NASASpaceFlight.com Forum

Commercial and US Government Launch Vehicles => Blue Origin => Topic started by: Steven Pietrobon on 02/25/2016 10:14 pm

Title: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 02/25/2016 10:14 pm
I think its time this engine has its own thread. Here are some images from

https://www.blueorigin.com/be4
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 02/25/2016 10:17 pm
Here is the fact sheet. Not much technical information, but sea level thrust is 2.45 MN (550 klbf). Propellants are liquid oxygen and liquid methane (liquified natural gas). Cycle is oxygen rich staged combustion.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 02/26/2016 12:22 am
Images of the BE-4 configurations.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Apollo100 on 02/26/2016 03:32 pm
The relative sizes of the hardware in the pictures is a bit off from the 3D models. Looks like the main turbopump shown on the floor and in the test stand is the smaller 400K version. Not sure why they would test it in the horizontal orientation if it is vertical in the engine.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: ethan829 on 02/26/2016 04:33 pm
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)
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Prober on 02/26/2016 04:45 pm
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)
Quote
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.


strange he has listed the AR1 in that comment.   The final papers must not be signed and the AR1 is the backup?

Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: kch on 02/26/2016 04:58 pm
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)
Quote
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.


strange he has listed the AR1 in that comment.   The final papers must not be signed and the AR1 is the backup?

Right!  :)

From the Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread:


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)
Quote
BE4 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.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Damon Hill on 03/02/2016 03:17 am
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
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: jongoff on 03/02/2016 03:34 am
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

The engine is probably being built in Kent, but the stand for BE-4 is in West Texas. There was a picture of the stand in one of these threads.

~Jon
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: GreenShrike on 03/09/2016 04:41 pm
Ars Technica reports that the combustion chamber pressure of the BE-4 is 1950 psi.

Quote
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.

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/)
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: baldusi on 03/09/2016 05:39 pm
Ars Technica reports that the combustion chamber pressure of the BE-4 is 1950 psi.

Quote
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.

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/)
Yes, and the RD-180 is still rated for 10 missions. No wonder it is not even close to the RD-180 in performance.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 03/12/2016 12:43 pm
Quote
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.

Also includes news on more test stand construction:

Quote
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.

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2016/03/11/be4-engine-testing-update-jeff-bezos/
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: J-V on 03/12/2016 07:24 pm
FYI The article in Parabolicarc is essentially an email from the BO mailing list, sent few days ago. You can subscribe in https://www.blueorigin.com I subscribed several weeks ago and this was the first mail from Jeff so far. Sorry for not sending it here, but mobile...
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: sanman on 03/14/2016 01:30 am
Old press conference from Sept-2014

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M89o79gqWec

PS: that first pic Steve posted has such a beautiful blue flame - I'll bet it makes night launches look spectacular
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Nilof on 03/17/2016 12:59 pm
...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. Then again, SpaceX's Raptor development seems to suggest that Methane performs above their initial expectations, so it may be the case that the BE-4 performance will also be closer to its theoretical ideal.

Here's the full output from MPA: # Engine name: BE-4
# Thu 17. Mar 14:46:58 2016
#
#***************************************************************************************************
# Propellant Specification
#---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#    Component  Temp.          Mass          Mole
#                 [K]      fraction      fraction
#---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#       CH4(L)  111.6     0.2286613     0.3715842
#        O2(L)   90.2     0.7713387     0.6284158
#---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#              Total:     1.0000000     1.0000000
#---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#    Exploded formula:   (O)1.257 (C)0.372 (H)1.486
#                O/F:     3.3732812
#              O/F 0:     3.9892635 (stoichiometric)
#              alpha:     0.8455900 (oxidizer excess coefficient)
#---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#
# Table 1. Thermodynamic properties
#---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#          Parameter      Injector    Nozzle inl    Nozzle thr    Nozzle exi          Unit   
#---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Pressure       13.4000       13.4000        7.7479        0.1013           MPa   
         Temperature     3633.4053     3633.4053     3449.6604     2120.8213             K   
            Enthalpy    -1584.7448    -1584.7448    -2320.7245    -6733.3422         kJ/kg   
             Entropy       11.9543       11.9543       11.9543       11.9543     kJ/(kg·K)   
Specific heat (p=const)        6.4073        6.4073        6.2065        2.3677     kJ/(kg·K)   
Specific heat (V=const)        5.4605        5.4605        5.3268        2.0007     kJ/(kg·K)   
        Gas constant        0.3818        0.3818        0.3771        0.3559     kJ/(kg·K)   
    Molecular weight       21.7772       21.7772       22.0482       23.3617                 
 Isentropic exponent        1.1344        1.1344        1.1315        1.1828                 
             Density        9.6596        9.6596        5.9559        0.1342         kg/m³   
      Sonic velocity     1254.4618     1254.4618     1213.2454      944.8885           m/s   
            Velocity        0.0000        0.0000     1213.2454     3208.9242           m/s   
         Mach number        0.0000        0.0000        1.0000        3.3961                 
          Area ratio        0.0000        0.0000        1.0000       16.7747                 
           Mass flux        0.0000        0.0000     7225.9842      430.7661     kg/(m²·s)   
#---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#
#---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#
# Table 2. Fractions of the combustion products
#---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#            Species      Injector      Injector    Nozzle inl    Nozzle inl    Nozzle thr    Nozzle thr    Nozzle exi    Nozzle exi   
#                       mass fract    mole fract    mass fract    mole fract    mass fract    mole fract    mass fract    mole fract   
#---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  CO     0.2310086     0.1796041     0.2310086     0.1796041     0.2202208     0.1733472     0.1561277     0.1302175   
                 CO2     0.2642280     0.1307480     0.2642280     0.1307480     0.2812219     0.1408886     0.3819814     0.2027683   
                COOH     0.0000486     0.0000235     0.0000486     0.0000235     0.0000281     0.0000138     0.0000000     0.0000000   
                   H     0.0008998     0.0194399     0.0008998     0.0194399     0.0007611     0.0166498     0.0000418     0.0009684   
                  H2     0.0074850     0.0808590     0.0074850     0.0808590     0.0070773     0.0774057     0.0065192     0.0755498   
                 H2O     0.4123624     0.4984720     0.4123624     0.4984720     0.4216903     0.5160903     0.4545258     0.5894158   
                H2O2     0.0000482     0.0000308     0.0000482     0.0000308     0.0000280     0.0000181     0.0000000     0.0000000   
     HCHO,formaldehy     0.0000011     0.0000008     0.0000011     0.0000008     0.0000006     0.0000004     0.0000000     0.0000000   
                 HCO     0.0000277     0.0000208     0.0000277     0.0000208     0.0000150     0.0000114     0.0000000     0.0000000   
               HCOOH     0.0000099     0.0000047     0.0000099     0.0000047     0.0000056     0.0000027     0.0000000     0.0000000   
                 HO2     0.0002153     0.0001421     0.0002153     0.0001421     0.0001292     0.0000863     0.0000000     0.0000000   
                   O     0.0060003     0.0081672     0.0060003     0.0081672     0.0045170     0.0062247     0.0000058     0.0000084   
                  O2     0.0282713     0.0192404     0.0282713     0.0192404     0.0232214     0.0160003     0.0000382     0.0000279   
                  O3     0.0000003     0.0000001     0.0000003     0.0000001     0.0000000     0.0000000     0.0000000     0.0000000   
                  OH     0.0493935     0.0632464     0.0493935     0.0632464     0.0410836     0.0532605     0.0007599     0.0010438   
#---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#
#---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#
# Table 3. Theoretical (ideal) performance
#---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#          Parameter     Sea level    Optimum ex        Vacuum          Unit   
#---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Characteristic velocity        0.0000     1854.4200        0.0000           m/s   
Effective exhaust velocity     3208.9200     3208.9200     3444.1400           m/s   
Specific impulse (by mass)     3208.9200     3208.9200     3444.1400        N·s/kg   
Specific impulse (by weight)      327.2200      327.2200      351.2100             s   
  Thrust coefficient        1.7304        1.7304        1.8573                 
#---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#
#---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#
# Table 4. Estimated delivered performance
#---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#          Parameter     Sea level    Optimum ex        Vacuum          Unit   
#---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Characteristic velocity        0.0000     1834.4100        0.0000           m/s   
Effective exhaust velocity     3092.1300     3092.1300     3327.3500           m/s   
Specific impulse (by mass)     3092.1300     3092.1300     3327.3500        N·s/kg   
Specific impulse (by weight)      315.3100      315.3100      339.3000             s   
  Thrust coefficient        1.6856        1.6856        1.8139                 
#---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#
#Ambient condition for optimum expansion:  H=0.00 km, p=1.000 atm
#
#
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: GreenShrike on 03/17/2016 04:18 pm
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.

The ISP of the RD-180 is around 312s/338s, according to SpaceLaunchReport, which is pretty much what you calculate for the BE-4. From baldusi's comments -- and what I understand about chamber pressure versus ISP -- I was expecting the BE-4 to be clearly under the RD-180's numbers.

Is the BE-4's supposed lower performance due to the lower density of methane versus RP-1?
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: baldusi on 03/17/2016 06:46 pm
Methane usually has a 10s to 15s isp advantage wrt RP-1 with everything else being equal. RD-180 not only has amazing isp, it also has 79:1 T/W. Since propulsion is usually 35% to 50% of a first stage dry mass, that also counts a lot. Then you have the lower density of CH4. So anything using the BE-4 won't be as efficient as the RD-180. Oversizing overcomes the inefficiencies.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Nilof on 03/17/2016 07:41 pm
Main reason why predicted isp for BE-4 is lower than predicted isp for RD-180 is the lower chamber pressure. For a vacuum optimized engine methalox will always give that 10-15 sec Isp advantage since you can have any expansion ratio you want. At sea level the chamber pressure affects Isp much more more than propellant choice because it limits the expansion ratio you can have.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: STS-200 on 03/18/2016 10:56 am
I would be amazed if the engine they end up producing used such a low expansion ratio as 16.7.

For a booster engine, the criteria is usually closer to maximising efficiency over the flight while avoiding flow separation at sea level, rather than absolute maximum thrust. I would expect an ER of more like 25-35, depending on what they are optimising it for.

At ER=25, I would expect to see more like SL~310s, Vacuum~345s in a "real world" engine.
In absolute Isp numbers, I suspect they'll exceed the RD-180 on average. Whether they beat it in T/W or in other measure remains to be seen.

They appear to be trading the inherent efficiency of Methane as a fuel for a lower chamber pressure, which makes for a "less stressed" engine; probably easier to build and allowing for longer component or cycle life - they state they're building it to be re-usable.

Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/18/2016 11:31 am
The BE4 should have high T/W as it uses additive manufacturing which helps to keep weight down.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Nilof on 03/18/2016 11:34 am
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.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: STS-200 on 03/18/2016 01:15 pm

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.

If you change the O/F, you'll get different results.
Based on 3.3 and an output about midway between frozen-flow and shifting equilibrium simulations, with an optimised nozzle contour and decent combustion efficiency, you'll get about what I said.

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.

Building two different expansion ratios of the same engine isn't entirely trivial and it throws away some of the operational/production efficiencies of a single design.
In general terms, you are quite right about Isp/vehicle T/W, however there are still a lot of other trade-offs - Steering & G-Loads, Dynamic pressure, landing burn requirements and overall vehicle cost to name but a few.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Apollo100 on 03/18/2016 09:23 pm
The BE4 should have high T/W as it uses additive manufacturing which helps to keep weight down.

Huh?
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Danderman on 03/19/2016 10:20 pm
About 20 years ago, Robert Zubrin was promoting methane engines (ultimately for use on Mars). When asked why methane was so great, if no was using it, his response was that "no one uses methane for rocket engines because no one uses methane for rocket engines".
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: R7 on 03/20/2016 06:24 pm
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!
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/20/2016 07:41 pm
Can anybody guess at throttle range of BE4. Blue plan to do vertical lands so deep throttling it one primary design features.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 03/21/2016 08:01 am
Poster of BE-4 engine inside Atlas-V reception building. Taken from ULA OA-6 video.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=d2BvvTZlqLc
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Nilof on 03/24/2016 10:07 am
Can anybody guess at throttle range of BE4. Blue plan to do vertical lands so deep throttling it one primary design features.

Depends on expansion ratio. If it's in the ~16 range it should be able to get down to ~20% at sea level before hitting flow sep. At ER = 25 flow sep happens around ~30% throttle. If they use an altitude compensating nozzle they might be able to get lower.

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!

The number that I disputed was the 310s+ specific impulse at ER = 25 which is rather optimistic, not the possibility of ER = 25.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Dante80 on 08/09/2016 05:39 am
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.

The above design goals seem both tame and achievable. As we have seen with other engine designs (Merlin comes to mind) Blue should be able to uprate their engine a lot with the data they gain from flight experience.

Regarding Isp and TWR, the info we have on them comes from this:
http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/03/behind-the-curtain-ars-goes-inside-blue-origins-secretive-rocket-factory/2/ (http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/03/behind-the-curtain-ars-goes-inside-blue-origins-secretive-rocket-factory/2/)
Quote
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
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: guckyfan on 08/09/2016 07:50 am
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.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Hobbes-22 on 08/09/2016 09:09 am
The BE4 should have high T/W as it uses additive manufacturing which helps to keep weight down.

Huh?

With AM, you can make large monolithic parts, where traditional manufacturing would need to split the part into manufacturable pieces, adding flanges and bolts to connect the parts. The printed part does not need those.
You might also be able to create (more efficient) part geometry that is impossible to do with traditional fabrication.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Dante80 on 08/09/2016 10:13 am
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.

Contrary to popular belief, it is not that easy to match RD-180 performance...with any hydrocarbon engine ( and especially if your goal is half the chamber pressure). Its not only the article though (which quotes Bezos, unless the reporter misrepresented him). The "Tobey comments" also seem to indicate the speculated performance goals above.

Quote
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."

http://spacenews.com/ula-intends-to-lower-its-costs-and-raise-its-cool-to-compete-with-spacex/ (http://spacenews.com/ula-intends-to-lower-its-costs-and-raise-its-cool-to-compete-with-spacex/)
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: pippin on 08/09/2016 01:14 pm
I think people underappreciate how good RD-180 is. I'm not sure the US (except maybe for AJR due to the license) has the technology to build an engine with similar performance let alone a relative newcomer like BO.
And the difference in ISP between methane and kerosene isn't very big. Actually, almost all methane engine designs proposed so far had lower ISP than high-ISP kerosene engines, probably due to less experience with the fuel. I'm not sure the high-pressure combustion behavior is as well understood as for kerosene and hydrogen
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Robotbeat on 08/09/2016 01:34 pm
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.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: baldusi on 08/09/2016 01:48 pm
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.
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.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Jim on 08/09/2016 01:58 pm
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.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: ugordan on 08/09/2016 02:02 pm
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.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: rpapo on 08/09/2016 02:10 pm
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.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Robotbeat on 08/09/2016 02:15 pm
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'd take that wager.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Jim on 08/09/2016 02:21 pm
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?
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: rpapo on 08/09/2016 02:53 pm
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 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.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Robotbeat on 08/09/2016 02:55 pm
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.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Oli on 08/09/2016 04:26 pm
Actually, almost all methane engine designs proposed so far had lower ISP than high-ISP kerosene engines

I don't think so, which ones?
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Dante80 on 08/09/2016 04:37 pm
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.

Even if you account for the extra weight for more feed lines and such, the thrust assembly should still be lighter (per kN installed). And we are talking about double the thrust here as per the coming uprate (so you would have to compare the assembly with something like the RD-171 based Zenit assembly).

The public info I have for RD-180 is a weight of 5,480 kg, and for the 9 Merlins the weight is around 4,230 kg with the actuators installed.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: baldusi on 08/09/2016 04:42 pm
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.
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.
Some went with gas generator (Space), but the rest went with ORSC. In fact, for the next step, SpaceX and KBKhA went with gas-gas implementations. There is a reason BE-4 is that, when it could have been fuel rich, for example.
Yes, the expansive energy of an ORSC turbine failure is something like 20 to 50 times that of a gas generator. But propulsion failure is LOM if you don't have engine out capabilities (and in many cases, even engine out won't cut it). No matter how "minimal" the catastrophic failure. LAS will (quite probably) save your crew exactly the same as long as the engine is turned off.
So I don't pay much attention to those naysayers. The rocket technology wars have a clear winner and the hero of that battle was the RD-180. BE-4 is probably more indebted to the RD-170 than to any other engine family.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: notsorandom on 08/09/2016 06:53 pm
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?
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: baldusi on 08/10/2016 12:17 am
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.
In fact, the RD-191 actually increased it so slightly. And RD-181 is actually same as RD-191. So they sort of increased it. Yes, the RD-0162/4 (KBKhA project) used lower chamber pressure. But was quite an increased when compared to previous models of the design bureau. And I'm kind of suspect of Voronezh's quality wrt NPO Energomash.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 08/10/2016 06:19 am
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.

If sea level thrust Fs = 2446.5 kN and the exit diameter of the BE-4 is De = 1.886 m (as measured from posted drawings), then the vacuum thrust is Fv = Fs + π De²/4 Pa = 2729.6 kN where Pa = 101.325 kPa is the sea level surface pressure. This means that if the Sea Level Isp is Is = 311 s, then the vacuum Isp must be Iv = Is*Fv/Fs = 347 s, quite a bit higher than the RD-180.

Using Pc = 13,445 kPa, an area ratio of Ar = (1.886/0.4)² = 22.22 and nozzle efficiency of 0.9418 (the same as the RD-180), the USAF Isp program gives an Iv = 337 s and Is = 302 s, which is less than the RD-180 with Iv = 338.4 s and Is = 311.9 s.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 08/29/2016 05:48 pm
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.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: jongoff on 08/29/2016 10:39 pm
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.

Do we have more details on this Raptor engine going to the test stands than the one sentence from Gwynne's SmallSat talk? I know people are interpreting this as a fully-integrated, flight-like Raptor engine, but has SpaceX actually said that, or are we possibly reading things into that statement that they never explicitly claimed.

As for BE-4 status, I think the goal was to have the full-scale engine into testing this year, so ULA could make a downselect decision between AR-1/BE-4.

It's possible that SpaceX has caught up and passed Blue Origin with Raptor, but we're basing a lot off of a single sentence from a talk (unless there've been more details released since then).

~Jon
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: scanline on 09/06/2016 05:46 am
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!

Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 09/06/2016 06:06 am
Is it possible to do staged combustion with a pintle?

I don't see why not. Using a pintle is a method of injecting the propellants into the combustion chamber. Staged combustion is a method of pressuring the propellants before injection. I would have thought those two operations (injection and pressurisation) would be fairly independent of the method used.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Nomic on 09/06/2016 08:22 am
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.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: baldusi on 09/06/2016 05:59 pm
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!
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.
The preburners need to mix two liquids, but have a very un balance ratio (sometimes 50:1 O/F). When Muller worked on the TR-107 (I think), he used a pintle on the ORSC preburner (the RP-1 was injected in liquid form). So I would speculate that both preburners are pintle injectors.
Regarding the MCC injector, that's anybody's guess. Pintle should work fine, you are working with hot gases, so mixing should be a lot easier than with liquids. And the inertia is a lot less, too. But you need a big section because gas is a lot less dense than liquid (depending staged combustion on pressure 2 to 8 times less). Without knowing the subject, I would get the impression that Raptor could use pintle just fine.
But Raptor will also use a lot of 3D printing. Pintle are beautiful for machining on a lathe. But 3D printing is better suited for coaxial injectors.
In the end, it is anybody's guess, for now.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: baldusi on 09/06/2016 06:01 pm
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.
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).
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Nomadd on 09/06/2016 06:19 pm
 I remember in the beginning, Musk wasn't too happy with the combustion efficiency with the "bloody pintle"
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: mheney on 09/06/2016 07:37 pm
Let's keep this on the BE-4.  There are plenty of other places for discussing SpaceX engines ...
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: baldusi on 09/07/2016 01:10 am
Well, I wonder if they used a pintle injector in the preburner. Simplest, cheapest and most reliable.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Nomic on 09/07/2016 08:59 am
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.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: baldusi on 09/07/2016 08:04 pm
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.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: AncientU on 09/13/2016 12:22 am
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...
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: ZachF on 09/24/2016 07:15 pm
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.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: ZachF on 09/24/2016 08:04 pm
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...

Merlin can't throttle down to <10% thrust but the Falcon 9 can by shutting off 8 of its 9 engines.

7 engines probably works out well for a Methalox stage because the relative empty mass for a stage with less-dense fuel will be higher (thus requiring more thrust to stop), and the T:W ratio of the engines will likely be lower.

A NG first stage will probably weigh ~80,000 kg (176,000lbs, roughly 60% of what a Saturn V first stage weighs) with BE-4 producing 550,000lbs of thrust that gives a landing empty stage a T:W of around 3. Falcon 9 stage weighs 25,600kg (56,320lbs) and one merlin produces ~165,000 lbs of thrust, also giving an empty stage T:W on one engine of around 3.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: ZachF on 09/24/2016 08:09 pm
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.

Seems the FT produces 6,570kN of thrust not 5,886kN, so it's even less likely.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/25/2016 12:08 pm
Ho ho. Let's drag this back to BE-4 please.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Lemurion on 10/01/2016 06:20 pm
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.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: DJPledger on 10/02/2016 01:46 pm
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.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: TrevorMonty on 10/02/2016 02:47 pm
The BE4 was designed to be reuseable and low cost to build, to achieve this Blue went for design that had moderate performance.

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.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: b0objunior on 10/02/2016 05:37 pm
The BE4 was designed to be reuseable and low cost to build, to achieve this Blue went for design that had moderate performance.

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.
And there not CO2 on the moon, so making methane is out of the question.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: DJPledger on 10/02/2016 06:34 pm
The BE4 was designed to be reuseable and low cost to build, to achieve this Blue went for design that had moderate performance.

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.
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.

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.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: b0objunior on 10/02/2016 07:01 pm
The BE4 was designed to be reuseable and low cost to build, to achieve this Blue went for design that had moderate performance.

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.
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.

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.
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.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Chasm on 10/02/2016 07:51 pm
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.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 10/02/2016 07:56 pm
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.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: b0objunior on 10/02/2016 07:59 pm
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.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: TrevorMonty on 10/02/2016 08:00 pm
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.


Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 10/02/2016 08:07 pm
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"?

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.

They are both methalox. They are both booster engines. And at this stage in development, yes both can be used.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: b0objunior on 10/02/2016 09:15 pm
Quote
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.
Quote
All baseless assumptions. There's speculting and SPECULATING.
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 10/02/2016 09:43 pm
Quote
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.
Quote
All baseless assumptions. There's speculting and SPECULATING.
Quote
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.

No, we have a great deal of insight on Vulcan and it's choice of BE4, as well as the potential "fall back" of AR1.

Immediately we already know:
 + That Vulcan at this point is "adaptable to engines" (source: Tory Bruno)
 + That Vulcan can have methalox props (sources: ULA, BO)
 + That Vulcan's final design will be adjusted to the performance of engines, both thrust and iSP (source: Tory Bruno, on explaining BE4 preference)
 + That Raptor's specs (source: SX) approach closer to the RD180 (source: ULA) than expected BE4 (source: BO)

Does not mean they will do it. Just means that they add risk by not considering it. On a risk reduction project, meant to replace foreign engine sourcing.

But, then, you now, it's not about engineering, just good old fashion politics. With the pretense of "better".

Just like in Russia.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: leaflion on 10/02/2016 11:30 pm
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.

Not to mention BE-4's much lower chamber pressure gives a lot more confidence in its potential reliability. Starting immediately with the highest chamber pressure engine we've seen in a long time is not a great recipe for reliability.  One way of dealing with that is by designing your LV to not care, but when you are selling engines its hard to say, "yeah, every 50th one fails, but we think that's good enough."

While FFSC removes the IPS, it also has 1 more combuster to fail.  Take your pick, seal or combuster. When is the last time an engine failed from its IPS?

Do we know if the turbomachinery was part of that Raptor test?  The Raptor thread is too long for me to pick through and try to figure it out.  The lack of details from SpaceX lead me to believe it didn't, but this is just speculation.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: hkultala on 10/02/2016 11:45 pm
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.

... and any kerosine engine sucks on isp if compared to RD-170 series.
... and most kerosine engins suck in paper if compared with NK-33. (if that nk-33 would just work reliably..)


The ONLY known numbers about BE-4 are chamber pressure(and that may increase with future versions of the engine) and a rough estimate about thrust range.
isp is not known(though we know that it will be less than raptor isp due less pressure). Actual final thrust is not known. Weight is not known. => T/W is not known. Manufacturing cost is not known.

Saying that is sucks without knowing anything is really childish. It may be cheaper to manufacture. It may have better T/W(thought this seems impropable). It may end up being more reliable.


What can be said is that BE-4 is less advanced engine than Raptor. Just like Merlin is less advanced than RD-180, but F9 still gives much better bang/buck than Atlas V, and mostly BECAUSE of the less advanced engine, not in spite of it.



Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: edkyle99 on 10/03/2016 12:27 am
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. 

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 10/03/2016 12:43 am
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.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: arachnitect on 10/03/2016 02:18 am
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.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Dante80 on 10/03/2016 02:29 am


...and there is little test history -and no flight history- of FFSC engines.

Yes. And the same is true more or less for large methalox ORSC engines.

In the end though, one thing for me is clear. Raptor will be completed later than BE-4, and will probably also have a more complex and arduous development program. I get the vibe that Raptor is designed like a Ferrari, and  BE-4 like a Hummer... ;)

Not that it matters really. Both engines are designed for mass production, and hopefully both are going to have long and successful histories (fingers crossed). Those comparison stories (my rocket engine is better than yours!) are pretty boring I think.
 
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: baldusi on 10/03/2016 03:44 pm
I don't believe that BE-4 was developed to Raptor's specifications. Also, we have companies that have lasted a 100 years exactly for avoiding the bleeding edge (e.g. Ford). I love Raptor's technology, but I wouldn't presume to know how the future will develop just because one technology appears superior to the other.
In fact, if you asked me which engine could be the best step to make a Raptor engine, I would say that BE-4 is quite probably the best bet. You have things like the RD-0164, that could probably match Raptor.
But KBKhA had a lot of experience on the expander cycle and ORSC. Only Aerojet Rocketdyne had that experience, and they wouldn't even start to think about something like that without a 3B contract from the US Government.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Oli on 10/03/2016 05:08 pm
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.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: baldusi on 10/03/2016 05:16 pm
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.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 10/03/2016 08:24 pm
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.
True also for the SSME when it was chosen for the Shuttle.

As for the RD270, 24 tests of (I think) 7 engines. Was at the time the most powerful engine on Earth.

Did not continue because the huge (super Proton) LV it was designed for was discontinued. In favor of N1, out of fear of a launch catastrophe for so much hypergolic propellant.

Oh, yeah BE-4 and AR-1 are first American ORSC engines too here. No American ORSC engines have ever been flown.

And ... some claim that FFSC, while more complex, is less risky because your dual preburner sides of the closed loop can be smaller and run at a lower relative pressure. So the true risk is in the injectors/combustion chamber.

If you have recent experience upping same in a prior engine, perhaps this is not such a big deal?

However, if you're dependent on materials technology to hold up for ORSC, it might take a while to perfect the recipe to reach enough of a preburner flow rate to match enough of a chamber pressure, without your parts being consumed in the process? The NK33 had considerable teething pains, along with its follow-on.

Have to consider ... what to be relentless about ... to achieve a reliable engine.

add:

Don't think I've ever been aware of any engine program ... that ever set out to design an unreliable engine  ::)

Would also think, that if you needed to gang large numbers of them together, rely on them for HSF, and require them to function with reuse, performing a function similar to the LM Ascent engine ... that reliability would be a significant requirement  :o

RS68's (and Merlin 1A) had ablative nozzles. As such, expendible limited life components ... so you might say limited reliability yield, I suppose ...

add:

Afraid we'll never know the truth about NK-33's reliability. Too much has happened to obscure it. And it appears to be in no one's interest to clarify that which remains to any great degree. Too many half truths ...
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: pippin on 10/03/2016 09:44 pm
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.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Dante80 on 10/04/2016 12:08 pm
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.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: baldusi on 10/04/2016 02:19 pm
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.
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.
BTW, it is important to understand that instead of getting 30% more power you can decrease the delta-t by 30% and get cooler turbines. Both a big improvement for useful life and material reliability.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: baldusi on 10/04/2016 02:34 pm
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.
And the RD-270 has a Pc of 26.4MPa, only surpassed by Raptor.
And the RD-253 had a T/W of 125 and the original design (which was actually supposed to be used on the N-1) was from 1960.
The "famous" T/W of the NK-33 is actually a lie. It was for a fixed engine with no TVC. If you calculated the T/W for RD-253 in that way, it would be 200. And when Aerojet added a TVC, it ended up with a T/W of 77.
In that sense, the best operative engine in the world, right now, is the RD-170 family and (you might argue) the Merlin 1D. But the RD-170 has been operative for more than 30 years.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/04/2016 08:09 pm
Thread is about BE-4. Please use this thread only for that engine (or it annoys people and they send report to mod alerts).
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Oli on 10/05/2016 05:48 am
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.

Thanks!

I found this explanation in a paper (http://www.rocket-propulsion.info/resources/articles/LPRE.pdf):

Quote
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.

Is this what you meant?
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: baldusi on 10/05/2016 12:32 pm
Looking at it from another side, but yes. They are talking about the results.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: TrevorMonty on 10/05/2016 01:46 pm
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.

"Natural gas consists almost entirely of methane (CH4), the simplest hydrocarbon compound. Typically, LNG is 85 to 95-plus percent methane, along with a few percent ethane, even less propane and butane, and trace amounts of nitrogen"

With a large RLV fuel price starts to become significant part of operating costs. Blue have decided to use lower performing engine with cheaper fuel.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: spacenut on 10/05/2016 02:10 pm
LNG and liquid methane are essentially the same thing.  During liquification, some impurites are drawn out.  LNG is about 95% methane.  At least it was with the company I worked for.  I've never heard of 85% unless it is at the well head and there it is separated out for 95% injected into transmission lines around the country. 

During chill down, some impurities like propane and butane can be separated out.  Propane liquifies at only about 10 lbs. leaving the methane.  Butane is similar.  Nitrogen will be heavier and settle to the bottom of methane in gas state.  Not that hard to separate during liquification of methane.  It might do it naturally during the process. 
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Dante80 on 10/05/2016 02:49 pm
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.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: AncientU on 10/05/2016 04:36 pm
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've been assuming all along that they'll purify the LNG to avoid separation/icing from the heavier elements.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: baldusi on 10/05/2016 05:55 pm
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.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Nilof on 10/05/2016 07:07 pm
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.

Didn't he state the exact opposite of that when asked at the ULA BE-4 for Vulcan announcement event? I may be misremembering things.


Either way, regarding the BE-4 vs Raptor comparisons, I think one thing worth mentioning regarding Blue's approach is that they have a lot of room for improving it much like SX did with the Merlin. If with these future upgrades they can double the chamber pressure to RD-180 levels, they'd suddenly have access to a ~5 MN engine, i.e. on par with the F-1. Given that the Merlin's thrust doubled between the first and latest versions, that shouldn't be impossible. It would allow New Glenn to grow in size to bigger-than-Saturn-V territory with future upgrades.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: baldusi on 10/05/2016 09:22 pm
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
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Dante80 on 10/06/2016 02:16 am
On the other hand, I distinctly remember a couple of times (one if them in a congressional hearing too) where Blue has stated that "this is not exactly a methane engine but a liquefied natural gas engine".
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Chasm on 10/12/2016 04:13 pm
Trying for LNG makes sense to me. Blue doesn't have the goal of ISRU on Mars at this time. If they can make the commercially available LNG work that should reduce propellant cost very nicely as compared to a highly refined version of the same.
LNG is not equal, every source has a different composition. As I understand the problems are less in the Methane content and more the impurities. (Water, N, CO2, H2S, ...) Maybe some additional refining is necessary.
So the question is, can they live with the limitations LNG imposes, and does it make sense on the financial side. Basically trading payload and engine lifetime for cheap and abundant propellant that should have no bottlenecks in the supply chain.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Stan-1967 on 10/12/2016 04:33 pm
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 are the problems Blue Origin might encounter in scaling the BE-4 up to F1 class thrust?   I found it interesting that both Blue Origin and SpaceX ended up with similar class engines when designing around methane/LOX.  SpaceX certainly had initial hopes for a much higher thrust Raptor than what they are now promising.   IIRC SpaceX says Raptor is optimized for T/W, not total thrust.  SpaceX wanted a much higher thrust Raptor, but had to back off to the proposed 3050kN Raptor.


What are the inherent problems with methane that Blue Origin will bump against if they try to scale up BE-4?  Is it just turbomachinery?  Or are there deeper problems with combustion and flow that will rob performance from simply scaled up Pc?
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: TrevorMonty on 10/12/2016 08:26 pm
Why make larger BE4, just use more of them on NA. By time they fly on NA, the NG should have proved their reliability.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Prettz on 10/12/2016 08:44 pm
edit: nevermind, that was too off-topic.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 10/13/2016 01:16 am
Please note that we haven't yet seen a full scale engine firing on a BO test stand yet.

Making predictions about upping performance when it hasn't even fired ... is nuts.

At this point you're lucky if it doesn't explode on a start-up sequencing.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Nilof on 10/13/2016 03:33 am
Blue has experience with developing rocket engines, and they have funding. All that talent that has been working on developing the BE-3 and BE-4 won't go away once the BE-4 is ready and certified. They'll be working on the next thing, whether it is an upgraded BE-4 or a next gen engine.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 10/13/2016 04:14 am
Wonderful but faith based assertions regardless of skill/accomplishments matters little at this point.

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.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: IainMcClatchie on 10/13/2016 05:04 am
Let's not talk about faith but instead look at momentum.  Who is actually doing stuff?

What has the SpaceX engine team done in the last 7 years?
A: Draco, SuperDraco, Merlin 1C and 1D, Raptor.  Three different propellant combinations, three different architectures.  Two of the four have flown, maybe three if you count SuperDraco (abort test?)

What has the Blue Origin engine team done in the last 7 years?
A: BE-3 and BE-4 and it appears some kind of thruster.  Three different propellant combinations, three different architectures.  Two have flown.

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.

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?

What has the ATK engine team done in the last 7 years?
A: 5 segment solid development from a 4 segment solid.

I'm pretty naive about the last three, so maybe I'm missing major developments.  But it appears SpaceX and Blue Origin have funded, capable teams actually testing new hardware.   The same doesn't appear to be true at the other three.  If I was a propulsion engineer passionate enough to rank what I'm doing over where I'm working or maybe existing benefits and seniority, where would I want to work?  I think it's the first two.  And that's the momentum.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: TrevorMonty on 10/13/2016 08:29 am
ULA don't do engine development inhouse they outsource it, no different from aircraft manufacturers. Has pluses once they have operational engine they don't have support an R&D team.

ALR are developing AR1, I doubt they will fail due to lack technical ability. Cancelled due to lack of funding or LV is more likely.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: savuporo on 10/13/2016 09:02 am
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?
Uh, thats leaving out a ton of things. Like $1.2B J-2X engine
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: john smith 19 on 10/13/2016 09:34 am
Wonderful but faith based assertions regardless of skill/accomplishments matters little at this point.

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.
Indeed. IIRC during SSME development one RUD was traced to an angle sensor being mis-aligned to its shaft by 10 degrees.

However I'm sure all development team read "SSME:The First Ten Years" and are aware of this and the many other mishaps on the programme.

Staged combustion is very tricky and it's simpler to build a whole engine than each separate part and a set of very elaborate (IIRC one of the SSME part test rigs had 2000 fluid valves) rigs to test them.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Chasm on 10/13/2016 09:59 am
More likely the AR1 gets developed to 90% flight readiness and then canceled like so many engines before it. Reference the ninety-ninety rule or a more fitting saying. :)


But back to the BE-4. It's hard to say what Blue Origin will do in the future, we don't even really know what they are doing now.
Lets try reading the tea leaves by looking at expectations. Blue and ULA must have had serious discussions about them.

ULA needs something right now, but they also need to keep that elusive perfect record for as long as possible. Performance? Enough is enough. Price point? Less than the other option ARJs AR1 would be welcome. Not very interested in experiments at this time.
Blue Origin needs something for their first orbital rocket. In this Millennium more engines means more margin and better reliability. Chances are that they want to iterate the design, a lot.

Neither of them needs the perfect engine, just one that is good enough for now. Preferably a design that has room for improvement so that they don't have to start from scratch after flying the first BE-4. Solving OSRC first certainly fits into the "Step by step ferociously" philosophy, as does starting with a lowish pressure version.

ULA repeatedly said that the engine down select comes at the end of the year or slightly later, after the BE-4 went on a test stand and has shown what it can('t) do. Taking the RS-68 lesson into account makes me think that it'll be the full scale engine that will have to meet or exceed the contracted requirements during the test campaign. Then there are another ~2 years until launch to show reliability.
We know that Blue used the BE-4 development to blow up various test articles before signing the ULA contract and a complete test stand one(?) year ago, so I suppose that they are beyond that stage by now.

Throwing all of the BE-4 development out that close to official testing because Raptor design goals have been released makes no sense. (As per the NSF article (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/10/its-propulsion-evolution-raptor-engine/) the tested Raptor was 1/3 power.)


I can see a future where BE-4 evolves into two production tracks. ULA buys the stable, proven version. The development version gets tested and then flies on New Glenn, once ULA sees enough improvements and is satisfied with the viability of the changes they switch their orders to the newer variant.
Blue has an incentive to keep evolving, but they also have an incentive to sell faultless engines.

As far as price goes, hard to tell. The only thing I remember reading is that Blue guaranteed a price set at 60% of what ARJ thought they could do the AR1 for. Did the grapevine really say that? If anywhere close to reality certainly an incentive.



For me the next major job for Blue after getting something to orbit, maybe even earlier, is to set up and communicate a development system. After all Blue had the opportunity to learn that while you do want to "fail early, fail often" there is also an enormous incentive isolate development anomalies from the operational launch business.

Four engine tracks:
Blue testing, on test stands
Blue development, experimental launch status
Blue stable, workhorse version on NG
Blue oldstable aka ULA version - perhaps also Blue HSF

(Yes, very much like Debian (https://wiki.debian.org/DebianReleases). If you start to introduce software development philosophies you might as well steal other stuff.)
Changes get introduced in testing and have to prove themself in each stage for at least x launches before advancing. If they fail, rinse and repeat.

I'd also try the same thing for New Glenn as a whole. Development, cargo & HSF tracks.
When a launch has been declared experimental and you book a flight on it for beer money there is a certain expectation that the payload may end up in the wrong orbit, or no orbit at all.
How to price that? The easy way out is of course Blue launching their own cargo, preferably have something that is cheap and easy to replace. If not, why not take a lesson from Amazon Web Services and just auction it of? Certainly cheaper than launching mass simulators.
(Just seeing the industry reaction to such an auction should be worth it.  8) )
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: TrevorMonty on 10/13/2016 01:20 pm
The BE4 may also be destined for Boeing/Blue XS1 booster. XS1 could be basis of reusable US for NG in future.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: edkyle99 on 10/13/2016 02:53 pm
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.
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.
Quote
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?
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.
Quote
What has the ATK engine team done in the last 7 years?
A: 5 segment solid development from a 4 segment solid.
Also Castor 30, 30XL, and numerous defense missile motor contracts, among other things.

SpaceX is definitely the current leader in the U.S. for kerosene gas generator engines.  AJRD leads in LH2/LOX.  It remains to be seen who will be the winner in CH4/LOX, and even if CH4/LOX will beat RP/LOX for Vulcan, etc..

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Jim on 10/13/2016 03:57 pm
.
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.


PW/AJR is responsible for building a US version of the RD-180.  And wrong, they could build it if wanted to.

.

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?

AJR is the largest producer of thrusters.  They have developed many over the last decade. 
They also develop SRM's.

So, in summary, your take away was wrong
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 10/13/2016 05:48 pm
Quote
Meyerson: “really great” progress on BE-4 engine; plan engine tests to begin early next year. #ISPCS2016

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/786621077849907200
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Dante80 on 10/13/2016 11:10 pm
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.

