4 Block 1 developmentNot to be a nattering nabob of negativism, but I wonder if the lack of celebration is that the engine is not yet qualified for Blue's own purposes. If they announce it's qualified, the obvious next questions would be "Is it air-restartable?" and "How many flights is it qualified for?". If the answers are "no" and "one", then the BE-4 could be qualified for Vulcan, but not qualified in general. So the team might regard this as "Meh, we're partway there. We'll celebrate when we are done.", sort of like a sports team not celebrating when they win the semifinal - there's more work to do before declaring victory.
With that said this is the most unceremonious finish to an engine development process. And people here were talking about how Blue Origin would shout from the rooftops of qualification being finished. And in the end, we just get a 'yes' to a question on twitter, A response that you wouldn't even see unless you went deep in his replies.
It is more likely that Vulcan qualification dovetails in very strongly since it has been stated several times now that there is very little difference between a BE-4 for Vulcan versus one on New Glenn.
That indicates that New Glenn will probably use six non-restartable BE-4s, and one that is restartable. So it is reasonable to assume that the work on Vulcan will be what retires a great deal of risk for those six engines, and thus Blue Origin can concentrate more on making the restartable BE-4 as reliable as possible for restarting in-flight. If what we have seen in the videos are correct, the restartable BE-4 will only need one restart, not multiple ones as is the case with the SpaceX Merlin 1D series, unless it is absolutely necessary for a boost back burn for a return to launch site landing.
I have not been paying attention, so I don't know what BO's plan is for missions. Has a BO person said whether or not they intend to do booster boost-back and RTLS for some or all missions?Congratulations Blue Origin on finishing BE-4 Block 1 developmentNot to be a nattering nabob of negativism, but I wonder if the lack of celebration is that the engine is not yet qualified for Blue's own purposes. If they announce it's qualified, the obvious next questions would be "Is it air-restartable?" and "How many flights is it qualified for?". If the answers are "no" and "one", then the BE-4 could be qualified for Vulcan, but not qualified in general. So the team might regard this as "Meh, we're partway there. We'll celebrate when we are done.", sort of like a sports team not celebrating when they win the semifinal - there's more work to do before declaring victory.
With that said this is the most unceremonious finish to an engine development process. And people here were talking about how Blue Origin would shout from the rooftops of qualification being finished. And in the end, we just get a 'yes' to a question on twitter, A response that you wouldn't even see unless you went deep in his replies.
It is more likely that Vulcan qualification dovetails in very strongly since it has been stated several times now that there is very little difference between a BE-4 for Vulcan versus one on New Glenn.
That indicates that New Glenn will probably use six non-restartable BE-4s, and one that is restartable. So it is reasonable to assume that the work on Vulcan will be what retires a great deal of risk for those six engines, and thus Blue Origin can concentrate more on making the restartable BE-4 as reliable as possible for restarting in-flight. If what we have seen in the videos are correct, the restartable BE-4 will only need one restart, not multiple ones as is the case with the SpaceX Merlin 1D series, unless it is absolutely necessary for a boost back burn for a return to launch site landing.
No boost-back burn, no RTLS, no reentry burn either. Always downrange landing on a ship (latest info is that Blue Origin ordered a refitted barge pretty much identical to SpaceX's ASDSs). The huge chines on the sides of the booster are to provide drag / lift during descent, so it should be able to slow itself down enough to survive without a reentry burn. It can then maneuver itself for a targeted landing.
I have not been paying attention, so I don't know what BO's plan is for missions. Has a BO person said whether or not they intend to do booster boost-back and RTLS for some or all missions?
Quote from: DanClemmensenI have not been paying attention, so I don't know what BO's plan is for missions. Has a BO person said whether or not they intend to do booster boost-back and RTLS for some or all missions?
We do not know that for certain that will be the case, but New Glenn does have more than enough performance for missions to low Earth orbit, such as OneWeb or Kuiper deployments where a boost-back and RTLS would be highly desirable over at-sea recovery on a barge.
Quite possible that will just be done expendably.
They just scrapped their landing ship, and the early engines are likely to not be terribly reusable unless they wait to redevelop them after the versions used for Vulcan. It also is likely something that won’t work first time.Quite possible that will just be done expendably.
Shouldn't need to be. New Glenn's reusable capacity to LEO is at least 45,000 kg.
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1656609776783208448Bingo to Blue Origin on having the BE-4 pass qualification firing tests.
They just scrapped their landing ship, and the early engines are likely to not be terribly reusable unless they wait to redevelop them after the versions used for Vulcan. It also is likely something that won’t work first time.Quite possible that will just be done expendably.
Shouldn't need to be. New Glenn's reusable capacity to LEO is at least 45,000 kg.
Am still puzzled by the scrapping of the ship. The ship is what I thought closed the case for the distant down range landing. The ship is 4 or 5 times faster, no?
Would love to know how they decided it would work, then that it wouldn’t, without ever giving it a go. Did something change? Maybe RTLS is back in play?
How much would RTLS reduce the payload.
Am still puzzled by the scrapping of the ship. The ship is what I thought closed the case for the distant down range landing. The ship is 4 or 5 times faster, no?
Would love to know how they decided it would work, then that it wouldn’t, without ever giving it a go. Did something change? Maybe RTLS is back in play?
How much would RTLS reduce the payload.
Likely similar to Falcon 9, on the order of 30% of the maximum expendable payload to orbit.
Keeping in mind that the 45,000 kg payload of New Glenn assumes downrange recovery of the booster.
How much would RTLS reduce the payload.
Likely similar to Falcon 9, on the order of 30% of the maximum expendable payload to orbit.
Keeping in mind that the 45,000 kg payload of New Glenn assumes downrange recovery of the booster.
Please keep in mind that we know, thanks to Tory Bruno, that the BE-4 performance is above the original 550,000 lbf goal and the as yet to be revealed specific impulse. If that is true, then there is no reason to believe that New Glenn will not make use of this increase, either to increase margins in the advent of an engine out or to carry payload to orbit.
If we went by that one BE-4 that was run continuously at 4% above its rated thrust as our benchmark:
https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1521204217741946880?cxt=HHwWgMCt1aTLs5wqAAAA
…It means all seven combined on NG will be producing an extra 154,000 pounds of thrust!
You missed the point: What is the new 100% of rated thrust? According to Tory, it's now higher on thrust and ISP than the original performance goals.I don't think the 100% rated thrust will change. The 100% of rated thrust for the RS-25 didn't change. They just were able to run at above 100% rated thrust when needed. Eventually the Rs-25 was run at 109% of rated thrust and tested up to 111%. They never changed the rated thrust after they figured out how to get higher performance out of the engine..
Thrust is important, but durability and reliability are more important, as BO learned the hard way. acc. Rumors BE-4 is certified to fly but only in "one-time" configuration. So it can be used for Vulcan, but the first flights of New Glen, even if they have landings, after such a flight the engines will have to be replaced with new ones. BO is feverishly working on a new BE-4 that will be reusable. Here it is worth recalling that the purpose of the recovery of the rocket is primarily the recovery of the engines, because they account for the majority of the value of the rocket. And the recovery of engines that will be scrapped anyway is not economically justified, to put it mildly.
As posted in the New Glenn thread, a link to a page written in Polish has some interesting rumours posted on BE-4. From what I can infer the blog is from a family day through Cape Canaveral where access is more open, such as the Jarvis picture.QuoteThrust is important, but durability and reliability are more important, as BO learned the hard way. acc. Rumors BE-4 is certified to fly but only in "one-time" configuration. So it can be used for Vulcan, but the first flights of New Glen, even if they have landings, after such a flight the engines will have to be replaced with new ones. BO is feverishly working on a new BE-4 that will be reusable. Here it is worth recalling that the purpose of the recovery of the rocket is primarily the recovery of the engines, because they account for the majority of the value of the rocket. And the recovery of engines that will be scrapped anyway is not economically justified, to put it mildly.
https://florydziak.pl/uncategorized/dzis-family-day-ccsfs/
Obviously the blogger (who I think posts here?) Is a little closer to the action and rumour mill than many of us.
I have to assume the issue comes with in flight restarts and the reentry/landing burns? It wasn’t that long ago that supersonic retropulsion was considered a tricky problem. Spacex has obviously mastered it but how many other examples are there?As posted in the New Glenn thread, a link to a page written in Polish has some interesting rumours posted on BE-4. From what I can infer the blog is from a family day through Cape Canaveral where access is more open, such as the Jarvis picture.QuoteThrust is important, but durability and reliability are more important, as BO learned the hard way. acc. Rumors BE-4 is certified to fly but only in "one-time" configuration. So it can be used for Vulcan, but the first flights of New Glen, even if they have landings, after such a flight the engines will have to be replaced with new ones. BO is feverishly working on a new BE-4 that will be reusable. Here it is worth recalling that the purpose of the recovery of the rocket is primarily the recovery of the engines, because they account for the majority of the value of the rocket. And the recovery of engines that will be scrapped anyway is not economically justified, to put it mildly.
https://florydziak.pl/uncategorized/dzis-family-day-ccsfs/
Obviously the blogger (who I think posts here?) Is a little closer to the action and rumour mill than many of us.
I don't really understand how they could have individual BE-4s fire 36 times on the stand without rebuild, while also having the engine be single-use-only until they come up with a new variant. Obviously, there will be extra certification stuff involved with allowing reflight, but would it really be impossible without a whole new variant?