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?
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: baldusi on 10/14/2016 04:00 pm
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.

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?
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.
But after a successful demonstration, it will really be an amazing achievement by Blue. But I want to stress that this is their fourth engine, with BE-2 and BE-3 having a pretty successful (if short) flight history. In fact, they have developed the very first operative tap-off engine, mastered the hydrolox propellant and now are embarked into the big boys club.
If you ask me, NPO Energomash, KBKhA, AerojetRocketdyne and SpaceX are ahead. But I would put them in the second slot with Snemca, MHI, Yuzhnoye, CASC 6th Academy and ISRO.
They are, right now, the rising star. And a successful program should put them right in equal footing with anybody else in the world. So, at least from my perspective, calling their work anything less than amazing progress, is selling them short.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Chasm on 10/29/2016 06:37 pm
In the wake of a fortune.com article Tory Bruno is commenting a bit about the current BE-4 and Vulcan status on /r/ula.

Quote from: Tory Bruno
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)

In another comment:
Quote from: Tory Bruno
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)


So things are looking good for the reveal of a full scale engine in the first quarter of 2017 or so. It also explains why ULA does not seem to be too concerned with the test delay.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 10/29/2016 06:59 pm
Sounds nice. But leading up to full scale firing on test stand everyone must be concerned. Have to be. So critical.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Navier–Stokes on 11/18/2016 01:15 pm
New email update from Jeff Bezos:

Quote from: Jeff Bezos
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.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: TrevorMonty on 11/18/2016 02:35 pm
Selling these drilling machines could be little side business for Blue.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: acsawdey on 11/18/2016 02:49 pm
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.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: notsorandom on 11/18/2016 04:51 pm
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.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: baldusi on 11/18/2016 05:38 pm
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.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: russianhalo117 on 11/18/2016 05:54 pm
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.

Theoretically you could install more EDM arms to speed the process up, but the current setup is fine for testing and initial production rate.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Prober on 11/22/2016 03:59 pm
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.

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?

Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 11/22/2016 06:07 pm
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 ...  ::)
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: baldusi on 11/22/2016 06:19 pm
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".
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.
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. 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.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 11/22/2016 07:08 pm
First a reminder that this is the BE-4 thread and your posts should reflect that.  8)

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.

These were done for speed and not so much for cost. Also, the benefits for a booster engine in translating mass flows into thrust for hydrolox. Otherwise you'd have a significant wait to make the staged combustion work for STBE like application better.

BE-4 does ORSC for a booster engine (with the potential for a US application not unlike J-2X/MVac large nozzle), where combustion efficiency of minimal mass flow is desired. Speed to completion more by tools/simulation/small scale prototypes etc that RS-68 couldn't take the time for as a respin of SSME.

Quote
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.

The "dirt cheap" was in sharing components and piggybacking all the work for the logistical "wedge" of the SSME and the Shuttle base - it artificially increased the number of engines to make both programs cheaper as long as Shuttle flew, and it was way oversold.

You can't take an expensive logistical structure and expect LRE's alone to make an industry out of it, that will then make it cheap. Best you can do is make it less expensive, if you have enough volume (that was the point).

The "cheap" of BE-4 likely will be in the manner of production, the business model, and the cost sharing with ULA. like first stage reuse economics remain to be seen.

Quote
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.

Which is why I am critical of the Raptor/BE4/AR1 "new big engine". Billionaires/lobbyists can temporarily suspend the "laws of economics", but sooner or later they reassert.

Quote
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.

So need drives design thrash, and broad industry (kerosene/methane/regenerative) drives scalable propulsion success. If Henry Ford had successfully built hydrogen powered cars (impossible),  perhaps a different future.

As for ablative nozzles, they are a "cusp" technology ... still. You might be able to make them work, but in the same sense that Jim makes for subcooled LOX with F9, it may be of marginal advantage for indeterminate risk.

Quote
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.

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.

add: missed some things.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: TrevorMonty on 11/22/2016 07:35 pm
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.

By time Vulcan is reusing BE4 in 2023-25, NG should have high flight rate assuming Blues vision for HSF pans out.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: baldusi on 11/22/2016 08:02 pm
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.

By time Vulcan is reusing BE4 in 2023-25, NG should have high flight rate assuming Blues vision for HSF pans out.
BE-4 has some important advantages in cost wrt the RS-68A.
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.
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. 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.
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.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: RedLineTrain on 11/22/2016 08:11 pm
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.

Can you please talk a little about what you mean by "thumb on the scale"?  Government development money?  Ill-advised government requirements?

Thanks.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 11/22/2016 08:32 pm
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.

Quote
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.
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.
Like Aerojet Rocketdyne has also done. We'll see.

Quote
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.


Quote
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.

Quote
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.

SX has none of this because since they fully absorb the cost of engines, there isn't anyone along the "food chain" to feed.

Is the same true for BO? It should be. However, they cut deals, like with ULA and others. They clearly don't fully absorb the costs of engines. What if there are more deals with terms significant enough to matter?

In the case of AR1, to get those fine government contracts you bet they have a lot of outside mouths to feed.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Navier–Stokes on 01/19/2017 04:43 pm
Quote from: Underappreciated Engine Components - The Ox Boost Pump
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
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 01/19/2017 11:36 pm
Note the discrete mention of powerpack testing apart from engine testing.

Many times development doesn't get further than the powerpack. Many examples.

With LNG, combustion stability is a definite issue post powerpack. And you can get past powerpack test w/o dealing with ORSC materials issues. However ...

So this one is a touchy one to evaluate just where they are in the development cycle. For ULA to sign-off on BE-4 as primary engine source, one might expect a fair portion of a full burn of a prototype full-scale engine.

Powerpack test to that in less than 6 months would be quite an accomplishment.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: meberbs on 01/20/2017 12:31 am
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.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 01/20/2017 01:52 am
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 ...
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Star One on 01/20/2017 04:17 pm
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 ...

You say not to be a jerk, because to me that looks an entirely reasonable link having read it for the point they were making. Also you know very well that to get a cast iron source on something like that with BO's legendary secrecy is going to be pretty difficult so it makes you appear pedantic even if you didn't mean to come across that way.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: baldusi on 01/20/2017 05:31 pm
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:

Quote
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.

They are assembling the final engine for the first integrated test. That's the last step before actual hot firing. You don't do assembly until you have validated and certified each individual subsystem.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 01/21/2017 02:00 am
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:

Quote
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.

They are assembling the final engine for the first integrated test.
We are in agreement. I called it "incorporated". My issue is the "powerpack test" callout.

Quote
That's the last step before actual hot firing.
With closed cycle engines, there's a limit to separable component testing.

Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: meberbs on 01/21/2017 07:28 am
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.

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.
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.

I can understand how some of what I said may have been interpreted differently, and I agree that there are definitely risks and challenges with the full engine that can't be proven to work from component tests. There is a reason ULA is waiting to see the full engine run before they officially downselect for Vulcan.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 01/28/2017 09:23 pm
Interesting series of tweets on BE-4 development:

Quote
Blue Origin BE-4 Powerpack installed on test stand in West Texas for 'start transient' testing (2015) #RoadToHotfire #BE4
https://twitter.com/megsylhydrazine/status/825461150028476416 (https://twitter.com/megsylhydrazine/status/825461150028476416)

Quote
Blue Origin BE-4 Powerpack in operation during start transient testing (2015) 🚀 #RoadToHotfire #BE4
https://twitter.com/megsylhydrazine/status/825462058191708160 (https://twitter.com/megsylhydrazine/status/825462058191708160)

Quote
Subscale BE-4 in a highly-instrumented calorimeter tested the preburner & regeneratively cooled chamber + nozzle (2016) 🚀#RoadToHotfire #BE4
https://twitter.com/megsylhydrazine/status/825465331837607936 (https://twitter.com/megsylhydrazine/status/825465331837607936)

Quote
BE-4 Preburner Injector #CFD model shows temperature distribution of hot gaseous oxygen entering the turbine #RoadToHotfire #BE4
https://twitter.com/megsylhydrazine/status/825466390534447104 (https://twitter.com/megsylhydrazine/status/825466390534447104)

Quote
BE-4 staged-combustion tests confirmed pretest predictions of injector performance, heat transfer & combustion stability #RoadToHotfire #BE4
https://twitter.com/megsylhydrazine/status/825468103534317568 (https://twitter.com/megsylhydrazine/status/825468103534317568)
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 01/28/2017 09:33 pm
There's a short video attached to this tweet don't know how to embed:

Quote
Subscale BE-4 making smoke & fire in Texas! More than 3 years into development, #BE4 will be qualified for flight this year #RoadToHotfire

https://twitter.com/megsylhydrazine/status/825471035831046145 (https://twitter.com/megsylhydrazine/status/825471035831046145)

Edit: video link https://twitter.com/Megsylhydrazine/status/825471035831046145/video/1‬ (https://twitter.com/Megsylhydrazine/status/825471035831046145/video/1‬)
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 01/28/2017 09:41 pm
Quote
New test cell for BE-4 pressure-fed preburner testing to support dev. of start & ignition sequence timing for powerpack #RoadToHotfire #BE4

https://twitter.com/megsylhydrazine/status/825473262536663040 (https://twitter.com/megsylhydrazine/status/825473262536663040)
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 01/28/2017 09:47 pm
Quote
BE-4 pressure-fed preburner (14") testing in the new test cell🚀 These tests are developing the transient start sequence #RoadToHotfire #BE4

https://twitter.com/megsylhydrazine/status/825474421255081984 (https://twitter.com/megsylhydrazine/status/825474421255081984)
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 01/29/2017 02:15 am
This is the best information on BE-4 publicly released. And they seem to be making excellent progress.

Particularly like the CFD model and the wear before/after photos. It's about what you'd like to see leading up to a full scale on test stand.

At a guess it looks like they are within 3 months of a burp test of a full scale closed cycle engine.

Note the subscale engine firing and the test stand with its essential protection.

Congrats to the Blue Origin engine team, 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.

Good luck on making that full scale engine fire an effective reality.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: old_sellsword on 01/29/2017 02:22 am
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.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Lar on 01/29/2017 03:15 am
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...
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: gongora on 01/29/2017 03:34 am
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.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: old_sellsword on 01/29/2017 03:35 am
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.

Her description says "Seattle, Washington" and she has a picture with the New Shepard booster and capsule.

Edit: Although I'm now realizing all the pictures she tweeted were already publicly released, and that video is just a compilation of other released media. Is all this stuff anything we haven't seen before?
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Craftyatom on 01/29/2017 05:03 am
Quote
BE-4 Preburner Injector #CFD model shows temperature distribution of hot gaseous oxygen entering the turbine #RoadToHotfire #BE4
https://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...
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: meberbs on 01/29/2017 11:39 am
Quote
BE-4 Preburner Injector #CFD model shows temperature distribution of hot gaseous oxygen entering the turbine #RoadToHotfire #BE4
https://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...
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....)

My propulsion class largely used "English" units instead of metric, but the book didn't even use consistent units: it used pounds mass instead of slugs, so "g" would show up all over the place even though gravity wasn't involved in the equations.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: ethan829 on 01/29/2017 03:53 pm
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.


All of this has been previously released by Blue Origin through official channels (primarily their mailing list). You can sign up here: https://www.blueorigin.com/interested
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: ZachF on 01/30/2017 01:39 am
Methalox engines sure do make some pretty flames.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: woods170 on 01/30/2017 06:54 am
And ... You've "one upped" on SX in being more communicative than they are about Raptor.
I hear Ed talking  ;)
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 01/31/2017 04:53 am
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.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Nomic on 01/31/2017 09:59 am
Cant remember seeing the pictures of the turbopumps before, reverse image shows they have been around since September 2015 for the frosted image (picture of the whole test stand (http://www.americaspace.com/?p=86272)), February last year for the un-frosted.

Might be reading to much into it, but those pictures looks more like the design form the original announcement with ULA, turbopump along the top, rather than down the side. Wonder if there has been a redesign somewhere along the way, though it would be more surprising if they didn't have to make some significant changes along the way.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/06/2017 01:11 pm
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.

Edit: for the record here are the links

https://twitter.com/jeffbezos/status/838748139964272640 (https://twitter.com/jeffbezos/status/838748139964272640)
https://twitter.com/jeffbezos/status/838748973598900225 (https://twitter.com/jeffbezos/status/838748973598900225)
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/06/2017 01:27 pm
In response to Jeff Bezos' tweets:

Quote
Good looking engine. Looking forward to seeing its hot fire performance
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/838751831262113793 (https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/838751831262113793)

Quote
@torybruno Do you know when this is planned?
https://twitter.com/tobiasvdb/status/838752089597755392 (https://twitter.com/tobiasvdb/status/838752089597755392)

Quote
@TobiasVdb very soon
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/838754433668362240 (https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/838754433668362240)

Quote
BE4 is the primary path to replace the Atlas' Russian RD180. Looking good
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/838755076449701892 (https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/838755076449701892)
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: AncientU on 03/06/2017 07:38 pm
In response to Jeff Bezos' tweets:

...

Quote
BE4 is the primary path to replace the Atlas' Russian RD180. Looking good
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/838755076449701892 (https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/838755076449701892)

Primary path... doesn't sound too good for the AR-1.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: ugordan on 03/06/2017 07:40 pm
doesn't sound too good for the AR-1.

It never did.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: edkyle99 on 03/06/2017 08:30 pm
In response to Jeff Bezos' tweets:

...

Quote
BE4 is the primary path to replace the Atlas' Russian RD180. Looking good
https://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. 

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: yokem55 on 03/06/2017 08:34 pm
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...
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: HVM on 03/06/2017 09:19 pm
Coz RD-180 is same size and have similar thrust as BE-4. It's the Raptor which is odd one here.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 03/06/2017 09:32 pm
In response to Jeff Bezos' tweets:

...

Quote
BE4 is the primary path to replace the Atlas' Russian RD180. Looking good
https://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.

Methalox appears to be more compatible with simulations than kerolox and hydrolox ever were.

Looking very likely that the race to second successful large scale firing will be won by BE-4 after Raptor. By all accounts, AR-1 is still a year plus behind full scale. Not sure if they even have a test stand for it.

And this one is full scale, unlike Raptor's slightly subscale.

Quote
Staged combustion development testing has historically resulted in hair-pulling frustration. 

Three examples here Ed. I'll bet that the last one will take the longest to make it though start up sequencing.

You'll note that we are quite aways away from a full power, full duration burn on any of them.

add:
Oh and congratulations to Blue Origin on the fine engine - it will look even better on your test stand, in operation, which I earnestly hope will go well. Looking forward to your welcome to the methalox propulsion club.

Bet a cup of coffee that they'll have a half minute plus burn before June. Anyone want to bet against that?
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Davidthefat on 03/07/2017 07:11 am
Bet a cup of coffee that they'll have a half minute plus burn before June. Anyone want to bet against that?

I'll bet you on that.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: WindnWar on 03/07/2017 01:16 pm
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...

The specs for the chamber pressure is only about 30% higher than a gas generator engine like Merlin or RS-68A, so if anything it will likely have a worse thrust to weight ratio than RD-180 has of 77 to 1. Can't know for sure till the specs are released though. On the other hand if the specs are based on a very conservative initial version, they probably have room to raise its performance over time.

Too much guessing at this stage though.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: GWH on 03/07/2017 01:24 pm
Does the nozzle on the vac variant seem small to anyone else?

EDIT: Screen grab and very basic scaling of the video.  Referencing 7m stage diameter gives approx 3.2m diameter nozzle.  Shot in the dark guess on the 1st stage variant posted is that it's at least 2m?
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: PahTo on 03/07/2017 02:13 pm
Does the nozzle on the vac variant seem small to anyone else?

BE-4 is a booster engine.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Navier–Stokes on 03/07/2017 02:24 pm
Does the nozzle on the vac variant seem small to anyone else?

BE-4 is a booster engine.
GWH is correct, New Glenn's second stage uses a vacuum-optimized BE-4 (the optional third stage uses a vacuum-optimized BE-3).

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Prettz on 03/07/2017 09:26 pm
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?
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 03/08/2017 12:17 am
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.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Rocket Surgeon on 03/08/2017 12:20 am
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...
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Port on 03/08/2017 12:51 am
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...

Nobody said that hydrolox would be more complex to simlulate, i'm pretty sure that the opposite could very well be the case.
Only problem that i could see is that hydrogen tends to tunnel, also energetically speaking through reaction-energy potentials - this can however be calculated beforehand through more sofisticated dft-methods (or some sort thereof)

Whatever happens when hydrogen is combusted also happens when methane is combusted and then some (actually some huge stuff more due to the bonding-complexity of carbon).
There was a talk on how SpX uses simulation and they literally calculate every possible reaction, intermediate, sidereaction and so on - the CH4+O2 system has way north of 50 possible reaction mechanisms that take place between CH4+3 O2 -> 2 H2O+CO2 and this is what makes it really hard to accurately calculate.

The H2+O2 System is arguably much simpler, there are some radical-paths, mainly over HOO*, OH*- and the likes but nothing out of the super-ordinary.

complex carbon molecules are a whole other story, the complexity from the source materials alone is mindboggeling, the number of possible combinations should go something completely ridiculous potentiated with number of variable species, number of atoms, number of different atoms, number of possible radicals, then there is the problem that there are aromatic species involved and so on and so on, it's outright impossible to calculate as a first-order guess on my part
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: savuporo on 03/10/2017 02:37 am
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/03/blue-origins-new-engine-isnt-good-enough-for-some-congressmen/
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/10/2017 03:18 am
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.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: xanmarus on 03/10/2017 09:29 am
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.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: rsdavis9 on 03/10/2017 12:29 pm
So where is the BE-4 manufactured?
Texas near their launch site?
Washington state. I think there is a blue origin facility there?
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: rsdavis9 on 03/10/2017 12:35 pm
So does everybody think BE-4 will achieve X before raptor.
Test fire on stand.
Flight in some sort of vehicle.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: envy887 on 03/10/2017 03:20 pm
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.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/10/2017 06:07 pm
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.
Likely to fly in Vulcan first. Nice of ULA to help pay for development and test fly it for Blue.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: russianhalo117 on 03/10/2017 06:54 pm
So where is the BE-4 manufactured?
Texas near their launch site?
Washington state. I think there is a blue origin facility there?

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.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: rsdavis9 on 03/10/2017 08:12 pm
So where is the BE-4 manufactured?
Texas near their launch site?
Washington state. I think there is a blue origin facility there?

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.

So they do their static fires of the engines there currently?
Anybody have eyes on their facility? Or ears?
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: meberbs on 03/10/2017 08:36 pm
So where is the BE-4 manufactured?
Texas near their launch site?
Washington state. I think there is a blue origin facility there?

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.
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:

-initial production in Washington State
-initial testing in Texas
-full rate production location TBD (Florida and Washington State were both in the running last I heard, maybe others)
-full rate testing takes place at a converted LC-11 in Florida
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: rsdavis9 on 03/10/2017 08:45 pm
So if initial testing is in texas. It looks to be near impossible for any observers. It appears to be in the middle of nowhere.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: leaflion on 03/11/2017 03:50 am
Actually its about 1 hour's drive beyond the middle of nowhere.

Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Damon Hill on 03/11/2017 08:10 pm
So where is the BE-4 manufactured?
Texas near their launch site?
Washington state. I think there is a blue origin facility there?

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.

--Damon
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: meberbs on 03/12/2017 03:46 pm
So where is the BE-4 manufactured?
Texas near their launch site?
Washington state. I think there is a blue origin facility there?

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.

--Damon
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.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Navier–Stokes on 03/20/2017 12:12 pm
Quote from: Underappreciated Engine Components – Bearings
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
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/20/2017 02:10 pm
Great post. Nice to see great engineering that Blue are doing.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: baldusi on 03/20/2017 05:35 pm
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.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/20/2017 05:44 pm
Interesting example of just how seriously Blue are working on ease of re-use from the start. I guess that's what having serious capital behind them, with no current pressure to generate a ROI, enables.

The contrast with SpaceX, who had to generate revenue much sooner, is substantial. I must admit though that I feel more comfortable with SpaceX's (forced) simpler and more iterative approach. Really looking forward to seeing how the imminent BE-4 tests go.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: HMXHMX on 03/20/2017 06:30 pm
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.

The DARMA CHASE-10 implemented hydrostatic bearings as an upgrade to their conventional bearings about five years ago, but I don't know if they fired an integrated engine with them or not.

http://www.darmatechnology.com/tpa.html

Edit: spelling
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Jim on 03/20/2017 06:36 pm
I must admit though that I feel more comfortable with SpaceX's (forced) simpler and more iterative approach.

Why?
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Toast on 03/20/2017 06:49 pm
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.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: guckyfan on 03/20/2017 06:54 pm
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.

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.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/20/2017 07:07 pm
I must admit though that I feel more comfortable with SpaceX's (forced) simpler and more iterative approach.

Why?

Because I think there's quite a learning curve to building a successful orbital vehicle. So having a first orbital vehicle that's more capable (in terms of payload and re-use) than many other existing LVs feels riskier. SpaceX learnt some hard lessons with F1, will Blue do something similar with NG?

They obviously think NS has taught them enough and maybe they will have a very incremental test approach with NG. I guess I'm nervous about how easily their BE-3 and NS experience extrapolates to BE-4 and NG.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: LouScheffer on 03/20/2017 07:28 pm
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.

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.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/20/2017 07:33 pm
Quote
@spacecom Hydrostatic bearings were one of the innovations that led us to pick the engine.  Thrilled to see them working 😌

https://twitter.com/george_sowers/status/843919844135260161 (https://twitter.com/george_sowers/status/843919844135260161)
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Toast on 03/20/2017 08:31 pm
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.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: AncientU on 03/20/2017 10:10 pm
Great post. Nice to see great engineering that Blue are doing.

Looks like we have entered a (welcome) new era of openness from Jeff Bezos and Blue Origins!
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/20/2017 10:50 pm
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.
I don't think Blue will be modifying BE4 for improved performance. Increased reliability and easier maintenance yes.

Both NG and Vulcan (ACES) will have enough performance for most satellites without needing SRBs.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: russianhalo117 on 03/21/2017 12:51 am
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.
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.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: envy887 on 03/21/2017 02:21 am
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.
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.

The level of integration used in Raptor is new, thanks to additive manufacturing. And the chamber pressure is new.

BE-4 has a more modular design and lower chamber pressure. Though some things are new with it as well.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Dante80 on 03/21/2017 05:29 am

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.

Both engines are new, and there is a lot of risk to retire and work to be done before we see them fly. The difference between the two simply lies on the design goals that each company has decided to pursue.

And the design goals for Raptor are simply ridiculous.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/21/2017 08:31 am
Trying estimate BE4 annual production rate, here my guesses.
One NG per year till they have fleet of 4 =7 engines.
 1 per flight for 2nd stage allow 6 flights = 6 engines.
Vulcan 5 flights = 10 engines.
Total 23.
When fleet of NG are ready they would start on NA at 21 engine per booster +3 for reuseable 2nd stage. One every 2 years so 12 engines. NB reusable NG 2nd stage maybe flying with few expendable so 4-6 a year. Vulcan maybe up to 10 flights but they should be recovering engines.

20 a year for next 10yrs is not unrealistic.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: AncientU on 03/21/2017 12:25 pm
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.
I don't think Blue will be modifying BE4 for improved performance. Increased reliability and easier maintenance yes.

Both NG and Vulcan (ACES) will have enough performance for most satellites without needing SRBs.

There is more to the envisioned role for NG than satellites*.

*In NG's early days, satellite constellations will be launched (hopefully).  Their first launches will be for OneWeb, for instance, with 80 satellites per launch.  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.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Jim on 03/21/2017 01:20 pm
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.

Wrong.  GSO comsats will still drive LV performance and fairing sizing.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Toast on 03/21/2017 01:54 pm
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 think you're interpreting my statement a bit more rigidly than I intended it. All I meant was that oxygen-rich staged combustion in the BE-4 is a simpler cycle than the full flow staged combustion in Raptor. It is, in the words of Bezos, a "medium-performing version of a high-performing architecture". Bezos contends (and I generally agree) that fighting for that extra bit of Isp makes the engine significantly more complex and expensive, and complexity means that the design, manufacturing, and future upgrades are more difficult. I'm not saying that BE-4 is without challenges (or conversely, that Raptor or FFSC in general is not a good engine design or not worth the extra effort), just that I think that the BE-4 approach will probably provide for easier manufacturing and upgrading as compared to a more complicated cycle.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: strangequark on 03/21/2017 02:30 pm
Depends. SpaceX is pushing FFSC to the max, to try to hit that 4500psia chamber pressure. You could dial it back, match BE-4's 2000psia chamber pressure, while having markedly lower turbine inlet temperatures and eliminating the interpropellant seal package. Doing very, very rough scaling calcs, you could probably hit the same chamber pressure with a turbine inlet of 500-600°F, versus something around 1200-1400°F.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: baldusi on 03/21/2017 05:28 pm
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.
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.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: sdsds on 03/21/2017 08:04 pm
[...] 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.

Thank-you, this is very good analysis. Risk tolerance and ways to reduce risk always seem like vital topics in innovative engineering projects!

A minor point: I think you over-state the case slightly by saying they tried to reduce risk "as much as possible." Just slightly differently phrased: I bet they tried to reduced risk only as much as needed to meet the schedule requirement!
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 03/21/2017 08:50 pm
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.

BTW, none of these engine designs have advanced to the point of reliability/wear/reuse. The first indications of this will come at the earliest after major firings of these engines. Then we'll see the remediations of each design, how well they work against design goals. That's when you know what you've gotten.

BE4 is a fast to market, low development risk engine. Raptor is an all out, long ranged gamble. AR1 is a RD180 "good enough" rival. Of the three, the first two have far more riding on what follows than the third does.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: baldusi on 03/22/2017 10:52 am
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.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/22/2017 03:31 pm
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.

Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Wolfram66 on 03/22/2017 03:52 pm
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.
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.
What happens if there is cavitation in LOX or LNG flow supplying the hydrostatic bearings?
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: baldusi on 03/22/2017 04:12 pm
(...)
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.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: HMXHMX on 03/22/2017 04:40 pm
(...)
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.

Baldusi is correct; essentially all the wear with such bearings happens as they "liftoff" during the spin up, when pressures and flow are lower than the design operating points.  What that ends up meaning is that number of starts-stops are life determining, not run time.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: ZachS09 on 03/22/2017 04:40 pm
I thought cavitation results in an early engine shutdown as seen in the Delta IV Heavy demo flight in December 2004.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Jim on 03/22/2017 05:45 pm
I thought cavitation results in an early engine shutdown as seen in the Delta IV Heavy demo flight in December 2004.

The cavitation wasn't in the engines but high up in the feed line and the cavitation "bubbles' were detected and erroneously perceived as an empty feed line therefore signaling shutdown.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: AncientU on 03/22/2017 05:50 pm
Quote
At CSIS #SpaceSecurity event, Blue Origin’s Brett Alexander says first BE-4 engine hotfire test “coming up soon.”
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust

Quote
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

Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/22/2017 06:23 pm
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.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: baldusi on 03/22/2017 06:38 pm
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.
In the BE-4, that's a different case since it has staged combustion, so you could have cavitation either in the MCC if the problem was on the fuel side, or the preburner if it was in the oxidizer. And that's where things could get ugly really fast. You don't want cavitation instabilities on your turbines. That could very well mean a RUD.
The interesting thing regarding the hydrostatic bearings, is that they might need to use fuel on the fuel side and oxydizer on the oxi side. Which would need two different inlets of high pressure liquid and add complexity to the interseal. There's a reason the full flow IPD was initially designed for it. It is simpler to do hydrostatic bearings with it.
So, on the BE-4 they might have now one but two failure modes due to hydrostatic liquid starving, one for the fuel and the other for the oxidizer. That trades against greatly expanded burning life (but still limited ignition life).
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: AncientU on 03/22/2017 06:55 pm
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.

Thanks, didn't see that.
Edited entry to focus on BE-4.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Jim on 03/23/2017 12:27 pm
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.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: baldusi on 03/23/2017 04:00 pm
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?
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 03/23/2017 05:06 pm
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?

For the pump to compress flow, it decreases the volume of the flow. If the means it employs insures a liquid only density before its final stage of compression, then no gas is present to destabilize the injectors/combustion chamber. That is why there are multiple stages.

If you have a short enough flow path, you will always have gas get through, thus you will risk unstable combustion/detonation.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: su27k on 03/24/2017 02:13 pm
Haven't seen these posted, this is from reddit thread https://www.reddit.com/r/ula/comments/5xtapc/jeff_bezos_on_twitter_1st_be4_engine_fully/, in which Tory Bruno answered questions about BE-4.

Quote from: Tory Bruno
Quote from: Srekcalp
Is 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: Tory Bruno
Quote from: hqi777
"retires the combustion instability risk."
What does this mean? Can you please elaborate?
Sure.

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: Tory Bruno
Quote from: brickmack
Its 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
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Chasm on 03/24/2017 04:30 pm
There was a bit of info in the CSIS panel discussion (https://youtu.be/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://youtu.be/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.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Navier–Stokes on 03/24/2017 08:05 pm
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.

The comments by Brett Alexander (Director of Business Development & Strategy at Blue Origin) begin at 5h9m17s.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lftY2-NKX0E&feature=youtu.be&t=5h9m17s
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: DJPledger on 03/26/2017 02:12 pm
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.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: wannamoonbase on 03/27/2017 02:43 pm
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.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: baldusi on 03/27/2017 05:34 pm
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.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Lars-J on 03/27/2017 07:45 pm
Surely they will learn and improve and maybe develop a new engine after BE-4, I'm not certain they need too.

They'll never need another engine? That is either incredibly optimistic, or incredibly pessimistic!  ;D
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Hanno on 03/28/2017 02:06 am
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.
Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
Post by: Dante80 on 03/28/2017 02:29 am

Who is this "almost everyone" with SC? Raptor and BE-4 don't count yet.

Staged combustion engines have been used in:
  • Space Shuttle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle)
  • Atlas III (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_III)
  • Atlas V (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_V)
  • Antares (rocket) (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/javascript:void(0))
  • N1 (rocket) (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/javascript:void(0))
  • H-II (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-II)
  • H-IIA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-IIA)
  • H-IIB (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-IIB)
  • GSLV (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GSLV)
  • Proton (rocket family) (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/javascript:void(0))
  • Zenit (rocket family) (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/javascript:void(0))
  • Energia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energia)
  • Long March 5,6,7
     (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_March_6)
  • Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robotbeat on 03/28/2017 03:53 am
    Proton uses staged combustion? Huh, didn't know that.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 03/28/2017 04:13 am
    Also

    Angara
    Dnepr
    Rokot
    Soyuz-2.1b
    Soyuz-2.1v
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Dante80 on 03/28/2017 05:00 am
    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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: hkultala on 03/28/2017 06:10 am
    [offtopic]

    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

    Using N2O4 instead of LOX as oxidizer.. how corrosive is N2O4 compared to LOX?

    [/offtopic]
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Kryten on 03/28/2017 07:24 am
     R-27 also uses ORSC, which means the North Koreans have the technology through their 'Musudan' derivative. There are DoD reports that the Iranians also have tested an R-27 derivative, so they likely have it as well.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Proponent on 03/28/2017 01:19 pm
    In his book History of Liquid Propellant Rocket Engines, (https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/History_of_Liquid_Propellant_Rocket_Engi.html?id=s1C9Oo2I4VYC&redir_esc=y) Sutton states (p. 722) says the first SC engine flew on an R-7 variant in 1961:

    Quote from: G. P. Sutton
    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 caption for Fig. 8.11-1 (p. 723), a photo of the S1.5400, adds "Its first satisfactory flight was in an upper stage in 1961."

    EDIT:  Removed extraneous comma in first sentence.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/28/2017 01:36 pm
    Eric Berger article on forthcoming BE-4 testing (no new info on date) & it's significance:

    https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/03/heres-why-the-imminent-test-of-jeff-bezos-be-4-rocket-engine-is-a-huge-deal/ (https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/03/heres-why-the-imminent-test-of-jeff-bezos-be-4-rocket-engine-is-a-huge-deal/)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: LouScheffer on 03/28/2017 03:09 pm
    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.
    [...]
     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.
    Expanding on this, from a pure engineering point of view, it seems like FFSC might be easier.  In addition to the points above:
    (d) Pump design should be easier, and perhaps higher margin, since you can pick the shaft speed independently as part of optimizing each pump for the liquid it is pumping.
    (e) The ORSC technology  is easier for a given chamber pressure.  Since the OR turbine only needs to develop the power to pump the oxygen (and not the fuel) the turbine temperature will be lower for the same chamber pressure.
    (f) The injector is gas-gas.  This seems easier to model, though I don't know if this helps in reducing instability.
    (g) The plumbing seems easier.  You don't need to route everything in and out of a common pump assembly.

    On the downside, startup seems tricky since you need to coordinate the two pumps.  And as pointed out, there is not much experience, so you can't just go and ask someone how they solved the problems you find.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Davidthefat on 03/28/2017 04:06 pm
    Also

    Angara
    Dnepr
    Rokot
    Soyuz-2.1b
    Soyuz-2.1v

    Plus Naro-1 (which is cheating as it's an Angara first stage with a Korean 2nd stage)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: baldusi on 03/28/2017 07:04 pm
    (...)
    Who is this "almost everyone" with SC? Raptor and BE-4 don't count yet.
    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.
    Yuzhnoye from Ukraine did the RD-8 in the early 80s and sold blueprints to the Chinese and Indians. The Chinese have the YF-100 and YF-115. The Indians have the CE-7.5 and SCE-200 (yes, the latter still to be operational, but the subsystems have been fired). The British had the Bristol Siddeley Gamma, which was staged combustion, albeit with a much simpler catalystic preburner. MHI of Japan did the LE-7, also SC.
    Then you have the SSME by Rocketdyne. And TRW did designed and validated the preburners for the TR-107, Rocketdyne also did the RS-84 work, and AeroJet had their AJ-500 plus the fuel pump of the IPD. Yes, the Americans used to be the least advanced in SC cycle, but they have a lot of work and a very successful engine in the SSME. As has also been shown, lots of LV use SC engines, and the technology is nowadays widespread. At least as widespread as a highly controlled technology with as few as ten groups/companies with access can be. But Russia, Ukraine, Japan, US, China and India have operational staged combustion engines. And now SpaceX and Blue Origin are getting into this club that's each day less exclusive.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Prettz on 03/29/2017 01:30 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: strangequark on 03/29/2017 04:30 am
    Even some pretty small groups are giving ORSC a go these days.

    https://www.instagram.com/p/BQgeqdfh000/?hl=en (https://www.instagram.com/p/BQgeqdfh000/?hl=en)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 03/29/2017 06:22 am
    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."
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: baldusi on 03/29/2017 07:31 pm
    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."

    I've been looking and have not found a single exhaust on the pictures of the engines.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Siddeley_Gamma#/media/File:Gamma_2_engine.jpg
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 03/30/2017 08:18 am
    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.

    That's right. The HTP is pumped into the combustion chamber where it is decomposed and combusted with the fuel. None of this is used to drive the turbine. That's done using a separate steam generator. See attached drawing.

    Quote
    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.

    The exhaust port is the tube at the left. The exhaust is perfectly clear since it is just pure steam and oxygen. Don't forget this engine development started in the 1950s!
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Nomic on 03/30/2017 09:42 am
    Fantastic drawing, central turbine very old school. Can see the lineage from Walter Werke (http://www.walterwerke.co.uk/design/pump.htm) in WWII.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/06/2017 12:07 am
    No surprises here but good to get confirmation and BE-4 test is clearly in (very?) near future:

    http://spacenews.com/bruno-vulcan-engine-downselect-is-blues-to-lose/ (http://spacenews.com/bruno-vulcan-engine-downselect-is-blues-to-lose/)

    Here's an excerpt:

    Quote
    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.”
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: sanman on 04/11/2017 06:21 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Jim on 04/11/2017 03:09 pm
    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.

    No, too complex and wouldn't increase reliability.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/11/2017 07:11 pm
    More background on ULA's engine choice and the status of BE-4:

    http://www.defensenews.com/articles/blue-origin-engines-future-rests-on-upcoming-hot-fire-tests (http://www.defensenews.com/articles/blue-origin-engines-future-rests-on-upcoming-hot-fire-tests)

    Includes:

    Quote
    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.”
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Dante80 on 04/13/2017 06:36 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Lars-J on 04/13/2017 06:51 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/13/2017 08:10 am
    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 think that's slightly overstating it. There has to be a non-zero risk that BE-4 doesn't work, or at least has significant issues requiring some redesign etc. If the BE-4 schedule were to slip significantly, then ULA have a tricky decision to make at some point.

    Obviously though if the BE-4 schedule remains ahead of AR-1 then they just keep going as is.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: guckyfan on 04/13/2017 08:21 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: MP99 on 04/13/2017 09:44 am


    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.

    Look at the RS68. It failed to meet its performance goals (an Isp shortfall, IIRC), and the engine was used in that form for years rather than spend the $$$ to fix it.

    Cheers, Martin
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/13/2017 06:00 pm
    AW reports a bit more detail on planned BE-4 testing:

    Quote
    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.”

    http://m.aviationweek.com/space/upheaval-space-access-beginning-now (http://m.aviationweek.com/space/upheaval-space-access-beginning-now)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Navier–Stokes on 04/20/2017 03:33 am
    ULA chief says Blue Origin in driver’s seat for Vulcan engine deal (https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/04/18/ula-chief-says-blue-origin-in-drivers-seat-for-vulcan-engine-deal/)
    Quote
    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.”
    Quote
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: sanman on 04/25/2017 08:23 pm
    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 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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: woods170 on 04/26/2017 06:21 am

    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?

    I suggest you take your question to AR-1 thread: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34944.0
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/14/2017 10:23 pm
    Quote
    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.

    https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/863881495169048576 (https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/863881495169048576)

    Quote
    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

    https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/863881837000638464 (https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/863881837000638464)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Chris Bergin on 05/14/2017 10:29 pm
    No specifics - and I have nothing further, but it's hard to tell how bad that was. There's a difference between something like the occasional engine controller going pop at McGregor and the Antares engine that went boom at Stennis.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/14/2017 10:42 pm
    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).
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: x15_fan on 05/14/2017 10:52 pm
    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).

    This is where the rubber meets the road. Up until now Blue has been working quietly at their own pace, now they have chips down on the table. ULA needs that engine else some very large changes are going to have to be made to Vulcan program. ULA is more like gradatim-asap. Welcome to having customers...
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 05/15/2017 12:40 am
    Have had an ear for news on BE4 bring up. Already had noticed how time was passing silently.

    Not the best of news. Sounds like the engine teams are not having an easy time. What they are attempting, at scale, is a challenge and a half to get through start up sequencing.

    Also anxiety in Colorado over this. Some would like a win ... soon.

    Thank you Blue Origin for letting us know, even when it doesn't work, that's professional of you.

    Let us know also when you achieve more.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: AncientU on 05/15/2017 12:49 am
    Testing does that when pushing into new territory. 
    Good that they have additional hardware and stands.
    Keep learning and moving forward, Blue.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Kabloona on 05/15/2017 02:57 am
    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?

    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/
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 05/15/2017 03:12 am
    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?

    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/
    Yes.

    The main issue is likely with the oxygen preburner.

    When you bring up an engine, everything has to sequence right from the start, or you get a fragmentation device.

    In extreme/spectacular cases, it takes the test stand with it.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Kabloona on 05/15/2017 03:20 am
    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?

    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/
    Yes.

    Thanks, SG.

    This article from last year is admittedly old, but seems relevant since it discusses preburner combustion and cooling the preburner combustion products sufficiently to protect the turbopump vanes.

    http://www.popsci.com/jeff-bezos-explains-how-blue-origin-will-prevent-its-next-gen-rocket-engine-from-melting

    The closing line from Jeff Bezos may be getting put to the test right now:

    "The ability to do combusting CFD simulations doesn’t eliminate the need for rigorous testing, but it will significantly shorten the test-fail-fix loop on the test stand. "

    I guess we hope their CFD model is good and it was "merely" a startup transient issue as you suggested.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Chasm on 05/15/2017 04:53 am
    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.

    So, what did they test?
    Normal operation vs. edge cases.

    How did they loose the pack?
    Oops, that did not work. Find out what happened and if we have to wait for a modified pack.
    vs.
    BOOM! Well that did not work. Lets check the other cell and order another container of test gear.


    Right about now I'd like a DigitalGlobe account. :)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: guckyfan on 05/15/2017 05:35 am
    They had announced that a full engine is on the test stand, waiting to be fired. Now they announce a power pack has blown, which I would not see as unusual at this stage. But was this a test of the full engine? Could a full engine test end with only the power pack blown?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Coastal Ron on 05/15/2017 05:51 am
    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).

    I would imagine "soon" also depends on what they think caused the problem.  Hopefully this was a test of what they thought the limits were, or an understandable failure of some kind.

    I do like how they are "hardware rich" though, because that tells me they are OK with breaking things...
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Chasm on 05/15/2017 06:17 am
    Lost is nicely vague. Covers everything from widely distributed engine and test stand confetti down to a problem that got caught in time to shut down safely but leaves the powerpack (or complete engine) inoperable / a specimen for the materials lab.

    Since they are still deep in development and verification I suppose that all test articles are heavily instrumented. So catching problems is possible, esp. if they had a few successful runs to compare to.


    Was this the first run for the powerpack? 2nd? 20th?
    During normal operation or while verifying characteristics?
    "This should work" vs. "This is unlikely to work, but we need to verify limits."
    Maybe we'll find out in the future.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: edkyle99 on 05/15/2017 01:44 pm
    More important than the "lost" powerpack is the condition of the test stand. 

     - Ed Kyle
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: LouScheffer on 05/15/2017 02:22 pm
    Quote
    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.

    https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/863881495169048576 (https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/863881495169048576)

    Not unusual seems an understatement. For example, from Characteristics of Space Shuttle Main Engine failures (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19870058042)
    Quote
    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".
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: edkyle99 on 05/15/2017 02:31 pm
    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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: baldusi on 05/15/2017 02:48 pm
    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 big question is if this failure was due to envelop exploration or normal condition. And the test stand status, too. But I'm assuming they had a couple of cells and this was not an RD-170 moment.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: savuporo on 05/15/2017 03:23 pm
    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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 05/15/2017 03:30 pm
    During Tom Mueller's recent interview he mentioned blowing up a lot of Merlin 1D engines during development
    Makes perfect sense if one is doing a "face shutoff" at the injector.

    And in some ways close to what this test is likely experiencing.

    AIUI, may be the RS-68 didn't had this sort of failures?

    I don't remember a similar case with it. RS68 was supposed to be cheap/easy/fast (like FBC?) by avoiding RS25's SC nightmares. Also, IIRC Fastrac and M-1A didn't have much like this.

    Quote
    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."

    Quote
    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?

    Suggest far away from either of your two here.

    Quote
    And the test stand status, too.
    Test stands.

    Quote
    But I'm assuming they had a couple of cells and this was not an RD-170 moment.
    Heh. Ouch.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 05/15/2017 10:44 pm
    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/)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: wannamoonbase on 05/16/2017 02:50 am
    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

    And SpaceX wasn't trying to sell their engine to ULA.  Internal project for internal needs.

    With ULA waiting perhaps they had to say something publicly.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Katana on 05/23/2017 04:57 pm
    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Hauerg on 05/23/2017 05:01 pm
    1D
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: jg on 05/27/2017 10:34 pm
    1D
    The valving was unusual for an engine that big.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Star One on 06/07/2017 08:10 am
    Air Force Moving Forward After Blue Origin 'Setback'

    Quote
    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."

    http://www.investors.com/news/air-force-moving-forward-after-setback-in-plans-end-russian-rocket-engine-use/
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 06/09/2017 05:35 pm
    From the standpoint of the AF it is about who gets what additional funding in out years FY2018/19/20. Not which engine that they want ULA to use on Vulcan. The AF just wants to make sure that there is a fallback position to the front runner having serious problems that severely the delay the development. That has always been their position and is why the AR-1 is being funded. But now they need to review their funding levels to determine if it still fits with the "new" events.

    Edit added: The statement is full of non-committal items that sound like a PR boilerplate response to the event and its impact for the RD-180 replacement program.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 06/10/2017 02:37 am
    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.

    So while its disappointing it's not an easy engine to finish this stage of its development, it's hardly a surprise either.

    On the AF side, this means both AJR/BO. Remember, AJR has to go through exactly the same with AR-1 that BE-4 is going through now, in a year or two. There is nothing to insure that either/any engine will be deterministic at this stage.

    Which is why there are back-ups, including potentially a solid LV. Financing/plans about them at this stage is what is being referred to.

    IMHO its the most challenging point w/LREs. Next, its on to combustion stability, increasing burn duration, and performance levels/throttling. After that, one begins to understand the engine one designed, as a propulsion system for a vehicle as a reality, warts and all.

    For BO and its indefinite money/schedule, the most troublesome would be having to redesign the powerhead or combustion chamber until things WAD. It might just delay NG a bit.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: MP99 on 06/10/2017 05:04 pm
    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.

    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).

    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?

    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)?

    Many thanks for any help.

    Cheers, Martin
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 06/11/2017 05:36 am
    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?
    Considerable.

    The powerpack supplies the injectors/combustion chamber in a full scale test on stand. Before you would be able to supply the flows necessary, but not function in the system as a combustion process, nor work through start-up sequencing. It's not a matter yet of power level, but a matter of function as a combined system. You want to be able to consistently, stablely work through the start-up sequencing and shutdown with the combustion chamber not experiencing detonations. As the combustion chamber increases in size, this becomes more of a challenge.
     
    Quote
    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.

    Keep in mind the mass flows and pressure necessary for the engine's design. The benefit of FFSC is that the sides are at lower pressure/flow than the ORSC's single flow. FFSC is not harder per se as it has more complexity (Raptor's cleverness is in how they keep the complexity down, BE-4's is attempting to limit risk by starting out at a much lower chamber pressure).

    Quote
    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.

    The fired Raptor is a 1MN, while the BE-4 is to be a 2.4MN engine. And you mean flow/pressure of the OR to inject to the combustion chamber to react to get the power, not power on the OR.

    Quote
    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.)

    Quote
    Or, maybe avoiding sealing issues separating OR preburner gasses from the fuel leg?

    Now we're getting into the cost/complexity issues of how to build a single shaft TP design vs a dual TP design. And more. With FFSC you're not able to have those choice, because of the complexity inherent.

    And issues with how to handle the highly reactive OR mass flow in the ORSC closed cycle design.

    Quote
    In general, what are the issues that might make the OR leg of FFSC (Raptor) easier than an ORSC engine (BE-4)?

    More compartmentalized. Less flow/pressure (although Raptor is a much higher pressure engine than BE-4). You can sequence startup FR then OR instead of all at once. Transients.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: MP99 on 06/11/2017 02:53 pm
    Thanks for a super comprehensive answer.

    Much appreciated as always.

    Cheers, Martin
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: woods170 on 06/21/2017 07:53 am
    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/)

    All depends on POV (http://spacenews.com/if-america-wants-to-succeed-it-needs-to-learn-to-fail-top-general-says/).

    Quote from: Phillip Swarts
    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.’”
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: TrevorMonty on 06/21/2017 10:10 am
    The odd exploding engine means they pushing hard, as it should.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: woods170 on 06/21/2017 11:37 am
    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)

    Quote from: Douglas P. Bradley - Pratt&Whitney Rocketdyne
    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.

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: matthewkantar on 06/21/2017 03:44 pm
    To be fair, one cannot expect the press to herald the (most likely explosive) unplanned end to a test like this. Reporting disappointment from all involved in an outcome like this is accurate enough. At least Blue is being a bit more transparent than the other manufacturer in the running.

    Matthew
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 06/21/2017 08:16 pm
    Quote from: Phillip Swarts
    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.’”
    Sure. Same was true with all the moaning/groaning about the GHe pressurization failures with SX.

    (Had also listened to the schadenfreude from various propulsion teams over the years, including BO's, WRT other engine's arrival at the test stand.)

    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)
    Agree with the analogy.

    However,  BO and SX are private firms, while PWR, AJR, Energia, ... others ... are in a different category with those not-so-limited funds/time.

    Quote
    Quote from: Douglas P. Bradley - Pratt&Whitney Rocketdyne
    The first development tests were designed to develop the start sequence (Figure 14). Math models indicated propellant conditions and valve timing would be critical.
    Whole different time/tools/practices.

    Much worse combustion modelling, mathematics that didnt' handle chaotic processes/leveraging at all well, computational issues with floating point round-off errors that compounded subtle errors.

    Quote
    Quote
    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.

    Some of the tests were shown on national TV news broadcasts too. "Is the Shuttle ever going it get off the ground" on might hear in following days at the local watering hole. A burger chief might want to opine on helping out  ::)

    Best I'd say for such was to describe it as a rocket engine that had to fire inside a larger rocket engine, without blowing up both. Seemed to be accepted.

    Quote
    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.

    Now, you can't have infinite sets of hardware. And, you need to advance the development w/o creating a new surprise downwind.

    Likely the AF/ULA are sweating the indefinite closure to where they can convince themselves of a stable and growing future.  Breaths life into an otherwise demoralized AR-1 team.

    Good news for the BE-4 team - they're not at AJR. Good news for the AR-1 team - they can convince AJR to not force them to function as if they're at AJR ...

    (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.)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: woods170 on 06/21/2017 08:55 pm

    (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 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...

    But I agree that SpaceX did not experience the politics surrounding Blue's BE-4 and Aerojet's AR-1.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: edkyle99 on 06/21/2017 11:53 pm
    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.)

     - Ed Kyle
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 06/22/2017 12:43 am
    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.

    Quote
    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.

    But ... be advised, in this bat$hit crazy, political environment, with govt dollars at stake, ... there's a lot of ways it can go wrong / be used inappropriately.  (Fairly recently saw SX coverage of regular static fires and tests being characterized by news outlets as "failed launches".)

    Can fault Bezos /BO for a lot of other things not being transparent. But remembering what happened with the SSME failures broadcast on the evening TV news in the 70's, no, don't blame any vendor for not showing such.

    Even if you do show video, it didn't help much sort things out with the AJ26 test stand failure, for OA and AJR.

    Ed, suggest a counterproposal to serve the need you're addressing.  That they let us know when things have gotten better, in passing minor milestones, and possibly letting us know what they've conquered.

    This "celebrate your victories" approach puts it as a "hero's struggle" (or journey), and is in keeping with some of the best that all of them have done.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: woods170 on 06/22/2017 06:57 am
    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,
    Failure of an entire powerpack is generally more spectacular in nature than failure of a component such as a preburner.
    And no, I'm not claiming the powerpack blew up. It just simply could have ruptured or sheared or desintegrated or have a burn-through, etc. etc.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: guckyfan on 06/22/2017 07:36 am
    Component test failures, especially when testing early oxygen rich preburners and turbopump components are to be expected until they get their material properties right. No doubt both SpaceX and BO had them.

    A full powerhead test failure is somewhat more significant. Especially when it happens at a time they have a full engine ready to test fire and have to delay that test. Which indicates it was not a failure they incured while testing at or beyond the limits of operation.

    Let's wait and see when they will have a full engine test firing at least of several seconds.

    It is still a failure during test. It does not indicate BO will not get there. But it is a delay at an unconvenient time. Mostly for ULA.

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: TrevorMonty on 06/22/2017 10:43 am
    Blue have spare engines and test stand. Any delay will be from finding out extactly what went wrong..Then any mods to next engine.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: guckyfan on 06/22/2017 02:30 pm
    Blue have spare engines and test stand. Any delay will be from finding out extactly what went wrong..Then any mods to next engine.

    That's what I said. They don't even need a spare engine, they have never fired the first one. They stumbled over something unexpected and do not continue their test program for the time being.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Lar on 06/22/2017 04:17 pm
    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.)

    Ed, we fans understand that not every explosion is a disaster. But the media doesn't. The general public do not, either. Fix that first.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: JasonAW3 on 06/22/2017 04:33 pm
    In this business, you HAVE to expect some things to fail and sometimes go boom.

          That's just the nature of working with brand new designs and highly volatile cryogenic liquids.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Chasm on 06/22/2017 05:57 pm
    What I find interesting is that -according to the talks- Blue did heaps of tests up to the 400klbf level. Delivery of the complete engine and ramping tests up to 550klbf were roughly at the same time. Then we got news that a powerpack failed.

    If that timeline is right the delays ans problems seem to be more about issue(s) with the uprating than anything else. Why else test preburners during all of 2016 at 400klbf max if you need 550 asap?

    Kremlinology. :-\
    I do hope that both Blue ans SpaceX take lots of video and interviews during the development. Then, a few years down the road, produce nice documentations so that we can find out what actually happened.  8)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Req on 06/25/2017 08:08 am
    I'm a little late to the party, but having just caught up on this thread, I want to weigh in.

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: woods170 on 06/25/2017 11:02 am
    I'm a little late to the party, but having just caught up on this thread, I want to weigh in.

    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.
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Req on 06/25/2017 11:22 am
    I'm a little late to the party, but having just caught up on this thread, I want to weigh in.

    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.
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Jim on 06/25/2017 05:19 pm
    Spacex and Blue do not have any development contracts with the US govt.  They are doing this work on their own dime and their own schedules.   Blue has no Air Force or NASA oversight.  Spacex has no NASA oversight either.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Confusador on 06/25/2017 10:22 pm
    I'm a little late to the party, but having just caught up on this thread, I want to weigh in.

    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.
    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.

    Knowing that you are going to have some problems that will result in some delays doesn't mean you can accurately predict those delays.  If you knew what was going to fail, you wouldn't do it!  So you put down the nominal values that you *can* predict, and everyone involved knows to apply a margin of error based on their own confidence.  I would describe that as "left as an exercise for the reader", not "intentionally ignored".  Not sure why you think it malicious.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: woods170 on 06/26/2017 06:37 am
    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.

    SpaceX and Blue do in fact intentionally establish schedules. In doing so they very closely look at what needs to be done, how that will be done and possibly when it will be done. They also throw in margin, usually based on a best-practices prediction of what to expect. That even includes margin to deal with failures. But, development trouble, and associated failures, often comes from unexpected places and the magnitude of impact is usually utterly unpredictable.

    So, and that was my point, despite all the care going into establishing a schedule it is still more of a rule than an exception that the schedule slips due to the occurence of known-unknows and unknown-unknowns. Particularly the latter type has a tendency to bite a schedule in the *ss.

    Just have a look at the last 4 decades: when was the last time a major development undertaking in spaceflight actually met it's original schedule?

    So yeah, given prior experience in the past 4 to 5 decades it is very safe to state that almost every publically stated develoment schedule will eventually NOT hold. That is why terms like "as soon as" or "no earlier then" are standard ingredients of public schedule statements.

    About oversight by NASA and USAF: what Jim said.
    Additionally, USAF pays for subsidizes part of the development of Raptor. However, that does not give them oversight over development of Raptor. At most it gives them insight which is a different thing.
    With regards to BE-4: the development arrangement between Blue and ULA for BE-4 on Vulcan is a private arrangement. USAF will probably have some level on insight via their arrangements with ULA, but most decidedly not oversight.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Req on 06/26/2017 01:50 pm
    I don't disagree with any of the above points and corrections, but I still very much feel that there is a schedule(downselection for example), as evidenced by the concern that they may not meet said schedule and the sentiment that such would potentially be a boon for AR.

    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.  Beyond that, nobody should be expressing concern over schedule in an official capacity and we shouldn't be discussing how this may impact the selection date or the fate of AR.  The only thing I'm disputing here is the 20/20 highsight characterization, in the event that the program does actually come in behind schedule as a result.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: woods170 on 06/26/2017 06:54 pm
    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. 

    Again: yes, development trouble can be expected. But the nature of that development trouble, and thus the impact it has on schedule is almost pure guesswork. If one knew in advance what would go wrong, one would avoid it, and thus it would not go wrong.
    The mere fact that things go wrong during development is testament to the fact that one does not know in advance what will go wrong.
    So no, contrary to what you think it is NOT possible to bake every possible problem into the schedule. There is no 20/20 hindsight. It's a fact of life that these development schedules are always too optimistic, simply because seeing into the future is not possible.
    Never heard of Murphy, have you?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Jim on 06/26/2017 07:40 pm
    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. 


    No, you create success based schedules and state it as so upfront.  There is no way "bake" in delays.  Where do you put the delays, in production, component testing, engine test runs, test stand build?

    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.  The only place that a delay can be placed is at the end.  "We intend to be complete by X but we may have problems and X+Y weeks is more likely"
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 06/26/2017 07:59 pm
    Likely the BE-4 simulations and prior powerpack tests were used to convince the AF that working through start-up would not have issues.

    Then they had an issue.

    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.

    Both decisions are reasonable. BE4 is considerably further ahead, and the publicly shared sim result certainly helped to justify that first decision. The second makes sense also if an "impossible" pressure ramp or other not to be found in the earlier sims occurs, which is not an uncommon thing.

    These things go into a free fall for an indeterminate time - which is the risk. Also, there's nothing to insure that AR-1 won't also have the same, or for that matter any LRE of this scale/development phase.

    Nature of the beast.

    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"?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Kabloona on 06/26/2017 08:25 pm
    Quote
    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.

    Reviving which program? AR-1? Hasn't that been running in parallel to BE-4 all along?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: LouScheffer on 06/26/2017 08:43 pm
    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.

    For example, suppose BO is completely forthcoming and says "Realistically, we expect 2 years of unanticipated problems", so we'll promise delivery in 2021.   But this opens them up to AR saying "Our schedule calls for us to be ready in 2019", and getting the order, even though they are currently behind in development, and may well have just as many unanticipated delays.   And if estimating the time for "unknown unknowns" is hard, it's even harder to compare the right magnitude of "unknown unknowns" to be applied by two different vendors.  So people quote the "no problems" engineering time, knowing that's a proxy for the real development time, which is unknown. 

    Note that this optimism is not used when there is a real, hard deadline, such as a planetary launch window.  In this case managers typically leave many months of schedule reserve, precisely to allow for unanticipated problems.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 06/26/2017 09:06 pm
    Quote
    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.

    Reviving which program? AR-1? Hasn't that been running in parallel to BE-4 all along?
    AR-1. Apparently not.

    (Mind you, you can "adjust" the rate on a program by accelerating/decelerating it with the money spigot. Doesn't have to be "full stop".)

    There are certain expensive phases of LRE development, like materials test at scale, and full scale component integration, where your commitment to "go ahead" brings with it substantial "drawn down" penalties.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Kabloona on 06/26/2017 10:07 pm
    Quote
    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.

    Reviving which program? AR-1? Hasn't that been running in parallel to BE-4 all along?
    AR-1. Apparently not.

    What did I miss? I thought Aerojet had been running hard to catch up to BE-4 all this time.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: RedLineTrain on 06/26/2017 10:24 pm
    Quote
    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.

    Reviving which program? AR-1? Hasn't that been running in parallel to BE-4 all along?
    AR-1. Apparently not.

    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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Kabloona on 06/26/2017 10:33 pm
    Quote
    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.

    Reviving which program? AR-1? Hasn't that been running in parallel to BE-4 all along?
    AR-1. Apparently not.

    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

    Thanks for that link. I can't see the entire article, but the photo caption says the plan had been to stop AR1 development  at CDR, which I hadn't heard, but now they will continue past CDR given the BE-4 hiccup. So that is the "revival" Space Ghost referred to. Got it.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Navier–Stokes on 06/28/2017 01:11 am
    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
    [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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: edkyle99 on 06/28/2017 01:46 am
    Yet another attempt to restrict Air Force funding to the the development of first-stage rocket engines only:
    http://spacenews.com/blue-origin-retains-engine-lead-as-house-considers-limitations-on-launch-system-funding/
    "“They should be on track to restart testing in late summer ... "

    Four months or more then.  Yikes.

     - Ed Kyle
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 06/28/2017 01:52 am
    Yet another attempt to restrict Air Force funding to the the development of first-stage rocket engines only:
    http://spacenews.com/blue-origin-retains-engine-lead-as-house-considers-limitations-on-launch-system-funding/
    "“They should be on track to restart testing in late summer ... "

    Four months or more then.  Yikes.

     - Ed Kyle
    I believe I did say "fireworks" ...  ::)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Coastal Ron on 06/28/2017 01:59 am
    Yet another attempt to restrict Air Force funding to the the development of first-stage rocket engines only:
    http://spacenews.com/blue-origin-retains-engine-lead-as-house-considers-limitations-on-launch-system-funding/
    "“They should be on track to restart testing in late summer ... "

    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 of September, so at most "late summer" is 3 months out, but could be as little as 2 months away.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: edkyle99 on 06/28/2017 02:06 am
    Yet another attempt to restrict Air Force funding to the the development of first-stage rocket engines only:
    http://spacenews.com/blue-origin-retains-engine-lead-as-house-considers-limitations-on-launch-system-funding/
    "“They should be on track to restart testing in late summer ... "

    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.
    I was thinking four months from the date of the incident.  One month has already passed since then.  :)

     - Ed Kyle
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 06/28/2017 02:19 am
    New article from Jeff Foust of SpaceNews:

     (http://spacenews.com/blue-origin-retains-engine-lead-as-house-considers-limitations-on-launch-system-funding/)
    You missed this part:
    Quote
    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.

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 06/28/2017 02:23 am
    Yet another attempt to restrict Air Force funding to the the development of first-stage rocket engines only:
    http://spacenews.com/blue-origin-retains-engine-lead-as-house-considers-limitations-on-launch-system-funding/
    "“They should be on track to restart testing in late summer ... "

    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.
    I was thinking four months from the date of the incident.  One month has already passed since then.  :)

     - Ed Kyle

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: LouScheffer on 06/28/2017 03:36 am
    "“They should be on track to restart testing in late summer ... "

    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.
    I was thinking four months from the date of the incident.  One month has already passed since then.  :)
    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.
    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.

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Semmel on 06/28/2017 09:08 am
    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.

    Two views:
    1. ULA should fund the development of Vulcan out of its own pocket, just as other US rocket manufacturers do as well. So it should have no impact on the choice between AR1 and BE4. Nor should it have any impact on the development of ACES. ULA has enough revenue. Its not the fault of DOD that they give it all to its parents to the extend that nothing is left for R&D. So in this case, the DOD wants to get rid of the RD180, this bill fits to gain that goal.
    2. The error in this thinking is, that its almost impossible to exchange the thrust structure without developing a new launch vehicle. So the sensible thing should be to replace a launch vehicle that uses RD180 with a launch vehicle that does not. Independent of if this is an entirely new design or an old rocket replacing just the thrust structure. So in this view, DOD should put forwards the requirement of removing the RD180 but should keep out of the solution space on how that goal is achieved.

    I think both views are valid. And I dont read the indication within this bill that ULA has to use the AR1 over the BE4.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: LouScheffer on 06/28/2017 12:21 pm
    These comments were made in the Orbital/NG thread, but fit better here...
    "“They should be on track to restart testing in late summer ... "

    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.
    I was thinking four months from the date of the incident.  One month has already passed since then.  :)
    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.
    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.

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: meberbs on 06/28/2017 02:19 pm
    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
    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?

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: TrevorMonty on 06/28/2017 03:01 pm
    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
    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?

    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.
    Kent factory could add another few a year.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Darkseraph on 06/28/2017 03:26 pm
    Delta 4 and Atlas V launch vehicles will almost certainly be flying in the early 2020s so they probably won't be flying too many Vulcan Rockets early on. Blue Origin are probably not going to be flying New Glenn 12 times a year initially either. Blue have some capacity to build engines at their Washington facility already. They have hinted their interest in later reusing their second stages, which will further curb demand for new engines. When demand picks up for more BE-3s and BE4's, there's little doubt they won't just add more capacity when it's needed.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 06/28/2017 03:59 pm
    George Sowers has just commented on this:

    Quote
    George Sowers‏ @george_sowers 20m20 minutes ago

    George Sowers Retweeted Jeff Foust

    Parasite (AR) killing the host (ULA)...

    https://twitter.com/george_sowers/status/880087678733217792 (https://twitter.com/george_sowers/status/880087678733217792)

    Ouch ... !

    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/)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 06/28/2017 09:27 pm
    Quote from: George Sowers
    Parasite (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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Semmel on 06/29/2017 07:22 am
    Quote from: George Sowers
    Parasite (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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: gongora on 06/29/2017 02:50 pm
    Quote from: George Sowers
    Parasite (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?  ULA's main customer is the U.S. government, commercial launches are just a little side business, and that isn't likely to change with multiple new launchers hitting the market around the same time as Vulcan.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: AncientU on 06/29/2017 04:47 pm
    BE is getting a leg up to match AR's political pull:
    Quote
    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.

    https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/880432831272497153

    Apparently doesn't take much to buy a congressional delegation these days.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Kabloona on 06/29/2017 05:05 pm
    BE is getting a leg up to match AR's political pull:
    Quote
    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.

    https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/880432831272497153

    Apparently doesn't take much to buy a congressional delegation these days.

    I'm not defending designed-by-politics rockets, but at least Sen Shelby is seeing the light and (apparently) changing horses from a loser (AR1) to a (probable) winner BE-4.

    Sometimes politicians arrive at the right answer, despite the meandering path.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: gospacex on 06/29/2017 05:16 pm
    Quote from: George Sowers
    Parasite (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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: woods170 on 06/29/2017 05:51 pm
    Quote from: George Sowers
    Parasite (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.
    The government is co-funding Raptor.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: LouScheffer on 06/29/2017 06:04 pm

    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.

    So to be consistent, Boeing should argue that the government should not fund Vulcan development, and that the large government contract to SpaceX are irrelevant in this context.

    I'm not expecting consistency here.....
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: gospacex on 06/29/2017 06:05 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: rayleighscatter on 06/29/2017 09:03 pm

    The big defense contractors aren't used to spending their own money to develop a product for the government.
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Jim on 06/29/2017 09:13 pm
    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.

    Do we have to go over this again.
    a.  The gov't is not funding Vulcan
    b.  Spacex got money from the gov't for F9 and Dragon development under COTS.
    c.  Even though the Air Force gave Boeing and Lockheed Martin $500 million apiece for Delta IV and Atlas V development, Boeing spent 2.5 Billion of their own and LM 1.5 Billion of their own.  And the Air Force got two families of medium vehicles and a heavy along with 3 launch pads that all could support all the DOD requirements including vertical integration and other payload interfaces.
    d.  ULA now get ELC because it needs to keep a west coast heavy pad available even though it launches less than once every two years.  ELC also pays for other DOD requirements.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Lars-J on 06/29/2017 09:14 pm

    The big defense contractors aren't used to spending their own money to develop a product for the government.
    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.

    How is that a contradiction of what he wrote? What you say would be true (and force investment) if there was a large number of corporations left that competed for contracts. But that isn't the case anymore. Almost everyone has merged up or acquired each other, and they all have a 'background' in what they are bidding for.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Semmel on 06/30/2017 06:32 am
    Do we have to go over this again.
    a.  The gov't is not funding Vulcan

    Why is the bill a problem then? Can you please explain that?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: woods170 on 06/30/2017 07:14 am
    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. 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.

    So, USAF is in both cases funding the development of engines, not rockets. So there is nothing SpaceX would be upset about.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Tomness on 06/30/2017 03:53 pm
    Could SpaceX's Rapter Power Pack be used or lessons learned to mature Blue's BE-4 development?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: gospacex on 06/30/2017 03:58 pm
    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.

    The posts I responded to did in fact discuss that ULA is trying to get USG to fund Vulcan development as well, not only BE-4. I'm not pulling it out of thin air.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: gongora on 06/30/2017 03:59 pm
    Could SpaceX's Rapter Power Pack be used or lessons learned to mature Blue's BE-4 development?

    1.  They are not the same type of engine design (ORSC for BE-4, FFSC for Raptor).
    2.  Why would SpaceX turn their proprietary designs and test results over to a competitor?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: abaddon on 06/30/2017 04:27 pm
    First of all, no.

    Second, even if yes, why would SpaceX be interested in helping a competitor?

    Third, Blue is fully capable of figuring this out on their own, and are in fact the most expert of experts dealing with their own engine design.

    It's gonna be fine without outside help.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Lar on 06/30/2017 04:49 pm
    This isn't space policy, thanks. It's also not about SpaceX...
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: 99miles on 07/13/2017 05:42 pm
    Does anyone have any guesses about the burn time of the BE-4 (at 100% rated thrust)?  Will it be similar to 270 second burn time of the RD-180?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: brickmack on 07/13/2017 09:05 pm
    For Vulcan you mean? Its propellant mass is estimated at like 380 tons for the core stage. 2x BE-4s put out (at sea level), ~4800000 newtons thrust at ~311 seconds ISP.

    4800000 = 9.8 * 311 * flowRate

    FlowRate = 1.57 tons/second

    About 242 seconds, or just over 4 minutes (probably closer to 5 or 5.5 with throttling)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 07/13/2017 09:47 pm
    Quote
    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

    Quote
    "This commission voted to authorize that we do site preparation, and that we also contributed a half a million dollars towards this incentive package,"

    http://whnt.com/2017/07/12/madison-county-commission-votes-to-do-their-part-in-blue-origin-agreement/ (http://whnt.com/2017/07/12/madison-county-commission-votes-to-do-their-part-in-blue-origin-agreement/)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 07/15/2017 05:43 pm
    Quote
    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. [...]

    http://www.al.com/news/huntsville/index.ssf/2017/07/huntsville_oks_deal_confident.html (http://www.al.com/news/huntsville/index.ssf/2017/07/huntsville_oks_deal_confident.html)

    The agreement with Blue Origin is attached.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: edkyle99 on 07/16/2017 01:10 am
    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?

     - Ed Kyle
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robotbeat on 07/16/2017 04:12 pm
    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?

     - Ed Kyle
    Gradatim, Ed, Gradatim.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: yokem55 on 07/16/2017 04:48 pm
    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?

     - Ed Kyle
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: edkyle99 on 08/09/2017 03:41 am
    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. 

     - Ed Kyle
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: HVM on 08/09/2017 07:59 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: StvB on 08/09/2017 12:28 pm
    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.

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Jim on 08/09/2017 12:46 pm
    It doesn't
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robotbeat on 08/09/2017 12:47 pm
    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.

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: StvB on 08/09/2017 01:02 pm
    It doesn't

    I figured as much.

    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.

    It's definitely exciting to take in and I really enjoy reading the investigative work of people here on NSF
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: HVM on 08/09/2017 06:42 pm
    ...
    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


    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: flyright on 08/09/2017 07:44 pm
    ...
    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


    Now I'm curious. Where are the enamel coatings used in an ORSC engine? Bearings? Turbine blades?, chamber walls? Everything exposed to oxygen?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: StvB on 08/09/2017 11:15 pm
    -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?

    From the document quoted by HVM:
    Quote
    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.

    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)

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: gongora on 08/10/2017 12:32 am
    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.

    Based on past hints we've seen the new engines may be using nickel superalloys that weren't in common use when the Russians first designed their engines.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: flyright on 08/10/2017 02:35 pm

    ...

    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)

    ...


    Thanks for this link! Lots of good info in this paper.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: su27k on 08/26/2017 04:33 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: StvB on 08/26/2017 04:06 pm
    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.

    Thanks for sharing! Any ideas/guesses about the symbols? Google translates "conando ascendimus" to "trying to climb". There's what looks to be a roadrunner, eight stars, and 8-9 arrows, one of which is red with what looks like an explosion at the end.

    It's also being called a "Commemorative" patch by the original poster on r/blueorigin.

    Some kind of test milestone, possibly? What are the yellow lines on the engine meant to represent?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: JH on 08/27/2017 06:47 pm
    More literally (and figuratively) accurate translations would be: "By striving, we ascend" or "We rise by exerting ourselves", or even "We rise by trying to rise" if you are in a tautological mood.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: coal_burner on 08/28/2017 12:31 pm
    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: spacenut on 08/28/2017 12:46 pm
    Does anyone know a timeframe for another test?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Rebel44 on 08/28/2017 05:52 pm
    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

    1st full scale full power test of AR-1 is expected in 2019 (if things go as planned...)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: woods170 on 08/28/2017 07:19 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Chasm on 08/29/2017 04:24 am
    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)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robotbeat on 08/30/2017 01:13 pm
    Try imagery on planet.com because it's updated at least once a week and sometimes daily.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Chasm on 08/30/2017 01:57 pm
    Got (free) accounts for both, there are not enough details on planet.
    planet.com imagery is 3m resolution, terraserver is 0.5m

    I was looking for signs of the big oops, trying to find out how big it was. The difference even in the preview is truly massive. Planet has blobs, on terraserver you can easily see details, i.e. wich way a car is parked. Or on a bigger  scale you can distinguish single tanks, on planet the get grouped into unidentifiable blobs. To try damage assessment terraserver has test stand details like grinders/scaffolding that might get damaged in a major blowup.


    There are of course other image companies but the ones I tried so far need paid accounts for high res previews. I'm not that interested. :)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: jpo234 on 09/01/2017 08:04 am
    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)

    Someone pointed out that the engine bell at the end of the red line seems to be incomplete (it is wider above the red line than below it). This could mean, that the lines represent the lasers of the additive manufacturing used to make the BE-4.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: saliva_sweet on 09/06/2017 06:55 pm
    Is Blue Origin planning to colonize Mars now?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: testguy on 09/07/2017 07:05 pm
    IAC 2017 is getting close.  I would imagine if Blue has made significant progress on BE-4 there would be an announcement prior to Elon's next reveal.  Let's remember the competition between Jeff and Elon.  Wasn't there some one ups men ship last year at this time.  Let's hope that Blue has good news to share.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: spacenut on 09/07/2017 07:27 pm
    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. 
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DJPledger on 09/07/2017 07:29 pm
    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 09/07/2017 08:07 pm
    Not right either. All we know is that there was a failure in test earlier this year, and that the failure that occurred was traced to the power pack/head.

    We don't know the context of the failure, nor the scope of what needed to be replaced/reworked/rebuilt.

    Although given the hint that they'd restart testing in "late summer" (e.g. "now"), that suggests a significant amount of work to recover.

    Before they started this test sequence, they had spent time assembling multiple complete, full scale engines, and had done extensive testing of the powerpack (usually, this means that you convince yourself that this part of the engine has sufficient mass flow / stability / reliability to support a full scale engine on a test stand. (They had mentioned that they'd had some failures of the powerpack while proving it.)

    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.

    Also, the test stand they were likely using appeared to have multiple cells, which makes sense, because you could then destroy a cell and use another while repairs could proceed on the destroyed cell.

    The only exception to this is where the damage was larger than the cell, taking out the entire stand. Which would cause a multi-month delay like we're seeing.

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: rsdavis9 on 09/07/2017 08:35 pm
    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: john smith 19 on 09/07/2017 08:37 pm
    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.

    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.
    Indeed.
    It seems people have forgotten that the SSME destroyed 11 poweheads just to work out the start sequence.  :(

    No one's built an ORSC in the US before. While it's true there has been a quantum leap in both diagnostics and processing power to model what's happening before a single hardware test cycle is attempted SC engines are much more interelated than GG cycle engines.

    One of the SSME test rigs had 2000 valves to simulate the rest of the engine that had not been built. It really does seem the best way to build one of these is heavily simulate first, then build the first one fast and expect to build a bunch more 

    In hindsight, depending on how far through the test programme they are, it may be quite impressive they've only destroyed one power pack so far.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 09/07/2017 08:55 pm
    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.

    In short - nope, not the same. Each side FR/OR splits total flow. FFSC problem is it must all work, at once, together, at the same time. Kind of an all or nothing. Not separable.

    Back to topic - ORSC requires a high common mass flow of a highly reactive intermediate product, through into a combustion chamber before it combusts too far. You can easily consume / detonate the engine before you reach the combustion chamber ... which is likely what is happening here. Which is why it wasn't thought practical by American engine designers decades back.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: john smith 19 on 09/08/2017 02:55 pm
    This report said that Blue suffered a power pack explosion in 2015, prior to this year's May power pack explosion.

    http://spacenews.com/ula-intends-to-lower-its-costs-and-raise-its-cool-to-compete-with-spacex/

     - Ed Kyle
    Thanks. I did not realize there was a recording of Tobey career ending seminar.

    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.

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: mgeagon on 09/10/2017 04:35 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DJPledger on 09/10/2017 08:29 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Rebel44 on 09/10/2017 08:38 am
    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.

    That would mean developing a completely new engine - not just a minor modification...
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: AncientU on 09/10/2017 11:52 am
    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).

    Maybe that's why ULA is buying RD-180s to cover Atlas-V flights out to mid-2020s...
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 09/10/2017 06:33 pm
    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?

    It's just the luck of the draw, and the skill of the designers. Note that SX isn't out of the woods yet - engine hasn't accumulated any flight history yet. They got over a key hump (they got enough on the first try to know they can get what they wanted) and can move from demonstration to application.

    For BO/AJR, they chose the best designs for themselves to execute on and are executing it. BO needs to work through to a functioning design (iteration and test), then assess what they've got after - does it do what they need. AJR likely fears what BO is going through as their future, wishing for what SX got as the optimum.

    Note that all three are working with propellants that are new to them (SX had kero, AJR/BO had hydrogen). Significant.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DJPledger on 09/10/2017 07:21 pm
    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).

    Maybe that's why ULA is buying RD-180s to cover Atlas-V flights out to mid-2020s...
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Ictogan on 09/10/2017 08:01 pm
    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).

    Maybe that's why ULA is buying RD-180s to cover Atlas-V flights out to mid-2020s...
    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.
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: gongora on 09/10/2017 08:15 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 09/10/2017 10:12 pm
    The irony of the moment (which I fear just causes silly posts to happen when I bring it up) is that it is highly likely that SX has brought up an 1+MN engine that is in the class of what Vulcan desires badly right now (no, it's not designed for it, nor are the two companies exactly best buddies right now).

    Yet as far as we've heard, ... SX has no plans to use that particular engine, just follow on ones in the family of much larger scale.

    (Am rather frugal by habit. Simply irks to know you could use something to get further that's cognitively within reach.) Has nothing to do with anything else (capability of the designers, funding level of development, engine cycle, ...). Also, have seen rivals negotiate deals in the past like this.

    BO has many, many months to get it right, so there's no deadline either. And a efficient ORSC methalox second generation design could quite likely outperform RD-170/180/190 equivalent combinations also, for NG/NA longer term. It's only ULA that's caught up by this ATM. Have even less confidence in AR-1's full scale passage onto test stand - remember, both have to hurdle this same perilous vault.

    (And when you scale up FFSC, you can have surprises of non-uniform mixing too. Nothing's a sure win.) So this is more of a 'bird in the hand" thing.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: AncientU on 09/10/2017 10:40 pm
    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.

    Totally agree. 
    ORSC was the logical goal for Blue and AJR -- and really for SpaceX, too.  But it seems there is a reason ORSC has been called impossible... at least very difficult.  Soviet, now Russian, technology is not easy to replicate sometimes... (Another example: The Soviets were also using planetary gear trains on their submarines for decades and the US of A couldn't figure out how to make them reliably.)

    What was a little crazy, was for SpaceX to go after FFSC -- a huge leap from GG Merlin.

    Crazy like a fox?  We'll see...
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: mgeagon on 09/10/2017 10:45 pm
    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.

    Rocket engines blow up all the time. I am sure the Raptor has had its fair share and will likely have more. ORSC is not an inherently inferior design by any measure, as its successful flight rate can attest. Two of the most challenging aspects of the configuration are interseal failure and developing metallurgy to counter the corrosive effects of high-pressure oxidizer (The oxidizer side of a FFSC motor has less pressure because it only has to drive one fuel pump). As Gongora pointed out, the RD-170 family solved these problems decades ago, and so Blue will undoubtedly find a solution. It may not be clear how gradually that final design might come.

    There are significant advantages to a monofuel pre-burner, single shaft staged combustion engine. Foremost is the relative simplicity (fewer moving parts) and the resultant reduction in weight. Blue is seeking resuability rather than maximum performance, but an O/FRSC motor should yield the best T/W ratio for a given propellant. (How Merlin holds that title for RP1 with it's GG is another story). The BE4 design was likely chosen because it will eventually be the lightest and most reliable way to utilize LNG. SpaceX has gone a different direction for a number of reasons, but both companies have very objective rationale and each likely made the right call.