I have to assume the issue comes with in flight restarts and the reentry/landing burns? It wasn’t that long ago that supersonic retropulsion was considered a tricky problem. Spacex has obviously mastered it but how many other examples are there?As posted in the New Glenn thread, a link to a page written in Polish has some interesting rumours posted on BE-4. From what I can infer the blog is from a family day through Cape Canaveral where access is more open, such as the Jarvis picture.QuoteThrust is important, but durability and reliability are more important, as BO learned the hard way. acc. Rumors BE-4 is certified to fly but only in "one-time" configuration. So it can be used for Vulcan, but the first flights of New Glen, even if they have landings, after such a flight the engines will have to be replaced with new ones. BO is feverishly working on a new BE-4 that will be reusable. Here it is worth recalling that the purpose of the recovery of the rocket is primarily the recovery of the engines, because they account for the majority of the value of the rocket. And the recovery of engines that will be scrapped anyway is not economically justified, to put it mildly.
https://florydziak.pl/uncategorized/dzis-family-day-ccsfs/
Obviously the blogger (who I think posts here?) Is a little closer to the action and rumour mill than many of us.
I don't really understand how they could have individual BE-4s fire 36 times on the stand without rebuild, while also having the engine be single-use-only until they come up with a new variant. Obviously, there will be extra certification stuff involved with allowing reflight, but would it really be impossible without a whole new variant?
Or maybe something even more mundane? The obvious thing that springs to mind is startup. Easy enough on the pad with gse. Harder in space, but they wouldn’t have to test that profile for Vulcan.
Uh correct me if I’m wrong but DCA/X and New Shepard are all suborbital aren’t they? The list of VTVL rockets that have reached orbit, landed their first stage, and then reused them outside of SpaceX currently stands at… 0? Unless I’m forgetting someoneI have to assume the issue comes with in flight restarts and the reentry/landing burns? It wasn’t that long ago that supersonic retropulsion was considered a tricky problem. Spacex has obviously mastered it but how many other examples are there?As posted in the New Glenn thread, a link to a page written in Polish has some interesting rumours posted on BE-4. From what I can infer the blog is from a family day through Cape Canaveral where access is more open, such as the Jarvis picture.QuoteThrust is important, but durability and reliability are more important, as BO learned the hard way. acc. Rumors BE-4 is certified to fly but only in "one-time" configuration. So it can be used for Vulcan, but the first flights of New Glen, even if they have landings, after such a flight the engines will have to be replaced with new ones. BO is feverishly working on a new BE-4 that will be reusable. Here it is worth recalling that the purpose of the recovery of the rocket is primarily the recovery of the engines, because they account for the majority of the value of the rocket. And the recovery of engines that will be scrapped anyway is not economically justified, to put it mildly.
https://florydziak.pl/uncategorized/dzis-family-day-ccsfs/
Obviously the blogger (who I think posts here?) Is a little closer to the action and rumour mill than many of us.
I don't really understand how they could have individual BE-4s fire 36 times on the stand without rebuild, while also having the engine be single-use-only until they come up with a new variant. Obviously, there will be extra certification stuff involved with allowing reflight, but would it really be impossible without a whole new variant?
Or maybe something even more mundane? The obvious thing that springs to mind is startup. Easy enough on the pad with gse. Harder in space, but they wouldn’t have to test that profile for Vulcan.
Retropropulsion is just a common term that is broad-brush applied VTVL rockets in general.
The fact is that there have been a few pre-SpaceX/Falcon 9 cases of it, most famously DC-X and DC-XA come to mind using modified RL-10s. Armadillo, Masten Aerospace have also done VTVL.
Blue Origin has been doing this with New Shepard with two engine starts, using the same single engine on the NS PMs for launch and then landing. The two PM loses had nothing to do with restart, only with a hydraulic system leak and a burn through on an engine nozzle.
Because of the strakes on its sides, New Glenn does more of a glide type maneuver rather than a reentry burn. It may do a boost back burn on missions where it has plenty of margin the way that SpaceX does now with a few missions (still a relative minority) for a RTLS. But based on what Blue has shown us in their promotional materials, usually only one restart will be needed for a landing at sea (now on a barge instead of a ship).
And as Tory said, the only real difference between Vulcan and NG BE-4s is the restart capability. But presumably not all NG engines have to be restartable in-flight, just one. Not unless Blue has some kind of weird redundant back up plan in mind in case the single center engine fails to ignite.
Uh correct me if I’m wrong but DCA/X and New Shepard are all suborbital aren’t they? The list of VTVL rockets that have reached orbit, landed their first stage, and then reused them outside of SpaceX currently stands at… 0? Unless I’m forgetting someone
New Shepard ... is travelling approximately the same speed at landing as its bigger counterpart Falcon 9.
Retropropulsion is just a common term that is broad-brush applied VTVL rockets in general.
The fact is that there have been a few pre-SpaceX/Falcon 9 cases of it, most famously DC-X and DC-XA come to mind using modified RL-10s. Armadillo, Masten Aerospace have also done VTVL.
...
New Shepard ... is travelling approximately the same speed at landing as its bigger counterpart Falcon 9.
The snark in me really insists on noting that, for either to be considered a 'successful' landing, the speed should closely approximate zero at landing.
The quizzical part of me is more interested in understanding what you were trying to say here - what aspect of speed is the same, at what phase of EDL?
New Shepard ... is travelling approximately the same speed at landing as its bigger counterpart Falcon 9.
The snark in me really insists on noting that, for either to be considered a 'successful' landing, the speed should closely approximate zero at landing.
The quizzical part of me is more interested in understanding what you were trying to say here - what aspect of speed is the same, at what phase of EDL?
Retropropulsion is just a common term that is broad-brush applied VTVL rockets in general.
The fact is that there have been a few pre-SpaceX/Falcon 9 cases of it, most famously DC-X and DC-XA come to mind using modified RL-10s. Armadillo, Masten Aerospace have also done VTVL.
...
Well... there is the important bit about supersonic/hypersonic retro-propulsion. As far as I am aware, that has not been demonstrated outside of F9, at least on an operational basis. There was much angst about that with regards to F9 because it had not previously been demonstrated. So yeah, use of retro-propulsion/VTVL/whatever can be traced back a ways; use from orbital-supersonic/hypersonic reentry profiles not so much.
New Shepard ... is travelling approximately the same speed at landing as its bigger counterpart Falcon 9.
The snark in me really insists on noting that, for either to be considered a 'successful' landing, the speed should closely approximate zero at landing.
The quizzical part of me is more interested in understanding what you were trying to say here - what aspect of speed is the same, at what phase of EDL?
Even at zero they are nowhere near. NS has such a poor mass fraction that it can hover with an engine that can also provide TWR > 1 for the full vehicle, while Falcon has to do a precision landing even on 1/9th the initial engines. Even if New Glenn only manages a poor 95% mass fraction and 1.3 takeoff TWR, one out of seven engines for landing would need to be able to reliably throttle to under 25% to hover, never mind the additional effects on performance. As control problems go, even Joe Barnards model rockets do more of a vertical precision landing than New Shepard.
Saying “You are wrong” is rude and uncivil.
Behave yourself.
It’s the NSF way.
And that statement is wrong. :)
The 2020 User’s manual say “190,000 lbf to 108,300 lbf sea level” which is 57% throttle.
So 57%/9=6.3% for F9 which is less than NG unless it can go below 45%
But even then it’s doing a hoverslam.
Do the math
edit: The mass of New Glenn’s first stage is not necessary.
The calculation can be scaled from Falcon 9, over which NG’s size should give it a 7(m)/3.8(m) advantage.
Whether or not New Glenn can hover.... does it matter? It's a less efficient way to land. And as Falcon 9 has shown, a hover slam is plenty reliable. Do they still do the 3 engine hoverslam from time to time for extra performance? I've lost track of that one.
You've demonstrated that NG's minimum landing thrust is a higher percentage of max TO thrust than F9, but that doesn't prove it can't hover - you're making the implicit assumption that they both start with the same TWR, which is unlikely. F9 has a pretty healthy TWR at ~1.4. I suspect NG's TWR at launch is quite a bit less based on estimates I seen for its GTOM somewhere on this site (I am unaware of any official number), and I would expect a lower TWR for a launcher with a less dense first stage propellant mix and much less dense US propellant mix. Also, I'd expect the first stage empty mass to be a larger fraction of the GTOM for the same reasons. Based on some sketchy math that factors this in, I think it just might be possible for NG to hover at minimum throttle on one engine.
The 2020 User’s manual say “190,000 lbf to 108,300 lbf sea level” which is 57% throttle.
So 57%/9=6.3% for F9 which is less than NG unless it can go below 45%
But even then it’s doing a hoverslam.
Do the math
edit: The mass of New Glenn’s first stage is not necessary.
The calculation can be scaled from Falcon 9, over which NG’s size should give it a 7(m)/3.8(m) advantage.
Your point is unclear.
45%/7=6.4% of liftoff thrust for NG
60%/9=6.7% of liftoff thrust for F9
Those are pretty close.
Even if the BE-4 is throttled to 45% on one of 7 engines, unless it’s more than twice as heavy proportionally, the T/W of a New Glenn first stage will exceed 1 and it won’t be able to “hover”.
(And if they double that mass NG wouldn’t have any payload to orbit.)
Blue doesn’t have to do things the same way SpaceX does but they have to deal with the same laws of physics.
There is no way they can throttle the BE-4 enough to avoid a “hoverslam”.
Why they don’t start practicing it with New Shepard is the real question.
As posted in the New Glenn thread, a link to a page written in Polish has some interesting rumours posted on BE-4. From what I can infer the blog is from a family day through Cape Canaveral where access is more open, such as the Jarvis picture.QuoteThrust is important, but durability and reliability are more important, as BO learned the hard way. acc. Rumors BE-4 is certified to fly but only in "one-time" configuration. So it can be used for Vulcan, but the first flights of New Glen, even if they have landings, after such a flight the engines will have to be replaced with new ones. BO is feverishly working on a new BE-4 that will be reusable. Here it is worth recalling that the purpose of the recovery of the rocket is primarily the recovery of the engines, because they account for the majority of the value of the rocket. And the recovery of engines that will be scrapped anyway is not economically justified, to put it mildly.
https://florydziak.pl/uncategorized/dzis-family-day-ccsfs/
Obviously the blogger (who I think posts here?) Is a little closer to the action and rumour mill than many of us.
I don't really understand how they could have individual BE-4s fire 36 times on the stand without rebuild, while also having the engine be single-use-only until they come up with a new variant. Obviously, there will be extra certification stuff involved with allowing reflight, but would it really be impossible without a whole new variant?
For NG to be able to hover slam "just like F9" on 1 out of 7 engines would require either an engine that can throttle 9/7 times better, or a mass fraction that's 9/7 better. (The difference in TWR on ascent also factors in).Whether or not New Glenn can hover.... does it matter? It's a less efficient way to land. And as Falcon 9 has shown, a hover slam is plenty reliable. Do they still do the 3 engine hoverslam from time to time for extra performance? I've lost track of that one.
We are just going by what they are willing to show us. The New Glenn first stage is always shown in the promotional materials doing a New Shepard-like hover. This may now no longer be the case, but we simply do not know for sure.
https://youtu.be/LSftIaLhQzE?t=71
The igniter is not a technical challenge but a design issue,From that very article:
https://spacenews.com/tory-bruno-says-the-challenges-with-be-4-are-real-but-the-engine-is-moving-forward/
About a year and a half ago, ULA and Blue Origin decided that the first BE-4s would be made with an igniter suitable for Vulcan but not for New Glenn, which has a reusable first stage and would need a different igniter for propulsive flyback.
I don't remember any report of Blue Origin having trouble with reuse. The only things i remember that's been said are.Since the Blue Origin website (https://www.blueorigin.com/new-glenn/) says that the first stage of the New Glenn can be used for 25 missions, how will the SMART Reuse scheme for reusing BE-4s for the first stages of the Vulcan differ from reusing the BE-4 first stage engine for the New Glenn?
1." Blue Origin wants to optimize the BE-4 for reuse on its New Glenn"
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/07/increasingly-the-ula-blue-origin-marriage-is-an-unhappy-one/
I don't remember any report of Blue Origin having trouble with reuse. The only things i remember that's been said are.Since the Blue Origin website (https://www.blueorigin.com/new-glenn/) says that the first stage of the New Glenn can be used for 25 missions, how will the SMART Reuse scheme for reusing BE-4s for the first stages of the Vulcan differ from reusing the BE-4 first stage engine for the New Glenn?
1." Blue Origin wants to optimize the BE-4 for reuse on its New Glenn"
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/07/increasingly-the-ula-blue-origin-marriage-is-an-unhappy-one/
The igniter is not a technical challenge but a design issue,From that very article:
https://spacenews.com/tory-bruno-says-the-challenges-with-be-4-are-real-but-the-engine-is-moving-forward/Quote from: SpacenewsAbout a year and a half ago, ULA and Blue Origin decided that the first BE-4s would be made with an igniter suitable for Vulcan but not for New Glenn, which has a reusable first stage and would need a different igniter for propulsive flyback.
Fact no one has ever said" the first engines arent optimized for reuse" you guys are taking random statements and making a large assumption on those statements that Blue Origin arent optimized for reuse.Actually there *are* people who claim Blue's current engines are not optimized for re-use. Further, they claim to know why this is the case, and what Blue is doing about it. Unfortunately, all such sources (that I know of) are behind paywalls, and of course there is the question of how much insight they really have into Blue. But they seem oddly specific for a random rumor.
...
Vulcan with SMART is trying to keep the best of both worlds. They want that high, 2/3rds of orbital velocity at MECO while still being able to at least recover the most expensive part of the 1st stage: the engines. But that doesn't require engine relight at all, hence the slight difference between Vulcan BE-4s and NG ones.
Looks like there were some issues with the BE4 Ignition system during the ULA test... any ideas what would that be, and possible resolutions?
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1661834466032238592?s=20 (https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1661834466032238592?s=20)
Looks like there were some issues with the BE4 Ignition system during the ULA test... any ideas what would that be, and possible resolutions?
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1661834466032238592?s=20 (https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1661834466032238592?s=20)
Looks like there were some issues with the BE4 Ignition system during the ULA test... any ideas what would that be, and possible resolutions?They work fine on the test stand, so almost certainly an integration issue. Most likely plumbing.
Currently BE-4 is tested horizontally right? I wonder if everything acts slightly different vertical. My WAG.
It's unlikely the igniters would have been tested during the WDR.Currently BE-4 is tested horizontally right? I wonder if everything acts slightly different vertical. My WAG.
That would have likely come up long ago during the Pathfinder Tanking Test (PTT) booster runs two years ago:
https://blog.ulalaunch.com/blog/vulcan-centaur-first-demonstration-of-launch-day-completed
Please note that virtually everything done then is being done now. And this problem did not come up with the Certification-1 booster during the vertical Wet Dress Rehearsal a few weeks ago nor during the earlier tanking test with the booster months ago during the first propellant tanking test.
It's unlikely the igniters would have been tested during the WDR.Currently BE-4 is tested horizontally right? I wonder if everything acts slightly different vertical. My WAG.
That would have likely come up long ago during the Pathfinder Tanking Test (PTT) booster runs two years ago:
https://blog.ulalaunch.com/blog/vulcan-centaur-first-demonstration-of-launch-day-completed
Please note that virtually everything done then is being done now. And this problem did not come up with the Certification-1 booster during the vertical Wet Dress Rehearsal a few weeks ago nor during the earlier tanking test with the booster months ago during the first propellant tanking test.
If your engines ignite during WDR, something has gone very terribly wrong. Not firing the ignition systems is one of the prerequisites of not igniting the engines. Since part of the WDR is pre-chilling the engines and filling volumes with liquid and gaseous propellants, firing even the preburner igniters is very much not a good plan if you don't want to start the engines.It's unlikely the igniters would have been tested during the WDR.Currently BE-4 is tested horizontally right? I wonder if everything acts slightly different vertical. My WAG.
That would have likely come up long ago during the Pathfinder Tanking Test (PTT) booster runs two years ago:
https://blog.ulalaunch.com/blog/vulcan-centaur-first-demonstration-of-launch-day-completed
Please note that virtually everything done then is being done now. And this problem did not come up with the Certification-1 booster during the vertical Wet Dress Rehearsal a few weeks ago nor during the earlier tanking test with the booster months ago during the first propellant tanking test.
Why wouldn't they be? The point of WDR and the previous tests of both Cert-1 and PTT should've tested everything about the first stage system top to bottom, especially because they were doing several full countdowns.
If your engines ignite during WDR, something has gone very terribly wrong. Not firing the ignition systems is one of the prerequisites of not igniting the engines. Since part of the WDR is pre-chilling the engines and filling volumes with liquid and gaseous propellants, firing even the preburner igniters is very much not a good plan if you don't want to start the engines.It's unlikely the igniters would have been tested during the WDR.Currently BE-4 is tested horizontally right? I wonder if everything acts slightly different vertical. My WAG.
That would have likely come up long ago during the Pathfinder Tanking Test (PTT) booster runs two years ago:
https://blog.ulalaunch.com/blog/vulcan-centaur-first-demonstration-of-launch-day-completed
Please note that virtually everything done then is being done now. And this problem did not come up with the Certification-1 booster during the vertical Wet Dress Rehearsal a few weeks ago nor during the earlier tanking test with the booster months ago during the first propellant tanking test.
Why wouldn't they be? The point of WDR and the previous tests of both Cert-1 and PTT should've tested everything about the first stage system top to bottom, especially because they were doing several full countdowns.
Keep in mind that there was also a full up systems test after the Vulcan Centaur was completely stacked some months ago and presumably that would have also included the igniters as well.True...but a lot can happen in "some months". Something could of vibrated loose during pad trek, too conservative parameters for timing, or it could be a cryo/non-cryo temp issue somewhere....we just don't know. The reality...we may never know what happened but we do 100% know Murphy is alive and well.
The 2021 test was an entirely different vehicle to the one on the MLP today. Different tanks, different engines (and the ones fitted to the pathfinder were non-final engines not suitable for firing).Keep in mind that there was also a full up systems test after the Vulcan Centaur was completely stacked some months ago and presumably that would have also included the igniters as well.True...but a lot can happen in "some months". Something could of vibrated loose during pad trek, too conservative parameters for timing, or it could be a cryo/non-cryo temp issue somewhere....we just don't know. The reality...we may never know what happened but we do 100% know Murphy is alive and well.
The New Jackson business resource group is named in honor of Mary Jackson, the first Black female engineer and mathematician to work for NASA. Mary Jackson is one of three leading women in the award-winning book and film, Hidden Figures.
I noticed that , but i cant even begin to think that its a project in the same vein as New Glenn, New Shepard or Jarvis.
IF I had to guess based on her position its something very specific to race relations or women in the space industry. More specifically its about Mary Jackson
Which is exactly what it is https://shop.blueorigin.com/products/new-jackson-sticker
The igniter is not a technical challenge but a design issue,From that very article:
https://spacenews.com/tory-bruno-says-the-challenges-with-be-4-are-real-but-the-engine-is-moving-forward/Quote from: SpacenewsAbout a year and a half ago, ULA and Blue Origin decided that the first BE-4s would be made with an igniter suitable for Vulcan but not for New Glenn, which has a reusable first stage and would need a different igniter for propulsive flyback.
since when is a deliberate design choice evidence of having trouble designing for a completely separate design goal?
Fact no one has ever said" the first engines arent optimized for reuse" you guys are taking random statements and making a large assumption on those statements that Blue Origin arent optimized for reuse.