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: pippin on 09/10/2017 10:52 pm
    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).

    Maybe that's why ULA is buying RD-180s to cover Atlas-V flights out to mid-2020s...
    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.
    Do you have any information about the reason for their failure or are you just spreading FUD?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: lrk on 09/10/2017 11:10 pm
    This report said that Blue suffered a power pack explosion in 2015, prior to this year's May power pack explosion.

    http://spacenews.com/ula-intends-to-lower-its-costs-and-raise-its-cool-to-compete-with-spacex/

     - Ed Kyle
    Thanks. I did not realize there was a recording of Tobey career ending seminar.

    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.

    IIRC it was a BE-3 that failed, something went wrong when attempting in-flight restart testing for New Shepherd. 
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: rsdavis9 on 09/11/2017 01:03 pm
    Is it correct to assume that both companies have rd-180 engines to take apart and analyze? (BO and aerojet). How much can be learned from these russian engines?
    1. Mechanics (easy?)
    2. Materials (harder?)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: matthewkantar on 09/11/2017 04:06 pm
    Without accusing anybody of anything illegal, Bezos did recover the remains of a Saturn V first stage from the Atlantic. The seafloor is littered with Atlas/RD-180 stages, grabbing one on the sly would be easy, and maybe even legal.

    I am not sure how useful the knowledge gained would be. Copying is of course off the table, but an exotic technology like this may be able to teach some lessons.

    Matthew
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 09/11/2017 04:15 pm
    The best lesson to an engineer is knowing something can be done. Not necessarily how it can be done. This is where innovation comes in and discovery of better (and worse) solutions to the same problem.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: mn on 09/11/2017 04:24 pm
    ....The seafloor is littered with Atlas/RD-180 stages, grabbing one on the sly would be easy, and maybe even legal...

    Matthew

    Finding a living person who worked on these engines might be easier and might even give better results ;)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Nomadd on 09/11/2017 04:33 pm
    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).

    Maybe that's why ULA is buying RD-180s to cover Atlas-V flights out to mid-2020s...
    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.
    Do you have any information about the reason for their failure or are you just spreading FUD?
    It's kind of obvious that a failure caused by interpropellant seal wouldn't have happened is there was no such seal.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Ictogan on 09/11/2017 04:34 pm
    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).

    Maybe that's why ULA is buying RD-180s to cover Atlas-V flights out to mid-2020s...
    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.
    Do you have any information about the reason for their failure or are you just spreading FUD?
    It's kind of obvious that a failure caused by interpropellant seal wouldn't have happened is there was no such seal.
    But is there any information on whether the failure had anything to do with the interpropellant seal?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: pippin on 09/11/2017 06:16 pm
    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?

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: envy887 on 09/11/2017 08:44 pm
    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?

    Nomadd's point was that FFSC by design cannot possibly have an inter-propellant seal failure, since it does not have such a seal.

    AIUI the powerpack testing necessarily requires the interpropellant seal, since the powerpack includes the oxidizer rich turbine driving both pumps.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: john smith 19 on 09/11/2017 11:02 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 09/12/2017 01:24 am
    Suggest different ambitions for chamber pressure drove the BO/SX design choices.

    For SX, the ambition was for a high chamber pressure from the very start, to gain a very compact engine with higher than Merlin TWR. For more power, they'd scale the entire engine to meet requirement.

    For BO, the ambition was for a low chamber pressure so as to have a 'good enough", quick win to get engines into a vehicle quickly. Then, like with Merlin's relentless cycle of improvements, they'd push up the chamber pressure on subsequent revisions of uprating.

    The choice of the higher chamber pressure drove the need for FFSC. The lower pressure engine could be simpler in design, so bearings and other considerations could take into account less wear in operation, thus the selection of ORSC. Perhaps they did not see the interpropellant seal as much of a challenge? Possibly because the propellant's nature offered the expectation of manageable partial combustion mass flows, less chaotic than kerolox/hydrolox?

    This is where scaling makes things less predictable in practice.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: mgeagon on 09/12/2017 02:55 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: john smith 19 on 09/12/2017 06:26 pm
    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.

    Rocket engine design 101.
    IRL nearly all big engines are driven by propellants pressurized by a pair of pumps.
    Those pumps are nearly always driven by turbines.
    Those turbines are nearly always driven by a stream of combustion gases which, for either performance or thermal management reasons is rich in one of the propellants. Therefore the seal between that turbine, and the opposite propellant whose pump it's driving, is always a criticality 1 failure point.  :(

    That said Soyuz uses a turbopump propelled by an Oxygen rich steam flow from the breakdown of Hydrogen Peroxide (so possible issue with it pumping fuel) and the RL10 uses "hot" GH2 (actually about -58c, which is hot by the standards of LH2 :) ) but the LOX pump is driven through a gearbox.

    The key issues with these systems are a) What's the pressure difference between the 2 sides (ihigher is tougher)  and b)Can the interseal space be vented, and if so where to?

    In reality I'm not sure I've ever heard of an engine RUD traced to a seal leak. What it does do is add mechanical complexity and the need for either inert gas gas or a vacuum (well a low pressure region to suck the inter seal gap into) source. Only things like the dual expander "Broadsword" of Masten or the GHe drive of SABRE avoid these problems but most people (especially the Russian ORSC engines) cope with them without a major problem
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: su27k on 09/15/2017 03:50 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: mgeagon on 09/15/2017 08:12 am
    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.

    Combustion chamber, nozzle and bell. Could be headed to "one" of the powerpacks for mounting. Might be a good sign that testing is underway again.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: ChaoticFlounder on 09/15/2017 11:36 pm
    A couple things:

    First, do we know from Blue Origin any information other than "a powerpack failed on the test stand?"

    Second, can you give clarity on what defines the line between a "Full Flow" Staged Combustion engine and a "Regular" Staged Combustion engine?

    Third, turbine drive engines will usually have an "interpropellant seal" somewhere, save FFSC designs that I have seen to date.  Merlin should have one, F-1 had one, SSME has one, RL-10 should have one somewhere.  To my knowledge, it is not possible to get a perfect seal.  Even valves that are stationary have a minute leak rate.  It gets a little more difficult when you have a shaft spinning at 15,000 RPM and this is what drives the need for the inert gas.

    C

    Oh, edited to attach some interesting info about some things that can go wrong...
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: brickmack on 09/16/2017 04:41 am
    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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: ChaoticFlounder on 09/16/2017 05:54 am
    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

    Eh, have a look at the presentation attached below.  It seems that around 76% (which surprised me, i thought it was less) of the fuel goes to the two preburners and the rest is used for cooling and then ends up in the MCC (PDF Page 25-26, Labeled Page 19-20).  I'm saying this because you said "all".

    The reason I keep talking about the SSME here is it is a FRSC engine and it has 2 high pressure turbo pumps which run on the FRSC cycle, 1 LPHTP that runs on expander, and 1 LPOTP that runs off of high pressure lox discharge from the HPOTP.  What I haven't seen made very clear in the forums above is that FFSC and FRSC / ORSC are more similar than they are different.  Staged combustion (FRSC / ORSC) can come in a myriad of pump combinations as seen above and is not limited to a one-shaft turbopump like BO chose to use.  That was a design choice they chose to make.

    Also, there is an interesting bit in the attached PDF on shaft seals (PDF Page 70-71, Labeled Page 64-65).  This will give you an idea of the general design intent of it and how one may go about it.  I can speculate BE-4 may have a similar architecture, it may not... same goes for Space X's Merlin...

    Let me know if you have any questions or if I didn't explain something well.

    C

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: yokem55 on 09/16/2017 01:52 pm
    This article on the study done to convert the SSME to FFSC in the early 80's makes for an interesting, although one-sided, comparison of FFSC and FRSC.

    http://www.eaglehill.us/programs/journals/spaevo/2015a1/
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: testguy on 09/23/2017 07:27 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: ZachF on 09/24/2017 11:21 am
    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.

    Hopefully we will see some nice videos of both the BE-4 and Raptor spitting some pretty blue flames.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: ChaoticFlounder on 09/24/2017 03:34 pm
    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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DJPledger on 09/24/2017 07:41 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Rebel44 on 09/24/2017 08:04 pm
    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.

    But its a problem for ULA, which needs to downselect engine for Vulcan ASAP.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: ChaoticFlounder on 09/24/2017 08:32 pm
    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...
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: ChaoticFlounder on 09/25/2017 03:22 am
    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"?

    I agree with you 100% Mr. Ghost.  Everybody's human, I'm just interested to see how he balances all the possible problems you mentioned and comes out in the end.  I think we all can agree Mr. Bruno has some swift and turbulent waters to navigate.  It's stuff like this that really separates good leaders from meh ones.

    C
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 09/26/2017 07:41 am
    Not the most effusive statement:

    Quote
    Meyerson: 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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 09/27/2017 04:28 am
    Not the most effusive statement:

    Quote
    Meyerson: 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.
    It's like getting a "C+" on an elementary student's report card.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: sanman on 09/28/2017 10:44 pm
    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: yokem55 on 09/28/2017 10:57 pm
    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?
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: russianhalo117 on 09/29/2017 02:08 am
    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?
    Raptor had been in testing at Stennis way before BE-4 and it wasn't even called Raptor when it started initial testing.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: jongoff on 09/29/2017 03:27 am
    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?

    They were pretty far along with BE-4 when ULA had them totally change the engine size (by almost 50%) to be compatible with what they needed for Vulcan. While they were able to leverage a lot of the earlier design work, it did force some redesigns and delays.

    ~Jon
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Nomic on 09/29/2017 08:55 am
    As JoGoff points out BE-4 is a big engine, with Raptor seemingly down sized, BE-4 is the largest thrust chamber on a stage combustion engine since the ill fated RD-270. Apart from the size BE-4 is about as conservative as possible for an ORSC engine, low chamber pressure, when they where still doing update looked like its coxial swirl injector elements at least on the preburner. From SG1962 excellent commentary above it looks like they thought cfd modelling and component test they could avoid combustion instability and nasty transients, but they are finding the modelling doesn't correlate with reality at full scale.

    The whole decision to go with ORSC leaves me puzzled, obviously it leaves a lot of room for iterative improvements, but ULAs big customer is national security payloads, who normally aren't to keen on that kind of thing, but suppose they might have more oversight in this case.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: ChaoticFlounder on 09/30/2017 01:17 am
    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...  :'(
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: StvB on 10/05/2017 01:59 am
    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)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: catdlr on 10/05/2017 02:42 am
    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)

    Original source BY ALAN BOYLE on June 26, 2017: Geekwire.com:  https://www.geekwire.com/2017/jeff-bezos-blue-origin-picks-huntsville-alabama-rocket-city-4-engine/
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Kabloona on 10/06/2017 02:57 am
    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...  :'(

    This hardly qualifies as "details," but here it is anyway, a tweet from Jeff Foust quoting Bob Smith of Blue Origin at the National Space Council:

    Quote
    Jeff Foust‏
    @jeff_foust
    Smith: “soon” begin testing of BE-4 engine [after testing mishap earlier this year]

    https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/915959558203478016
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 10/06/2017 03:10 am
    Better late than never.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 10/17/2017 07:21 am
    The test stand on the image is for the BE-3 engines.
    The BE-4 test stand is located here (https://www.google.nl/maps/@31.43,-104.72,500m/data=!3m1!1e3) 31.43 ; -104.72
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: pstephens on 10/19/2017 07:30 pm
    Quote
    First hotfire of our BE-4 engine is a success #GradatimFerociter

    https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/921095318669873154 (https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/921095318669873154)

    Edit: Added screen grab
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: tvg98 on 10/19/2017 07:35 pm
    According to Eric Berger, it was fired at 50% thrust for about three seconds.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: envy887 on 10/19/2017 07:36 pm
    Quote
    First hotfire of our BE-4 engine is a success #GradatimFerociter

    https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/921095318669873154 (https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/921095318669873154)

    Excellent news :)

    I think that is the nail in the already mostly-closed coffin for AR-1.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/19/2017 07:55 pm
    Here’s the video
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/19/2017 08:03 pm
    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/)

    Quote
    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

    Edit to add:

    Quote
    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

    Quote
    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

    Quote
    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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Star One on 10/19/2017 09:04 pm
    Quote
    Tory Bruno
    @torybruno
    Congratulations

    https://mobile.twitter.com/torybruno/status/921116281641885696 (https://mobile.twitter.com/torybruno/status/921116281641885696)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: abaddon on 10/19/2017 09:06 pm
    Congratulations to Blue Origin, this is a huge step forward for the BE-4 program!
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: wannamoonbase on 10/19/2017 10:38 pm
    Congratulations Blue.

    Now lets see how it goes and how long it takes. 

    Long way to go, but this is a huge step for the American space industry.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: mnelson on 10/19/2017 10:41 pm
    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/)

    I sure love the fact that you can't write an article about the BE-4 without mentioning the Raptor nor about the Raptor and not mention the BE-4. A little friendly competition is a beautiful thing. It helps prevent lethargy.

    Of course, I don't think there is any real competition here. They are different engines being built for different uses. But still, most people run faster if there is someone running beside them. I know I do.  :)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: sanman on 10/19/2017 10:58 pm
    How long before it's tested at full thrust?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: TrevorMonty on 10/19/2017 11:01 pm
    Congratulations.Excellent start, a first firing that doesn't involve RUD.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 10/20/2017 12:27 am
    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?

     
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 10/20/2017 11:22 am
    Congratz Blue Origin and ULA, keep the good work going.
    Very good base for both expendable and reusable launchers.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: LouScheffer on 10/20/2017 12:39 pm
    This is a very good sign overall.  Although Russia for years has treated OSRC as a technology, elsewhere it's been regarded as a black art that requires some special secret sauce.  Now two additional independent groups are taking it seriously and bring it to production.   So soon there will be designers who understand the cycle, materials that are up to the job, and in general an ecosystem of all that is needed to make such a cycle work.   That's good for others who might want to improve their rockets as well (ESA?  Japan?  India?).   I'm sure ITAR will slow this down, but the more people who know how it's done, the faster the knowledge will spread, and everyone's rockets will get better.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: AncientU on 10/20/2017 12:44 pm
    Congrats Blue Team!

    Competition is a wonderful thing.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: abaddon on 10/20/2017 02:25 pm
    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.

     - Ed Kyle
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: PahTo on 10/20/2017 02:52 pm

    Fantastic!  I was at the Kent facility the day after the first fully integrated BE-4 shipped, and the excitement was (still) palpable.  Congrats to the teams--keep up the good work!
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/20/2017 02:55 pm
    Tweeted yesterday, I think stills from the video:

    Quote
    Blue Origin just shared some photos of the BE-4 hot fire test. 🔥 🔥

    https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/921136925024583680 (https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/921136925024583680)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: wolfpack on 10/20/2017 03:16 pm
    Nice to see BE-4 sing after that little hiccup back in May!

    I'm beginning to think the first real "victim" of New Space is likely to be Aerojet.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: ZachF on 10/20/2017 04:23 pm
    Congrats to the Blue Origin team!
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: gongora on 10/20/2017 05:21 pm
    This is a Blue Origin thread, please stay on topic.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: envy887 on 10/20/2017 06:05 pm
    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?

    I though they were targeting 2.45 MN as operational thrust. Is 122% a standard margin? Will they try to take it higher?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: RDMM2081 on 10/20/2017 07:23 pm
    Very exciting to see and hear about the first test of this engine!  I have a second repository of excitement waiting to hear more about the success of this test (which is not immediately apparent to me from 3 seconds of video) or in place of that another longer test get soon!
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: sanman on 10/20/2017 11:13 pm
    Just embedding the video here for easier viewing:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhiI08HzIM0
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: LouScheffer on 10/20/2017 11:53 pm
    [...]  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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Patchouli on 10/21/2017 01:57 am

    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: SmallKing on 10/21/2017 06:05 am

    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?
    It can be a flight engine if they want it
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Step55 on 10/21/2017 07:22 am

    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: sanman on 10/21/2017 09:48 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Patchouli on 10/21/2017 04:47 pm
    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.
    Yes that's pretty much it.
    Sometimes test engines may use a heat sink nozzle when they're not being fired for very long.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 10/21/2017 05:39 pm
    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.)

    [...]  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.

    Note we're not seeing start-up/shutdown, just the in between. Likely that's the big concern at the moment (also the big success!).

    So as they sequence/prove and increase stable mass flows/combustion with appropriate shutdown/tale off, then they'll look at wear patterns (OR), make changes, then go for more.

    A big concern is that an engine of this size have model-able operations, where the combustion is uniform and not chaotic. Less of a concern is the experience of the team, more of the concern is the nature of these propellants stable combustion during sequencing/cycle.

    You can meet your thrust/duration targets and still have an unacceptable operation of an engine. So it has to work fully, for the right reasons, repeatably ... for signoff.

    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.

    From the artifacts present, suggest chamber pressure is the limiting factor in some form at the moment.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: zhangmdev on 10/21/2017 06:24 pm
    Does the portion of fuel passes through the regen-cooled nozzle also pass through the pre-burner?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Patchouli on 10/21/2017 07:12 pm


    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.


    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: mnelson on 10/21/2017 11:20 pm


    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Patchouli on 10/22/2017 12:23 am


    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?

    I mostly used it for comparison  but I suspect their original goal was 1,500 kN  to 2,000 kN.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: ChaoticFlounder on 10/22/2017 09:31 pm
    does anyone know if they've released more information on it?

    Do we know what they changed to make this engine go boom how it's supposed to?

    C
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: envy887 on 10/23/2017 06:49 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Katana on 10/25/2017 01:46 pm
    Does the portion of fuel passes through the regen-cooled nozzle also pass through the pre-burner?
    Usually yes.
    Preburner have a separated small kick pump for higher pressure beyond main fuel flow.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: ZachF on 10/25/2017 04:24 pm
    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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 10/25/2017 06:09 pm
    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
    Keep in mind that comparing a gas generator to ORSC, especially at this scale, isn't wise ...

    History of Russian kerolox ORSC shows that raising chamber pressure isn't at all that rapid as Merlin 1's progression, by a 5-6x factor. Also, likelihood for "big booms" (perhaps like what delayed first firing) is extremely high.

    There are a lot of reasons for this.

    That said, suggest that the overwhelming direction for this engine team is "operational", not pushing to extremes (suggest Raptor is attempting exactly *this*). In fact they went out of their way in design to downplay chamber pressure to expedite this engine. So expect no more than 3MN peak for quite a while.

    What instead -  large number of runs, considerable duration, multiple hardware sets under test concurrently, varying conditions of test runs. They want a six sigma matchup to prove no surprises and all conditions covered with significant operating data. And that's a ton of work in a short amount of time, all of it dangerous.

    Doing anything more would be sub-optimal.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Star One on 10/25/2017 07:59 pm
    Quote
    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

    https://mobile.twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/923271615307309056
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: ChaoticFlounder on 10/26/2017 01:39 am
    [...]  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.

    The largest concern for them is combustion instability which I don't believe we have been able to completely model yet.  As an outsider looking in the stresses are fairly well understood and predictable, it's the fluid flow and combustion that poses the real challenge.

    Reference NASA SP-194 to get a better understanding of the scale of what I'm talking about.

    As always, ask if you have questions or need a better explanation.

    C
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: sanman on 10/27/2017 11:50 pm
    Quote
    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

    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Zardar on 10/28/2017 12:04 am
    Quote
    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

    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?

    "The Wernher von Braun Memorial Symposium is an annual event that features panel discussions and guest speakers reflecting government, industry, academia, business and international perspectives on space exploration."

    http://astronautical.org/events/vonbraun/ (http://astronautical.org/events/vonbraun/)
    https://www.facebook.com/AmericanAstronauticalSociety/ (https://www.facebook.com/AmericanAstronauticalSociety/)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/31/2017 02:12 am
    Aviation Week article on the recent test.

    http://aviationweek.com/space/blue-origin-fires-be-4-methane-fuel-rocket-engine

    Not much new information. They did say they found the problem with the power pack failure and that it has been fixed. No information on what the failure is though.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: john smith 19 on 11/03/2017 03:24 pm
    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.

    From the artifacts present, suggest chamber pressure is the limiting factor in some form at the moment.
    Wasn't RS68 the ablative cooled GG cycle LH2/LO2 for the Delta IV?

    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).
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: russianhalo117 on 11/03/2017 03:46 pm
    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.

    From the artifacts present, suggest chamber pressure is the limiting factor in some form at the moment.
    Wasn't RS68 the ablative cooled GG cycle LH2/LO2 for the Delta IV?

    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).
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: john smith 19 on 11/03/2017 09:24 pm
    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.

    From the artifacts present, suggest chamber pressure is the limiting factor in some form at the moment.
    Wasn't RS68 the ablative cooled GG cycle LH2/LO2 for the Delta IV?

    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).
    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.
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robotbeat on 11/05/2017 12:29 am
    Define "human rated" in a way that isn't 1) talking about an entire system (i.e. launch vehicle) or 2) cargo cult nonsense.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Raptor 42 on 11/13/2017 12:22 pm
    On the Blue Origin website it says that "allows for the removal of a solid rocket motor at more than $10 million per flight for comparable missions."
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Nilof on 11/20/2017 12:17 am
    Define "human rated" in a way that isn't 1) talking about an entire system (i.e. launch vehicle) or 2) cargo cult nonsense.

    "Does not undergo RUD's on a significant fraction of engine tests" sounds like a good start.

    Above that, it depends on the exact level of safety you want, and on reusable engines there's also an element of how practical achieving that safety is. The RS-25 is a great example of an engine that was human rated and never had a failure on manned flight, but only with very expensive maintenance between flights.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 11/21/2017 01:39 pm
    Some good news for BE-4 funding in the recent NDAA:

    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:

    Quote
    Further, 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.

    Quote
    Another 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'.

    Best follow-up in the original (space policy) thread.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 01/08/2018 01:04 pm
    Quote
    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

    https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/950365085091811330 (https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/950365085091811330)

    Vid to follow

    Edit: video now attached
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Davidthefat on 01/08/2018 02:16 pm
    Did a thermocouple or something get blasted off during shutdown? (Black wire looking thing flying around in the bell)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 01/08/2018 03:21 pm
    Nice progress to see Blue!

    You can see clear improvements across all aspects of engine operation visible.

    (One of the later things to see with such an engine will be be long duration tests, don't expect them soon.)

    As to ULA, I'd think that combustion stability with many repeatable runs with varying conditions is helpful to the decision to down select on engines. From what's shown, looks likely we'll hear an announcement in 1-2 months to go ahead with BE-4 on Vulcan.

    (Also, suspect that relentless pursuit of reliability and performance of this in successive video's we'll eventually see will become a hallmark of this engine. And while Vulcan will get the economical, performant engine it needs, it won't stop there - they'll give the Energomash designs a run for the money and then some.)

    Nice news.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: TrevorMonty on 01/08/2018 03:56 pm
    Have they done full power test yet? Even for few seconds.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 01/08/2018 04:08 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: AncientU on 01/08/2018 04:24 pm
    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Davidthefat on 01/08/2018 04:39 pm
    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: PahTo on 01/08/2018 04:54 pm
    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.

    Thanks SG1962.  I asked the below in a Vulcan thread some time ago, and you've essentially answered here...

    "Also, what is the expected frequency of tests for the BE-4?  Given the "recent" 50% test, should we expect a "long duration"at 50%?  Short run at 100%?"
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: meberbs on 01/08/2018 05:07 pm
    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?
    No, that was last spring and before they put a full scale engine on a stand.

    They released a previous video of a firing back in October, and they have been continuing to do tests since then. This is the second public video of a test of the full engine.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Chris Bergin on 01/08/2018 07:49 pm
    Short article to mark these tests:
    https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/01/blue-origin-be-4-engine-testing/
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: jpo234 on 01/08/2018 08:28 pm
    Short article to mark these tests:
    https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/01/blue-origin-be-4-engine-testing/

    Quote
    a gigantic production facility nearly competition on Merritt Island.

    ...a gigantic production facility nearing completion on Merritt Island.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: theinternetftw on 01/08/2018 08:33 pm
    Short article to mark these tests:
    https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/01/blue-origin-be-4-engine-testing/

    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).

    This option is competing against the current baseline of the RL-10 and an alternative MB-60 LOX-LH2 engine from Japan.

    Marking the tests, and throwing in just the slightest bit of eyebrow-raising and tree-shaking I see ;)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 01/08/2018 10:35 pm
    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?
    Compare the video's side by side.

    First is "trimmed" so you don't see start-up/shutdown. Second you do. Perhaps because both did not appear ideal?

    Second showed nothing but an appropriate start-up/shutdown for those absences.

    First has artifacts visible that show unreacted in flow (saps iSP) and irregular, lower thrust. Not visible in second.

    Second has some throttling and mach diamonds appearing well defined as changing. First was less defined and at a constant thrust level. Changing thrust on a LRE risks combustion instability. (Many LRE didn't have much/any throttle capability.)

    In short, the second appropriately characterizes what the BE-4 has been represented to be - a throttleable, restartable ORSC engine. Unlike the prior, which just showed it to be a LRE that can function as one.

    And, like with what the first showed of operation, all elements of the second including operation, show across the board effective improvement from the first.

    So what's missing? Duration, thrust levels, operating/starting/shutdown conditions, wear assessment, ... these come eventually.

    What they are telling us in this video is that they made the engine they told us they would and it works as designed.

    What they can't yet tell us is when it becomes a viable propulsion system for use by a LV.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: daveklingler on 01/09/2018 01:43 am
    AFAIK It's still the only cryogenic SC (of any variant) to be developed in the US (before Blue and SX).

    No.  Pratt & Whitney developed a series of hydrolox high-pressure staged-combustion engines to airline engine reusability standards during the 1960's.

    According to the book, "Advanced Engine Development at Pratt and Whitney", credit for original invention of the staged combustion engine goes to John Chamberlain at P&W.  While studying ways to increase combustion chamber pressure on the RL-10, Chamberlain thought of burning a little oxygen in the hydrogen working fluid before the turbine. They began testing the concept successfully in 1960.

    P&W went on to develop a series of hydrolox staged combustion engines for, or so they thought, the coming wave of NASA's reusable rockets.  Beginning in the late 1950's, P&W developed the 10K, 50K, RL20 (225Klbs thrust), 250K and 350K engines to airline-standards of reusability. Along the way, Chamberlain also invented transpiration cooling for rocket engines, and by mid-1963, the 10K chamber was up to 3300 PSI.  The 5600 psi turbopumps for the 350K engine were complete by mid-1967, and they reached 6700 PSI for the 250K engine's turbopump.

    All of these engines were developed for essentially unlimited reusability in reusable space transports over a little over a decade with a view toward the SSME. Despite the fact that they had never done any work in high-pressure reusable staged-combustion engines, Rocketdyne was given the contract for the SSME anyway and P&W was forced to send Rocketdyne their development notes.  P&W was later asked by NASA to return and make the SSME work and ended up working on it quietly through the end of the Shuttle program.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Chasm on 01/09/2018 03:45 am

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Lars-J on 01/09/2018 03:51 am

    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.

    They are the same engine. (or it is a very close cousin, like the RL-10 variants)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: J-V on 01/09/2018 06:11 am
    Can anyone estimate from the mach diamonds in the new video what is the throttle range used in the test? I mean we don't know if the maximum used is 100% (probably not), but is the highest thrust e.g. 2x the minimum thrust used during the test?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Boost on 01/09/2018 11:09 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Chasm on 01/10/2018 05:03 am
    YT version of the BE-4 test video

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksGnkKeGy4I
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Chasm on 01/10/2018 05:09 am
    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)

    Perhaps fixed vs extensible nozzle.
    Looking at the Orbital ATK articles again the contract was "for development of [...], and an extendable nozzle for Blue Origin's BE-3U/EN upper stage engine."
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Nilof on 01/10/2018 11:59 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: silverthorne on 01/22/2018 04:46 pm
    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: woods170 on 01/22/2018 04:50 pm
    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?

    Easy. Double design, double CDR.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: silverthorne on 01/22/2018 04:55 pm
    From what I understand from friends I have at ULA, they are working towards a single CDR.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Ictogan on 01/22/2018 04:58 pm
    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?
    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/)).

    My guess is that they have already decided on BE-4 internally, but want to keep the possibility of switching to the AR-1 just in case testing the engine to flight performance doesn't work out.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: mme on 01/22/2018 05:15 pm
    ...
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: envy887 on 01/22/2018 05:24 pm
    ...
    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.

    Who says they haven't downselected? They don't have to announce it right away.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: mme on 01/22/2018 05:42 pm
    ...
    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.
    True, I'm basing it on a recent tweet by Jeff Foust and an article from November.

    https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/954065403449364486 (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/954065403449364486)
    Quote
    Jeff Foust‏
    @jeff_foust

    Tshudy: no downselect yet on Vulcan engine, but anticipate it “this year.”

    10:58 AM - 18 Jan 2018

    ULA feels no schedule pressure to select Vulcan engine[/ula] (http://spacenews.com/ula-feels-no-schedule-pressure-to-select-vulcan-engine/)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Electric Paint on 01/22/2018 07:39 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: russianhalo117 on 01/22/2018 07:58 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 01/23/2018 04:20 am
    Anyone know what the BE-4 nominal mixture ratio s supposed to be, compared to the Aerojet AR-1 (2.2?)?

    Blue has given very little technical information. The only thing we know is the thrust at 2447 kN (550 klbf). My expectation would be around 3.5:1 for a staged combustion methalox engine. The AR-1 is probably around 2.6:1 for a kerolox engine (RD-180 is 2.72:1).
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: woods170 on 01/23/2018 06:51 am
    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.

    They haven't formally chosen an engine yet. And with it comes the choice of fuel. For BE-4 that is LNG and for AR-1 it is RP-1.

    The result is two different sets of requirements for mixture ratio, tankage volume, vehicle plumbing, GSE set-up, etc. etc. etc.

    What I suspect is that ULA has been designing the vehicle as "generic" as possible to make CDR, with specific components having been designed twice (for AR-1 vs BE-4).

    But once the engine choice has been made it is a safe bet that a series of delta-CDR's is coming to accommodate the design-changes, and final designs, resulting from the final engine-choice.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: brickmack on 01/23/2018 01:47 pm
    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.

    Thats an ACES, not EUS. If you missed the news, http://www.ulalaunch.com/bigelow-aerospace-and-ula-lunar-depot.aspx
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Sknowball on 01/23/2018 02:54 pm
    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.

    The latest information that has been provided is that their CDR is composed of two parts and that the first part was completed (https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/951271568218320896) last month.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Chasm on 01/23/2018 02:58 pm
    As far as I can tell ULA did only one PDR, and that was not for the AR-1 engine.
    Explicitly for the BE4, in the Vulcan (Common) Centaur configuration at the time.

    [ULA press release, March 2016 (http://www.ulalaunch.com/ula-completes-Vulcan-Centaur-PDR.aspx)]

    The introduction of Centaur V makes tracking the CDR(s) a bit more complex to track
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Navier–Stokes on 02/28/2018 09:34 pm
    Quote from: https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/968970651355709440
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 02/28/2018 09:46 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/01/2018 12:01 am
    The question is have they done full thrust burn, even its for few seconds.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: AncientU on 03/01/2018 04:32 pm
    Quote from: https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/968970651355709440
    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.

    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.

    Not sure where the 'good progress' comes from other than the original quote.

    Parsing Jim Centore's statement:
    1. "Getting to longer duration..." is a double qualifier, "getting to" is current or near future status, while "longer duration" could mean three seconds to five, or ten, or even four.
    2. "Multiple runs on same engine" could mean two or three, hopefully five or ten...
    (one or more engines could only have one -- why?)
    3. "Continuing testing for next several months"... certainly.  There is a tonne of testing and flight qualification ahead, maybe a year or two, but why mention several months?  Does something special happen in several months?  ...new prototype engine(s)? ...full power/duration/other tests? ...down select by ULA?

    Remember that these engines are designed to be flown repeatedly on a reusable rocket, not just one and done on Vulcan.  They better not show any erosion or engine wear after a few short-duration, low power test runs.

    Jim Centore might have been spreading a success story and "good progress", but his language is so guarded as to be questionable about how good is "good" progress.  Maybe also the guarded company culture at Blue...

    Add:
    They are at the one year mark from roll-out of full scale engine.

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Jim on 03/01/2018 05:33 pm
    How about applying the same critical eye to SpaceX and not just anything not SpaceX
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/01/2018 05:43 pm
    How about applying the same critical eye to SpaceX and not just anything not SpaceX
    You are wasting you time Jim, SpaceX fans are one eyed.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Chris Bergin on 03/01/2018 05:49 pm
    (http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/353/279/e31.jpg)

    Everyone calm down and be civil. Thread title. Discuss topic. Carry on.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: envy887 on 03/01/2018 05:54 pm
    Foust is paraphrasing Centore, not quoting him, so a word by word analysis could be quite misleading.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 03/01/2018 06:04 pm
    How about applying the same critical eye to SpaceX and not just anything not SpaceX
    Absolutely. 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.)

    SX took an expedient route (gas generator, combined ELV/RLV) with higher losses. BO takes a longer route (ORSC, RLV) attempting zero losses (two to date, high reuse on NS that SX hasn't ever had).

    You may disagree with choices but they are reasonable, respectable ones.

    Again, they have made good progress with BE-4, and I wish them well in hoping to hear more success in testing.

    add:
    It occurs to me that many here don't know why America avoided ORSC til now. The development rate is mostly dominated by "boom" and test stand rebuild. It is "good progress" when you don't get "boom" and "rebuild". This stuff is very hard, sometimes too hard.

    The Russians did a lot of "boom" "rebuild", and many thought that was a bad idea. But it got a fantastic engine in RD-180. If you are going to attempt to outdo them, and you avoid "boom" and "rebuild" ... that's world class.

    I have in the past chided them competitively given Raptor's FFSC success, but only because both teams (like all competitive teams) have an eye on the other - because competition is great for aerospace, not to run either down. And they can take 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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: PahTo on 03/01/2018 06:20 pm

    (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.


    No, you should (please) continue to provide insight--posts like yours are exactly what and why many of us have been (wow, in my case for more than a decade) and continue to be on NSF.

    Concur on the success-wishes, as testing leads to flight-ready production hardware.  Bring it on!
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Darkseraph on 03/01/2018 06:25 pm
    Quote
    More than six years into development
    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.
    from the horse's mouth (https://www.blueorigin.com/BE4)

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: AncientU on 03/01/2018 08:42 pm
    How about applying the same critical eye to SpaceX and not just anything not SpaceX
    Absolutely. 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.)
    ...

    I, for one, appreciate Space Ghost's posts and detailed analyses across all topics.  Your insight plus generous contribution of time to explain context is a huge asset of NSF.

    On this particular topic and update from Jim Centore*, I was not hearing as positive a progress report on BE-4 as I was hoping for...  and searching for the downside of what was said.  Space Ghost took the quotes and stretched them on the upside, in my opinion, and I was probing the other possibility.  Critical eye?  Yes.  Bad-mouthing or slamming Blue -- 'a means to attack by rhetorically picking from it to concoct a negative' -- absolutely not my intention. 

    For the record, I'm fully supportive of Blue Origin as a valuable contributor to competition in the reusable rocket development effort, BE-4 as a critical part of that, and for New Glenn and its success.  Full disclosure: I care much less about whether Vulcan gets an engine in a timely manner, but do think the BE-4 is the only viable path to ending RD-180 purchases from Russia anywhere near 2022.

    For an American company to be making the ORSC engine that some claim impossible (textbooks, for instance) on their own dime is to be lauded.  For them to already have seven commercial orders for NG is fantastic.  None of this takes away from SpaceX -- it in fact helps to solidify the 'fantasy' that reusable rockets are the future.


    * By the way, Jeff Foust is usually bang-on when he 'paraphrases' -- more like direct quotes than most in the media.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: AncientU on 03/01/2018 09:39 pm
    Quote
    More than six years into development
    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.
    from the horse's mouth (https://www.blueorigin.com/BE4)

    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.

    This Blue Origin web page information appears over a year old; Jim Centore's comments were today's status.

    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?  We certainly did not get that confirmation from Mr. Centore's statement unless your interpretation of 'several months' is correct.  If he had news that they were a few months from a flight qualified engine, he'd have made a more substantial and positive statement.  As stated, it's more like they are still carefully searching the parameter space with their testing.

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 03/01/2018 10:03 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: AncientU on 03/01/2018 10:27 pm
    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.

    I do think the engine will be flight qualified, as will the eventual full scale Raptor, booms or no.  Don't think having a failure, or a few failures, on the test stand is something negative, other than the delay involved.  Having zero would be nice, but not necessary.  Just need to press on...
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: rpapo on 03/01/2018 11:30 pm
    The only useless boom is the one you don't learn from.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 03/01/2018 11:38 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: AncientU on 03/01/2018 11:39 pm
    ...

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 03/01/2018 11:52 pm
    Been told to post less frequent/depth, be more crisp and balanced with inconsistent rivals, limiting details. Hard.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: woods170 on 03/02/2018 08:08 am
    ...

    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.

    That would be correct. Both Raptor and BE-4 are new developments in the history of US-developed rocket engines. Informing their competitors, by issuing regular updates on testing, is the one thing SpaceX and Blue are not going to do.
    However, the fact that SpaceX and Blue remain silent on their progress does not mean that there is no progress.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: SDSmith on 03/02/2018 09:39 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: RotoSequence on 03/02/2018 09:43 am
    Been told to post less frequent/depth, be more crisp and balanced with inconsistent rivals, limiting details. Hard.

    I like a good long-form post better.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: AncientU on 03/02/2018 10:19 am
    Been told to post less frequent/depth, be more crisp and balanced with inconsistent rivals, limiting details. Hard.

    Your analysis is a healthy feature of NSF.  It should not be curtailed, IMO, if you can afford the time to flesh out your ideas and provide insight to those of us who are interested observers without first-hand access.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FinalFrontier on 03/02/2018 10:26 am
    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. 
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FinalFrontier on 03/02/2018 10:29 am
    Back on topic what I am interested in here. Have there been anymore failures of test engines or critical components on the test stand in individual tests?
    Do we have anymore idea what caused the failures we heard about in the past 18 months and if they designed it out?
    If they have had multiple successful firings on the same development engine now it probably means they solved it but if they aren't at full thrust it may be best not jinx it.

    Very curious to know what went wrong in the earlier tests.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Star One on 03/02/2018 10:37 am
    ...

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: AncientU on 03/02/2018 12:22 pm
    ...

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Star One on 03/02/2018 01:09 pm
    ...

    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Davidthefat on 03/02/2018 01:43 pm
    ...

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Star One on 03/02/2018 03:04 pm
    ...

    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.

    Wouldn’t that be more down to the federal government though considering how many of their products appear to be at the instigation of government customers?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: LouScheffer on 03/02/2018 03:12 pm

    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.

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: gongora on 03/02/2018 03:59 pm

    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.

    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.

    Raptor's first firing was a year earlier than BE-4.  It's no surprise they're farther along in the testing.  Let's see where Blue is after a year of firing their engine.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: AncientU on 03/02/2018 05:56 pm
    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.
    Quote
    Here’s why the imminent test of Jeff Bezos’ BE-4 rocket engine is a huge deal
    https://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*.

    * I didn't bring the subject up, but was responding to someone who called out a comparison.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: gongora on 03/02/2018 06:04 pm
    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.
    Quote
    Here’s why the imminent test of Jeff Bezos’ BE-4 rocket engine is a huge deal
    https://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.

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: envy887 on 03/02/2018 06:18 pm
    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.
    Quote
    Here’s why the imminent test of Jeff Bezos’ BE-4 rocket engine is a huge deal
    https://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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Rabidpanda on 03/02/2018 09:20 pm
    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.
    Quote
    Here’s why the imminent test of Jeff Bezos’ BE-4 rocket engine is a huge deal
    https://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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Zucal on 03/02/2018 10:51 pm
    We don't know how long Raptor sat on the test stand before it was fired for the first time.

    The first Raptor (subscale development engine) shipped to McGregor the night of August 08, 2016. It was first test fired on the night of September 25, 2016.