The only thing we know is that there are MINOR differences between the two engines for Vulcan and New Glenn, and one of those changes is the igniter. Ill just stick to that before saying things like"s having difficulties with reuse "
The vehicle’s BE-4 engines are one of the larger “pacing items” for the launch, he noted
The igniter is not a technical challenge but a design issue,From that very article:
https://spacenews.com/tory-bruno-says-the-challenges-with-be-4-are-real-but-the-engine-is-moving-forward/Quote from: SpacenewsAbout a year and a half ago, ULA and Blue Origin decided that the first BE-4s would be made with an igniter suitable for Vulcan but not for New Glenn, which has a reusable first stage and would need a different igniter for propulsive flyback.
since when is a deliberate design choice evidence of having trouble designing for a completely separate design goal?
Fact no one has ever said" the first engines arent optimized for reuse" you guys are taking random statements and making a large assumption on those statements that Blue Origin arent optimized for reuse.
The only thing we know is that there are MINOR differences between the two engines for Vulcan and New Glenn, and one of those changes is the igniter. Ill just stick to that before saying things like"s having difficulties with reuse "
https://spacenews.com/blue-origin-within-a-few-weeks-of-resuming-new-shepard-flights/QuoteThe vehicle’s BE-4 engines are one of the larger “pacing items” for the launch, he noted
It seems that the changes are not so minor, if the engine is still one of the pacing items for New Glenn?
The igniter is not a technical challenge but a design issue,From that very article:
https://spacenews.com/tory-bruno-says-the-challenges-with-be-4-are-real-but-the-engine-is-moving-forward/Quote from: SpacenewsAbout a year and a half ago, ULA and Blue Origin decided that the first BE-4s would be made with an igniter suitable for Vulcan but not for New Glenn, which has a reusable first stage and would need a different igniter for propulsive flyback.
since when is a deliberate design choice evidence of having trouble designing for a completely separate design goal?
Fact no one has ever said" the first engines arent optimized for reuse" you guys are taking random statements and making a large assumption on those statements that Blue Origin arent optimized for reuse.
The only thing we know is that there are MINOR differences between the two engines for Vulcan and New Glenn, and one of those changes is the igniter. Ill just stick to that before saying things like"s having difficulties with reuse "
https://spacenews.com/blue-origin-within-a-few-weeks-of-resuming-new-shepard-flights/QuoteThe vehicle’s BE-4 engines are one of the larger “pacing items” for the launch, he noted
It seems that the changes are not so minor, if the engine is still one of the pacing items for New Glenn?
They need seven BE-4s, one of which will need to be restartable. That is the primary difference. Also, BE-4 has not as far as we know been integrated with New Glenn and the engine is not tested in this large clustered configuration along with all the primary propulsion plumbing, etc.. Those would also be part and parcel of the engine being a "pacing item".
I doubt 4670 is the New Glenn pacing item. From my understanding, they are not planning multi-engine testing there (houses are a lot closer than they were in the 60s and a full cluster would blow out *many* windows). For why it has taken a while, who knows. I have heard rumblings that the stand was in a lot worse shape than Blue thought when they got it, and it is taking a while to get ready for testing because they are basically rebuilding the whole thing.
Watch the @ULALaunch live broadcast of #VulcanRocket’s Flight Readiness Firing and see our two BE-4s in action.
Just dropped a hint they will be testing production BE-4 engines at the MSFC Test Stand 5670 soon!
Just dropped a hint they will be testing production BE-4 engines at the MSFC Test Stand 5670 soon!
I hate to dash your hopes, but the "This is BE-4" video that came from is several months old:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdS4azOaF2M
And this from spaceflightnow.com earlier today...
it was a planned six second test....
https://spaceflightnow.com/2023/06/07/vulcan-centaur-frf-coverage/#:~:text=The%20twin%20engines%20will%20flash,flame%20trench%20at%20pad%2041 (https://spaceflightnow.com/2023/06/07/vulcan-centaur-frf-coverage/#:~:text=The%20twin%20engines%20will%20flash,flame%20trench%20at%20pad%2041)
Yet, why was the test so short [six seconds, I thought something had failed], any ideas?
I wouldn't say the were MUCH smaller and less powerful. Vulcan uses 2 BE-4s, Antares used 2 NK-33s or 2 RD-181s.And this from spaceflightnow.com earlier today...
it was a planned six second test....
https://spaceflightnow.com/2023/06/07/vulcan-centaur-frf-coverage/#:~:text=The%20twin%20engines%20will%20flash,flame%20trench%20at%20pad%2041 (https://spaceflightnow.com/2023/06/07/vulcan-centaur-frf-coverage/#:~:text=The%20twin%20engines%20will%20flash,flame%20trench%20at%20pad%2041)
Yet, why was the test so short [six seconds, I thought something had failed], any ideas?
There is no mystery as originally Tory Bruno said it would last 3.5 seconds and then later it was moved up to 6.5 seconds, presumably to test the BECO throttle down and cutoff test objective rather than do just a straight up pad abort cutoff. All seems to have happened in the latter plan.
Also, the pad was not designed for sustained firing and it could be damaged, even when the engines were throttled down.
The longest such test on a launch pad I know of is the Antares 100 and 200 tests of ~30 seconds duration. But those were much smaller rockets and less powerful engines.
Sparklers? Does this mean Vulcan won't set fire to itself before launch?There wasn't any Hydrogen involved. So no self-immolation. ;)
Shame.
Sparklers? Does this mean Vulcan won't set fire to itself before launch?
Shame.
I'm pretty sure methane can catch fire tooSparklers? Does this mean Vulcan won't set fire to itself before launch?There wasn't any Hydrogen involved. So no self-immolation. ;)
Shame.
Sparklers? Does this mean Vulcan won't set fire to itself before launch?
Shame.
There wasn't any Hydrogen involved. So no self-immolation. ;)
There wasn't any Hydrogen involved. So no self-immolation. ;)
Methane is also lighter than air
There wasn't any Hydrogen involved. So no self-immolation. ;)
Methane is also lighter than air
Was thinking of the cloud of Hydrogen that seeps out and halo Delta IV CBC during propellant loading.
ULA probably saw Starship and didn't want to repeat that.
The ROFIs for Vulcan seem more a "we've always done it, we have then on hand, so why risk the tiny chance of an issue with a Methane leak?" belt & braces approach rather than the necessity of them for normal operation as on Delta IV.
The BE-4 is a full-flow engineBE-4 is ORSC not FFSC.
Thanks, tongue-tangled the FF with the SC. Either way, all propellants flow through the combustion chamber rather than ending up vented outboard.The BE-4 is a full-flow engineBE-4 is ORSC not FFSC.
In this apparently up-to-date cutaway diagram of the Vulcan (https://www.ulalaunch.com/docs/default-source/rockets/vulcancentaur.pdf?sfvrsn=10d7f58f_2), the LCH4 tank is on the bottom of the core stage and the LOX tank is on the top. But in this not-even-slightly-up-to-date cutaway of New Glenn (p. 17) (https://www.mach5lowdown.com/wp-content/uploads/PUG/New_Glenn_Payload_Users_Guide_Rev_C.pdf), they have the LOX tank on the bottom and the LCH4 tank on the top.
Isn't this... kinda weird? Doesn't this result in significantly different hydrostatic pressures at the BE-4 inlets? And doesn't that needlessly complicate the impeller designs?
Is the New Glenn diagram so old that it doesn't reflect that they've swapped tank positions? Or is it simply the case that the BE-4, even near high-acceleration burnout, has to work at a low enough inlet pressure that the tank position doesn't really matter?
That's Closed vs. Open cycle engines.Thanks, tongue-tangled the FF with the SC. Either way, all propellants flow through the combustion chamber rather than ending up vented outboard.The BE-4 is a full-flow engineBE-4 is ORSC not FFSC.
Scoop – One of Blue Origin’s BE-4 rocket engines exploded during a test firing in Texas on June 30, according to CNBC sources.
The engine was to be delivered this month to ULA for Vulcan’s Cert-2 launch. More:
KEY POINTS
Jeff Bezos’ space company Blue Origin suffered a rocket engine explosion while testing its BE-4 rocket engine last month, CNBC has learned.
During a firing on June 30 at Blue Origin’s facility in West Texas, a BE-4 engine detonated about 10 seconds into the test.
A Blue Origin spokesperson confirmed the incident, noting that no personnel were injured and that an investigation is underway, with a “proximate cause” identified.
ULA statement: "The BE-4 testing issue is not expected to impact our plans for the Vulcan Cert-1 mission."
Bold response from ULA:ULA at this point be like "Fuck it we're going, enough is enough"...QuoteULA statement: "The BE-4 testing issue is not expected to impact our plans for the Vulcan Cert-1 mission."
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1678850341989695489/photo/1
Sure. Every engine, elex box, COPV, etc, gets an Acceptance Test (ATP) as they come off the line to verify good workmanship. (The one time Qual verifies the design. BE4 is qualified). The BE4's on Cert1 have passed ATP, as have many others. This engine failed ATP.
First of all, full credit to @thesheetztweetz for a great scoop here. Michael works really hard. Secondly, a trusted Blue Origin source confirms what Tory says here; that this is not a huge deal. They've ID'd the failure, and it's not a huge setback.
Amateurs, SpaceX has blown up at least ~ten raptors at the same time frame.
; P
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1678865222604574720QuoteSure. Every engine, elex box, COPV, etc, gets an Acceptance Test (ATP) as they come off the line to verify good workmanship. (The one time Qual verifies the design. BE4 is qualified). The BE4's on Cert1 have passed ATP, as have many others. This engine failed ATP.
But! The line is a bit more murky when the failed engine is engine #3. At this point the statistics of a single failure mean that it's likely there's still a daemon in the design, or the process design, that affects all engines, and to waive it off just because Qual is finished is a bit rash.There are failures in ATPs all the time, at all points in the life cycle. I'm not sure there's any statistical foundation to say that a failure early on is more likely to be a systemic problem, it depends on what the failure is and this is usually pretty obvious from the details, which we don't know.
Tory's response is based on a very sharp line between Qualification and Acceptance testing, and in principal he's exactly right.This is what concerns me: not that there's an inherent flaw in the design of the BE-4, but that some part of the equipment or process needed to manufacture the BE-4 is..."inconsistent," let's say. This is especially worrying when it comes to ramping up BE-4 production to levels that Blue Origin as a company has no history of ever achieving with anything: if they can't go past two engines per year without mistakes creeping in, what does that say about their future plans?
The engine design is qualified, and so the engine that failed acceptance testing is just a single instance and is therefore rejected.
But! The line is a bit more murky when the failed engine is engine #3. At this point the statistics of a single failure mean that it's likely there's still a daemon in the design, or the process design, that affects all engines, and to waive it off just because Qual is finished is a bit rash.
Now if there's something specific that points to this being a one-off problem, then fine, but that's not what Tory was saying.
But! The line is a bit more murky when the failed engine is engine #3. At this point the statistics of a single failure mean that it's likely there's still a daemon in the design, or the process design, that affects all engines, and to waive it off just because Qual is finished is a bit rash.There are failures in ATPs all the time, at all points in the life cycle. I'm not sure there's any statistical foundation to say that a failure early on is more likely to be a systemic problem, it depends on what the failure is and this is usually pretty obvious from the details, which we don't know.
ULA has absolutely nothing to gain from a failure of Cert1, so I think it's fair to assume that they are proceeding as cautiously as is warranted.
"During the 626 firings, the RD-170 experienced 13 chargeable failure events for an overall system reliability of
0.9782 at 50% confidence (estimated using the binomial). The primary cause of each of these events has been
established and corrective actions have been identified and incorporated. Although the initial RD-180 reliability
estimates were based on RD-170 demonstrated reliability with improvements, additional prediction methodologies
have since been employed. The RD-180 build and design has benefited from these previous failures and with all the
stated corrective actions taken into account, the RD-180 reliability is estimated at 0.995"
Of course they don't. Nobody ever does though.But! The line is a bit more murky when the failed engine is engine #3. At this point the statistics of a single failure mean that it's likely there's still a daemon in the design, or the process design, that affects all engines, and to waive it off just because Qual is finished is a bit rash.There are failures in ATPs all the time, at all points in the life cycle. I'm not sure there's any statistical foundation to say that a failure early on is more likely to be a systemic problem, it depends on what the failure is and this is usually pretty obvious from the details, which we don't know.
ULA has absolutely nothing to gain from a failure of Cert1, so I think it's fair to assume that they are proceeding as cautiously as is warranted.
...
But! The line is a bit more murky when the failed engine is engine #3. At this point the statistics of a single failure mean that it's likely there's still a daemon in the design, or the process design, that affects all engines, and to waive it off just because Qual is finished is a bit rash.
Now if there's something specific that points to this being a one-off problem, then fine, but that's not what Tory was saying.
...
But! The line is a bit more murky when the failed engine is engine #3. At this point the statistics of a single failure mean that it's likely there's still a daemon in the design, or the process design, that affects all engines, and to waive it off just because Qual is finished is a bit rash.
Now if there's something specific that points to this being a one-off problem, then fine, but that's not what Tory was saying.
Why aren't you also listing manufacturing as a problem? With so few units having been put through production, it could be a number of production related possibilities, including:
A) A faulty purchased part that was not caught in incoming inspection.
B) A faulty manufactured part that was not caught in production inspection.
C) A fault in the production process that was not caught in the final assembly testing.
Only being unit number three of a certified design would make me think the manufacturing or procurement processes may not be dialed in yet - assuming the design is good.
My $0.02
I can't see ULA launching the first Vulcan flight without that minimum.Of course they don't. Nobody ever does though.But! The line is a bit more murky when the failed engine is engine #3. At this point the statistics of a single failure mean that it's likely there's still a daemon in the design, or the process design, that affects all engines, and to waive it off just because Qual is finished is a bit rash.There are failures in ATPs all the time, at all points in the life cycle. I'm not sure there's any statistical foundation to say that a failure early on is more likely to be a systemic problem, it depends on what the failure is and this is usually pretty obvious from the details, which we don't know.
ULA has absolutely nothing to gain from a failure of Cert1, so I think it's fair to assume that they are proceeding as cautiously as is warranted.
What you're saying above is how Tory is presenting it: Engines fail ATP all the time.
But having engine #30 fail after 29 good engines is not like having #3 fail after 2 good engines. It's just not the same. The production is not "stable" yet. Whatever was wrong with #3 could also be half-wrong with #1 or #2, just to a lesser degree, and so they passed acceptance are may still fail.
At a minimum, they should chase it down: find out what was wrong with #3, and see if there's an extra test of #1 and #2 that can probe that failure point.
Of course they don't. Nobody ever does though.But! The line is a bit more murky when the failed engine is engine #3. At this point the statistics of a single failure mean that it's likely there's still a daemon in the design, or the process design, that affects all engines, and to waive it off just because Qual is finished is a bit rash.There are failures in ATPs all the time, at all points in the life cycle. I'm not sure there's any statistical foundation to say that a failure early on is more likely to be a systemic problem, it depends on what the failure is and this is usually pretty obvious from the details, which we don't know.
ULA has absolutely nothing to gain from a failure of Cert1, so I think it's fair to assume that they are proceeding as cautiously as is warranted.
What you're saying above is how Tory is presenting it: Engines fail ATP all the time.
But having engine #30 fail after 29 good engines is not like having #3 fail after 2 good engines. It's just not the same. The production is not "stable" yet. Whatever was wrong with #3 could also be half-wrong with #1 or #2, just to a lesser degree, and so they passed acceptance are may still fail.
At a minimum, they should chase it down: find out what was wrong with #3, and see if there's an extra test of #1 and #2 that can probe that failure point.
Of course they don't. Nobody ever does though.But! The line is a bit more murky when the failed engine is engine #3. At this point the statistics of a single failure mean that it's likely there's still a daemon in the design, or the process design, that affects all engines, and to waive it off just because Qual is finished is a bit rash.There are failures in ATPs all the time, at all points in the life cycle. I'm not sure there's any statistical foundation to say that a failure early on is more likely to be a systemic problem, it depends on what the failure is and this is usually pretty obvious from the details, which we don't know.
ULA has absolutely nothing to gain from a failure of Cert1, so I think it's fair to assume that they are proceeding as cautiously as is warranted.
What you're saying above is how Tory is presenting it: Engines fail ATP all the time.
But having engine #30 fail after 29 good engines is not like having #3 fail after 2 good engines. It's just not the same. The production is not "stable" yet. Whatever was wrong with #3 could also be half-wrong with #1 or #2, just to a lesser degree, and so they passed acceptance are may still fail.
At a minimum, they should chase it down: find out what was wrong with #3, and see if there's an extra test of #1 and #2 that can probe that failure point.
And they have already said that they know what was wrong and therefore they can say with a fair degree of confidence if that affects #1 and #2.
So essentially they have already done what you suggest they do 'at a minimum'
Of course they could be proven wrong, hopefully not.
Note that immediately after the Centaur anomaly Tory tweeted that it should not affect the schedule..., until it did.
This may happen again now. I consider that highly likely.
Even if it is workmanship, a failure underlines a process failure. Not enough (or the right) inspections, not sufficient training, etc. This lack of process control will tend to cast doubt on the quality of previous engines.
Of course, maybe the exact nature of this specific fault could be such that they don't see the need for additional checks. Like, if this was purely a technician who misunderstood what they were supposed to do on the engine, and it was the first engine they worked on. And the probability of this error causing a detectable fault in testing was 100%.
Then I would also be very sure that the first flight could continue as planned.
People on here have mentioned that this is engine #3. Tory Bruno in one of his tweets says that many other BE-4s have passed their ATP. How do we know that this is engine #3? Did Blue or ULA say it was #3?
Even if it is workmanship, a failure underlines a process failure. Not enough (or the right) inspections, not sufficient training, etc. This lack of process control will tend to cast doubt on the quality of previous engines.
Of course, maybe the exact nature of this specific fault could be such that they don't see the need for additional checks. Like, if this was purely a technician who misunderstood what they were supposed to do on the engine, and it was the first engine they worked on. And the probability of this error causing a detectable fault in testing was 100%.
Then I would also be very sure that the first flight could continue as planned.
Yup, or if it was a component that's easy to inspect (and already was), maybe is even different in #3 than in #1 and #2, etc.
It's not good that it happened, maybe it's indeed the end of the story already, we can't tell from here.
Also, remember Vulcan is already delayed. Maybe it was shorthand for "yes of course there's impact, but it's minimal and is not the long straw".
People on here have mentioned that this is engine #3. Tory Bruno in one of his tweets says that many other BE-4s have passed their ATP. How do we know that this is engine #3? Did Blue or ULA say it was #3?
2. Is this another Kent BE-4 like Flight-1 and 2? Most likely, given that Tory stated in a tweet that the first several sets would be from Kent, but it's slightly possible Huntsville had something ready sooner than they did as they seem to have much better ability to build out faster. After all, we know that at least one of the two qual BE-4s was from Huntsville and it did fairly well. If it was Kent, I think Kent needs a good top-to-bottom look over, and maybe a look at worker morale since BE-4 production is due to be shut down there and moved exclusively to Huntsville, including quite possibly future R&D.