    48 days / 1 month & 17 days
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Nomadd on 03/03/2018 07:34 am
      March 2107 announcements were that hot fire was imminent.

    I know they're slow, but not that slow.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Darkseraph on 03/03/2018 01:40 pm
    That would be the "Gradatim". The Ferociter is the enginenot being a subscale demonstrator, the hardware on the test stand is representative of the final product and multiple engines are in the pipeline. Also, BE-4 is significantly larger than Raptor in both size and thrust. Although one or more of these engines could blow up on the stand, Blue operates hardware rich and could be back testing again in months. I'd be honestly surprised if BE-4 is not qualified by 2019 Q2.

    Raptor is a far cooler name than BE-4 though!
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: AncientU on 03/03/2018 03:41 pm
    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

    EM has specifically stated that this engine was not a flight engine -- that this is the FFSC test version and the flight engine would be 'light and tight.'  JB is maybe taking a different route in making their first orbital engine nearly-flight-type, but I think it's possible that this engine is also a full scale test engine to demonstrate control of the ORSC cycle -- the first in US history.  A flight engine on first iteration would show comparable 'ferociter' as flying to orbit a full scale New Glenn on first NG flight... and trying to land it on their ship.  Many here believe that this is the intent. (i don't)  All are incredibly bold actions, and justify going 'graditum' on their test steps leading up to launch.

    Anyone have a quote from Blue that this is a flight engine?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/03/2018 05:27 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: AncientU on 03/03/2018 05:46 pm
    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.

    Correct.

    Both are attempts to power next generation rockets.  BE-4 will double down on reusable rockets as the future, and Raptor will power the world's first affordable, reusable exploration-class vehicle.

    As such, these development programs are each a huge contribution to the USA's future in spaceflight.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Navier–Stokes on 03/03/2018 07:00 pm
    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).
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: symbios on 03/12/2018 08:42 pm
    I think this should be in here to:
    Great news:
    Quote
    Bob Smith, Blue Origin: making good progress on BE-4 engine. Recently had 114-second firing at 65% power. #SatShow
    https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/973297209860153349
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 03/12/2018 08:59 pm
    We're now crossing into the territory of "usable for orbital launcher" performance (not close to "desirable for launcher" yet). Good.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: WindnWar on 03/12/2018 09:05 pm
    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: mme on 03/12/2018 10:43 pm
    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."
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robotbeat on 03/13/2018 12:33 am
    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.

    (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.)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: mme on 03/13/2018 02:12 am
    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.

    (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.)
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robotbeat on 03/13/2018 02:16 am
    Yeah, they do seem committed to that. Part of me agrees with QuantumG, though, that this has a huge opportunity cost (i.e. it's incredibly wasteful). But hey, at least it's going in the right direction! And I suppose it's good that, if you have two, well-funded, cutting edge space companies heading in the right direction, that one of them plays it safe in case the one that's ahead runs into problems.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Darkseraph on 03/13/2018 09:02 am
    BE-4 appears to be making steady progress since its first firing and well on the way to a full power/ full duration test. Expecting this engine to be qualified easily by the end of the year, hiccups included. The future looks dim for AR-1 unless it can be pitched to NASA for SLS Block 2 or Congress keeps it alive to completion anyway like J2X, arguing it's necessary for dubious national security reasons. 


    Cannot wait to see 7 of these fire at once in 2021. :)   
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: LouScheffer on 03/13/2018 11:36 am
    I think this should be in here to:
    Great news:
    Quote
    Bob Smith, Blue Origin: making good progress on BE-4 engine. Recently had 114-second firing at 65% power. #SatShow
    https://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.

    On the good side, there cannot be a lot of duration-limiting problems left, or they could not get to 122 seconds.   So full duration should follow pretty quickly.  Then they will have measured temperatures and stresses for all parts, and can start raising the power.  This should be a more-or-less straightforward extrapolation of previously tried conditions, and has seemed to go fairly smoothly for other engines (almost all of them get uprated at some point in their life, usually without too much drama).

    The main remaining risk (to me, as a naive outsider) would be the behavior of materials under the full flow, full stress, hot oxygen environment.   Since this is such an obvious concern, they have surely planned for this.  But surprises in this area have led to long qualification campaigns for the Soviet ORSC engines.

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: gongora on 03/13/2018 12:50 pm
    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: woods170 on 03/13/2018 01:05 pm
    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?

    No. There is virtually nothing publically known about Blue's BE-4 test stand.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: LouScheffer on 03/13/2018 01:23 pm
    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?
    No. There is virtually nothing publically known about Blue's BE-4 test stand.
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: jebbo on 03/13/2018 01:39 pm
    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 ...
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: LouScheffer on 03/13/2018 01:59 pm
    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 ...

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: acsawdey on 03/13/2018 02:17 pm
    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 ...

    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.

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 03/13/2018 05:32 pm
    Suggest duration is set by potential ORSC wear/erosion/thermal stress of certain engine components.

    You'd prove a burn to a certain point, then afterward check those components to see that it remained to within tolerances.

    There's a lot of work that goes on between burns, in some cases days to weeks.

    Remember, the point isn't just to operate the engine, but to understand/prove its operation meets its design expectation/requirements/margin by working the way its supposed to. Once that happens, you can proceed further.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/13/2018 10:12 pm
    Quote
    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

    https://twitter.com/jeffbezos/status/973696994332983299

    Edit: video added
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: acsawdey on 03/13/2018 10:38 pm
    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: LastStarFighter on 03/13/2018 10:49 pm
    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 ...

    That is the New Shepard launch site. The BE-4 test stand is 3-4km ENE of that launch pad I believe.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: cletus on 03/14/2018 03:56 am
    Quote
    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

    https://twitter.com/jeffbezos/status/973696994332983299

    Edit: video added

    Awesome!!

    Also, I understood most of that, but what does "mixture ratio sweep" mean?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 03/14/2018 04:14 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: hkultala on 03/14/2018 04:25 am
    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?



    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 03/14/2018 04:59 am
    So, 3.5 for maximum isp and 3.8 for maximum impulse density and thrust?

    Yes, that's one purpose. The other is getting both tanks to empty at the same time, due to small variations in the flow rates during the main burn and the initial masses of the propellants.

    Quote
    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?

    You want the ratio to be always fuel rich, otherwise your hot oxidiser rich gases in the combustion chamber will want to burn with the metals in the chamber. In the parlance of rocket scientists, you want avoid an "engine rich" situation! :-) A value of 4 is too close to (and greater than) the stoichiometric ratio of 3.9891.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: jebbo on 03/14/2018 06:19 am
    That is the New Shepard launch site. The BE-4 test stand is 3-4km ENE of that launch pad I believe.

    I don't think it is: a) this is the bigger of the two stands and b) there is nothing ENE of this, but there is a smaller test stand ~SW of this ... smaller stand is near the bottom left and larger stand near the top right of this
    link (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/West+Texas+Suborbital+Launch+Site/@31.4123963,-104.7369039,5290m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x86e5cc0b9031e3c7:0xb0d4dcff3a06f329!8m2!3d31.422927!4d-104.757152).

    Edit: the other test stand is here (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/West+Texas+Suborbital+Launch+Site/@31.3945959,-104.7558538,120m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x86e5cc0b9031e3c7:0xb0d4dcff3a06f329!8m2!3d31.422927!4d-104.757152).

    --- Tony
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: woods170 on 03/14/2018 08:54 am
    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 ...

    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.

    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.

    The conversation above is exactly why I mentioned that there is virtually nothing known about Blue's BE-4 test stand.
    There is only so much one can infer from a low-res Google maps image.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Navier–Stokes on 03/14/2018 03:08 pm
    Quote
    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

    https://twitter.com/jeffbezos/status/973696994332983299

    Edit: video added

    YouTube mirror:
    https://youtu.be/Fp0WgodhR7s
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: acsawdey on 03/14/2018 03:33 pm
    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?

    Ok, assuming a 3.8:1 OF ratio we get 12155 kg of LNG and 46189 kg of lox.
    Using 1141 kg/m3 for lox and 450 kg/m3 for LNG, the propellant volumes are 40.5 m3 of lox and 27 m3 of LNG.

    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.

    Scaling up from 65% to 100% and increasing from 114 seconds to 240 seconds they still only need 131 m3 of lox and 87 of LNG.

    I'm not sure about that 368 m^3 tank volume per engine. I think the densities get us something like 1.5:1 OF by volume which means 368 m^3 of propellant would weigh 318000 kg and a 2400kN engine can't lift it off the pad.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Darkseraph on 03/14/2018 03:44 pm
    Awesome video. The BE4 exhaust appears very different to the Raptor exhaust! At 65%, BE-4 is very close to Raptor at full power!

    (https://cdn.geekwire.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/180313-blueorigin-630x354.jpg) 
    (http://cdn.geekwire.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/160926-spacex-raptor.jpg)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Davidthefat on 03/14/2018 05:14 pm
    Keep in mind the substantially different chamber pressures, and the fact that one does not have a seal.

    I'm 100% sure Raptor has seals. May not be hot gas purge seals, but still seals nonetheless.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Chasm on 03/15/2018 05:27 pm
    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 ...

    That is their new big stand, the old small one to the southwest of it close to the road.

    Launch site is to the west of the big stand.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/16/2018 03:46 pm
    Quote
    Replying to @timmermansr @SierraNevCorp @blueorigin

    Although in lesser scale than in 2017, @blueorigin is also visibly present this year

    https://twitter.com/Tschnn/status/985666496650100736
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 04/16/2018 10:48 pm
    SNC and Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin show off hardware at Colorado’s Space Symposium (https://www.geekwire.com/2018/snc-jeff-bezos-blue-origin-show-off-hardware-colorados-space-symposium/)

    (https://cdn.geekwire.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/180416-blue2-630x840.jpg)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: HMXHMX on 04/17/2018 03:53 am
    A few more high resolution photos.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: woods170 on 04/17/2018 07:08 am
    Me love rocket engine hardware.

    Now, Aerojet, show us yours.  ;)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Semmel on 04/17/2018 08:59 am
    What beautiful images, thank you very much!

    add: Nice to see how the LNG splits after its pump and partly goes into the Nozzle for regenerative cooling. Also the LOX after its pump loops around and goes into the pre-burner. I cant seem to find the pipe that the LNG takes to the pre-burner, but maybe its hidden in all the spaghetti. Nice to see how the pre-burner directly connects to the turbine and is connected to the combustion chamber. On the other side of the turbine are first the LOX pump and then the LNG pump. But I dont see any gearbox between the LOX pump and the LNG pump. I thought there should be one but maybe they are running with the same RPM and mixture ratio is controlled by the inlet valves?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Nomic on 04/17/2018 10:35 am
    Great photos. I'd guess the LNG line to the preburner is the one below. Also note the LOX low pressure pump, Blue newsletter last year talked about it being 3D printed in aluminium.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Semmel on 04/17/2018 12:35 pm
    Ohh right, I totally didnt look for it there as I expected it to come after the heat exchange with the engine. But makes sense that this is the LNG fuel line.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/17/2018 01:41 pm
    Jeff Foust has posted some too, including this display info which is interesting

    https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/986236025688264704
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 04/17/2018 03:52 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Rabidpanda on 04/17/2018 04:00 pm
    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.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/blueorigin/status/863881495169048576

    They blew up a powerpack, not a full engine.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: woods170 on 04/17/2018 06:05 pm
    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.

    Dislike all you want.

    Welcome to the real world. Where proprietary rules.

    The truth is only revealed on a "need to know"-only basis.

    And you don't need to know.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Rabidpanda on 04/17/2018 06:30 pm

    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?

    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 04/17/2018 08:45 pm

    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.
    False.

    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.

    Quote
    What makes you think that the powerpack was attached to the engine when it failed?

    That they said so prior?

    Quote
    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.

    (Can and does occur in flight as well.)

    Quote
    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, as we all know, when you test an engine the first time, the difference in powerpack alone against that of injectior/compustion chamber means a pressure buildup, of the kind that can do significant damage when it lets go.

    So all the parts fit together neatly. While they don't the other way round. Duh.

    Its just skillful "disinformation". Because yes you can say that a manifold or the preburner on the powerhead failed, and call it a powerhead failure.

    So they are not credible with a half truth you're defending.

    (And if I was ULA watching half truths, I'd likely wait off a year or two waiting for a real truth to.)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 04/17/2018 08:49 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Rabidpanda on 04/17/2018 10:26 pm

    You are inferring a lot without any evidence.
    False.

    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.

    Quote
    What makes you think that the powerpack was attached to the engine when it failed?

    That they said so prior?


    No, they didn't.

    We know the first engine was assembled in March but there is no evidence that an engine hot fire was attempted in May.

    https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/863881495169048576?s=21

    https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/863881837000638464?s=21

    And then in October:

    https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/921095318669873154?s=21

    There are two possible explanations:

    1) The powerpack failure that occurred in early May was not related to a full engine hot fire attempt, but rather was a continuation of powerpack-only testing that they had already been doing. This is consistent with all the public information that Blue has released. Perhaps they were waiting to hot fire the full engine until they had finished this powerpack testing.

    2) Blue origin blew up a full engine in May and is intentionally deceiving everyone by calling the hot fire in October the 'first time', both when it occurred and now at the Space Symposium.

    If they were happy to announce publicly that they had a powerpack failure (they didn't need to) why would they then try to lie about the status of the first full engine hot fire? It doesn't make any sense. There is no incentive for them to lie and no evidence that they are.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: woods170 on 04/18/2018 06:50 am
    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.

    That's what independent money does. No real need to "look good" and no real need to be transparent and open.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Redmat on 04/18/2018 08:33 am
    Hey !

    Is it possible to calculate New Glenn's delta-v with BE-4 knowledges we acquired ?
    I mean, did we have enought informations (like mass wet/mass dry of each stage, etc...) ?

    Unfortunately, i'm not competent to calculate it. I know the existence of delta-v thanks to kerbal space program game (and mechjeb addons).

    But i would like to compare it with others results (like those i've in KSP ) ;D
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Nomic on 04/18/2018 11:06 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Aurora on 04/18/2018 05:28 pm
    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

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: meberbs on 04/18/2018 09:25 pm
    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/
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: HMXHMX on 04/19/2018 03:32 am
    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/

    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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: AncientU on 04/19/2018 01:50 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: rst on 04/19/2018 02:36 pm
    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.

    Or that they're willing to just accept a shorter life for landing engines. Even on Falcon 9, most of the booster engines start only once per flight (not counting pre-launch tests). And they may well be planning to avoid an entry burn, but skipping the landing burn would be ... ambitious. (Besides, if that's the plan, then what was that patent application for multi-engine coordinated landing burns all about?)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 04/19/2018 02:40 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: HMXHMX on 04/19/2018 03:16 pm
    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.

    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...)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: AncientU on 04/20/2018 12:06 am
    New article:
    Quote
    Blue Origin expects BE-4 qualification tests to be done by year’s end
    Quote
    “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/
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: HMXHMX on 04/20/2018 04:45 am
    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.

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/20/2018 05:45 am
    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/20/2018 05:47 am
    Quote
    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.

    https://www.geekwire.com/2018/blue-origin-ceo-says-next-gen-4-rocket-engine-meets-technical-requirements/
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: LouScheffer on 04/20/2018 10:13 am
    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: woods170 on 04/20/2018 10:51 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: HMXHMX on 04/20/2018 11:34 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: LouScheffer on 04/20/2018 01:30 pm
    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.
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: envy887 on 04/20/2018 02:48 pm
    Quote
    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.

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Davidthefat on 04/20/2018 07:13 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: HMXHMX on 04/20/2018 10:10 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Davidthefat on 04/20/2018 10:48 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Kabloona on 04/21/2018 03:26 am
    Quote
    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.

    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.

    And yet, the same article says the engine hasn't been run at full thrust or full mission duration. Go figure.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: HMXHMX on 04/21/2018 04:12 am
    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.

    I guess I'm a bit dubious about the "LOX cools LNG" idea but maybe Blue will "open up" about the design at some point and settle the question.  As for needing a fuel kick pump, that pump may be necessary in a more-or-less conventional injector (such as impinging streams or coaxial post) but if they use a pintle in the preburner – as was proposed for the TR-107 – then the fuel pressure drop is low (half that of the LOX pressure drop, typically).  The penalty for omitting the kick pump is that power to the whole TPA increases by perhaps 10-15%.  In that case, one main set of pumps at perhaps 2.5x discharge delta-p over main chamber Pc should suffice, taking into account turbine losses. The preburner would then operate at about 2x main chamber Pc.

    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/21/2018 06:44 am
    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?

    13.4 MPa.

    https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/03/behind-the-curtain-ars-goes-inside-blue-origins-secretive-rocket-factory/
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: thammond on 04/25/2018 03:58 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: woods170 on 04/26/2018 06:58 am
    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.

    Excellent post. Scale-modelers in particular are very aware of your fine summary.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: AncientU on 05/22/2018 04:21 pm
    Still* at 70%, 114s:
    Quote
    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. #SpaceTechExpo
    https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/998961252184543233

    * 65%, 114s reported 3/12/18
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Lars-J on 05/22/2018 04:54 pm
    Still* at 70%, 114s:
    Quote
    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. #SpaceTechExpo
    https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/998961252184543233

    * 65%, 114s reported 3/12/18

    They *still* haven't passed 70% thrust? They might be taking their "slow and steady" approach too far here. Or did the test stand destruction a while back rattle them that deeply?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: AncientU on 05/22/2018 08:10 pm
    Soon.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: johnfwhitesell on 05/23/2018 01:46 pm
    Well this explains the mystery of why there is still no decision on Vulcan.  The competition is a paper engine and the race is still going...
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Davidthefat on 05/23/2018 02:48 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: LouScheffer on 05/25/2018 02:04 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/25/2018 07:43 pm
    They've a lot to learn about this engine, destroying an engine by rushing test program will only slow them down. Slow methodical approach is still quickest way to get there. At some stage they also need to tear an engine apart to look at wear tear on components. Chances are first engine may not be taken to full thrust and duration just because of this.

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Navier–Stokes on 07/11/2018 03:00 pm
    Quote from: https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1017055593528426497
    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
    Quote from: https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1017056479772278785
    Matsutomi: we’re targeting to complete BE-4 engine testing by the end of this year. #AIAAPropEnergy
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: JanakaWij on 08/17/2018 05:14 pm
    Can someone please mark up where the LOX line to the injector is? I only see the LOX ducts to the preburner. Thanks!
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: SLC on 08/18/2018 01:03 pm
    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!
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: envy887 on 08/19/2018 02:03 am
    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!

    Right; there is no LOX duct to the injector, but there is a hot gaseous oxygen-rich duct between the preburner and injector.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: JanakaWij on 08/19/2018 05:15 am
    Ah this is what i suspected. Thanks for the clarification SLC and envy887!  :)

    I wonder what materials were used between the turbine exhaust and the injector, given the oxygen rich, high temp and corrosive environment. My first guess would be CMCs.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Davidthefat on 09/20/2018 11:30 pm
    Confirmation of BE-4 getting chosen for Vulcan booster engine?

    https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1042907200950288384

    "before" x 2
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: TrevorMonty on 09/21/2018 12:21 am
    Confirmation of BE-4 getting chosen for Vulcan booster engine?

    https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1042907200950288384

    "before" x 2
    Or Soon as Tory likes to say.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: envy887 on 09/21/2018 02:24 am
    Confirmation of BE-4 getting chosen for Vulcan booster engine?

    https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1042907200950288384

    "before" x 2

    Yup. Or at least Berger thinks so:

    Quote
    yes. i know which one. and i just told you.

    https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1042909571382239232
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Aurora on 09/26/2018 08:47 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: envy887 on 09/27/2018 02:11 am
    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.

    From a panel on Sept. 11th of this year:

    Quote
    “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.”

    https://spacenews.com/aerojet-rocketdyne-seeks-other-customers-for-ar1-engine/

    So they are making progress.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: lonestriker on 09/27/2018 11:07 am
    Looks like the BE-4 selection for Vulcan will become official today:

    https://www.foxbusiness.com/business-leaders/jeff-bezos-space-startup-to-supply-engines-for-boeing-lockheed-rocket-venture

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Lars-J on 09/27/2018 08:07 pm
    ULA's announcement of the selection:

    https://www.ulalaunch.com/about/news-detail/2018/09/27/united-launch-alliance-building-rocket-of-the-future-with-industry-leading-strategic-partnerships
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Scylla on 09/27/2018 09:09 pm
    Published on Sep 27, 2018
    The BE-4 is our fourth-generation liquid rocket engine, made to take us into orbit and beyond.
     
    The BE-4 uses oxygen-rich staged combustion of liquid oxygen and liquefied natural gas to produce 550,000 lbs. of thrust. Liquefied natural gas is commercially available, affordable, and highly efficient for spaceflight. Unlike other rocket fuels, such as kerosene, liquefied natural gas can be used to pressurize a rocket’s propellant tanks. This is called autogenous pressurization and eliminates the need for costly and complex pressurization systems, like helium. Liquefied natural gas also leaves no soot byproducts as kerosene does, simplifying engine reuse.
     
    United Launch Alliance has selected Blue Origin’s BE-4 as the engine that will power the Vulcan rocket's first stage. The announcement ends the need for the Russian made RD-180 on their next-generation vehicle Vulcan with the American-made BE-4.
     
    Here is ULA’s press release on the announcement: http://bit.ly/2xIoeGF

    Blue Origin BE-4 Engine Compilation
    https://youtu.be/Nyn2gOimRfM
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Eric Hedman on 09/27/2018 09:13 pm
    Email from Blue Origin today:

    Hi There,
     
    We have some exciting news to share with you! Blue Origin's BE-4 engine has been selected by United Launch Alliance to power the Vulcan rocket. See the statement below from our CEO, Bob Smith, regarding today’s announcement.
     
    "Today is a great day for the Blue Origin team. We are very honored that United Launch Alliance has selected Blue Origin’s LOX/LNG BE-4 as the engine that will power the first stage of their Vulcan rocket.

    United Launch Alliance is the premier launch service provider for national security missions, and we’re thrilled to be part of their team and that mission.

    We can’t thank Tory Bruno and the entire United Launch Alliance team enough for entrusting our engine to power Vulcan. The Blue team is looking forward to developing our production facility for our BE-4 engine in Huntsville over the next year."

    Bob Smith
    Blue Origin, CEO

    If you want to learn more about today's announcement, here is Blue Origin’s tweet, ULA’s press release, and footage of the BE-4.

    Thanks and Gradatim Ferociter!

    If you were forwarded this e-mail, you can receive it directly by signing up for updates at blueorigin.com/interested

    unsubscribe from this list
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Coastal Ron on 09/27/2018 10:50 pm
    Published on Sep 27, 2018
    The BE-4 is our fourth-generation liquid rocket engine, made to take us into orbit and beyond.

    Boy is that engine pretty when it's firing! The blue color of the exhaust is really something on an engine that big.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Davidthefat on 09/27/2018 11:27 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: tyrred on 09/27/2018 11:56 pm
    Congratulations, Blue!
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Aurora on 01/03/2019 01:46 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: ncb1397 on 01/17/2019 10:54 pm
    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.

    They appear to be having some "minor" issues:

    Quote
    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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: ncb1397 on 01/22/2019 11:34 pm
    Quote
    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.

    https://www.al.com/business/2019/01/jeff-bezos-blue-origin-rocket-company-breaking-ground-on-alabama-engine-plant.html

    Looks like they saved on architecture/engineering for the Alabama factory.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: AncientU on 01/23/2019 05:22 pm
    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:
    Quote
    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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Kansan52 on 01/23/2019 05:43 pm
    Looks like they saved on architecture/engineering for the Alabama factory.

    No. But you knew that.  ;D
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: LouScheffer on 01/24/2019 05:45 am
    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:
    Quote
    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.
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Davidthefat on 01/24/2019 06:36 am
    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:
    Quote
    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.
    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.

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: envy887 on 01/24/2019 05:04 pm
    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:
    Quote
    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.
    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.

    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.

    70% is about the 400 klbf mark, which IIRC is the thrust they originally designed and tested the powerheads for. Maybe they were still using some of the original powerhead components for testing while they finished building the 550 klbf powerhead parts.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: brickmack on 01/24/2019 05:28 pm
    Raptor is said to be able to scale relatively easily to different thrust levels/chamber geometries, largely because of the gas/gas methalox design. BE-4 is gas/liquid, but I'd bet its still a lot easier to scale than most historical large American engines
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Chris Bergin on 01/25/2019 02:43 pm
    ULA:

    ULA President and CEO Tory Bruno’s Statement about Blue Origin Ground Breaking in Alabama

    Huntsville, Ala., Jan. 25, 2019 – “United Launch Alliance welcomes Blue Origin to the great state of Alabama and to join the other aerospace companies that have made Rocket City our home for decades. A little more than three months ago, ULA chose Blue Origin’s BE-4 engine to power our Vulcan Centaur rocket, which we are manufacturing at our facility in Decatur, Alabama. I am pleased that Blue Origin has chosen to join the more than 200 ULA suppliers doing business here in Alabama. The state of Alabama knows how to attract and help business grow and I could not be more thrilled to be part of the resurgence of rocket and engine development in the Tennessee Valley.

     

    “ULA’s Atlas and Delta rockets are the most successful space launch vehicles in history, having launched more than 130 missions with 100 percent mission success. Today, we celebrate the culmination of those decades of knowhow and invention into the transition to our new Vulcan Centaur rocket. Vulcan Centaur is one system for all missions. It will embody our expertise and reliability while providing advanced technology to our warfighters, being superior in both cost and capability. Vulcan Centaur is the only launch vehicle with a design that is centered on our customers’ national security space mission. Vulcan Centaur will provide for our nation’s needs today and into the future. We look forward to our partnership with Blue Origin, building the advanced BE-4 engine to power our next-generation rocket, right here in Alabama!”
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Chris Bergin on 01/25/2019 08:08 pm
    Blue release:

    Today we broke ground on the construction of a world-class rocket engine production facility in Huntsville, Alabama, extending the city’s rich legacy in liquid rocket engines.
     
    Here are excerpts from today's groundbreaking ceremony given by Blue Origin CEO Bob Smith:
     
    It’s a great day here in Rocket City. Thanks to the votes of confidence from United Launch Alliance, from the Air Force for national security missions, and from Huntsville and the state of Alabama, we are breaking ground on a facility to produce our world-class engines and power the next generation of spaceflight.
     
    Last September, United Launch Alliance (ULA) selected our BE-4 engine to power the Vulcan rocket. Then in October, both our New Glenn launch vehicle and Vulcan were selected by the United States Air Force in its Launch Services Agreement contract. This means two out of the three major launch systems flying national security space missions will be powered by engines produced in our Huntsville facility.
     
    New Glenn will be a competitive launch vehicle that can serve all the needs of the civil, commercial and national security space markets for years to come.

    We’re excited to provide safe, reliable access to space and – in the case of United Launch Alliance – end the dependency our nation has on using Russian RD-180 engines for critical national security launches.
     
    The BE-4 is an incredibly sophisticated and powerful engine. It will be a true marvel of engineering when we complete its development later this year and it is currently rocking our test stands out in West Texas. Each ULA Vulcan first stage will have two of these BE-4 engines and they will be integrated into the vehicle just across the river at their Decatur facility. Seven BE-4s, with a combined thrust of nearly 4 million pounds, will also power the fully reusable first stage of Blue Origin’s New Glenn launch system.
     
    We’ll also be building our BE-3U engine in Huntsville. It’s an upper-stage variant of our BE-3 liquid oxygen-liquid hydrogen engine that we’re already flying on New Shepard. It’s the first completely new liquid hydrogen engine developed for production in the United States in more than a decade and New Shepard is giving us hours of experience operating it.
     
    This project has been in the works for several years and we’re thankful to everyone who made it happen.

    Thanks to Governor Kay Ivey, Senator Richard Shelby, Secretary of Commerce Greg Canfield, Huntsville Mayor Tommy Battle, Commission Chairman Dale Strong, and the entire Huntsville Madison County Chamber of Commerce for their commitment to bringing us to northern Alabama and making this day possible.

    We’d also like to recognize Senator Doug Jones, Representative Mo Brooks, and Marshall Space Flight Center Director Jody Singer for their continued support.

    This engine production facility demonstrates our commitment to the state of Alabama. It also demonstrates our confidence that the highly-skilled workforce, deep aerospace history and strong business climate in Huntsville will play a critical role in advancing our vision of millions of people living and working in space.

    Additionally, we are in final negotiations with Marshall Space Flight Center to acceptance test both BE-4 and BE-3U engines at Test Stand 4670, the historic site for testing the Saturn V first stage and the Space Shuttle main engines. Through this agreement, we’ll provide for the refurbishment, restoration and modernization of this piece of American history.

    When we open our doors in Huntsville in March 2020, we will add more than 300 jobs to the local economy, invest over $200 million in the facility and ensure a new generation of engines will rumble to life and send us into the heavens.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Chris Bergin on 01/25/2019 08:08 pm
    Local government:

    https://hsvchamber.org/blue-origin-breaks-ground-on-new-world-class-engine-production-facility-in-huntsville-alabama/
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 01/25/2019 09:24 pm
    Quote
    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.

    https://spacenews.com/blue-origin-breaks-ground-for-be-4-factory/
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 01/26/2019 02:21 am
    Quote
    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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: TrevorMonty on 01/26/2019 02:31 am
    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.

    Besides BE4 engines for new NG boosters, wonder if they will handle refurbishment of BE4s. I'm thinking NG will have engine replacement after so many flights with refurbished BE4s. Same may apply to NS BE3.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Lars-J on 01/26/2019 05:58 am
    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?

    I thought all of that would happen in FL, which is why they built the factory close to the pad.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 01/26/2019 06:19 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Joseph Peterson on 01/28/2019 05:38 pm
    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

    Isn't this an assumption that Vulcan wins the second EELV2 spot?

    Doesn't this ignore the shift in demand to LEO and the potential for a reusable New Glenn second stage serving that demand?

    Wouldn't an engine factory sized for 60 engines per year be excessive fixed costs if future demand is a dozen engines per year?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: russianhalo117 on 01/28/2019 06:45 pm
    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.
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 02/12/2019 09:41 pm
    https://twitter.com/b0yle/status/1095429420364501000

    Quote
    .@blueorigin's Mowry: #BE4 engine fired to 70% power and 200-sec duration, roughly flight profile for launch. Testing continues in West Texas.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 02/28/2019 10:53 am
    Forgot to copy this over for completeness:

    https://twitter.com/stephenclark1/status/1100165131101720579

    Quote
    Just 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/1100167165578235905

    Quote
    Critical 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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Llian Rhydderch on 03/01/2019 01:41 pm
    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.' "
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: mme on 03/01/2019 04:08 pm
    Forgot to copy this over for completeness:

    ...
    Quote
    Just 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.
    ...
    Quote
    Critical 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.
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: meekGee on 03/02/2019 08:32 pm
    Forgot to copy this over for completeness:

    ...
    Quote
    Just 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.
    ...
    Quote
    Critical 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.
    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.


    ... except that the article linked in this post:

    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.' "

    ... corroborates what we've all suspected - that they haven't gone to full thrust yet, despite reaching 70% quite a long time ago.

    (And I am sure that as secretive as they are, once they do, they'll let us know right quick)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: b0objunior on 03/21/2019 02:48 am
    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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: bombyx on 03/21/2019 02:12 pm
    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

     For those who want to hear it , the time stamp of this quote is 25 min 28 s .
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/08/2019 10:13 pm
    https://twitter.com/emrekelly/status/1115375916308258816

    Quote
    Blue Origin's Bob Smith: Unknown whether BE-4 engine will fly first on Vulcan Centaur or New Glenn.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: b0objunior on 04/10/2019 11:57 pm
    Seems the have a new engine on the test stand and their qualification engine will do hot fires this summer.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W31tc8_ZKGU&t=1518
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Kabloona on 04/12/2019 01:36 am
    In the video above, Bob Smith of Blue Origin starts talking about BE-4 at 22:30 elapsed time. He says they are "actively going through different iterations" of the engine, with a new powerpack on the stand.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/18/2019 07:34 am
    Quote
    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.

    https://www.geekwire.com/2019/blue-origin-strikes-deal-nasa-use-historic-rocket-engine-test-stand-alabama/

    Edit to add photo & caption:

    Quote
    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)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: envy887 on 04/18/2019 12:15 pm
    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Toast on 04/18/2019 02:33 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Tomness on 04/18/2019 02:46 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: gongora on 04/18/2019 02:58 pm
    Why do they need a test stand that can handle 8 million pounds of thrust?

    Politics.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: envy887 on 04/18/2019 03:19 pm
    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.

    Leasing and rebuilding...

    Also, isn't Blue building an engine set stand at LC-36?

    I always wondered where they were going to do integrated hotfires of the NG booster. This makes sense for that, since they can't use the Texas facility and the stands at the Cape probably can't handle the thrust for that duration. But it's odd to build stages 10 miles from the pad and then ship them all the way to Stennis for hotfires.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Coastal Ron on 04/18/2019 03:21 pm
    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...
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: envy887 on 04/18/2019 03:24 pm
    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Chasm on 04/18/2019 03:32 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: ZachF on 04/18/2019 04:49 pm
    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?

    I would guess perhaps that the Alabama stand is to test new engines and the Florida one is to test used/reflown ones
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: spacebleachers on 04/18/2019 05:49 pm
    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’s for Florida but does not account for the BE-4 motors they are building in Alabama for Vulcan and others. As indicated above, different scenarios.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DJPledger on 04/18/2019 06:19 pm
    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.
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Chris Bergin on 04/18/2019 06:48 pm
    On the test stand and a quick L2 view from this month of the launch site:

    https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/04/blue-historic-test-stand-engine-testing/

    https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/1118949235062390786

    Will give it a standalone as we could use more threads in the Blue section.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: docmordrid on 04/18/2019 11:38 pm
    Why do they need a test stand that can handle 8 million pounds of thrust?

    Politics.

    Exactly. Keeps the Alabama legislative contingent and their buddies happy.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Chasm on 04/18/2019 11:47 pm
    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.


    From the impact study, page 3-9:

    Quote
    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). 


    So basically a single engine test stand, there are more 550klbf references.
    The NASA stand allows for integrated testing as needed. If required by politics too...
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: HarmonicGF2 on 04/19/2019 01:31 pm
    Eric Berger on Twitter :
    Quote
    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.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1118554286714183681
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Zed_Noir on 04/19/2019 06:13 pm
    Eric Berger on Twitter :
    Quote
    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.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1118554286714183681

    The folks from Hawthorne make building large liquid semi-cryogenic Hydrocarbon LOX 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. Blue is not on a more benign engine design.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: gongora on 04/19/2019 06:28 pm
    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Zed_Noir on 04/19/2019 07:19 pm
    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.

    Yes, they are still tweaking the design. But they have a working pre-production engine in the Star Hopper.

    Quote
    Why are you referring to these as semi-cryogenic?  Is liquid methane not cold enough for you?

    Sorry, my bad. Confusing cryogenic liquid methane with densify semi-cryogenic kerosene. Will edited the previous post.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: TrevorMonty on 04/19/2019 07:19 pm
    Eric Berger on Twitter :
    Quote
    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.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1118554286714183681
    Was originally to be 400klbs engine for NG but ULA needed 550klbs engine for Vulcan, so they scaled it up.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/07/2019 07:46 pm
    https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1125849107439001602

    Quote
    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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: gongora on 05/07/2019 08:38 pm
    https://twitter.com/CHenry_SN/status/1125849250766700545
    Quote
    Bob Smith, Blue Origin: Did an 87 second test on Friday for what we hope is our last development engine for BE-4. #SATShow
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robotbeat on 05/19/2019 03:43 am
    As of their fact sheet in 2016, they were supposed to be done with this in 2017:
    "More than three years into development, the BE-4 will be qualified for flight in 2017, at least two years sooner than any alternatives."
    https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39674.msg1495938#msg1495938

    Bezos time dilation factor? (I kid, I kid...)


    (I'm fully confident Blue will--eventually--get this done, BTW.)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: rapaz on 05/28/2019 07:30 pm
    Sorry if this is a stupid question, but...are these two Blue Origin's BE-4?
    I didn't find if they are two different versions or two different angles.
    (Maybe the noozle on the left isn't wrigth, I'm working on them)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Lars-J on 05/28/2019 07:52 pm
    They are certainly not the same engine. The turbo-pumps are rotated 90 degrees in one of them.

    The right one looks like BE-4... But the left one is something completely different...
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: envy887 on 05/28/2019 07:55 pm
    In the image on the left, the turbopump has a horizontal shaft and sits above the main chamber.

    In the image on the right, the turbopump has a vertical shaft, and sits to the left of the main chamber.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: JEF_300 on 05/28/2019 08:41 pm
    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 that are designed so that your brain can't process them properly.

    It looks familiar though...

    (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/assets/39674.0/1562502.jpg)

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: envy887 on 05/28/2019 08:48 pm
    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)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: JEF_300 on 05/28/2019 08:55 pm
    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)

    Yeah, I just found an article from 2015 with this image

    (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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: envy887 on 05/28/2019 09:23 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: PahTo on 05/28/2019 10:01 pm

    BTW, SSME has dual turbopumps, one each for fuel and oxidizer, mounted nearly vertical on each side of the MCC.

    RS-25 (SSME) has two pumps on the oxidizer side and two on the fuel side (low pressure and high pressure).  That design was required to reduce cavitation.  Now back to BE-4.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: rapaz on 05/29/2019 05:13 am
    (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.

    Thank you for your time  :)
    I really appreciate your help
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: tyrred on 05/29/2019 09:33 am
    Wouldn't a horizontal turbopump directly precess the LV? How was this even a thing?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: CorvusCorax on 05/31/2019 06:41 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: tyrred on 05/31/2019 10:48 am
    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.

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: arachnitect on 05/31/2019 01:40 pm
    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)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: edkyle99 on 05/31/2019 02:05 pm
    Did H-1 have a horizontal turbopump? (Saturn 1, 1B)
    Yes.

     - Ed Kyle
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Chasm on 05/31/2019 02:16 pm
    There are a lot of Russian rocket engines with horizontal turbo pumps.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: intelati on 05/31/2019 03:18 pm
    Did H-1 have a horizontal turbopump? (Saturn 1, 1B)
    Yes.

    Well, that is certainly a pretty, high-res picture.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: russianhalo117 on 05/31/2019 06:47 pm
    Did H-1 have a horizontal turbopump? (Saturn 1, 1B)
    Yes.

    Well, that is certainly a pretty, high-res picture.
    It's called film. Probably took a long time to focus.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: LouScheffer on 05/31/2019 09:03 pm
    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.
    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.

    Here are some *very* back of the envelope numbers.  Consider the Merlin 1-D pump.  It masses about 60 kg, and let's assume the rotor is 1/3 of that, or 20 kg.   (It's probably less).  Assume it's all 20 cm from the axis.  Then the angular inertia I is 20*0.22  = 0.8 kg*m2.  Now it's rotating about 25,000 rpm, or about w = 150,000 radians/sec.  So the angular momentum L is about L = I*w = 120,000 kg * m2/s.   For simplicity, assume the rocket does a 180 degree turn (so the vector points exactly opposite) over a time of 24 seconds.  We'll need to modify the angular momentum by 120,000 * kg * m2/s * 2 / 24 s, or 10,000 kg*m2/s/s to do this.

    How much torque does this require?  T = dL/dt, so that's 10,000 N*m of torque.  That's a lot on a human scale, but the same engine is providing something like 900,000 N of thrust.  If the engine can gimbal 6o, or about 1/10 radian, and is located 10 meters from the center of mass of the stage, than that's 900,000 N * sin(1/10) * 10m = 899,000 N-m of torque available, or about 90 times what is needed.

    So basically the turbopump applies lots of torque to the rocket as the rocket changes direction, but the engine simply overpowers it and forces the rocket to point in the right direction despite this.  As long as these forces are accounted for in the bearings of the pump, and its supports, it's not a problem.

    EDIT:  Above contains an error, so that torque is even less than above calculations.  Pump is turning at about 25,000 revolutions per MINUTE, hence about 416 revolutions per second.  That's about 2500 radians/second, and torque needed to force pointing is correspondingly reduced.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Eric Hedman on 06/06/2019 02:25 pm
    I am still wondering where they are in testing.  This article from April of 2018 in Space News:

    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Lar on 06/06/2019 05:06 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: HeartofGold2030 on 06/06/2019 05:22 pm
    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.

    Nothing of note apart from the odd LC-36 construction update actually gets posted in BO L2, which is why the thread is only 3 pages long. The silence is deafening...
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robotbeat on 06/06/2019 10:59 pm
    I am still wondering where they are in testing.  This article from April of 2018 in Space News:

    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?
    Well, they did an 87 second test run on what they hope is the last dev engine:
    https://twitter.com/CHenry_SN/status/1125849250766700545
    Quote
    Bob Smith, Blue Origin: Did an 87 second test on Friday for what we hope is our last development engine for BE-4. #SATShow
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Zannanza on 06/14/2019 03:32 pm
    Anyone knows whether BO has tested BE-4 to the full thrust (250 tonnes) at the test stand?
    Last time when I got information about BE-4 it was suggested that the technical team has trouble working up to full designed thrust :(
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 07/10/2019 05:33 am
    Background article on Blue that focuses on the BE-4:

    Quote
    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

    Includes a bit about use of 3D printing on the BE-4, but otherwise not particularly technical.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: su27k on 07/12/2019 03:23 am
    https://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/space-flight/blue-origins-next-rocket-engine-could-send-the-first-settlers-to-the-moon

    From this article

    Quote
    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.

    We know the above for a while now, but it just occurred to me that the original BE-4 thrust is 2.4MN / 1.4 = 1.7MN, amazingly close to Raptor's thrust, coincidence?

    Also did redesign of BE-4 really delayed New Glenn by years? I wonder if Bezos regrets that decision today, if they ignore ULA and follow the original plan, they can get New Glenn to fly early and would have a much better chance at winning EELV2 LSP.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: gongora on 07/12/2019 07:05 pm
    Moved Vulcan discussion to:
    ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle - Business Case/Competition/Alternatives Discussion (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44391.msg1964871#msg1964871)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: LouScheffer on 07/27/2019 06:16 pm
    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"?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Lemurion on 07/28/2019 02:12 am
    I think part of it may be a difference in definitions. From what I have seen, Blue is in a position where they are perfectly able to replace any engine they might blow up on the test stand without worrying about it. 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.

    SpaceX on the other hand is continually iterating with new hardware and always has engines in production so if one blows up there will be another one along in a week or so.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: ZachF on 07/28/2019 12:33 pm
    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're probably hardware rich compared to how the bloated primes do things now, but obviously nowhere near SpaceX where it's "If it blows up we will have a new one in <2 weeks anyway".
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Eric Hedman on 07/28/2019 02:44 pm
    I don't expect we'll get any updates on the BE-4 until after it's fully ready to go.  I ran into a guy this past week who said his former college roommate works for Blue Origin.  He said his roommate won't even tell him what kind of job he has at Blue.  Until Blue announces stuff, it's just guess work.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: LouScheffer on 07/28/2019 06:05 pm
    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:
    Quote
    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.
    Quote
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Lemurion on 07/28/2019 06:22 pm
    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:
    Quote
    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.
    Quote
    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.

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Coastal Ron on 07/28/2019 06:33 pm
    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 think we have enough direct evidence to determine what approach Blue Origin is using. They say they want to use a "hardware rich" test program, but we have seen little evidence of that.

    We do know that SpaceX is making fast progress on Raptor, and that they have a constant supply of Raptor engines that they are producing.

    As I like to say, in a world without SpaceX Blue Origin would be king of reusability. They are building a remarkable range of products, from reusable engines, to semi-reusable launchers, and now to lunar landers. Truly amazing stuff!

    But SpaceX does exist, and they sure seem to have a much faster development tempo than Blue Origin, as well as bigger ambitions.

    I cheer for both, but part of my cheer for Blue Origin is that I hope they go faster...  ;)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Kabloona on 07/28/2019 09:29 pm
    I don't expect we'll get any updates on the BE-4 until after it's fully ready to go.

    We've gotten several updates already from Blue Origin on BE-4, the latest being Bob Smith's report in early May of an 87-second run.

    But what was noticeably absent from Bob Smith's report was any mention of running at full thrust. They'd surely be tooting that horn if they'd done it yet.

    Remember this isn't just Blue Origin's neck on the line, it's ULA's with Vulcan, and Tory Bruno hasn't been shy about using Twitter to publicize bits of Vulcan progress news. I expect he would be feeling much better if BE-4 had already run at full thrust and Blue had publicized that fact.

    And in the background is SpaceX's lawsuit pointing out (in part) that the Air Force LSA awards to ULA and Blue Origin were suspect because neither of them have a functioning rocket yet, both of which will rely on BE-4, and the judge in the lawsuit can read newspapers and Twitter and see for herself that the engine both companies are relying on for the next phase of the competition isn't even ready yet. As opposed to SpaceX, who has both Merlin and Raptor engines already flying/hopping. So there would be PR value and possibly even contractual/legal value in announcing BE-4 progress ASAP.

    So I'd expect we'll hear about a BE-4 full thrust run pretty soon after it happens, and the fact that Blue hasn't reported it yet is somewhat worrisome, IMO. I believe they'll get there; the question is when.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: butters on 07/29/2019 12:23 am
    The last bit of news we've had about BE-4 is that they hope the current dev engine is the last dev engine. Which might be a sign that they see the light at the end of the tunnel, but statements like that certainly don't reflect the attitude of "hardware-rich" development. It sounds like they're afraid that damaging the engine during testing would be a significant setback. It also seems like Blue really wants this spec to be the final spec and wants to avoid any further design iteration.

    As the months roll on, it becomes more likely that the next BE-4 news will either be very good or very bad. They're either going to get this spec of BE-4 working reliably at full power, or they're going to reopen the design and announce a significant delay.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: kendalla59 on 07/29/2019 06:19 pm
    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...  ;)

    Less Gradatim and more Ferociter I guess. Or try taking bigger Gradus? I think the point of being "hardware rich" means learning from dramatic and impressive failures. In the case of Blue, that might be happening but they really don't like to talk about it.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: bombyx on 08/01/2019 05:24 pm
     Here is a little summary of the  BE4 development program so far :


            2015  :  Powerpack start transcient testing
     
            2016  :  170 tests preburner/main injector
                      :  Sub scale BE4 for preburner + regen cooled chamber + nozzle tests

        3/6/17  : First full scale BE4 assembled  (the 70% thrust rated engine)
      4/13/17  : first testing in 3/8 weeks
      5/14/17  : explosion of the powerpack/engine
    10/19/17  : Firing at : 50% thrust   /  3 s
     
        1/8/18  : Firing  for 11s   , unknown thrust
      3/12/18  : Firing  for 114s  , 65% thrust
      5/22/18  : Firing  for 114s  , 70% thrust
      7/11/18  : Firing for  200s  , unknown thrust

      1/23/19  : New engine rated 100%.
      2/12/19  : Firing for 200s , 70% thrust
      2/26/19  : T. Bruno : Waiting for some final data of BE4 for Vulcan CDR
      3/21/19  : Firing at 80% thrust , unknown duration
      4/12/19  : Going through different iterations, New powerpack
        5/7/19  : Firing for 82s , unknown thrust :
                      : Very good test on what they think will be the last development version of BE4.
      5/20/19  : T. Bruno : Final design review of Vulcan (So ULA have the final data they were waiting for).
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Lemurion on 08/01/2019 06:56 pm
    Great I’d summary, thanks.

    Sounds like all anyone is waiting for is confirmation on reaching thrust targets.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: bombyx on 08/02/2019 04:09 pm
    From the "Environmental assessment for launching Vulcan at CCAFS" document , (see Vulcan thread reply #946 & #948 ), we can read :

    Quote
    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.


    Does this mean that the mixture ratio equals 3.33 ?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: kendalla59 on 08/02/2019 05:54 pm
    From the "Environmental assessment for launching Vulcan at CCAFS" document , (see Vulcan thread reply #946 & #948 ), we can read :

    Quote
    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.


    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DrRobin on 08/02/2019 07:36 pm
    From the "Environmental assessment for launching Vulcan at CCAFS" document , (see Vulcan thread reply #946 & #948 ), we can read :

    Quote
    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.


    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.

    Unless I am misunderstanding what you are saying here (putting on my chem major goggles), the Atomic Weight of Oxygen is 16 (15.999), so the molecular weight of O2 is 32g/mol, and with the stoichiometry of CH4 + 2O2, that should be 64/16 = 4.0. (I see that in practice, the ratio's are run more fuel-rich than that.)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: envy887 on 08/03/2019 12:01 am
    From the "Environmental assessment for launching Vulcan at CCAFS" document , (see Vulcan thread reply #946 & #948 ), we can read :

    Quote
    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.


    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: lonestriker on 08/03/2019 02:47 am
    More test firings (this time at full thrust):

    Quote
    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

    https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1157478525575684097
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 08/03/2019 02:56 am
    Fantastic news that full power has finally been reached - a huge milestone.

    Here’s the photo from Blue’s tweet.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Lemurion on 08/03/2019 03:05 am
    That's great news for Blue.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Eric Hedman on 08/03/2019 03:08 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: dante2308 on 08/03/2019 03:20 am
    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.

    I'm happy for BO and BE-4.

    This does support the theory that Blue is not being tight-lipped about success, but rather about the difficulties they faced and/or the mundane details of engineering and iteration. I expect them to be forthcoming about NG's progress when it comes as well. It is fairly in line with their best interest to be forthcoming when they achieve something since their greatest weakness is building up a reputation as a launch provider, even among aerospace engineers. This tweet definitely helps the conversation.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: lonestriker on 08/03/2019 03:23 am
    Fantastic news that full power has finally been reached - a huge milestone.

    Here’s the photo from Blue’s tweet.

    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.

    Looking forward to the video (and audio) and seeing clusters of this engine roar strapped to a real rocket.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: bombyx on 08/03/2019 03:28 am
    I tried to make a little comparison of the engine's exhaust plumes at 65% thrust firing and at 100% thrust firing :

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 08/03/2019 03:48 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Joseph Peterson on 08/03/2019 04:06 am
    This skeptic sees a tremendous achievement.  Congratulations for reaching full thrust Blue Origin.  I can't understate how happy I am this milestone has been reached.

    Edit: Note to self, missing negatives negate the information one is trying to convey to the readership.  In case the mistake wasn't already obvious, I bolded the added two characters as a lesson to myself to not be so foolish when I open my yap.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: b0objunior on 08/03/2019 05:44 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Joseph Peterson on 08/03/2019 06:14 am
    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.

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: b0objunior on 08/03/2019 07:12 am
    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.

    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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Joseph Peterson on 08/03/2019 08:24 am
    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.

    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

    Why shocked?

    We can perfect stuff once we get there.  Getting there with sufficient resources so we can figure out what actually needs to be perfected is the tricky bit.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: ZChris13 on 08/03/2019 10:55 am
    Fantastic news that full power has finally been reached - a huge milestone.

    Here’s the photo from Blue’s tweet.
    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?
    Very pretty mach diamonds.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Kabloona on 08/03/2019 11:16 am
    This is great news. I have a mental image of Tory Bruno wiping the sweat from his brow in relief.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Nilof on 08/03/2019 01:29 pm
    From the "Environmental assessment for launching Vulcan at CCAFS" document , (see Vulcan thread reply #946 & #948 ), we can read :

    Quote
    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.


    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.

    Also, for all we know the O/F ratio could be variable like on the J2
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Newton_V on 08/03/2019 01:49 pm
    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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: ZachF on 08/03/2019 04:27 pm
    More test firings (this time at full thrust):

    Quote
    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

    https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1157478525575684097

    FULL POWAH!

    Congrats to Blue's engine team!  ;D
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Kabloona on 08/03/2019 04:33 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Kabloona on 08/03/2019 10:36 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: envy887 on 08/03/2019 11:25 pm
    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.

    Or the USAF is just keeping their options open until they know which is a better vehicle, and figuring that one of Blue and ULA is going to be downselected in Phase 2.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 08/04/2019 03:56 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: b0objunior on 08/04/2019 03:57 am
    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.
    Thank you very much!
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Zannanza on 08/04/2019 06:50 am
    More test firings (this time at full thrust):

    Quote
    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

    https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1157478525575684097

    FULL POWAH!

    Congrats to Blue's engine team!  ;D
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Blackout on 08/04/2019 06:56 am
    This is great news!

    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: TrevorMonty on 08/04/2019 07:01 am
    This is great news!

    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?
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: ZachF on 08/04/2019 03:25 pm
    I just want to see a night test video...

    Methalox flames are best flames.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: bombyx on 08/04/2019 03:56 pm
    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 .
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: spacenut on 08/04/2019 05:57 pm
    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. 
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: gongora on 08/05/2019 02:55 am
    Trimmed.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: johnlandish on 08/05/2019 08:10 pm
    Additional confirmation from ULA's Tory Bruno. 100%!!

    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1158386660322639873 (https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1158386660322639873)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Kabloona on 08/05/2019 09:30 pm
    I'm trying to think of something to say that won't get this thread trimmed again.

    How about this: Congratulations to Blue and Tory. For whatever BE-4 did. :-X
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Newton_V on 08/05/2019 09:52 pm
    I honestly don't understand where the confusion is.   
    Full power = full thrust = 100% power level = 100% thrust.  I think it's safe to assume the run time wasn't full duration, as with any engine running for the 1st (possibly/maybe) time.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Kabloona on 08/05/2019 09:53 pm
    I honestly don't understand where the confusion is.   


    Oh, don't go there now. Apparently you missed yesterday's debate over what Blue's "full thrust engine test" tweet actually meant.  ::)
     
    And then the thread was trimmed. But it was entertaining while it lasted...

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Newton_V on 08/05/2019 09:56 pm
    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...
    No, I saw it all.  I was just about to post this: before it got trimmed.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: gongora on 08/05/2019 10:24 pm
    And let's stop it there before another trim really is called for.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: LouScheffer on 08/06/2019 01:20 pm
    With apologies to Gongora, words matter.  Tony Bruno knows this well - this is precisely why ULA always says "mission success", where the launcher failed to achieve the correct orbit.  And direct speech is not hard.   When LIGO first had a detection, another long awaited event, they said "We have detected gravitational waves".

    Tony Bruno could have said "BE-4 has achieved full thrust".  He did not.  Instead he says "very significant milestone", a longer statement that is a completely trivial corollary if indeed they have achieved full thrust.  He follows with 100%, with no context.  100% what?   ULA is 100% sure BE-4 was the right choice?  100% confident they will hit their target?  100% thrust is the target of the current test campaign?

    Could someone here on NSF, who is in Tony's good graces, please ask him directly "Has BE-4 achieved full thrust?  Yes or no?".   Any answer, or refusal to answer, would be most revealing.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Newton_V on 08/06/2019 01:47 pm
    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!
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: ZachF on 08/06/2019 01:52 pm
    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 probably residual burning of the excess methane in the exhaust. You probably need specific conditions for it to burn orange that only seem to occur when it's very close to the ground.

    You can see quite a bit of orange as well near the ground during Starhopper's hop. BE-4 runs more fuel rich than Raptor so this effect should be even more prominent.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: LouScheffer on 08/06/2019 02:37 pm
    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!
    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.

    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!
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Rocket Science on 08/06/2019 02:51 pm
    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...
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: ZachF on 08/06/2019 03:10 pm
    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!
    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.

    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!

    I don't think the Delta IV Heavy demo would meet that criteria, it missed it's direct GEO insertion by over 700m/s, and satellites that require a direct geostationary insertion generally don't have much of a dV surplus.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: gongora on 08/06/2019 03:12 pm
    Seriously, any more posts on this subject will be deleted again.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Wolfram66 on 08/06/2019 03:27 pm
    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.

    BO has always stated they are using off the shelf LNG and not pure CH4 like Spx. so I am not sure why there is confusion here? Other pundits on NSF try to tell me that the terms are interchangeable, but they are not.
    BS Engineering Geology
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: spacenut on 08/06/2019 03:44 pm
    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. 
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: ZChris13 on 08/06/2019 08:14 pm
    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...
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Wolfram66 on 08/07/2019 12:35 am
    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.

    Kind of like the difference between RP1 , JP# and the Kerosene you put in your space heater.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: spacenut on 08/07/2019 12:54 am
    Yes, just far less impurities in natural gas, especially when ran through a strainer.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Tuna-Fish on 08/07/2019 01:26 pm
    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 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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: johnlandish on 08/07/2019 05:00 pm
    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)

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: LouScheffer on 08/07/2019 05:09 pm
    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)

    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.
    As one of the skeptics, I'm happy to at last see an un-ambiguous statement.

    May the rest of development go smoothly!
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: fl1034 on 08/08/2019 02:04 am
    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Kryten on 08/08/2019 10:47 am
    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...
    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.
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Tuna-Fish on 08/19/2019 11:08 am
    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?

    quoting myself:

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: bombyx on 09/11/2019 05:44 pm
    The 12th Annual  Wernher von Braun Memorial Symposium
    Wednesday, September 11
    4:45 pm Propulsion System Developments
    • Mary Beth Koelbl, Deputy Director, Engineering Directorate, NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (Moderator)
    • Brett Alexander, Vice President,  Blue Origin
    • David Chaves, Director, Space Systems Advanced Programs, Moog Inc.
    • Tom Martin, Director, Space Business Development, Aerojet Rocketdyne
    • Kent Rominger, Vice President, Strategic Programs, Northrop Grumman Corporation

    Is someone covering this ?  I found nothing.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: gongora on 09/11/2019 05:46 pm
    There is a livestream: https://astronautical.org/events/vonbraun/
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: bombyx on 09/11/2019 10:05 pm
    Brett Alexander, Vice President,  Blue Origin:

    BE-4 tested at 102% .
    Thousands of seconds of test time on the engine so far . 
    Tests at Marshall next year .
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: bombyx on 09/11/2019 10:48 pm
    Brett Alexander, Vice President,  Blue Origin:

    About methane:
    Quote
      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  [...]

    Quote
    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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: kendalla59 on 09/13/2019 09:59 pm
    Brett Alexander, Vice President,  Blue Origin:

    About methane :
    Quote
      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  [...]

    Quote
    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

    As I recall, he was asked about the reliable re-use of CH4/O2 engines vis-a-vis H2/O2 engines (RS-25 and BE-3, I presume). But his answer was relative to RP-1/O2 engines like the Merlin that have a long history of reliable re-use, certainly more than any other orbital class engines ever made.

    It was really interesting to hear him discuss the economics of churning out disposable engines, versus the cost of manufacturing much fewer re-usable engines. But SpaceX is ramping up to make thousands of highly re-usable Raptors, to be used for Earth point-to-point transport as well as orbital and deep-space transport. That's a lot different than the "10's or 20's" of annual launches that Blue Origin envisions.

    EDIT: Listened again and Brett was proposing that launching "upper 10's" to "a hundred or more" payloads per year would make production of engines more economical for re-usability.

    He also claimed that the booster following the "same path" for every launch, to a sea based landing platform gave them more confidence in recovering their stage, versus a different flight profile for each launch including the option to return to launch site. Personally I don't buy this logic. Designing a system that is capable of a broad range of recovery flight profiles is inherently more reliable, in my opinion.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Spindog on 09/15/2019 01:53 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: ThatOldJanxSpirit on 09/15/2019 07:24 am
    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???

    Edit: The only explanation that comes to my mind is that whilst SpaceX primarily uses drag for entry, NG is more reliant on lift to minimise heating. This might put more constraints on entry conditions for NG compared to F9/Starship.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: LouScheffer on 09/16/2019 06:21 pm
    Brett Alexander, Vice President,  Blue Origin:

    About methane:
    Quote
      all the testing we've done, thousands of ignitions, thousands of seconds of testing
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: ncb1397 on 09/16/2019 06:40 pm
    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???

    It gives more margin for the 2nd stage if the 1st stage does all it can safely do. For instance, RTLS means the 2nd stage has to be injected at a lower altitude or slower speed. What if vibration causes a small oxygen leak. You then have a greater chance that you run out of oxidizer if the 2nd stage has to perform what the 1st stage could have.

    see:

    Quote
    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/

    Anyways, people are reading way to much into this. Each mission won't be identical. You have to at minimum target different inclinations. But you likely won't get the same kinds of experimentation that you have seen with SpaceX (i.e.: this launch is the highest energy recovery, this launch recovery is way farther out than any other, our landing burns uses more engines, etc.). The reason being that some of those recoveries failed.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: novak on 09/17/2019 05:19 am
    Brett Alexander, Vice President,  Blue Origin:

    About methane:
    Quote
      all the testing we've done, thousands of ignitions, thousands of seconds of testing
    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.

    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)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: CNRocketry on 09/17/2019 09:14 am
    Brett Alexander, Vice President,  Blue Origin:

    About methane:
    Quote
      all the testing we've done, thousands of ignitions, thousands of seconds of testing
    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.

    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)



    That is my experience too, the transient stages of a rocket engine are way more important to study than steady state. Full duration testing is an important milestone for sure but you get a lot more information during startup/shutdown testing, 100%+ thrust testing, throttle testing, and everything else that can be handled in a short test
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 09/25/2019 08:38 pm
    https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1176958701338578945

    Quote
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: baldusi on 09/27/2019 02:07 pm
    From the "Environmental assessment for launching Vulcan at CCAFS" document , (see Vulcan thread reply #946 & #948 ), we can read :

    Quote
    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.


    Does this mean that the mixture ratio equals 3.33 ?

    Stoichometric ratio is 4.0 for methalox. Cryo propellants can't usually be run stoichometric for a number of reason. One reason to run fuel rich is to minimize those nasty hot oxidizer molecules. If you run oxidizer rich, with oxygen, you are basically getting an oxy torch. It's bad enough in a preburner where you put something like 2% of stoichometric fuel. Higher ratios would be impossible to manage.
    Then you have to trade isp and thrust. When your fuel is lighter than your oxidizer (as in hydrolox, methalox and even kerosene), going fuel rich gives you better isp. As you lower your ratio (i.e. add more proportional fuel), the molecular weight of your exhaust is reduced and it's velocity is thus increased. Ergo, you get better efficiency. On the other hand, your average propellant density decreases, and thus you have to make the whole trade.
    Your engine cycle is also affected by this. As you push for higher efficiency cycles, you can get closer to stoichometric because you are getting more isp from the engine and the propellant density becomes more important.
    For the methalox case, you will notice that very high performance engine designs (full flow, or ORSC+expander fuel) use very high ratios, as high as 3.7. Less aggressive engines go a bit lower. Since the beginning BE-4 was stated to be a conservative implementation of a high performance (straight ORSC) architecture. Yet, I still expected them to be on the 3.4~3.5 range.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: TrevorMonty on 09/27/2019 05:48 pm
    Thanks for Stoichometric ratio explanation.
    Did wonder why they ran fuel rich ratios.

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: thirtyone on 09/27/2019 11:08 pm
    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?

    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...
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: 1 on 09/27/2019 11:30 pm
    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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 09/28/2019 06:35 am
    Stoichometric ratio is 4.0 for methalox.

    More precise ratio is 4x15.9994/(12.01115+4x1.00797) = 3.98912.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: PADave on 10/03/2019 01:10 am
    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?

    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 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.
    http://www.airproducts.com/~/media/Files/PDF/industries/lng/en-lean-gas-article.pdf
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: fl1034 on 10/06/2019 12:49 am
    So, I noticed the BE-4 uses the same can-type preburner with turnaround gas path like both the preburners used on SSME. Is this a design experience related thing?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Lar on 10/06/2019 06:12 pm
    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
    I vouch for this. I reread it from time to time.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/21/2019 05:59 pm
    https://twitter.com/trevormahlmann/status/1186330650552492032

    Quote
    #BE4 Engine here at #IAC2019!

    Engine id plate (cropped from tweeted photo) is attached

    https://twitter.com/ulalaunch/status/1186330370159075328

    Quote
    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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/21/2019 08:52 pm
    twitter.com/trevormahlmann/status/1186380843331342336

    Quote
    Some #iPhone11 ultra wide shots of the Blue Origin BE4 engine at #IAC2019

    https://twitter.com/trevormahlmann/status/1186381258978463745

    Quote
    Regular photos (1x lens) of the Blue Origin BE-4 here at #IAC2019

    twitter.com/trevormahlmann/status/1186382026766766082

    Quote
    Some close up (2x lens) photos of the Blue Origin BE-4 here at #IAC2019

    https://twitter.com/trevormahlmann/status/1186383488523624451

    Quote
    #BE4 🥰
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/29/2019 05:35 am
    twitter.com/goforstaging/status/1187579010450100225

    Quote
    Short BE-4 tour for IAC.

    https://twitter.com/lars_0/status/1189028735132921857
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: dglow on 10/29/2019 12:08 pm
    twitter.com/goforstaging/status/1187579010450100225

    Quote
    Short BE-4 tour for IAC.

    https://twitter.com/lars_0/status/1189028735132921857

    Looks expensive.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Eric Hedman on 10/31/2019 02:25 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: daveklingler on 11/02/2019 04:08 pm
    I wonder what their production rate is.

    This engine's basically the third one built, dated April 2018.  Machining's a little rough, but hopefully it's improved since then.

    Is it safe to assume a preliminary production rate of 1 engine/month? That would indicate 18 engines built.  Or maybe they figured they didn't need any more and stopped after this one.  Sheesh.  There's no telling.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Tywin on 11/02/2019 06:55 pm


    Looks expensive.

    Well, is the most powerful methane engine, ever built...
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: bombyx on 11/02/2019 10:15 pm
    This engine's basically the third one built, dated April 2018. 

    Actually, the story of this engine is a bit complicated (from reply #619 of this thread, credit: Jeff Foust):


    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 12/10/2019 12:53 pm
    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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: envy887 on 12/10/2019 12:57 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Prettz on 12/10/2019 01:25 pm
    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: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: gongora on 12/10/2019 01:29 pm
    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

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: envy887 on 12/10/2019 01:43 pm
    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?

    I count them as very unlikely to happen before Vulcan's first flight. Blue hasn't indicated that they will do test hops with BE-4, and they didn't with BE-3.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 12/10/2019 02:33 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Prettz on 12/10/2019 02:38 pm
    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: gongora on 12/10/2019 03:19 pm
    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.

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: envy887 on 12/10/2019 03:57 pm
    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?

    Every flight of BE-3 has been a full thrust, full duration firing that was at the design operational flight profile, or something closely approximating that. IMO a "test hop" would have significantly lower thrust or duration than the operational profile.

    Everything I've seen indicates Blue will most likely produce and test a New Glenn booster STA, then produce and test a hotfire test article, which may or may not also be the first flight article. But they are well behind ULA in this fairly standard process, and I highly doubt they will beat Vulcan to any kind of flight.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: clongton on 12/10/2019 07:03 pm
    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: envy887 on 12/10/2019 08:17 pm
    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?

    No, I don't have any inside information. My opinion is based on ULA shipping a completed Vulcan booster STA this past July and having multiple boosters and Centaur 5's in production, while Blue has only shown a few manufacturing pathfinder components. And also on their respective delivery track records and publicly expected flight rates and dates - specifically the "2022-2023" dates for New Glenn hitting operational cadence.

    If there's any evidence to the contrary, indicating that BE-4 or New Glenn will fly in any form before late 2021, I'd love to see it.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: edkyle99 on 12/10/2019 08:43 pm
    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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: spacenut on 12/10/2019 09:02 pm
    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. 
    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. 

    So, I would figure Vulcan would fly first.  I think they are already building cores, and will use existing Centaur upper stage.  Blue is still building their factory and launch facilities. 
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: bombyx on 12/10/2019 10:10 pm
    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?

    https://twitter.com/emrekelly/status/1115375916308258816
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: TrevorMonty on 12/11/2019 03:05 am
    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
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: sunworshipper on 12/11/2019 12:57 pm
    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. 
    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. 
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: gongora on 12/11/2019 03:30 pm
    There are threads for discussing who will win the NSSL competition.  Please continue the conversation in one of those threads.

    USAF EELV/NSSL Phase 2 Launch Service Procurement (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46977.0)
    [POLL] Which companies will win NSSL Phase II Launch Service Procurement Awards? (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48797.0)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 12/11/2019 05:36 pm
    Don’t think there’s a specific thread for the BE-4 factory?

    https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1204830063759384576

    Quote
    Blue Origin construction timelapse of its rocket engine factory in Huntsville, AL
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: harrystranger on 01/02/2020 01:12 am
    Don’t think there’s a specific thread for the BE-4 factory?

    https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1204830063759384576

    Quote
    Blue Origin construction timelapse of its rocket engine factory in Huntsville, AL
    A timelapse of a the whole build as seen by satellites.
    I really love the unique perspective of this imagery even though it's not the highest resolution!

    https://youtu.be/_GqWBAEIFT4
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 01/09/2020 06:33 pm
    From Sierra Nevada:

    https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1215354654629994496

    Quote
    Roth, talking about ULA's Vulcan rocket, says that the certification process for Blue Origin's BE-4 engine is "going very well."
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 01/10/2020 11:04 pm
    https://twitter.com/leeroop/status/1215727512711503874

    Quote
    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 ⁦
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 02/02/2020 05:10 pm
    https://twitter.com/crphsv/status/1223293754293084160

    Quote
    Now THAT is a sign! #BlueOrigin #CRPHSV
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: lrk on 02/02/2020 05:30 pm
    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

    New Glenn will absolutely still fly even if they miss out on NSSL - it was intended as a commercial launcher even before their NSSL bid, they have comsat launch contracts on the books. 

    Vulcan too, to a lesser extent.  Even if they somehow don't get picked there are still NASA and non-NSSL government missions.  Vulcan should be somewhat cheaper than Atlas, and development is far enough along that it probably doesn't make sense in the event of an NSSL loss to cancel Vulcan and launch everything on Atlas for the future. 
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: clongton on 02/02/2020 08:31 pm
    I don't know much more about New Glen beyond the considerable hype, but I am really excited to see Vulcan come online.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 02/02/2020 11:11 pm
    Can anyone tell me what the current status is for the BE-4?  Full thrust, full duration tests?  Partial thrust, full duration?  Something else?

    Thanks for any guidance, and have a good one,
    Mike
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: TrevorMonty on 02/03/2020 12:11 am
    Its done full(100%) thrust and full duration burn but not sure if its done full duration burn at 100% thrust.

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 02/14/2020 02:29 pm
    https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1228340205586796544

    Quote
    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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 02/14/2020 03:02 pm
    Some key quotes from the above video:

    Quote
    Will deliver first two production engines this year.
    We’re also going to qualify two entire engines through the lifecycle test.

    Quote
    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.

    Quote
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Craftyatom on 02/14/2020 06:20 pm
    Awesome to see this engine progress through testing and qualification.  That said, there was one part of the page they linked that bugged me:
    Quote
    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".

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Eric Hedman on 02/14/2020 06:27 pm
    Awesome to see this engine progress through testing and qualification.  That said, there was one part of the page they linked that bugged me:
    Quote
    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".

    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.
    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:

    https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/heliums-ballooning-price-may-fly-even-higher-684044391.html (https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/heliums-ballooning-price-may-fly-even-higher-684044391.html)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: bombyx on 02/14/2020 11:33 pm
    John Vilja was the manager of the RS-84 engine program, a reusable oxidizer-rich staged combustion cycle engine.
    The program was cancelled by NASA in 2004.

    https://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/archive/2003/march/i_tt.html
    https://www.spacedaily.com/news/rocketscience-03zzu.html
    http://www.astronautix.com/r/rs-84.html
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 02/17/2020 03:19 pm
    https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1229437135905796096

    Quote
    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:

    https://twitter.com/ac_charania/status/1229438057859842048

    Quote
    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

    Edit to add:

    https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1229440099554930689

    Quote
    Blue Origin’s new BE-4 engine factory in Huntsville. Formal ribbon cutting of the factory today.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 02/17/2020 03:24 pm
    https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1229441287423655937

    Quote
    I’ve seen it in person before but the BE-4 is such an immense engine up close
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 02/17/2020 03:32 pm
    twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1229441850219651072

    Quote
    Blue Origin’s Huntsville factory, by the numbers:

    Size: 350,000 sq ft
    Investment: $200 million
    Employee capacity: 400

    https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1229442561351258114

    Quote
    Blue Origin’s sparkling factory floor and 90,000 sq ft of office space
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 02/17/2020 03:46 pm
    Big news:

    https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1229446773879513093

    Quote
    Smith: 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/1229447129158029312

    Quote
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 02/17/2020 03:54 pm
    https://twitter.com/stephenclark1/status/1229448332067704834

    Quote
    Smith, Blue Origin: Engines produced at new factory will be test-fired on stand 4670 at nearby Marshall Space Flight Center beginning next year.

    Edit to add:

    https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1229449249282240512

    Quote
    Blue Origin has also spent $50M to renovate test stand 4670 at NASA Marshall, which will be used for engine testing starting next year.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: bombyx on 02/17/2020 06:20 pm
    https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1229482748756123648

    Quote
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: seawolfe on 02/17/2020 06:22 pm
    Very nice facility!  And to think that SpaceX is putting together a space ship in tents and outside in the blowing dust and wind!
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Tommyboy on 02/17/2020 09:26 pm
    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: ncb1397 on 02/17/2020 09:28 pm
    Very nice facility!  And to think that SpaceX is putting together a space ship in tents and outside in the blowing dust and wind!

    I'm guessing you haven't seen Hawthorne where they build their engines?

    edit: If you haven't, here is a tour...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQ6tZtGrShg&t=809s
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: cppetrie on 02/17/2020 09:32 pm
    Comparing an engine factory to a rocket factory is not apples to apples. BE-4 is being built in a clean controlled factory environment. So is the Raptor engine. There are zero people suggesting building advanced rocket engines out in the elements. Assembling a rocket is not the same thing, and even in this case SpaceX is clearly moving towards assembly in a more controlled environment. They just aren’t waiting around for that environment to be totally finished before even trying to build prototypes. And are in fact using the prototype building process to learn what sort of controlled environment they will need to build in order to accomplish their goal.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: bombyx on 02/17/2020 09:44 pm
    https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1229520049402044417

    Quote
    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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: TrevorMonty on 02/17/2020 11:01 pm


    Big news:

    https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1229446773879513093

    Quote
    Smith: 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/1229447129158029312

    Quote
    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.

    What is difference between flight readiness and production engines?.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: ulm_atms on 02/17/2020 11:09 pm


    Big news:

    https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1229446773879513093

    Quote
    Smith: 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/1229447129158029312

    Quote
    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.

    What is difference between flight readiness and production engines?.

    Fit checks, integration testing, and ground testing is my guess.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: bombyx on 02/18/2020 02:02 am
    Still three to four months to retire final technical risks with the engine :

    https://spacenews.com/blue-origin-opens-rocket-engine-factory/
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Lars-J on 02/18/2020 02:21 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: ncb1397 on 02/18/2020 02:37 am
    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.

    It is just the nature of the beast. Blue Origin has 6 major locations nation wide by my count. SpaceX has 6+ (Hawthorne, Redmond, Boca Chica, Vandenberg, Cape Canaveral, McGregor, etc.)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: su27k on 02/18/2020 05:03 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: HeartofGold2030 on 02/18/2020 09:21 am
    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.

    Huntsville also makes a lot of sense from a logistical point of view, considering if New Glenn’s reusability pans out, nearby ULA (who are a mere 20 miles away) will be the biggest/most regular consumer of BE-4s (before/if SMART happens). Also, it’s handy that there’s testing hardware next door at MSFC, so they don’t have to ship the units half-way across America (to Texas) to hotfire them before delivery.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/18/2020 02:50 pm
    No crap posts allowed on NSF. Removed one. Don't reply to crap posts. Removed one reply.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: ZachS09 on 03/02/2020 03:08 pm
    Was there a previous post that said what the mass of a single BE-4 is?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/31/2020 10:13 pm
    twitter.com/rocketrepreneur/status/1245077142368473088

    Quote
    Any recent updates on where Blue is in the process of flight-qualifying BE-4 for use on Vulcan?

    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1245088011416752130

    Quote
    Full scale testing
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: ulm_atms on 03/31/2020 10:39 pm
    twitter.com/rocketrepreneur/status/1245077142368473088

    Quote
    Any recent updates on where Blue is in the process of flight-qualifying BE-4 for use on Vulcan?

    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1245088011416752130

    Quote
    Full scale testing

    Anyone want to ask Tory what that entails? Goals? Requirements to meet? That would be really good info.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: HVM on 03/31/2020 10:47 pm
    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: PahTo on 04/01/2020 05:56 am
    twitter.com/rocketrepreneur/status/1245077142368473088

    Quote
    Any recent updates on where Blue is in the process of flight-qualifying BE-4 for use on Vulcan?

    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1245088011416752130

    Quote
    Full scale testing

    ...as in two engines in Vulcan config running for full S1 time/power levels?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: GWH on 04/24/2020 04:28 pm
    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

    EDIT: ISP is labeled at vaccum.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: ncb1397 on 04/24/2020 04:29 pm
    "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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: GWH on 04/24/2020 04:33 pm
    "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?

    I have never seen an ISP number before other than people taking a guess.

    And yes the isp vac in the table definitely gives that away lol.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: su27k on 04/24/2020 04:40 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: ncb1397 on 04/24/2020 04:46 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: envy887 on 04/24/2020 05:04 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: baldusi on 04/29/2020 04:44 am
    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: envy887 on 04/29/2020 04:40 pm
    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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: baldusi on 04/29/2020 10:59 pm
    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
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Nomadd on 05/01/2020 05:05 am
    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.
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: envy887 on 05/01/2020 01:07 pm
    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
    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.

    That data is based on early studies for Prometheus, the only GG methalox engine under serious development AFAIK.

    And I never implied Blue's engineers were idiots. I'm suggesting was that ULA's contract with Blue probably prohibits ULA (and parent companies) from publishing Blue's proprietary performance data. So Boeing saying that BE-4 ISP is 330 s doesn't mean that's inside knowledge. It's probably about as accurate as their estimate of 382 s for Raptor, which is not very.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 05/02/2020 01:01 am
    It's probably about as accurate as their estimate of 382 s for Raptor, which is not very.

    This value is not an estimate. It was obtained from Musk's 2016 Starship presentation. Musk's 2019 presentation gives an Isp of 380 s, which is only 0.5% less than the value stated.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: ncb1397 on 05/02/2020 01:05 am
    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.
    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.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7Uyfqi_TE8&t=3240s
    @32:40
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Nomadd on 05/02/2020 02:05 am
    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.
    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.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7Uyfqi_TE8&t=3240s
    @32:40
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/25/2020 08:17 am
    Bumping this:

    Big news:

    https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1229446773879513093

    Quote
    Smith: 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/1229447129158029312

    Quote
    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.

    Even for secretive Blue Origin I find it hard to believe that delivery of BE-4s to ULA would go unremarked by both Blue & ULA. Will be very interesting to see when this happens.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Tywin on 05/25/2020 08:45 am
    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...
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: gongora on 05/25/2020 12:15 pm
    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...

    I don't know the current engine status, but NG is not the first vehicle flying the BE-4
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/26/2020 04:03 pm
    https://twitter.com/repadamsmith/status/1265307601258057731

    Quote
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: johnlandish on 05/26/2020 05:41 pm
    Incredibly beautiful engine!
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: HeartofGold2030 on 05/26/2020 07:10 pm
    Anybody know what the PTT-2 designation stands for?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: EspenU on 05/26/2020 08:20 pm
    Amazing how "clean" it looks compared to the pipe and wiring chaos on the Raptor.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: envy887 on 05/26/2020 08:21 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: EspenU on 05/26/2020 08:25 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: kevinof on 05/26/2020 08:29 pm
    Hey don't worry about it. It's never obvious until someone points it out!

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 06/01/2020 09:03 pm
    twitter.com/gundermgg/status/1267515216897683460

    Quote
    @torybruno
     will it be publicized when ULA receives the first engines?