2. Is this another Kent BE-4 like Flight-1 and 2? Most likely, given that Tory stated in a tweet that the first several sets would be from Kent, but it's slightly possible Huntsville had something ready sooner than they did as they seem to have much better ability to build out faster. After all, we know that at least one of the two qual BE-4s was from Huntsville and it did fairly well. If it was Kent, I think Kent needs a good top-to-bottom look over, and maybe a look at worker morale since BE-4 production is due to be shut down there and moved exclusively to Huntsville, including quite possibly future R&D.
IIRC Huntsville has been sending parts to Kent for engine assembly, even for Flight #1 and #2. Given the #3 engine had some rework prior to the ATP test, it's plausible that this failure is part of the learning curve for parts manufacturing or assembly.
Perhaps BO should redesign BE-4 to be FFSC while keeping current chamber pressure which should make it much more reliable.
My experience in aerospace was that you first get the design through qual test and first flight articles through ATP (sometimes the same hardware was used for both). That's a big step, and you end up with a design mature enough for first flight.
The early subsequent units had hard times getting through ATP. Usually there wasn't a catastrophic failure (well, maybe a hydraulic failure, which can be spectacular), because the engines had passed their ATPs.
So, I'm guessing (GUESSING!) that (1.) the design is mature enough for flight, but not very robust, (2.) the manufacturing processes are okay, but not mature yet. (3.) Since flight engines 1 and 2 passed their ATP, they're still flightworthy, based on Tory's tweet.
I expect more ATP failures; hopefully none so extensive.
...
Sometimes this happens seconds and sometimes minutes in. So far, I have not seen anything in Tory Bruno's answers that indicate how long into the ATP firing.
the engine detonated about 10 seconds into a test firing
Can someone please help clarify or confirm this thought for me: The ATP is the “last step” of testing before delivery. It is obviously not a formality, but it is ideally not exactly designed to “find problems”, and if you “get it right” you get to deliver a multi-million dollar engine to the customer (and probably get paid).
If my assumptions are true, anything that results in not delivering or getting paid is incredibly embarassing, in my opinion.
Sure. Every engine, elex box, COPV, etc, gets an Acceptance Test (ATP) as they come off the line to verify good workmanship. (The one time Qual verifies the design. BE4 is qualified). The BE4's on Cert1 have passed ATP, as have many others. This engine failed ATP.
F9 flight 4 had a Merlin combustion chamber fail mid-flight. It all came down to the way we inspected for a common flaw that resulted in missing a less common flaw. We fixed it and flew again soon. It happens. Fix it, and fly safe!
Perhaps BO should redesign BE-4 to be FFSC while keeping current chamber pressure which should make it much more reliable.But then it is not BE-4. ???
Can someone please help clarify or confirm this thought for me: The ATP is the “last step” of testing before delivery. It is obviously not a formality, but it is ideally not exactly designed to “find problems”, and if you “get it right” you get to deliver a multi-million dollar engine to the customer (and probably get paid).
If my assumptions are true, anything that results in not delivering or getting paid is incredibly embarassing, in my opinion.
Correct. It's a test fire that confirms the functionality of the engine.
If it were SpaceX, it'd be either BE-4.1 or BE.a-4Perhaps BO should redesign BE-4 to be FFSC while keeping current chamber pressure which should make it much more reliable.But then it is not BE-4. ???
My absolute guess would be that it's a tolerance issue. That they have used parts from a new batch or supplier for this engine, and something didn't fit together properly.
These sorts of things happen where a dimension might be set to 10 +/- 0.1, and everything is fine when you get parts with 10.1, but then the next batch is 9.9 and doesn't work, even though the part is within spec.
Or the part might simply be out of spec. In that case it might be corrrect to blame workmanship.
My absolute guess would be that it's a tolerance issue. That they have used parts from a new batch or supplier for this engine, and something didn't fit together properly.I would guess that whatever it is, it is not a tolerance issue. ULA already seems pretty sure that the flaw won't affect the already delivered engines. So I'd suspect some black-and-white problem which is guaranteed to cause failure. That way, since the engines already delivered ran their tests OK, ULA can be certain this particular flaw is not present in their engines.
Less likely, I suppose, it could be some sort of problem that is easy to find on inspection, and they've already inspected the engines at the Cape. But after 10 years of development, I'd be surprised if any easy-to-find but catastrophic flaws remain.It could be something easy-to-find which they didn't think caused catastrophic failure, but turns out they were wrong. Although misunderstanding the severity of the consequences that badly may be just as unlikely.
My absolute guess would be that it's a tolerance issue. That they have used parts from a new batch or supplier for this engine, and something didn't fit together properly.
These sorts of things happen where a dimension might be set to 10 +/- 0.1, and everything is fine when you get parts with 10.1, but then the next batch is 9.9 and doesn't work, even though the part is within spec.
Or the part might simply be out of spec. In that case it might be corrrect to blame workmanship.
Yes, but what would have been a semi-obvious sign in the failure that would point to workmanship, since they made such a quick probable determination?
I realize this is stepping close to ITAR stuff so some people might be holding their tongues here.
In regards to the BE-4 test stand anomaly: the particular engine had failed an acceptance test previously, and failed a second time "in spectacular fashion". Engine incurred a burn through and the red line monitor couldn't shut down the engine fast enough.
Bruno says they've already successfully tested 12 engines in addition to the two used during the flight readiness firing, adding it's not the first engine to do that and won't be the last, noting it's happened on other ULA-used engines. "It's not a news story"
Bruno: Blue Origin is manufacturing 2 of the BE-4 production engines per quarter, so "the next one is about 6 to 8 weeks behind" the engine that exploded.
Since this happened on Flight Engine #3, I doubt that any other flight engines have gone through ATP. Tory said 12 engines had gone through ATP; we know of 4. the 2 flight engines that have been delivered, 2 engines that also went through qual test, and (guessing) 8 development engines.
Since this happened on Flight Engine #3, I doubt that any other flight engines have gone through ATP. Tory said 12 engines had gone through ATP; we know of 4. the 2 flight engines that have been delivered, 2 engines that also went through qual test, and (guessing) 8 development engines.
My guess is these are the engines Huntsville has been producing since September 2021. They made one engine by December 2021 and then no one commented on what they were doing since then. I had always guessed that there was between 1 engine or between 6 and 12 engines manufactured to date. So its within my guesstimate of that production.
Since this happened on Flight Engine #3, I doubt that any other flight engines have gone through ATP. Tory said 12 engines had gone through ATP; we know of 4. the 2 flight engines that have been delivered, 2 engines that also went through qual test, and (guessing) 8 development engines.
My guess is these are the engines Huntsville has been producing since September 2021. They made one engine by December 2021 and then no one commented on what they were doing since then. I had always guessed that there was between 1 engine or between 6 and 12 engines manufactured to date. So its within my guesstimate of that production.
Huntsville made at least one of the two qualification engines and it was at least ATPed by no later than December 2022. That's all we know.
Also, Tory stated last year that the first several sets of engines were being made by Kent, not Huntsville.
Since this happened on Flight Engine #3, I doubt that any other flight engines have gone through ATP. Tory said 12 engines had gone through ATP; we know of 4. the 2 flight engines that have been delivered, 2 engines that also went through qual test, and (guessing) 8 development engines.
My guess is these are the engines Huntsville has been producing since September 2021. They made one engine by December 2021 and then no one commented on what they were doing since then. I had always guessed that there was between 1 engine or between 6 and 12 engines manufactured to date. So its within my guesstimate of that production.
Huntsville made at least one of the two qualification engines and it was at least ATPed by no later than December 2022. That's all we know.
Also, Tory stated last year that the first several sets of engines were being made by Kent, not Huntsville.
I dont remember it being said that Huntsville made ANY of the qualification engines. I only remember it being said that parts from Huntsville are being sent to Kent washington so they can make the ULA flight and qualification engines.
The more disappointing thing, to me, rather than how many have gone through ATP, is the statement from Tory that BO is only producing 2 engine/quarter. At that rate (and I assume the rate will increase, but only gradually) I don't see many engines for New Glenn.
The more disappointing thing, to me, rather than how many have gone through ATP, is the statement from Tory that BO is only producing 2 engine/quarter. At that rate (and I assume the rate will increase, but only gradually) I don't see many engines for New Glenn.
I do.
https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1648775272240648197
The more disappointing thing, to me, rather than how many have gone through ATP, is the statement from Tory that BO is only producing 2 engine/quarter. At that rate (and I assume the rate will increase, but only gradually) I don't see many engines for New Glenn.
I do.
https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1648775272240648197
Well, I see lots of nozzles in that video, but where are the engines?
The more disappointing thing, to me, rather than how many have gone through ATP, is the statement from Tory that BO is only producing 2 engine/quarter. At that rate (and I assume the rate will increase, but only gradually) I don't see many engines for New Glenn.
I do.
https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1648775272240648197
Well, I see lots of nozzles in that video, but where are the engines?
Lots? Generously speaking I see maybe five in the production flow. And considering there are several heavy machines and major part next to each station, this isn't the sort of line that moves at one step a minute.
The more disappointing thing, to me, rather than how many have gone through ATP, is the statement from Tory that BO is only producing 2 engine/quarter. At that rate (and I assume the rate will increase, but only gradually) I don't see many engines for New Glenn.
I do.
https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1648775272240648197
Well, I see lots of nozzles in that video, but where are the engines?
Lots? Generously speaking I see maybe five in the production flow. And considering there are several heavy machines and major part next to each station, this isn't the sort of line that moves at one step a minute.
There are at least 11 partial or complete engine bells, two combustion chambers, and some smaller parts in the video. The video is of the Regen Nozzle room, so there you go.