    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1267522594649124865

    Quote
    Probably

    Not received them yet then?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: HVM on 06/01/2020 09:17 pm
    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.
    Here is the "wired up", version. Guess what it's still simpler looking than Raptor, coz it is! Oxygen rich vs. full flow.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: ncb1397 on 06/01/2020 09:23 pm
    These are probably the best shots of the engine I have seen...from IAC 2019.

    https://twitter.com/TrevorMahlmann/status/1186380843331342336

    https://twitter.com/AlohaPaulGeller/status/1187784951279882240

    Not received them yet then?

    This is aerospace. May means June-August.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: meekGee on 06/01/2020 10:11 pm
    These are probably the best shots of the engine I have seen...from IAC 2019.

    https://twitter.com/TrevorMahlmann/status/1186380843331342336

    https://twitter.com/AlohaPaulGeller/status/1187784951279882240

    Not received them yet then?

    This is aerospace. May means June-August.
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: HeartofGold2030 on 06/01/2020 11:04 pm
    These are probably the best shots of the engine I have seen...from IAC 2019.

    https://twitter.com/TrevorMahlmann/status/1186380843331342336

    https://twitter.com/AlohaPaulGeller/status/1187784951279882240

    Not received them yet then?

    This is aerospace. May means June-August.
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: meekGee on 06/02/2020 02:39 am
    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.

    Slipping a bit would mean June, and that Bruno will have a firm date at hand.
    He didn't exactly say he didn't, but it feels like if he had such a date, 1-2 months away, this would have been a perfect place to state it.
    Instead, we get "probably", which at least to me sounds like engine delivery schedule is still tenuous, and in aerospace, tenuous means more than 1-2 months.

    A lot of tea-leaf reading here, I'm the first to admit, but that's what happens when there's so little visibility into a project.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Aeneas on 06/21/2020 06:49 pm
    Why do they use ORSC instead of FRSC?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: envy887 on 06/21/2020 08:57 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Aeneas on 06/21/2020 09:49 pm
    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: baldusi on 06/22/2020 12:16 am
    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?
    FF runs the turbines pretty cool, for a preburner.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: envy887 on 06/22/2020 02:33 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: baldusi on 06/22/2020 07:10 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: envy887 on 06/22/2020 07:34 pm
    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.

    Sorry, my post wasn't very clear; "or turbine temps go up" implies that Raptor runs at lower temps where coking isn't an issue, as you also said.

    I don't know if coking would present an insurmountable issue at realistic turbine temperatures; turbine blade materials are probably the limiting factor. But eventually it could cause problems as temperatures go up.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 07/01/2020 05:35 pm
    https://twitter.com/ulalaunch/status/1278381463168184321

    Quote
    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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Coastal Ron on 07/01/2020 05:43 pm
    "The @blueorigin #BE4 engine for #VulcanCentaur arrived..."

    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...  ;)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Prettz on 07/01/2020 05:55 pm
    So there are production versions of the BE-4 in existence now? Shouldn't that be bigger news?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: johnlandish on 07/01/2020 05:56 pm
    Beautiful engine and great progress by Blue. It was supposed to be delivered sometime in May, so given Covid-19, that's basically on time.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 07/01/2020 06:48 pm
    So there are production versions of the BE-4 in existence now? Shouldn't that be bigger news?

    As noted (way) up thread:

    https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1229446773879513093

    Quote
    Smith: we’ll be delivering two “flight readiness” BE-4 engines to ULA in May, and production engines later this year.

    So not production yet.

    https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1278399016691261441

    Quote
    We are proud to provide our American-made #BE4 engine to fly on Vulcan.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: johnlandish on 07/01/2020 06:56 pm
    They said the flight readiness engines would go through qualification tests before being delivered. So the engine has been qualified - https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1228340205586796544?s=20
    Time stamp 0:50
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: russianhalo117 on 07/01/2020 07:27 pm
    "The @blueorigin #BE4 engine for #VulcanCentaur arrived..."

    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...  ;)
    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).

    Offline processing/storage and online final processing facilities:
    - The zero stage flow (GEM-63XL (inert or loaded?)) Will begin at the SPSA (Solid Propellant Storage Area).
    - The first stage flow (Vulcan) will begin at the ASOC (Atlas Spaceflight Operations Center - Offline Horizontal Processing (to be either renovated or replaced and renamed following Atlas-V retirement)).
    - The second stage flow (Centaur-V) will begin at the DOC (Delta Operations Center - Offline Vertical Processing and Integration (to possibly be renovated and will be renamed following Delta-IV retirement)).
    - The PAF and PLF flows will begin at a to be selected processing facility. It is unknown if a PAF and PLF will be used for SLC-41 testing or a cap placed on top of C-V similar to the one used during AV and DIV WDR's.
    - The Vulcan MLP-1 flow will begin in the SPOC (Spaceflight Processing Operations Center). LVOS and launcher stacking in the future can also be performed inside SPOC. The SPOC will be used for Vulcan MLP-1 until it can gain access to the VIF and swap places with Atlas's MLP.
    - The online integration portion of the flow will take place in the VIF (Vertical Integration Facility) upon Vulcan MLP-1's arrival. The VIF will also be used for some of the planned tests.
    - The pad portion of the flow will take place at SLC-41 (Space Launch Complex - 41) upon Vulcan MLP-1's arrival.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 07/02/2020 12:34 am
    twitter.com/smarter_iam/status/1278388954266505218

    Quote
    I saw on twitter they already had the pathfinder engines, these are flight engines I believe

    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1278475659698941953

    Quote
    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

    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1278475192155635714

    Quote
    Development Pathfinder
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: abaddon on 07/02/2020 01:47 am
    From https://spacenews.com/blue-origin-delivers-the-first-be-4-engine-to-united-launch-alliance/:
    Quote
    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.”
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: TrevorMonty on 07/02/2020 02:21 am
    From https://spacenews.com/blue-origin-delivers-the-first-be-4-engine-to-united-launch-alliance/:
    Quote
    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.”
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: abaddon on 07/02/2020 08:35 pm
    From https://spacenews.com/blue-origin-delivers-the-first-be-4-engine-to-united-launch-alliance/:
    Quote
    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.”
    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.
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: TrevorMonty on 07/02/2020 08:49 pm
    From https://spacenews.com/blue-origin-delivers-the-first-be-4-engine-to-united-launch-alliance/:
    Quote
    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.”
    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.
    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.
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: russianhalo117 on 07/02/2020 09:13 pm
    From https://spacenews.com/blue-origin-delivers-the-first-be-4-engine-to-united-launch-alliance/:
    Quote
    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.”
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: gongora on 07/02/2020 09:16 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: russianhalo117 on 07/02/2020 09:27 pm
    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.
    Correct but those are initial (pre) production engines. Huntsville is full production.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: PahTo on 07/03/2020 06:31 am

    The first flight engines are supposed to be built in Kent, not Huntsville.

    "...are supposed to be..."
    How about are already built and delivered?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: gongora on 07/03/2020 01:49 pm

    The first flight engines are supposed to be built in Kent, not Huntsville.

    "...are supposed to be..."
    How about are already built and delivered?

    I don't know where you got that information, to the best of my knowledge that isn't true.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: johnlandish on 07/03/2020 02:33 pm
    Tory Bruno confirmed that this delivered BE-4 engine has has been hot-fired prior to arrival
    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1278503817202589696?s=21


    Tory Bruno also confirmed a few months ago that he is confident that the first BE-4's used for Vulcan's first flight will be delivered on the time agreed.

    "There’s actually a deadline now, and it is in 2021. Can’t be more precise than that. We’re confident we’ll be there."
    https://spacenews.com/ula-pushing-forward-with-vulcan-amid-concerns-about-engine-delays/
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 07/09/2020 04:13 pm
    Cross-post:

    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1281258078751637504

    Quote
    Now that’s what I call an unboxing video! @blueorigin #BE4 engine at the Rocket Factory in Decatur supporting #VulcanCentaur pathfinding. #CountdowntoVulcan
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Zond on 08/18/2020 08:22 pm
    According to this job positing Blue is planning a block 2 version of the BE-4 engine.
    Quote
    Chief Engineer, BE-4 Block 2
    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.
    https://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)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: kendalla59 on 08/18/2020 10:52 pm
    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.

    My best guess is this is a good sign that they are very close to starting full production of Block 1.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Kansan52 on 08/18/2020 11:06 pm
    Further nuance (guess) is project is already staffing (people finishing their work on Block 1) and there is now enough people that a project manager is needed.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Eric Hedman on 08/18/2020 11:37 pm
    I imagine the following are the items they would like to improve with Block 2 are:

    Reduce Cost.
    Improve reliability.
    Improve performance.
    Reduce refurbishment costs.

    Any guesses how much they would like to improve performance on Block 1?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: bombyx on 08/18/2020 11:54 pm
    Block 2 is the 25 time reusable version of BE4 .

    See this video : (timestamp : 1 min 05s )

    https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1228340205586796544
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Stan-1967 on 08/19/2020 12:15 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Oli on 08/19/2020 04:02 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: king1999 on 08/19/2020 10:51 pm
    Hiring Chief Engineer from outside? That’s saying something about the talent and depth of their staff. Hiring Principal Engineers is more natural for a phase 2 of a project. Though I am not sure if these titles have the normal meaning in Blue. Maybe they have a few Chief Engineers.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: GWH on 08/20/2020 05:13 am
    Block 2 is the 25 time reusable version of BE4 .

    See this video : (timestamp : 1 min 05s )

    I would have thought block 2 would be a performance upgrade rather than an attempt at improving reusability given BE-4s conservative chamber pressure of 134 bar for the sake of reusability...
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: JEF_300 on 08/20/2020 01:02 pm
    25 reuses is a lot. If they were planning on reusing boosters 25 times, then building 5 boosters would mean they expect to fly New Glenn 125 times. That's nearly as many times as the Shuttle flew, or nearly as many times as ULA has launched ever. But they built a whole factory for building New Glenns, which suggests to me that they expect to build a lot more than 5 boosters.

    I'm clearly off into speculation here, but this all suggests to me that the BE-4s for New Glenn will not be associated with specific boosters, vaguely similar to how SSMEs were not associated with a specific shuttle.

    I hope that made sense; I'm writing while exhausted, which is never a good idea.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: kendalla59 on 08/20/2020 01:43 pm
    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.

    My amateur mind also has trouble understanding why higher PC is bad for reusability. Instead, I would say designing for lower PC is risky for reusability. The best approach I would think is to design for ridiculously high PC (Raptor) and then run it well within the comfort zone. I think BE-4 will encounter serious reliability issues if they designed to the lower performance numbers.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Seamurda on 08/20/2020 08:32 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Gliderflyer on 08/21/2020 12:06 am
    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.

    In most rocket engines low cycle fatigue of the chamber is one of the big life limiters. The temperature difference between the hot and cold sides of the chamber wall tend to produce brutal amounts of strain, and every time you start it it goes through another cycle (the common analogy is bending a paperclip back and forth until it breaks). They could still have coking problems (assuming LNG can even coke, I don't actually know) depending on what is in their LNG and how hot they are getting it in the coolant channels. In my experience though, coking isn't a problem even in kerosene engines if you design them right and use clean kerosene. Sooting can be an issue though, especially in the pumps.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: su27k on 08/21/2020 02:00 pm
    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)

    Quote
    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.”
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Lemurion on 08/21/2020 06:26 pm
    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)

    Quote
    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.”


    I have to admit that I’m a little concerned that it appears they’re still having issues with the turbopumps at this late date.

    With any luck there’s still room in the schedule to solve it without delaying Vulcan or New Glenn significantly.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 08/21/2020 07:16 pm
    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/

    On BE-4 the article cites Tory’s remarks and adds:

    Quote
    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.”
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: su27k on 09/12/2020 04:07 am
    From Eric Berger:

    https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1303417184492941313

    Quote
    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.

    Clarification:

    https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1304193733806772226

    Quote
    I am saying the BE-4 will not fly on Vulcan for at least 12 months, maybe 18.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 09/19/2020 08:54 am
    https://twitter.com/joe_landon/status/1307121869997453312

    Quote
    Nice engine! Thanks @ac_charania and the @blueorigin team in #Huntsville for a great visit. #NationalTeam
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: TrevorMonty on 10/24/2020 08:28 pm


    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: bombyx on 10/24/2020 09:49 pm


    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.

    The timestamp of this question is 1:01:00.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: baldusi on 10/25/2020 04:34 pm


    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Nomadd on 10/26/2020 12:57 pm


    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.
    Better combustion efficiency?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: hkultala on 10/27/2020 10:27 am


    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.

    No, but your engine should not become lighter when you test it, unless you use an ablative nozzle ;)

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Gliderflyer on 10/27/2020 10:37 am
    Also the isp has no big random variables.

    Combustion efficiency is hard to estimate and effects Isp.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: LouScheffer on 10/27/2020 04:48 pm
    [...] your engine should not become lighter when you test it, unless you use an ablative nozzle ;)

    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.
    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).
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Tommyboy on 10/27/2020 05:28 pm
    [...] your engine should not become lighter when you test it, unless you use an ablative nozzle ;)

    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.
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: TrevorMonty on 10/27/2020 06:08 pm
    [...] your engine should not become lighter when you test it, unless you use an ablative nozzle ;)

    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.
    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.
    That was totally redesigned engine, not slight modifications on existing engine.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: LouScheffer on 10/27/2020 06:21 pm
    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.
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DJPledger on 10/27/2020 08:40 pm
    This thread is about BE-4 not M-1D. Please get back on topic.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: zubenelgenubi on 10/28/2020 01:09 am
    Moderator:
    Be excellent to each other. 8)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: baldusi on 10/28/2020 03:53 am
    Actually, RD-170 was lightened. But yes, it's more probable an increase in Pc due to improved injector design. That would give better thrust/isp. Doing away with some baffles would lighten it up a bit, too.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 11/09/2020 03:07 pm
    https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1325831369612808193

    Quote
    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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: meekGee on 11/09/2020 08:42 pm
    https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1325831369612808193

    Quote
    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

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: lrk on 11/09/2020 08:48 pm
    https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1325831369612808193

    Quote
    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

    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.

    Astrobotic's Peregrine lunar lander is the payload for the first test flight.  Presumably they were able to get somewhat of a discount for accepting additional risk. 
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: snotis on 11/20/2020 04:50 pm
    From Reddit https://www.reddit.com/r/BlueOrigin/comments/jxlbrz/be4_engine_development_update_by_tory_in_aviation/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/BlueOrigin/comments/jxlbrz/be4_engine_development_update_by_tory_in_aviation/):

    Quote
    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."
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 12/07/2020 04:40 pm
    Cross post

    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1336002283558072322

    Quote
    iSpy a pair of BE4 Path Finder engines at the Decatur Rocket Factory. #VulcanCentaur

    Edit to add:

    twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1336004658050031617

    Quote
    Is 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/1336024208023969794

    Quote
    Yes. Next year
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Lemurion on 12/13/2020 08:18 pm
    Impressive looking engines.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: snotis on 12/17/2020 05:11 pm
    https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1339633465076150273 (https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1339633465076150273)

    Quote
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 12/17/2020 05:43 pm
    https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1339633465076150273 (https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1339633465076150273)

    Quote
    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.

    Worth remembering that in February 2020 Blue Origin said the flight BE-4s would arrive by the end of 2020. I’m not surprised by delays on something as complex / ambitious. 6+ months left suggests still a lot of work and, I imagine, qualification testing to go.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 01/09/2021 03:28 pm
    Hopefully we’ll get some test updates before too long

    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1347942408676368386

    Quote
    Now 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!
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 01/26/2021 07:33 am
    Tweet from Jan 16th (from New Shephard webcast):

    https://twitter.com/megsylhydrazine/status/1350264556803612672

    Quote
    The #BE4 engine hotfire test from earlier this week in West Texas 🔥
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Stimbergi on 01/28/2021 06:26 am
    Quote
    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
    https://www.instagram.com/jeffbezos/
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: bombyx on 02/14/2021 09:39 pm
    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1361047219923730433

    Quote
    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?

    Quote
    Tory Bruno
    Not yet released.  I can say that it is better than we expected
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Nomadd on 02/15/2021 02:07 am
     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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: b0objunior on 02/15/2021 07:27 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Davidthefat on 02/15/2021 05:23 pm
    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 allocate more mass to your payloads when you have better performance than anticipated.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Cheapchips on 02/15/2021 05:46 pm
    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.


    Being a "medium-performing version of a high-performance architecture" presumably means the latter?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Redclaws on 02/15/2021 05:52 pm
    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?

    I feel like this is confusing contexts for expectations.  Tory is speaking about expectations based on some set of promises made to him as a customer, based on certain earlier assumptions about what Blue’s engineers would be able to achieve.

    They did better.  Tory’s not suggesting they fired up the engine and it was just randomly much better than expected (that would maybe be concerning).  It’s just, at some point, they were able to make it work better than they originally hoped.

    I don’t think 2010 SpaceX would’ve told you they thought they expected to get Merlin thrust to its current levels.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Tomness on 02/15/2021 06:07 pm
    Wasn't the Air Force and ULA that asked Blue to increase the BE-4 From 450,000 lbf to 550,000 lbf. Which helped increase their New Glean from their original internal specs. They might have been able to hit 300-315 Isp
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: whitelancer64 on 02/18/2021 05:35 pm
    What is the size of the BE3 compared to the BE4?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: kendalla59 on 02/21/2021 08:24 pm
    What is the size of the BE3 compared to the BE4?

    BE-3 is 490kN vs 2400kN for BE-4, roughly 5 times more thrust.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DreamyPickle on 02/25/2021 03:43 pm
    SpaceNews quote from Blue Origin regarding BE-4 progress link (https://spacenews.com/blue-origin-delays-first-launch-of-new-glenn-to-late-2022/):

    Quote
    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.”

    Seem to still be on track for a 2021 launch of Vulcan, though earlier reports mention delivery "this summer" rather than "late this year". Is the 11000 seconds of test time number new?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: AstroWare on 02/27/2021 04:07 am
    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...

    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. 
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: TrevorMonty on 02/27/2021 12:42 pm
    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...

    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 doubt Vulcan pad test will be much more than few seconds. Their water deluge system is design for few seconds of launch.

    Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: CorvusCorax on 02/28/2021 12:09 am
    Crossposting this, as it kinda belongs here. I'm sorta surprised I haven't seen that here yet.

    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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Aeneas on 03/30/2021 07:32 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Alberto-Girardi on 04/03/2021 04:27 pm
    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.

    I'm not sure, but sice the thrust depends on the chamber pressure (other than mass flux and temperature in the chamber) they need more mass flow to get more thrust.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: kendalla59 on 04/06/2021 12:54 am
    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.

    I have always assumed the O2-rich design is intended to prevent any soot from forming in the turbo machinery, since any stray carbon bits will very quickly oxidize. This could be an important consideration for an engine designed for re-use over a long life.

    The SpaceX Raptor has both O2-rich and CH4-rich preburners and I can only assume they have worked out a solution for either (a) preventing soot formation or (b) preventing soot from adhering to surfaces. My guess is that their material scientists have an alloy or surface finish that keeps the soot from building up in the plumbing.

    <caveat>I'm a software guy not a rocket scientist, and I am most likely misunderstanding some important things here.</caveat>
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: lrk on 04/06/2021 01:21 am
    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. 
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: rsdavis9 on 04/06/2021 11:50 am
    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Alberto-Girardi on 04/06/2021 12:40 pm
    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).
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: niwax on 04/06/2021 02:33 pm
    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).

    It is certainly possible to have an environment where the hydrogen is stripped off and you get some carbon soot. What is much more unlikely to happen is for that soot to clog up the pipes, because it start off as monatomic carbon, not long chains. Things like peroxide or pure hydrazine don't produce soot because their individual atoms are gases. Methane doesn't produce (critical) soot because it doesn't come with ready-made carbon chains. But it does contain solid material.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Hog on 04/06/2021 04:02 pm
    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.
    Bolded emphasis mine.

    Just an excerpt from something I read...
    "FFSC is more complicated to build, start, and run: you have to start up 2 burners and you have two turbines, while ORSC has one of each. That's another ignition sequence at every startup, it's more parts and potentially more mass.

    But with FFSC, you can run the turbines at lower temperature for any given chamber pressure, or get a higher chamber pressure for any given turbine temperature. And you can eliminate the trurbine shaft seal between the hot oxidizer and the fuel, which is a potential kablooey point and requires purging. Both of these advantages allow better performance and reliability."

    To answer your 1st question, I'd think that BO saw some advantage with ORSC/methane  that at "decision time" could be exploited in their favour. There are so many variables.

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: baldusi on 04/06/2021 09:00 pm
    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.

    If you wonder about why BE-4 is ORSC rather than FRSC, the answer is turbine power ~= massflow*specifc heat. Do the numbers you get 30% more power (or lower operating temperatures) from preburning LOX rather than CH4. Simple as that.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: edzieba on 04/08/2021 05:56 pm
    Single-shaft is also an easier control problem: everything is mechanically coupled, startup and throttling up and down means chainging the speed of a single combined system.
    Split-shaft FFSC on the other hand means you have two mass flows that are only coupled thermodynamically (reduction in mass-flow through one turbopump means less of that propellant is pumped to the preburner that produces the gas that drives the opposite propellant's turbopump) but any inherent synchronisation is only mediated trough squishy supercritical fluids and uncoupled high-inertia turbomachinery.
    Think of it like trying to drive a car that has a separate engine and drivetrain for the wheels of either side: sure it's possible, and you can do neat tricks like driving either side at different rates deliberately in order to corner more effectively (for the rocket - vary propellant mix dynamically for optimum thrust & ISP) and saves you the weight of a U-engine transmission, but it's a hell of a lot of extra jockeying just to go in a straight line with the engines only being 'coupled' through the road via the tyres!
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/21/2021 12:29 pm
    https://twitter.com/spacenews_inc/status/1395517708477911042

    Quote
    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/

    Posting here because article includes:

    Quote
    A spokeswoman for Blue Origin said May 20 the company is “on track to deliver BE-4 engines this year.”

    Surely if they were on-track, as per previously announced schedule, to deliver BE-4 this Summer to ULA they would have said so. Rumours about further BE-4 delays appear to be substantiated.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Purona on 05/22/2021 11:27 am
    on track to deliver 2 engines in 2021, and on track to deliver 8 engines to ULA by the end of 2022 are two different things
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/23/2021 06:23 am
    Here’s a tweet from 5th June 2015 (before this thread started and over a year before New Glenn details were announced in September 2016):

    https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/606815241368772608

    Quote
    Already more than 3 years into development our BE-4 will be ready for flight in 2017!

    So according to Blue Origin, BE-4 has been in development now at least 9 years.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: savantu on 05/23/2021 10:57 am
    I think they've already scrapped V1 of the program and now they are on V2. Some time ago they fired the lead PM and brought in new people.
    By the time it arrives, it will be already obsolete. Luckily for them, there is no number 3 contender.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: trimeta on 05/23/2021 06:07 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/23/2021 07:37 pm
    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.

    Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robotbeat on 05/24/2021 12:51 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: baldusi on 05/25/2021 02:53 am
    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.  ::)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: deadman1204 on 05/25/2021 02:18 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: AU1.52 on 05/25/2021 04:07 pm
    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.


    From being a completely reusable engine. Very likely already far more reliable then BE-4. Certainty far more test minutes and 100%+ flight time.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: envy887 on 05/26/2021 02:36 pm
    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.

    "Complete" for Vulcan is a different endpoint than for Starship. Raptor has shown good reliability on ascent for 15 engine-flights, including burns longer than the typical booster burn. And that is all Vulcan needs to get out of BE-4.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: ZachF on 05/26/2021 03:08 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Alberto-Girardi on 05/26/2021 08:37 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: baldusi on 05/26/2021 09:20 pm
    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.

    Merlin 1A was an ablative chamber+nozzle design. 1B was never put into production. 1C was a complete redesing of the thrust chamber and nozzle to regen. And 1D was a complete redesign with new turbopumps, new construction methods, and a more differentiated design for SL vs Vac.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 06/04/2021 07:14 pm
    twitter.com/bigpony8/status/1400664791920910336

    Quote
    Umm how are the BE-4's coming along?

    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1400810188618317827

    Quote
    Performance looks good.  Moving into formal qual testing soon
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: deadman1204 on 06/04/2021 08:55 pm
    twitter.com/bigpony8/status/1400664791920910336

    Quote
    Umm how are the BE-4's coming along?

    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1400810188618317827

    Quote
    Performance looks good.  Moving into formal qual testing soon

    so very vague and unhelpful
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: TorenAltair on 06/05/2021 05:50 am
    I checked a few other engines about the duration of the formal qualification test. It took about 6-18 months for these engines.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Rebel44 on 06/05/2021 01:05 pm
    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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: TorenAltair on 06/05/2021 04:25 pm
    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

    The data I found is for the qualification process of the engine. For example the Vulcain 2 engine is qualified for flight but the Ariane 6 itself still needs some time. So if the Vulcan rocket is ready and the engine is on the critical path, then it might be the time until the delivery to the launch site.
    But it is important to mention that Mr Bruno might have meant for example that the engine will pass formal qual testing soon so by no means I want to suggest that Vulcan might not launch until 2023. At least his statement suggest that they either have solved the reported engine problems or at least are confident that they have solved them so there shouldn‘t be any real unknowns for Blue Origin and ULA anymore. Therefore I would consider Mr. Bruno‘s next launch date announcement to be quite accurate.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Joseph Peterson on 06/09/2021 02:30 am
    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: woods170 on 06/09/2021 08:25 am
    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?

    Yes. But it was unconfirmed at the time. Now GAO specifically mentions it, basically serving as confirmation.

    Publically known major development issues of BE-4 so far:
    - Throat overheating (since solved)
    - Combustion instability (since solved)
    - Igniter issues (known for some time and now confirmed by GAO)
    - Turbopump bearing issues (since solved)

    There is another problem with the engine, but it has not been publically disclosed, nor confirmed.

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: HarmonicGF2 on 06/10/2021 01:39 am
    Tory posted a comment on Reddit about BE4 :
    Quote
    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/
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: noogie on 06/10/2021 09:03 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: niwax on 06/10/2021 09:27 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: noogie on 06/10/2021 10:02 pm
    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.

    “Worth it” also refers to opportunity costs which apply regardless of how much money you have.
    No doubt they do need a concrete target that they are held accountable for.
    However is the extra time and management attention taken that the upsizing necessitated ultimately useful in advancing their longer term goal?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: trimeta on 06/10/2021 10:30 pm
    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.

    I think it was largely an attempt to buy credibility, being able to say "look, we're a real aerospace company, ULA trusts us enough to use our engines." But I agree that it backfired, since the delays brought about by upsizing the engines have made New Glenn miss out on contracts and generally seem less credible than it would otherwise. Really, if they wanted to get the ULA deal, they should have offered three of the original BE-4s for the price of two, rather than uprating each engine so two would suffice. They may have earned less per engine than they'd have liked, but I think the faster and (potentially) easier engine development would have been worth it.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DreamyPickle on 06/11/2021 12:06 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: AU1.52 on 06/11/2021 01:39 pm
    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.


    Need to remember this is also their first staged combustion engine and Oxygen rich at that. 6 years from only ever built the much small BE-3 engine and in low quantities. They are relatively the new kid on the block.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Redclaws on 06/11/2021 01:53 pm
    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.

    I imagine I just missed it in all the shuffling, but can someone speak more to the ULA required upscaling?  I missed that entirely.  And how did it affect plans for the number of engines on New Glenn?  (Etc)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: butters on 06/11/2021 03:02 pm
    Blue had been working on BE-4 for maybe 3 years, at most, before targeting the requirements for Vulcan. I don't think the original engine spec or its sub-assemblies ever saw a test stand. It was about 3 years from then to the infamous powerpack failure, and it's been about 4 years since that test stand anomaly now.

    The upscaling definitely set them back some, but I think it's easily overstated. They were much farther along 3 years after the upscaling than they were 3 years into development of the original design, and that's where they began to run into serious difficulties. I feel like, if not for the upscaling, Blue might have had their turbopump RUD in 2016 instead of 2017. I think they lost about a year, and I don't think that the upscaling is the root cause of the most significant issues with BE-4.

    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.

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: deadman1204 on 06/11/2021 04:11 pm
    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.

    Super agree with most of what you wrote. However, the Tory Bruno "running" Blue leaves out the issue of the owner. The management and culture issue at Blue isnt because of Bob Smith. The problem is Bezos himself. The owner is the one who sets the culture, lays out priorities, ect.
    The only way for Blue to turn out different is either for Bezos to change, or someone else to own it.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Davidthefat on 06/11/2021 04:15 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: noogie on 06/11/2021 05:35 pm
    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?

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Redclaws on 06/11/2021 06:10 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: kendalla59 on 06/12/2021 02:41 am
    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.

    One more thing regarding ULA and propulsion.

    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. Aerojet announced that they have completed the assembly of the AR1, an ORSC engine with 2.2MN thrust. Compare that to 2.4MN for BE-4. Now the big problem is that there are no plans to test fire the AR1 until late 2022, if then. Meanwhile I'm guessing the AR engineers are not especially keen on fixing BOs design issues.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Chasm on 06/12/2021 02:51 am
    Another way to think about it is that ULA added requirements - and has the ability to make them stick.

    Was it worth it for Blue? Still way too early to tell from the outside, no BE-4 has flown and all of that.
    It might have been worth it. An obvious area is that Blue doesn't have enough experience on the operational side. ULA as customer brought that into the mix. Blue certainly had the chance to ask "Why?" a lot.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Lemurion on 06/12/2021 03:30 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: PahTo on 06/12/2021 05:49 am
    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 know--it all sounds terrible.  Meanwhile, I'm checking out of this threat too--just more conspiracy theory crap...
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: TrevorMonty on 06/12/2021 05:51 am
    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.

    Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Almoturg on 06/12/2021 02:29 pm
    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.

    Check the employee reviews on glassdoor: https://www.glassdoor.co.uk/Reviews/Blue-Origin-Reviews-E782684.htm?sort.sortType=RD&sort.ascending=false&filter.iso3Language=eng&filter.employmentStatus=REGULAR&filter.employmentStatus=PART_TIME

    Pretty consistent comments about middle & upper management disconnected from what's going on, plans constantly changing, high turnover, slow processes, etc. And CEO approval is at 27%
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Jim on 06/12/2021 02:39 pm

    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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Jim on 06/12/2021 02:41 pm
    Meanwhile I'm guessing the AR engineers are not especially keen on fixing BOs design issues.

    The other way around.  BO is not keen on having competition helping.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Jim on 06/12/2021 02:43 pm
    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.

    That has no bearing on ULA.  ULA is completely separate from LM.   The relationship between AR and ULA would will be the same as BO.  AR provides the RL10 and BO the BE-4
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Redclaws on 06/12/2021 05:10 pm

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Jim on 06/12/2021 06:06 pm

    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.

    Never said ULA doesn't have propulsion experts.  But they do call "Energomash every time an RD-180 sensor reading looks a little funny."
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: trimeta on 06/12/2021 09:43 pm
    Another way to think about it is that ULA added requirements - and has the ability to make them stick.

    This is a fair point -- people like me saying "the change in requirements caused a delay in the BE-4" may not be properly considering how having a customer who would constantly nag them to actually finish a project might have helped speed up the schedule.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Alberto-Girardi on 06/13/2021 05:03 pm
    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: JohnM on 06/13/2021 05:08 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: edzieba on 06/14/2021 02:55 pm
    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?
    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.

    Or to put it another way: engineering is not so much about picking the right choices, but about eliminating all the wrong choices. Having a set of requirements from someone who knows what they want kills off a heck of a lot of wrong choices before you've invested time and effort into them.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: abaddon on 06/15/2021 04:49 pm
    I would extend the question "How can ULA help Blue Origin with the BE-4" ... "beyond how we would expect them to already have impacted the development as an experienced rocket builder/customer".  We would expect those things to naturally already be taking place/have taken place.  "How can ULA further help BO?" is the question I think I would ask now.  I would guess the remaining issues aren't things an experienced systems integrator would already have deep experience in, but I have no real knowledge to base that on.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: spacenut on 06/15/2021 05:07 pm
    The BE-4 problems should have been worked out by now.  Increased thrust, and able to relight for re-entry and landing for the New Glenn.  It should have to be able to run longer, relight, and run again.  Don't know if ULA can help work this out, except with experience on the RL-10 which has to relight and run again. 
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: intrepidpursuit on 06/16/2021 06:04 am
    If I have to help my engine supplier figure out how to solve building a reliable engine then I'm a pretty unhappy customer.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Alberto-Girardi on 06/16/2021 03:43 pm
    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: gaballard on 06/16/2021 03:51 pm
    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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: niwax on 06/16/2021 04:11 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: TrevorMonty on 06/16/2021 06:17 pm
    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.
    The gases is already present as they are using it for tank pressurization.

    Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: equiserre on 06/19/2021 11:34 am
    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.

    am I reading too much into the GAO statement, in that there seems to be two issues? "the igniter" and "booster capabilities required". Or is it just a redundant phrase and it refers to the same thing?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 06/22/2021 01:30 pm
    twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1407053537373208594

    Quote
    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-…

    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1407328335353557007

    Quote
    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.

    Edit to add: also no denial that there are technical challenges related to ‘booster capabilities’
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: deadman1204 on 06/22/2021 04:23 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: gaballard on 06/22/2021 04:24 pm
    "Booster capabilities" is such a disturbingly vague statement. A booster's capability is to boost payloads into orbit. If they're having issues with that... yikes.

    At this point the BE-4 is going to be a fascinating case study on exactly where the envelope of the sunk cost fallacy lies...
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Davidthefat on 06/22/2021 04:49 pm
    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 06/22/2021 05:17 pm
    twitter.com/joroulette/status/1407336267923271680

    Quote
    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

    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1407386390489448451

    Quote
    Engine is performing well. Need to complete qual and initial production
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: leovinus on 06/22/2021 05:22 pm
    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.

    Exactly. While the Government Accounting Office (GAO) is independent and reasonable accurate, Tory represents ULA. Also note that the GAO report includes a section on that page 106 where the GAO requests comments on the draft from the NSSL program office. Quote:

    Quote
    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.

    In other words, nobody complained to GAO about a technical mistake regarding the phrase "is experiencing technical challenges related to the igniter and booster capabilities required " which is why I dislike Tory's tweet as "keeping up appearances".


    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: deadman1204 on 06/22/2021 06:17 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: thirtyone on 06/22/2021 06:35 pm
    Also worth noting that the GAO report is from the perspective of NSSL, which has substantially more difficult requirements than a normal rocket launch. The only rockets which even have a chance of meeting the requirements for those launches are Atlas/Vulcan and FH. Likely the first few rockets have workarounds or other in progress issues which are insufficient to fulfill the DoD's needs. Very possible they're not gating for the first Vulcan launches, but perhaps would be for NSSL launches (booster performance makes sense, speculating that igniters may just be a reliability issue for the DoD or something - can't think of how re-ignition matters to NSSL)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Jim on 06/22/2021 08:33 pm

    Exactly. While the Government Accounting Office (GAO) is independent and reasonable accurate,

    Naw, not really
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Scintillant on 06/23/2021 05:12 am

    Exactly. While the Government Accounting Office (GAO) is independent and reasonable accurate,

    Naw, not really

    [Citation needed]
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Jim on 06/23/2021 11:23 am

    Exactly. While the Government Accounting Office (GAO) is independent and reasonable accurate,

    Naw, not really

    [Citation needed]

    Personal experience having been interviewed by GAO auditors.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: zubenelgenubi on 06/23/2021 11:24 am
    Moderator:
    Enough with the ad hominem attacks on other members.  Posts deleted.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: spacenut on 06/23/2021 03:31 pm
    I think the only thing the GAO can do is advise congress on how money is spent.  It won't make or break BE-4 for any real reason.  The GAO is also wrong a lot of times, and they can also be political.  It is a government office.  You do know how government sometimes works. 
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: ccdengr on 06/23/2021 03:38 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: meekGee on 06/23/2021 04:00 pm
    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.

    They may be wrong, and they are bean counters by definition, but they are not motivated to paint a picture a certain way.

    In comparison, the messaging from ULA is downright misleading.   "Everything is ok we'll be ready to fly as soon as the payload's ready" while knowing that the payload is late is just throwing a smoke screen.  Doesn't add credibility, and certainly doesn't fix what's wrong with the project.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: LouScheffer on 06/23/2021 05:50 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Ike17055 on 06/23/2021 07:04 pm


    They may be wrong, and they are bean counters by definition, but they are not motivated to paint a picture a certain way.


    [/quote]

    nope. anyone working in the bean-counting field knows that it is not as straightforward as just counting WHAT you want counted; HOW you count it can make enormous differences to the conclusions reached. This is more true in government programs, probably, than elsewhere. Agendas abound in government accounting.
     
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: su27k on 06/24/2021 02:55 am
    Well the GAO report did predict ULA has trouble meeting the 2021 launch date for Vulcan and may have to use Atlas V for NSSL launches, this prediction is accurate.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Coastal Ron on 06/24/2021 03:18 am
    ...
    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...
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: John Santos on 06/24/2021 03:39 am
    ...
    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...
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: trimeta on 06/24/2021 03:19 pm

    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.

    That said, LouScheffer and Coastal Ron's point is probably correct: just because the GAO made a true statement about an igniter issue having caused delays in the BE-4 doesn't mean it's an ongoing issue. I certainly wouldn't be surprised if there's significant time lag between when those reports are written and when they become available. So Tory's statement that there are no igniter issues at present can also be true. It would be nice if he clarified that the issues have been resolved, instead of implying (but not stating) that they never happened in the first place, but Tory has a vested interest in making it seem like everything is on-track with Vulcan.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: gaballard on 06/24/2021 04:05 pm
    Jim can be... terse, but my understanding is he works for NASA and is probably the closest any of us have or will get to the GAO or inner workings of relevant aspects of government.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Steve G on 06/24/2021 04:07 pm
    The best description for Jim would be "The Fountain of Wisdom".
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Jim on 06/24/2021 04:09 pm

    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.


    Didn't say they would lie, just that they have been wrong many times and they do have agendas (easy to tell by the line of questioning) and do go on witch-hunts.  Much like lawyers, they are not always looking for the truth.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: rcoppola on 06/24/2021 05:46 pm
    Why does any of this matter? Are there any National Security or Civil payloads not getting to orbit because ULA has not received a flight qualified BE-4? Any Dream Chaser cargo runs not resupplying the ISS? It's not being crew rated so no worries on that front. (For now) If and/or when any of these challenges manifest, then we've got a serious problem. Until then, Atlas V (DOD-RD-180 2022 order deadline not withstanding) and the Falcon Family can handle.

    As for the GAO, there are hundreds of entries on this Forum discussing the fact that they were reporting Falcon problems months after they were already fixed, keeping them in the negative news cycle for far longer than necessary. Difference is, SpaceX was / is a hell of a lot more forthcoming with info than either Blue or ULA.

    So nature abhors a vacuum and since neither Blue or ULA will ever offer a straight forward summary of where things stand, somebody will fill it...
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Davidthefat on 06/24/2021 05:54 pm
    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.

    I guess produced wasn't the right word (which may imply to some production flight units). What I meant was who many complete assemblies of the BE-4 exist. Which include the development units. Whether those issues are just workmanship/fabrication related issues, or design issue. Design issue in my eyes pertain to wrong force or pressure balances, wrong material compatibility, stress issues, thermal issues, instability issues, etc. Workmanship/fab issues being weldments or DMLS issues, surface finish issues, plating issues, tolerance stack up issues, turbine/pump balance issues, leakage issues, etc.


    But given how tight lipped BO seems have been, it's probably unlikely anyone outside of BO or ULA know.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: LouScheffer on 06/24/2021 06:12 pm
    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.
    Quote
    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.   
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Coastal Ron on 06/24/2021 06:30 pm
    ...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.

    Um, this is the BE-4 thread, and the GAO report and Tory Bruno's response to the GAO report are the only "fresh" data points we have to use for discussing the BE-4.

    Are you saying we should ignore the GAO report and Tory Bruno's response? That we should, on the BE-4 thread, actively NOT talk about what could be happening with the BE-4?  ::)

    I remember this grumpy guy living in this run down house who noticed something that no one else had noticed about a certain aerospace company working in a (then) empty part of the U.S. People dismissed his observations - until they were confirmed. This is a true story that everyone on NSF should know, and I only mention it because sometimes - not every time - someone can find a truth that most people didn't think was true. That only happens with public speculation, which can get pretty wild and off course sometimes. But hey, that is the internet!  :D

    My $0.02
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: rcoppola on 06/24/2021 06:45 pm
    https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/podcast-interview-ulas-tory-bruno

    2:22 BE4 Discussion.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 06/24/2021 06:58 pm
    Key statement:

    https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1408130266225381376

    Quote
    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."