Regardless of how many pieces/parts we can find clips/photos of, Bruno's tweet of 2 engines/quarter is what I was going by. My experience in transitioning from development to low rate production is tough, transitioning to full rate production takes a lot longer than you think.While what you say is true, we have no firm data on where they are in the process. They might be at full rate production on some components and sub-assemblies that they have full confidence in and going slower on parts that they have less confidence in the design and manufacturing process. Until we see engines on the second Vulcan and the first New Glenn, everything else is speculation.
How do we know that the 'two engines a quarter' are not just for ULA/Tory? That pace would seem to sort ULA use at the moment allowing for surplus to generate until their cadence for Vulcan improves.
BO may be making BE4s for NG separately and not included in the number that was given.
How do we know that the 'two engines a quarter' are not just for ULA/Tory? That pace would seem to sort ULA use at the moment allowing for surplus to generate until their cadence for Vulcan improves.
BO may be making BE4s for NG separately and not included in the number that was given.
Covering Tory Bruno's status update on Vulcan's path to its opening launches, including info and mitigation on recent Centaur-V and BE-4 anomalies during testing.
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2023/07/vulcan-centaur-anomalies/ - by Sawyer Rosenstein (@thenasaman)
ULA outlines path to inaugural Vulcan launch following upper stage issues
19/ Bruno adds to that answer, saying the ramp-up has started and they are building ahead of need.
T+254: Mars Sample Return, Vulcan, NSSL Phase 3 (with Eric Berger)
JULY 18, 2023
Eric Berger of Ars Technica joins me to talk about the budgetary threat facing Mars Sample Return, the latest issue with ULA’s Vulcan vehicle, and the ongoing tweaks to the National Security Space Launch Program’s Phase 3 architecture.
Excellent, in-depth article
https://twitter.com/SpaceflightNow/status/1679629853660725257 (https://twitter.com/SpaceflightNow/status/1679629853660725257)QuoteULA outlines path to inaugural Vulcan launch following upper stage issues
Bruno said the engine in question failed its first acceptance test and was in the middle of its second acceptance test procedure (ATP) when it “crossed the threshold” of acceptance and the computer attempted to shut it down.
He said the threshold was too high and the computer wasn’t able to shut the engine down before it “had a burn through.”
“And, you know, I’m flattered by the attention we have now, that a routine acceptance test was colorfully discussed on social media, but it really isn’t news.”Really? “isn’t news”? ::)
You mean to tell me I've had to read all of these Doom and Gloom posts about Blue Origins capabilities, comparisons to other engines and how they did multiple things wrong because of Foreign Object Debris?!?!
How is the “wasn’t able to shut the engine down before..” statement compatible with the idea that the root cause was FOD?
*yeet tweet*QuoteQuoteULA outlines path to inaugural Vulcan launch following upper stage issues
Bruno said the engine in question failed its first acceptance test and was in the middle of its second acceptance test procedure (ATP) when it “crossed the threshold” of acceptance and the computer attempted to shut it down.
He said the threshold was too high and the computer wasn’t able to shut the engine down before it “had a burn through.”
How is the “wasn’t able to shut the engine down before..” statement compatible with the idea that the root cause was FOD?Quote“And, you know, I’m flattered by the attention we have now, that a routine acceptance test was colorfully discussed on social media, but it really isn’t news.”Really? “isn’t news”? ::)
From Tory Bruno Vulcan status update press call:
twitter.com/thenasaman/status/1679514432072761344QuoteIn regards to the BE-4 test stand anomaly: the particular engine had failed an acceptance test previously, and failed a second time "in spectacular fashion". Engine incurred a burn through and the red line monitor couldn't shut down the engine fast enough.
I found this line interesting: "We're making sure we get things right the first time."
So this engine failed once for unspecified reasons, and then failed a second time due to FOD (according to Berger at least, who I trust).
I find it unlikely that the two items are related, although it could be possible.
Either way it indicates multiple faults in their processes.
So this engine failed once for unspecified reasons, and then failed a second time due to FOD (according to Berger at least, who I trust).
I find it unlikely that the two items are related, although it could be possible.
Either way it indicates multiple faults in their processes.
I'll give them grace on the first fail, for 2 reasons: 1.) production units fail ATPs regularly and get sent back for correction, and 2.) my experience has been that leading edge technology is really finicky early in production runs (we didn't know what we didn't know).
The FOD event is totally on BO's processes and discipline.
So this engine failed once for unspecified reasons, and then failed a second time due to FOD (according to Berger at least, who I trust).
I find it unlikely that the two items are related, although it could be possible.
Either way it indicates multiple faults in their processes.
I'll give them grace on the first fail, for 2 reasons: 1.) production units fail ATPs regularly and get sent back for correction, and 2.) my experience has been that leading edge technology is really finicky early in production runs (we didn't know what we didn't know).
The FOD event is totally on BO's processes and discipline.
What you say is very true, and also slightly scary when you consider the next set of engines are for USSF-106. I’m not convinced those guys will feel quite so chilled.
That's possibly the first time we've ever seen a turbopump power pack assembly being worked on before being sent to be installed on an engine, at least at Huntsville. Given how complete it is, I'm guessing it's due to go soon. Also interesting is how the insulation and other items are already on rather than waiting until after the turbopumps are mated to the rest of the engine as you can see in this pic from last year of FE-2 with a just installed powerpack:
@torybrunohttps://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1707059461314208026
how are the flight 2 engines coming along, and are you done with the failure investigation
In ATP Yes, done
Tory Bruno has said that there would be no redoing of qualification as the issue was due to workmanship and not a design issue.
Speaking of ATPs, do you have an update for us on the Cert-2 BE-4s? A few weeks ago you'd said they were in ATP in Texas, and I hope things are going well or went well.
Going well. Booster is built up and ready to receive them.
Any chance in the future the BE-4 will increase the chamber pressure and thrust as part of engine improvements? It is a larger engine than Raptor and Raptor has increased it's thrust and chamber pressure while actually being tested on rockets.
I stopped watching after the sixth time he sited the square footage. The bluster and unsupported superlatives are turble. Nice to get some views of hardware tho. Telling the viewer what the parts are wouldn’t hurt.
So at 559,000 sqft, that’s one sqft per pound of thrust, no? I wonder how the other engine makers are doing by his metric?
Do you have any idea what's this?
Do you have any idea what's this?It's a Dalek. I think it's a female.
Do you have any idea what's this?
Could the BE-4 in the future, have a similar evolution that the Merlin did form the first engine, to Merlin D?
Could the BE-4 in the future, have a similar evolution that the Merlin did form the first engine, to Merlin D?
Could the BE-4 in the future, have a similar evolution that the Merlin did form the first engine, to Merlin D?Yes, BE-4 will evolve and future iterations will deliver greater performance.
Congrats!!! Blue team...Congrats indeed!
The most powerful methalox engines, in the world are NOW operational!!!!
What a BEAST BE-4!!!
Congrats indeed!
Unless I am mistaken (please let me know) this represents the first successful orbital launch using a ORSC engine designed and built in the USA (or more broadly "the West") and the first methalox staged combustion orbital launch by anyone. Of course, there's a FFSC methalox engine that came very close to a successful launch last year and will join the club very soon.
Congrats indeed!
Unless I am mistaken (please let me know) this represents the first successful orbital launch using a ORSC engine designed and built in the USA (or more broadly "the West") and the first methalox staged combustion orbital launch by anyone. Of course, there's a FFSC methalox engine that came very close to a successful launch last year and will join the club very soon.
This is an engine thread, not a booster thread. Please stop conflating engine performance with the booster performance. The 1st stage methalox booster engines on both Vulcan and SH all ignited, functioned as designed and stayed lit with no apparent anomalies right to staging. Beyond that point, the BE4s had no more functions and the Raptors were involved in a series of failures that may or may not have been their fault (SpaceX has not publicized any determination, yet). So in the comparable portions of the flight regimes, both engine types behaved comparably.
What gives BE4 bragging rights is the fact that it accomplished all this on its first flight. It was robust enough to handle all the in-flight conditions that are not encountered in ground testing which is a testament to good design, modeling and construction. This indicates a maturity of process and performance that many had not credited Blue with.
Pretty much everything else is Vulcan, not BE4, related.
A distinction without a difference, when the shortfall of the plan was mere tens of m/s; the booster for IFT-2 did more than enough to put Starship in an orbit if SpaceX desired.Congrats indeed!
Unless I am mistaken (please let me know) this represents the first successful orbital launch using a ORSC engine designed and built in the USA (or more broadly "the West") and the first methalox staged combustion orbital launch by anyone. Of course, there's a FFSC methalox engine that came very close to a successful launch last year and will join the club very soon.
This is an engine thread, not a booster thread. Please stop conflating engine performance with the booster performance. The 1st stage methalox booster engines on both Vulcan and SH all ignited, functioned as designed and stayed lit with no apparent anomalies right to staging. Beyond that point, the BE4s had no more functions and the Raptors were involved in a series of failures that may or may not have been their fault (SpaceX has not publicized any determination, yet). So in the comparable portions of the flight regimes, both engine types behaved comparably.
What gives BE4 bragging rights is the fact that it accomplished all this on its first flight. It was robust enough to handle all the in-flight conditions that are not encountered in ground testing which is a testament to good design, modeling and construction. This indicates a maturity of process and performance that many had not credited Blue with.
Pretty much everything else is Vulcan, not BE4, related.
Except the IFT-2 was a SUBORBITAL mission profile...
A distinction without a difference, when the shortfall of the plan was mere tens of m/s; the booster for IFT-2 did more than enough to put Starship in an orbit if SpaceX desired.Congrats indeed!
Unless I am mistaken (please let me know) this represents the first successful orbital launch using a ORSC engine designed and built in the USA (or more broadly "the West") and the first methalox staged combustion orbital launch by anyone. Of course, there's a FFSC methalox engine that came very close to a successful launch last year and will join the club very soon.
This is an engine thread, not a booster thread. Please stop conflating engine performance with the booster performance. The 1st stage methalox booster engines on both Vulcan and SH all ignited, functioned as designed and stayed lit with no apparent anomalies right to staging. Beyond that point, the BE4s had no more functions and the Raptors were involved in a series of failures that may or may not have been their fault (SpaceX has not publicized any determination, yet). So in the comparable portions of the flight regimes, both engine types behaved comparably.
What gives BE4 bragging rights is the fact that it accomplished all this on its first flight. It was robust enough to handle all the in-flight conditions that are not encountered in ground testing which is a testament to good design, modeling and construction. This indicates a maturity of process and performance that many had not credited Blue with.
Pretty much everything else is Vulcan, not BE4, related.
Except the IFT-2 was a SUBORBITAL mission profile...
Good lord not again...........please? Haven't we hashed this TO DEATH already?Congrats indeed!
Unless I am mistaken (please let me know) this represents the first successful orbital launch using a ORSC engine designed and built in the USA (or more broadly "the West") and the first methalox staged combustion orbital launch by anyone. Of course, there's a FFSC methalox engine that came very close to a successful launch last year and will join the club very soon.
This is an engine thread, not a booster thread. Please stop conflating engine performance with the booster performance. The 1st stage methalox booster engines on both Vulcan and SH all ignited, functioned as designed and stayed lit with no apparent anomalies right to staging. Beyond that point, the BE4s had no more functions and the Raptors were involved in a series of failures that may or may not have been their fault (SpaceX has not publicized any determination, yet). So in the comparable portions of the flight regimes, both engine types behaved comparably.
What gives BE4 bragging rights is the fact that it accomplished all this on its first flight. It was robust enough to handle all the in-flight conditions that are not encountered in ground testing which is a testament to good design, modeling and construction. This indicates a maturity of process and performance that many had not credited Blue with.
Pretty much everything else is Vulcan, not BE4, related.
Except the IFT-2 was a SUBORBITAL mission profile...
Good lord not again...........please? Haven't we hashed this TO DEATH already?Congrats indeed!
Unless I am mistaken (please let me know) this represents the first successful orbital launch using a ORSC engine designed and built in the USA (or more broadly "the West") and the first methalox staged combustion orbital launch by anyone. Of course, there's a FFSC methalox engine that came very close to a successful launch last year and will join the club very soon.
This is an engine thread, not a booster thread. Please stop conflating engine performance with the booster performance. The 1st stage methalox booster engines on both Vulcan and SH all ignited, functioned as designed and stayed lit with no apparent anomalies right to staging. Beyond that point, the BE4s had no more functions and the Raptors were involved in a series of failures that may or may not have been their fault (SpaceX has not publicized any determination, yet). So in the comparable portions of the flight regimes, both engine types behaved comparably.
What gives BE4 bragging rights is the fact that it accomplished all this on its first flight. It was robust enough to handle all the in-flight conditions that are not encountered in ground testing which is a testament to good design, modeling and construction. This indicates a maturity of process and performance that many had not credited Blue with.
Pretty much everything else is Vulcan, not BE4, related.
Except the IFT-2 was a SUBORBITAL mission profile...
IFT-2 has NOTHING to do with BE4.
Good lord not again...........please? Haven't we hashed this TO DEATH already?
IFT-2 has NOTHING to do with BE4.
OK, fine with me, but I was not the person to bring the SS to the conversation...
No, you're the person who brought Merlin to the conversation.Except the IFT-2 was a SUBORBITAL mission profile...Good lord not again...........please? Haven't we hashed this TO DEATH already?
IFT-2 has NOTHING to do with BE4.
OK, fine with me, but I was not the person to bring the SS to the conversation...
Do u think that they've produced already some BE4 for New Glenn?
A louder rumble in Rocket City! We just completed our first BE-4 engine hotfire test at the historic Test Stand 4670 in Huntsville. We also continue to test BE-4 engines at our Texas facility. The BE-4 engine produces 550,000 pounds of thrust and is our most powerful engine yet.
Should the nozzle be so red?
Did the vulcan CERT 1 launch use sparklers?
Should the nozzle be so red?
They did, but that didn't have anything to do with engine startup (other than risk abatement for gaseous methane).
So this article says this:
On the booster, he said there was an issue during the pad tests with flowing gas through spark torch igniters used to ignite the BE-4 engines. The gas is intended to make sure that the igniters are dry and can light, but the timing was off.
https://spacenews.com/ula-preparing-for-vulcan-centaur-static-fire/
Given there was nothing of the sort for this test, I would assume then this must be the first of the NG motors?
Hence all the excitement?
The torch igniters are internal and clearly involve TEA-TAB (the greenish color at start up).
The torch igniters are internal and clearly involve TEA-TAB (the greenish color at start up).
TEA/TEB typically doesn't need, nor use, anything else for ignition, so the language of using torch igniters (which is what I've always assumed BE-4 uses) makes me wonder if something else happened other than TEA/TEB use. Also, we didn't see any kind of green flash in the Vulcan engine start sequence. That makes me wonder if something slightly damaging to the engine happened (it didn't appear to be a long test fire based on the steam cloud size). Or maybe it was a random video artifact, because the engine ran for (apparently) several seconds and I would've expected it to shut down immediately if there was a serious issue.
In any case, BO's beginning to make some good headway towards getting BE-4s into the pipeline.
PQE-900 accumulated over 5,000 seconds of test & 36 starts, while completing combustion stability rating, engine gimbal & engine restart. After minor refurbishment, it will be the first BE-4 tested at the historic Marshall Space Flight Center Test Stand 4670 since its renovation
Or it's green because they're testing out TEA-TAB type igniters for an air-restart BE-4 for New Glenn. If it was anything other than that, the engine would've eaten itself and RUD in short order.
Or it's green because they're testing out TEA-TAB type igniters for an air-restart BE-4 for New Glenn. If it was anything other than that, the engine would've eaten itself and RUD in short order.
Hmm, so you're thinking they may not use the torch igniters on the air restart BE-4s, but go the TEA/TEB route. Interesting.
Well, torch igniters are one-offs.
Well, torch igniters are one-offs.
Not necessarily. Raptor uses dual-redundant torch igniters that are restart capable. But in any case, I'm glad to see BE-4 up and running on this test stand. Really want to see both launch systems (NG and SS) operational.
Have a good one,
Mike
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1755259367668998298QuoteNothing quite as pretty on a Wednesday morning as a brand new shiny #BE4 rolling over to get installed on the next #Vulcan...
The rumble you may hear today, Feb. 13, is the sound of rocket engine hot-fire testing at Redstone Arsenal.
“There are some deltas between the two that flew on Vulcan and ours that we are qualifying,” Jones said. “That will be done very soon … I won’t be waiting on engines.”
“I’m inspired by our mission and its legacy, which will make history and create opportunities for future generations,” - Joshua Payne, Technical Designer for New Glenn.
Joshua is a member of our Business Resource Group, New Jackson, which supports Black, African, African American, West Indian, or of African descent employees at Blue.
Space is for everyone. Join us: https://bit.ly/3rUFZyR
#BlackHistoryMonth #Space #ForTheBenefitofEarth
Or it's green because they're testing out TEA-TAB type igniters for an air-restart BE-4 for New Glenn. If it was anything other than that, the engine would've eaten itself and RUD in short order.
It doesn't take much copper vaporizing to add a green tinge to the flame
A new image from Blue Origin of BE-4 on the stand last month: https://blueorigin.com/news/gallery
"Blue Origin’s BE-4 engine readies for hotfire at Marshall Spaceflight Center Test Stand 4670 (February 1, 2024)."
https://twitter.com/Harry__Stranger/status/1765845111970447787QuoteA new image from Blue Origin of BE-4 on the stand last month: https://blueorigin.com/news/gallery
"Blue Origin’s BE-4 engine readies for hotfire at Marshall Spaceflight Center Test Stand 4670 (February 1, 2024)."
What is Blue’s need to use Marshall rather than Van Horn?Just guessing, but I can think of several potential reasons:
What is Blue’s need to use Marshall rather than Van Horn?Just guessing, but I can think of several potential reasons:
a) They would like to do testing with the engine vertical, a configuration closer to how it will be used.
b) They would like at least two physically separate test stands so a single failure can't derail their (and ULA's) whole schedule.
c) Sometimes it's helpful separate by purpose. Maybe R&D tests at Van Horn, acceptance tests at Marshall.
All this is pure speculation.
a) They would like to do testing with the engine vertical, a configuration closer to how it will be used.
b) They would like at least two physically separate test stands so a single failure can't derail their (and ULA's) whole schedule.
c) Sometimes it's helpful separate by purpose. Maybe R&D tests at Van Horn, acceptance tests at Marshall.
When you say "rate" testing, are you talking about acceptance testing, and the rate that engines can be run through ATPs?
From a quote a few weeks ago regarding 4670's first test firing of a BE-4 on the 1st of February where they use rate in place of acceptence this:
"Now we have test firings going on at Marshall 4670 to inaugurate rate testing of BE-4 and BE-3U"
Given the mega boosters failure to relight and loss, do you think BO will ask ULA to put a relightable BE4 on the next vulcan?
I dont think it would interfere with the the ULA mission as once the booster separates, its job is done... and BO could get a relight test in. It looses a motor, but thats cheaper than a whole NG booster.
Given the mega boosters failure to relight and loss, do you think BO will ask ULA to put a relightable BE4 on the next vulcan?
I dont think it would interfere with the the ULA mission as once the booster separates, its job is done... and BO could get a relight test in. It looses a motor, but thats cheaper than a whole NG booster.
That's a non-starter, if for no other reason because Vulcan boost stage has no attitude control whatsoever, the stage would be tumbling and the propellant unsettled from the bottom of the tanks.