    So obviously still a risk that testing finds an issue requiring further changes. Even if all good, sounds to me like still months away from delivery to ULA for first Vulcan flight.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Eric Hedman on 06/25/2021 12:52 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: LouScheffer on 06/25/2021 01:46 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: trimeta on 06/25/2021 04:47 pm
    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.

    That's an interesting hypothesis. I know that others have argued that not very much work was done on the BE-4 before the uprating, and that it wasn't that big an uprating anyway, so it can't be used to explain why the BE-4 seems to be taking unusually long. But second-system syndrome would posit that although not much was done before the uprating, it was still enough to give their engineers unfounded confidence when developing the larger version.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: rcoppola on 06/25/2021 08:21 pm
    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...

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: GalacticIntruder on 06/25/2021 08:34 pm
    Sounds to me more like finding performance and reliability margins ULA/USSF needs.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: rcoppola on 06/25/2021 08:44 pm
    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...
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Rakietwawka2021 on 06/26/2021 01:53 pm
    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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: LouScheffer on 06/27/2021 12:44 pm
    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).

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: niwax on 06/27/2021 02:53 pm
    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.

    The other issue will be forking the production line when they inevitably need to modify BE-4 to support New Glenn and ULA is very much not keen on recertifying their engines. That's a lump of ten or so engines that need to be built to 2020 spec for the next five to ten years.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Rakietwawka2021 on 06/27/2021 05:20 pm
    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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: gaballard on 06/27/2021 05:26 pm
    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

    If that’s the case, yikes, no wonder they’re having trouble delivering on time. They have to make ULA’s engines work for missions beyond their requirements right off the bat.

    Like if I ordered a “grocery getter” car but couldn’t get it delivered until it was also rated as a sports car.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: LouScheffer on 06/27/2021 06:13 pm
    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
    This 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.

    So I don't doubt their intention to share a version, but I'd only give a miniscule chance of this surviving against the schedule pressure to get the Vulcan subset qualified.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: TorenAltair on 06/27/2021 06:37 pm
    Basically I agree with you Lou but Blue Origin so far seemed to be operating in the manner that the first (for use) version of whatever has to be perfect.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Lemurion on 06/27/2021 10:48 pm
    In the long term, I can see how only having to qualify a single engine variant would be attractive to Blue. However, I also see how it could translate into significant delays in engine development.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: AU1.52 on 06/27/2021 11:21 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Eric Hedman on 06/28/2021 05:14 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: meekGee on 06/28/2021 06:19 am
    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.  /Mom
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: RotoSequence on 06/28/2021 06:42 am
    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.

    Some people argue for it, but surely nobody's buying engines from SpaceX right now?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DreamyPickle on 06/28/2021 07:11 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: AU1.52 on 06/28/2021 12:28 pm
    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.


    and Blue has not launched NG yet either. Busy juggling so many balls none have landed yet!
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: trimeta on 06/28/2021 01:54 pm
    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.

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: dlapine on 06/29/2021 02:44 pm
    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.

    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.

    Well, and that every engine the company might sell is one they don't have for my their use- and for the unnamed competitor, it's a real concern that they will need every engine that they can produce.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: HVM on 06/29/2021 10:08 pm
    https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1409960205920649220
    SpaceX amazing peoples and... Wait,
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: AU1.52 on 06/30/2021 12:51 am
    https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1409960205920649220 (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1409960205920649220)
    SpaceX amazing peoples and... Wait,


    And this to Tory's reply:


    https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1409968558877003776 (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1409968558877003776)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robotbeat on 06/30/2021 02:10 am
    It would be actually pretty cool if they did that (Raptors on Vulcan), although it wouldn't happen for... like, dozens of reasons.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Tomness on 06/30/2021 02:33 am
    It would be actually pretty cool if they did that (Raptors on Vulcan), although it wouldn't happen for... like, dozens of reasons.

    I am thinking more Hot Rod then together on a test stand. Let both teams marvel at both of their works. Some have worked on either or.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Billium on 06/30/2021 02:52 am
    It is at this moment I’m reminded of the unicorns dancing in the flame trench comment from 2013…
    https://spacenews.com/37389musk-calls-out-blue-origin-ula-for-phony-blocking-tactic-on-shuttle-pad/
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: meekGee on 06/30/2021 03:16 am
    It is at this moment I’m reminded of the unicorns dancing in the flame trench comment from 2013…
    https://spacenews.com/37389musk-calls-out-blue-origin-ula-for-phony-blocking-tactic-on-shuttle-pad/
    He said 5 years, it now looks like 10+.

    Yet another case of Elon time.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robotbeat on 06/30/2021 01:24 pm
    I suspect Raptor is a lot cheaper than BE-4. Anyone know what the cost differential might be?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: AU1.52 on 06/30/2021 01:59 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Rakietwawka2021 on 06/30/2021 07:50 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: deadman1204 on 06/30/2021 07:56 pm
    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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Davidthefat on 06/30/2021 08:05 pm
    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

    Doesn't SpaceX own their own foundries as well? At least for casting the exotic materials like the SX500 alloys. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1096722006450462721
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: edzieba on 07/01/2021 12:34 pm
    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.
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: rst on 07/01/2021 02:13 pm
    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.)

    As you say, not gonna happen -- not least because it would be halfway toward redesigning the stage altogether before it even flew -- but it's likely technically feasible.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: tbellman on 07/01/2021 06:47 pm
    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.

    The price Blue Origin charges probably also things like delivery, documentation, training, support, warranties, maybe a test firing before delivery, et.c.  And guarantees that the engines won't change wildly from one delivery to the next.

    BE-4 might still be more expensive to manufacture than Raptor, but I wouldn't be surprised if the marginal manufacturing cost is a third or even a quarter of what they charge ULA.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: vaporcobra on 07/02/2021 12:38 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: TrevorMonty on 07/02/2021 03:14 am
    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&amp;D to production.
    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.

    At some stage Spacex will need to flight certify Raptor for government payloads and most commercial payloads. Some smallsat and cubesat customers might take gamble on cheap SS test flight.

    Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robotbeat on 07/03/2021 05:28 am
    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? 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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: RotoSequence on 07/03/2021 06:47 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robotbeat on 07/03/2021 02:18 pm
    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.
    due to Raptor having a higher pressure, which is rarely correlated with being cheaper!!!
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: omelet1978 on 07/22/2021 08:57 am
    So are there any updates on when Blue Origin is going to be able to deliver a flight certified BE-4 engine to ULA?

    I really like the Vulcan Centaur from what I’ve seen and researched of it. I wish it could have flown in 2021.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 07/22/2021 09:28 am
    So are there any updates on when Blue Origin is going to be able to deliver a flight certified BE-4 engine to ULA?

    Nothing official I’m afraid. On past form I don’t think we’ll know until Blue ships them, or perhaps even more likely, ULA receives them.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 07/26/2021 07:39 pm
    https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1419740029270773760

    Quote
    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.

    twitter.com/tobyliiiiiiiiii/status/1419740625201598473

    Quote
    Wow 5 years of development and they've only built 9 engines which barely can support one launch.

    https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1419741117801762819

    Quote
    None of those nine are flight engines.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: JayWee on 07/26/2021 08:19 pm
    From the Europa Clipper Source Selection:
    Quote
    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.

    That means - ULA has indicated in the RFP that the BE-4 will keep changing and won't have one stable "ULA" version?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: ugordan on 07/26/2021 08:35 pm
    From the Europa Clipper Source Selection:
    Quote
    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.

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 07/26/2021 08:44 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: kevinof on 07/26/2021 08:50 pm
    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.
    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Phil Stooke on 07/26/2021 08:59 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: ugordan on 07/26/2021 08:59 pm
    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.
    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?

    The way I see it, it's a matter of philosophy. I can't claim a slow and methodical approach is better or worse than what SpaceX is doing (weren't the Soviets using this approach as well?)...
    ... HOWEVER, I'll just leave this tweet here:

    https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/863881837000638464

    And the all-important context: https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/05/15/blue-origin-encounters-setback-in-be-4-engine-testing/
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: ugordan on 07/26/2021 09:04 pm
    Also, a random musing. If you build an engine factory and expect to make a large number of engines, does it not make sense to then just go engine rich during development? How much does the monthly cobweb cleaning service in that Hunstville plant cost, anyway?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: ulm_atms on 07/26/2021 09:16 pm
    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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Davidthefat on 07/26/2021 09:21 pm
    Admittedly we don't actually know how many components are actually produced. Whether they have a lot of manufacturing prototypes for DMLS and weldments, brazings, etc. , or a lot of revisions of components/subsystems.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: ugordan on 07/26/2021 09:31 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: ugordan on 07/27/2021 03:04 pm
    From the Europa Clipper Source Selection:
    Quote
    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.

    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.

    Never mind, there's already a discussion about Block 2 in this same thread from a year ago: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39674.msg2121706#msg2121706
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: MaxTeranous on 07/27/2021 04:01 pm
    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.

    Vulcans 2nd planned launch (Dream Chaser) isn’t THAT far away in the grand scheme of things. Wonder if they’d be willing to end up as the first launch if peregrine slips further.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: deadman1204 on 07/27/2021 09:16 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: baldusi on 07/27/2021 09:26 pm
    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.

    NPO Enegomash needed 100 engines to develop the RD-170/1 family, which gave the 180, 191, 151, and 181 engines.
    SpaceX went through hundreds of engines for Merlin and Raptor. Yes, you are clearly right. They don’t know how to make the most efficient, cheap and breakthrough engines in the world. That’s why they lag in engine development and have failed to catch any market at all. Super inefficient.
    Specially important is about waste 5M in extra metal materials in a 1B engine development. That’s totally a waste and the environmental agencies should seriously look into that.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: AlexP on 07/27/2021 10:12 pm
    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?

    Can't see anything from Bruno giving them, but did see this post earlier on in the thread which you may have got mixed up, as the source is clearly not Bruno himself:

    I checked a few other engines about the duration of the formal qualification test. It took about 6-18 months for these engines.

    Given the wide spread in the estimate, and the potential for conflation between "testing" and "formal qualification testing", I'm not sure there's solid ground to be questioning whether they can be ready to supply by the end of 2022.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Jim on 07/27/2021 11:24 pm
    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.

    Unsubstantiated
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Purona on 07/28/2021 11:47 pm
    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.

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Redclaws on 07/28/2021 11:53 pm
    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.

    One would hope it means doing parallel work.  I guess it’s conceivable that they’ve been incredibly economical with their engines, but honestly it sounds instead like they’re just going slowly.  They’re at a bit over an engine a year since they started.

    Really really not feeling optimistic about Vulcan in ‘22.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robotbeat on 07/29/2021 03:57 pm
    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.
    Making lots of engines isn't waste. Having lots of people employed without a lot of progress is waste.

    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.)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robotbeat on 07/29/2021 04:04 pm
    Government entities (and apparently Blue for many years) don't understand very well that Time = Money. SpaceX does. ULA does. Wasting time IS a huge waste a money (and ultimately, resources). A MUCH bigger waste of money than making a lot of engines during development.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Davidthefat on 07/29/2021 04:05 pm
    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.
    Making lots of engines isn't waste. Having lots of people employed without a lot of progress is waste.

    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.)

    Their initial progress until the downselect of the contract seemed fast. But once they got the contract, it seems like any public information about the engine has slowed down to a crawl.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: omelet1978 on 08/03/2021 02:04 am
    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?

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: deadman1204 on 08/03/2021 02:48 am
    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?

    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.
    2022 is all but officially not possible.
    We have no direct quote from blue, but its gonna be like 6+ months AFTER the be-4 are fully done and delivered for Vulcan to launch. Which of course assumes there are no real problems either.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: ncb1397 on 08/03/2021 07:46 am
    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?

    Sure...

    There seems to be a significant ramp up in Alabama...

    Quote
    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.

    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.”
    https://www.al.com/news/huntsville/2021/07/blue-origin-announces-hiring-blitz-at-alabama-rocket-engine-plant.html
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 08/03/2021 07:59 am
    Thread pruned. Some technical comparisons between BE-4 and Raptor may be on topic, but this is not the thread for discussing Blue Origin vs SpaceX progress.

    If there’s no BE-4 news then we don’t have to post in this thread … ! Let’s avoid the ‘are we [ Blue ] there yet?’ like posts. I hear enough of that with the kids in the car  ;)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: baldusi on 08/03/2021 02:09 pm
    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.  ::)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: TrevorMonty on 08/03/2021 03:31 pm
    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.


    Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: baldusi on 08/04/2021 12:26 am
    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 was pointing out the common tropes, not the relevancy of such tropes to this particular thread.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: su27k on 08/05/2021 04:21 am
    Inside scoop incoming?

    https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1423032505737916416

    Quote
    Should I write a story to explain where Tory's engines really are?

    Quote
    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.


    Also note if you have the urge to compare Raptor to BE-4, the Raptor vs. BE4 Thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47513.0) is there for you.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 08/05/2021 06:03 pm
    https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1423343697157103616

    Quote
    I 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/

    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:

    Quote
    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.

    As to why BE-4 is so delayed, several reasons but one is the programme wasn’t hardware rich after all.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: ThatOldJanxSpirit on 08/05/2021 06:43 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: gaballard on 08/05/2021 06:54 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: ThatOldJanxSpirit on 08/05/2021 07:30 pm
    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.

    I could understand if the story had been that BE-4 was far more difficult to develop than anticipated. But the allegation is that Blue failed to focus on their core product, and in the process badly let down key customers including national security. If there is a shred of truth in it (and Eric has a great track record) this is simply unforgivable.

    Given Blues performance so far I honestly don’t understand how Bob Smith can stay, even without this kind of story.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: joek on 08/05/2021 07:45 pm
    ...
    Given Blues performance so far I honestly don’t understand how Bob Smith can stay, even without this kind of story.

    Unless Smith was given marching orders by Bezos to prioritize Blue over ULA and suck it up... we need BE-4's that satisfy NG requirements; we need will not sell BE-4's to ULA at a loss; etc. In that case Smith is doing his job. Whether that results in Smith thrown under the bus by Bezos is TBD. But think we should be clear: buck stops with Bezos, not Smith.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Comga on 08/05/2021 08:11 pm
    https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1423343697157103616 (https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1423343697157103616)

    Quote
    I 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:

    Quote
    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.

    As to why BE-4 is so delayed, several reasons but one is the programme wasn’t hardware rich after all.

    From the article:
    Quote
    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.

    My (very limited) understanding was that Blue was going to ship two "fit" engines to ULA. 
    Those were to be installed in the first Vulcan, taken through Wet Dress Rehearsal, and then replaced with flight engines.
    Full qualification was to happen before the swap.

    Berger seems to be saying that  Engines 1 and 3 of the "final" configuration will be the "flight" engines while Engines 2 and 4 will be contemporaneously built "qualification" engines.
    So only Engines 5 and beyond get built after full qualification testing, at best.

    Is that correct?

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 08/05/2021 10:02 pm
    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.

    Agree with this so much a simple "like" wasn't enough.  And, if you want a recent example of "success-based" planning, look at OFT-1.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Lemurion on 08/06/2021 03:31 am
    The line in the article that caught my attention was:

    Quote
    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.

    Phrases like "close to," and "that approximate," don't give me a lot of faith that the test program will be able to catch everything. Whenever this comes up I'm always reminded of Admiral Jackie Fisher's saying:

    Quote
    The Best Scale for an experiment is 12 inches to a foot.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: JayWee on 08/06/2021 05:50 am
    An interview with Tory Bruno:

    https://spacenews.com/tory-bruno-says-the-challenges-with-be-4-are-real-but-the-engine-is-moving-forward/

    About the igniter (and probably what Block 2 means)
    Quote
    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.


    This part is weird:
    Quote
    “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.”
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: ThatOldJanxSpirit on 08/06/2021 06:49 am
    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’?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: NaN on 08/06/2021 07:05 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Pitpen on 08/06/2021 07:16 am
    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:

    James Webb telescope
    SLS
    BE-4 / New Glenn
    Starliner +++ / Dragon Crew ++

    It seems to me that everyone in this market is planning developments with a success oriented approach and even if we continue to listen to the "it's rocket science" mantra no-one plans for these setbacks or bumps along the road.   
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DigitalMan on 08/06/2021 07:25 am
    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: ThatOldJanxSpirit on 08/06/2021 07:46 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Scintillant on 08/06/2021 07:56 am
    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.

    Which sort of lines up with Eric Berger's reporting that BE-4 was getting deprioritized relative to other projects, the implication being that if ULA walked away, Blue would just forget about BE-4 and focus on the lunar lander or something. Bit odd considering that BE-4 is supposed to power New Glenn, but what isn't odd about Blue these days?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Frogstar_Robot on 08/06/2021 08:06 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Frogstar_Robot on 08/06/2021 08:15 am
    What did Tory mean by ‘there is no practical engine fabrication capability without us as a customer’?

    That is a puzzling comment. I'm not sure if Tory is saying Blue is unable to build engines without help from ULA, or Blue are unwilling to build engines without demand from an external customer.

    Although it is inline with the apparent dysfunction within Blue Origin.

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 08/06/2021 08:21 am
    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. :-)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: HVM on 08/06/2021 08:46 am
    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’?
    There never was any "switching engine provider" as option, new engine -> new core stage design. (AR + kerosene)

    And the second one; Either New Glenn is vaporware, or so far in the future that it's same as vaporware. Blah.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Cheapchips on 08/06/2021 08:52 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: ThatOldJanxSpirit on 08/06/2021 08:53 am
    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. :-)

    Except we did know. It’s been apparent to anyone following Blue closely over the last year or so that Blue are not performing. The big change is having Bruno admit that they let Blue get away with committing too little resources to BE-4 development.  Did DoD know - hopefully yes, but it opens up questions of the adequacy of government oversight on a critical national security infrastructure project. There are echos of the ongoing Starliner debacle here.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: niwax on 08/06/2021 08:56 am
    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.

    I would give two reasons, neither of which are specific to rocketry, they just happen to correlate:

    1) Especially for launches, dates are given on an NET basis because they are meant for scheduling long pole items, not as an investor presentation or estimated delivery date. You aren't seeing bigger slips than other projects, just a different metric. Your plumber says "between 8 and 12", not "definitely after 7:30".

    2) Again only a correlation with space projects, not a causation from them being related to space: In the past the cast majority have been funded through large government contracts and nowadays increasingly early-stage VC. These require, respectively, best case optimistic price assumptions to win the contract and a shining sunny moonshot upside to woo investors. These means we are again using measures that are not comparable to things you might put in a contract or tell your friends. The average government space project is no worse delayed and over budget than a new road or funded science project. The average space venture fails just as often and badly as the average ambitious startup.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Davidthefat on 08/06/2021 03:25 pm
    Interesting point made in this article: https://spacenews.com/tory-bruno-says-the-challenges-with-be-4-are-real-but-the-engine-is-moving-forward/

    “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.”


    I wonder what else is changed between the engines.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robotbeat on 08/06/2021 03:35 pm
    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.

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: meekGee on 08/06/2021 04:57 pm
    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.

    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.

    I agree with that, which is making Tory's statement more... poignant?  Did he just call them out?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: TrevorMonty on 08/06/2021 07:06 pm
    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

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Comga on 08/08/2021 06:31 pm
    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

    We all know that, as do Blue and ULA, but volume production is only for volume usage.
    Blue knows ULA’s projected usage
    They have their own, but if NG was truly to be reusable, it will be a long time before “millions living and working in space” becomes a real business driver for BE-4.

    Also, factories may be expensive, but they’re quite affordable if someone else pays for it, like incentives from Florida and Alabama.  And there is a lot more expertise out there for building factories than there is for building giant, reusable rockets.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: LouScheffer on 08/09/2021 01:35 am
    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.
    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.

    Clearly ULA knew the BO promises were nonsense - otherwise they would have planned for the rest of Vulcan to be ready in 2017.  But there was no rush since they knew the engines would be late.  And their 2017 estimates, if they made them, would have been just as forced-optimistic.

    Likewise James Webb was sold at as a 9 year, $500M project.   If they had given an honest estimate at that time (say 15 years and $4 billion) it never would have been started.  But they've run into even more problems than usual, and the end result is a 25 year, $10 billion project.  There is no way it would have ever been approved if that had even been considered a possibility.

    It is not just aerospace that has these problems.  The Sydney opera house also used a number of new methods, and was 10 years late and 13x over budget.

    So the fundamental problem is psychological - it's easier to get forgiveness than permission.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Frogstar_Robot on 08/09/2021 08:54 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: envy887 on 08/09/2021 01:26 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: AU1.52 on 08/09/2021 04:58 pm
    I know this is for Blue, but how does this all compare with how SpaceX builds its engines and vehicles. Is this a case of Waterfall vs Scrum type development for hardware (as well as software)?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: deadman1204 on 08/09/2021 06:33 pm
    we don't really know.

    I suspect that Blue trolls these forums (including L2), looking for anyone who might be leaking info.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: abaddon on 08/09/2021 06:38 pm
    I think you mean “trawls”, not “trolls”.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Surfdaddy on 08/09/2021 09:07 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Redclaws on 08/09/2021 09:21 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: jimvela on 08/09/2021 09:25 pm
    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.

    I've seen this problem also specifically on bids. 

    As in I saw a company that prepared realistic, executable bids, lose competitions because competitors deliberately underbid with an optimistic best-case cost/schedule.  Those programs then went on to overrun and cost more/take longer to the point that it would have been better to have awarded the contract to a "losing" competitor, but one which would have been able to execute within the bid.

    The winning bidder also had an obvious organizational behavior of nit-picking every little thing about contract verbiage and writing change order based modifiers that rapidly drove even "fixed price" contract prices sky high.  It was a deliberate business practice- not an accident.

    The selection evaluators all "knew" that everyone plays this game, and had no way and no desire to do the work to assess whether the bid was actually credible/executable.  A basic smell test would have made it clear that executing a specific bit wasn't possible, in most cases.

    I personally believe this is why we should see more penalties when companies fail to meet bids (and why firm fixed price contracting is always a better taxpayer value in my opinion for anything but a pure development program).

    I also believe that we need massive procurement reform such that those enterprises that regularly fail to perform on cost/schedule take severely escalating penalties for that failure to preform.  To the point that they effectively cannot compete for government contract work. 

    That'd fix the BS, really fast, in my opinion.

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: LouScheffer on 08/09/2021 10:42 pm
    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.

    This the best succinct description I have seen of why complex projects are always late and over budget.

    Projects that have actual consequences for being late, such as planetary launch windows, get done on schedule a MUCH higher percentage of the time.   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.

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Pitpen on 08/10/2021 06:29 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 08/10/2021 09:29 am
    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..

    IMO this is what happens when you have a monopsony (a single customer with multiple suppliers).  The suppliers have no one else to turn to for their product, so contract bids devolve into this kind of mess.  I dealt with this on every contract bid during my career in the defense industry.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: baldusi on 08/10/2021 03:22 pm
    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.

    The dynamics of bidding are the same for private and public sector for same industry and requirements. There's a reason SpaceX, Blue, Virgin Galactic, RocketLab and basically everybody "new" has brought propulsion in-house. New rocket engines are the long pole and will take 50% to 100% more time. You say 8 years, it will take 14. Say 4, will take 8. That's the nature of the beast.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: envy887 on 08/10/2021 04:12 pm
    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.

    Planning a day for something that, even if all goes well, would take a month is not zero-margin... that's negative margin.

    Planning 3 months for something that should take 1 month pretty much guarantees that it will take 3 months. And even if you get it done in 1 month, it will sit around for 2 more months because the process it was leading into was planned to need it after 3 months. Either way, schedule expanded to fill the margin.

    This is particularly difficult to get around when systems aren't vertically integrated, because subcomponent suppliers are penalized for delivering early or late, imposing unnecessary friction in design and schedule changes. Building in margin is the only feasible option, but that margin ends up getting used even when it isn't needed, which slows the whole project.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: tssp_art on 08/10/2021 08:17 pm
    This thread has really lost its way. This page is heavy on project management tips, proposal strategies, etc. but almost nothing on Blue's BE-4.

    Can we please try to get back on topic?


    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: gtae07 on 08/11/2021 11:48 am
    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. 

    This further reinforces my beliefs that 90% of management is superfluous, and that Dilbert and Office Space are documentaries.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: ranma on 08/12/2021 02:21 am
    we don't really know.

    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. 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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: trimeta on 08/12/2021 02:30 am
    we don't really know.

    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. 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.

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: rubicondsrv on 08/12/2021 02:33 am
    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.

    money is not a problem for blue regardless of contracts.  that is likely part of the problem, without any hard budget and time constraints projects tend to expand and delay until they are stopped.  New Glenn seems to have been stalled in that manner until recently. 


    BE 4 was supposed to be a "easy" orsc engine with fairly low performance, and it looked like things were going reasonably well until the first publicized explosion that damaged a test stand.  after that things slowed down quite a bit. 

    No idea what went wrong, but bezos seems to be realizing there is a problem at blue, but it is unclear if the problems are being fixed. 


       
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Lemurion on 08/12/2021 03:29 am
    we don't really know.

    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. 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.

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: ranma on 08/12/2021 03:52 am

    I would think the 1500 C heat would cause stainless steel to melt. Titanium would be needed ... I saw the results of an uncontained compressor blade failure in an F15A as a kid.  The metal turned blue due to the heat. Still did not know how Boomer landed the plane at Wallops Island. Back to the idea of no reentry burn. Stainless steel would melt during reentry. The stress of hitting the atmosphere as well as heat would cause it to break up. hmm shallow angle, I am not so sure. The Earth is not Mars...aerobraking
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 08/12/2021 10:38 am
    we don't really know.

    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. 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.

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: edzieba on 08/12/2021 01:20 pm
    we don't really know.

    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. 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.
    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.

    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. 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.

    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.
    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.
    Or put another way: a structure may be happy to bake at 1000K for 20 minutes, but fail if heated to 1500K for 20 seconds.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: AU1.52 on 08/12/2021 03:35 pm
    we don't really know.

    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. 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.

    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.


    However the Shuttle was reentering from orbital speeds so much higher heating. Do we know how high it will be at apogee - Speed will to zero. The shallower angle will be to reduce how fast it comes back and thus reduce the heat load - hopefully. Wish we did not have to wait to late 2022 to maybe find out!
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: LouScheffer on 08/13/2021 12:09 am
    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.

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: ZachF on 08/13/2021 02:16 pm
    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.

    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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robotbeat on 08/13/2021 02:26 pm
    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.

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: ZachF on 08/13/2021 03:28 pm
    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.

    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.

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: niwax on 08/13/2021 03:36 pm
    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.

    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.

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: ZachF on 08/13/2021 04:16 pm
    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.

    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.

    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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: LouScheffer on 08/13/2021 04:51 pm
    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.

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: ZachF on 08/13/2021 08:31 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: RoadWithoutEnd on 08/13/2021 08:42 pm
    The second stage burns longer for GEO.

    Does this indicate something about their preferred markets?  Or am I reading too much into it?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: ncb1397 on 08/13/2021 10:04 pm
    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.


    Don't you mean

    LEO: 600 second burn
    GTO: 618 second burn into parking orbit, then 99 second burn into GTO
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: TrevorMonty on 08/13/2021 10:39 pm
    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.

    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.

    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
    Adding a couple BE7s would allow for small orbit changes, especially useful for deploying rideshare payloads.


    Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: spacenut on 08/14/2021 12:22 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: SpaceNerd26 on 08/14/2021 01:06 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: jstrotha0975 on 08/14/2021 02:09 pm
    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.

    Pics or it didn't happen. Please take pics if you are able.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Steve G on 08/14/2021 03:15 pm
    There's more industrial espionage engaged in NSF forums than committed at certain foreign embassies!
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: kessdawg on 08/14/2021 05:47 pm
    HSV?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Jim on 08/14/2021 05:49 pm
    HSV?

    Huntsville
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 08/14/2021 07:11 pm
    twitter.com/elonmuss/status/1426195583170060294

    Quote
    @torybruno at this point are you considering using RS-25s or even Merlins?

    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1426548039955718149

    Quote
    No.  BE4 is late, but technical performance is good.  Currently in Pre-Qualification testing, while flight engines have begun fabrication.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Steve G on 08/14/2021 07:17 pm
    I'm certain this has been discussed before in earlier forums, but maybe Tony Bruno should seriously consider taking over from Bob Smith.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: rubicondsrv on 08/14/2021 07:52 pm
    I'm certain this has been discussed before in earlier forums, but maybe Tony Bruno should seriously consider taking over from Bob Smith.

    how would that even work? blue and ULA are not close to being the same company
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Lemurion on 08/14/2021 07:55 pm
    I'm certain this has been discussed before in earlier forums, but maybe Tony Bruno should seriously consider taking over from Bob Smith.

    For what it's worth, I've seen that particular suggestion made on multiple platforms; including this site, Reddit, Twitter, and the Ars Technica comments section...

    A lot of people want Jeff to fire Bob Smith and hire Tory Bruno to replace him.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: rubicondsrv on 08/14/2021 07:58 pm

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: SpaceNerd26 on 08/14/2021 08:00 pm
    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. BO 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.

    EDIT: Snark removal
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Steve G on 08/14/2021 08:04 pm
    They both build rockets, do they not? It's a leadership issue. Many others have posted that Bob Smith is toxic. I don't know enough about Tony, but he is out there with his tweets, is a good face for the company, and maybe (or maybe not, that's why I wrote "maybe") his leadership style will put Blue back in the right direction.

    Gary Bettman was a senior vice president and general counsel to the National Basketball Association (NBA) and really didn't know much about hockey, but was hired in 1993 as commissioner of the NHL. He had turned the NHL around. He many not be popular with fans (especially Canadian fans) but has been good for the league's pockets. Often a good manager and public face is more important than knowing the ins and outs of the industry. Managing is about managing people, and putting the right people in place. Let the engineers work on the details. Many posters on this forum would agree that Blue requires new management, and the fact that they can't get Gwynne from SpaceX, maybe Tony would make a positive difference.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Redclaws on 08/14/2021 08:05 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: SpaceNerd26 on 08/14/2021 08:14 pm
    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 reached out to him directly, amending my own post now.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Lemurion on 08/14/2021 08:32 pm
    I think one reason people have kept putting Tory forward for Blue is that he represents something Blue lacks... The face.

    Tory humanizes ULA, he interacts on social media with space fans and is very good at it. Both Elon Musk and Peter Beck do the same thing for their respective rocket companies. All three come across as leaders who can both talk the talk and walk the walk for their companies.

    Blue doesn't have such a person, and a lot of people seem to think that Tory could move over and take that role--and then get the BE-4 out the door in double quick time.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: ugordan on 08/14/2021 09:05 pm
    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 really don't understand this logic that a social "presence", a "face" equals a solution to the problem, never mind Tory Bruno, I've even seen Peter Beck mentioned in some circles. The fact that some of the more successful CEOs also have a social media presence is not proof that you *need* a successful social media presence to be a good aerospace CEO.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: spacenut on 08/14/2021 09:35 pm
    Lockheed seems to be doing fairly well.  They have Orion finished so far, waiting on SLS. 

    NG seems to be doing well.  They have military contracts and are developing better solid rockets.  Their Orbital company is still launching supplies to ISS and is doing well.

    With the exception of Boeings problems, every aerospace company is doing something to make money. 

    Blue only makes peanuts on sub-orbital hops.  They should concentrate on being a good engine company first.  BE-3 is a great engine, ok finish BE-3U.  BE-4 should be a great engine, ok finish it.  BE-7 should be put on a shelf right now until the other two are finished.

    Then blue can concentrate on an orbital vehicle, New Glenn, even if it is expendable.  Then get some orbital bids and start making money, and work on being reusable.  Then they can work on BE-7, and maybe a lunar lander that can be refueled by New Glenn and launched and put into the Artemis orbit by New Glenn.  They would be more vertical and be able to offer realistic bids and get things done.     
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: LouScheffer on 08/15/2021 02:10 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: baldusi on 08/15/2021 02:34 am
    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 do wonder, though, how would it be to be BO CEO and have regular visits from Jeff. I find it very hard to believe that a private company with a powerful owner is run by a CEO that does not fits within such owners own style.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: SpeakertoAnimals on 08/15/2021 03:18 am

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: TrevorMonty on 08/15/2021 10:32 am

    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.
    He's dealt Jeff and may not want to work for him. At ULA he is the boss, still has to follower boards guidelines.

    Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: SpaceNerd26 on 08/15/2021 08:57 pm

    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.

    Bezos has already tried and failed to lure Shotwell to BO. If the offer was made, I imagine Tory would want more control than Bezos would be willing to give up. That being said, let’s get back on track to BE-4. There are more appropriate threads for a potential leadership transition to be discussed in.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: JCRM on 08/16/2021 08:03 am
    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.

    A "Face" lets SpaceX completely pivot, and gets hailed as a genius.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: deadman1204 on 08/16/2021 01:37 pm
    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.

    A "Face" lets SpaceX completely pivot, and gets hailed as a genius.

    Who cares? Do you think More people buy falcon 9 rockets because of reddit or space fans? Would ULA sell more altas V launches if we all cheered ULA more? How many additional rockets have launched because of this website and ones like it? Exactly ZERO.

    Blue is gaslighting everyone in sight because they couldn't care less about their reputation with space fans or the space industry. They only care about what congress thinks.

    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.

    Twitter and social media for a rocket company is mostly vanity. Musk does it because he has a personal goal of inspiring the country. However, that goal is not directly related to selling falcon 9 launches.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: c4fusion on 08/16/2021 07:10 pm
    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.

    Here is the potential issue about having a bad public perception (or at least worse public perception than your main rival), your company will likely have worse morale and it will be harder to attract top talent.

    Having worse morale should be obvious: it feels bad to work for a company that you feel like you have to hide who you work for.  Obviously there are companies with very bad public image like Phillip Morris, Monceto, or even Amazon itself and are top of their game.  However for each one of these companies they reached a commanding first place before they were known to be “Bad companies”.

    Blue Origin on the other hand is in a completely different boat.  They are not the leaders. They are only second in New Space (and that’s  maybe debatable) and third, forth, or even lower in all US rocket companies (definitely ULA and on most count Lockheed/ATK are ahead).

    If your workforce isn’t motivated how are you going to catch up.  A less motivated workforce is less likely to put in extra thought on pull extra couple of hours to get something done.  They are more likely to do just enough, making the gap between them and SpaceX wider and wider.

    At this point you might say that they can hire better engineers, but at that means paying far more, since for a large chunk of hiring pool would probably rather work for a “winning” company with good moral, and even if they didn’t want to work for SpaceX there are so many startups that you can work for (Astra, Relativity, Rocket Lab, etc).  However, it doesn’t seem like Blue Origin is paying much more than SpaceX according to Glassdoor.

    And it’s hard to lie when you have terrible Glassdoor reviews: https://www.glassdoor.com/Overview/Working-at-Blue-Origin-EI_IE782684.11,22.htm

    So I would say that having good public perception is important.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: jimothytones on 08/16/2021 10:32 pm
    not a lot about BE-4 in the BE-4 thread lately, huh
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: TrevorMonty on 08/17/2021 12:29 am
    not a lot about BE-4 in the BE-4 thread lately, huh
    With no updates from Blue or ULA there isn't lot to talk about.

    Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: baldusi on 08/17/2021 01:13 am
    not a lot about BE-4 in the BE-4 thread lately, huh
    With no updates from Blue or ULA there isn't lot to talk about.

    We are in that case where no news is the news.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Eric Hedman on 08/17/2021 02:04 pm
    not a lot about BE-4 in the BE-4 thread lately, huh
    With 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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Comga on 08/23/2021 03:01 pm
    not a lot about BE-4 in the BE-4 thread lately, huh
    With 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.

    It has been announced that the next BE-4 event Blue may not be able to hide will be the delivery of a single, unqualified engine to ULA while another engine built at the same time goes for qualification firing.


    It is as hard to imagine what ULA could gain by suing Blue as it is to imagine what good can come from Blue suing NASA over HLS.

    Hope, and feelings, is not a strategy, or a forecasting tool.

    And “anyone” being satisfied is not relevant to program schedules or announcements.

    I agree that “no news is the news” on multiple levels.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: niwax on 08/23/2021 03:22 pm
    not a lot about BE-4 in the BE-4 thread lately, huh
    With 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.

    Unless the contract was written extremely unprofessionally, there won't be a lawsuit, but quietly triggering penalty clauses related to performance. It may well be that ULA is already getting a price reduction as the engines have not been ready for their internal milestones.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: LouScheffer on 08/23/2021 03:34 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: TorenAltair on 08/24/2021 09:10 am
    It depends a lot on the topography as well. For example tests at the German test center in Lampoldshausen can‘t be heard in southern direction 5km away.
    Specific to Blue Origin: they wanted to run acceptance tests at Marshall, test stand 4670
    latest info I found: no engine testing before September 2021
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: LouScheffer on 08/24/2021 01:07 pm
    This would surely work if someone cared to implement it.  Here's a paper on detecting rocket launches using low frequency sounds (https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2020GL092262) (0.1-5 Hz).  From it:
    Quote
    [..] 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.

    Also, there is a seismometer not too far away with publicly available data (http://www-udc.ig.utexas.edu/eqdisplay/scripts/helicorder.htm?file=mntx_bhz.20210823.gif).  It would be interesting to know if rocket engine tests can be observed here, but would need some known tests to evaluate this.  I looked at the BE-4 firings I could find on youtube but none had any indication of when they occurred.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: RedLineTrain on 08/24/2021 02:09 pm
    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.

    As I recall from my travels, there is a small mountain/large hill between Van Horn and the test site.  Picturesque geography, by the way.  A really nice drive.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 08/24/2021 06:23 pm
    Latest from Tory:

    https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1430232860665991170

    Quote
    Tory 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/1430233735090278401

    Quote
    Blue 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/1430233912710770694

    Quote
    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."

    https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1430234270891708463

    Quote
    Bruno: "“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.”
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: cpushack on 08/24/2021 08:27 pm
    Quote
    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."

    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)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: loekf on 08/24/2021 09:48 pm
    Quote
    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."

    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 ?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: rogueknight on 08/25/2021 12:21 am
    Quote
    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."

    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 ?

    That 1st launch of Vulcan will sure be interesting to watch. If something were to go wrong it would be a nightmare situation for BO. With the issues they have had I honestly think there is a good chance an unknown issue will come up. I’d be nervous to be that first payload.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: deadman1204 on 08/25/2021 12:26 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: LouScheffer on 08/25/2021 12:37 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Jim on 08/25/2021 01:32 am
    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.

    No, It is not ignored, it just isn't likely
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Jim on 08/25/2021 01:34 am

    By the way, what is the chance those engines have issues during an actual launch ?

    low, because that is what qual and acceptance testing is for. 


    I mean, putting a real paid for payload on a maiden flight ?

    See Delta IV
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: RotoSequence on 08/25/2021 02:07 am
    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?
    Title: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Lars-J on 08/25/2021 02:53 am
    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…
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Jim on 08/25/2021 02:59 am
    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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: TrevorMonty on 08/25/2021 03:14 am


    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.



    Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: joek on 08/25/2021 04:02 am
    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.

    Think you can answer that based on a simple question: How does it advance ULA's business? Especially given that one of their primary customers is DoD? Short answer IMO: it does not, so don't. Such would more likely benefit Blue rather than ULA ("see, our engines are flying!"). ULA has built a reputation based on reliability; they are unlikely to squander that for what I believe would be viewed as a stunt--unless it was clearly framed as a "beta test"--but that is not how ULA has traditionally rolled, and doubt they will change their MO to the benefit of Blue.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: joek on 08/25/2021 04:15 am
    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?

    As in the past, there would be delays as they fix issues and move on.  The "realistic consequences" are unknown (other than delays); managing the fallout is a matter for ULA and Blue.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: russianhalo117 on 08/25/2021 04:29 am
    Quote
    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."

    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)
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: irishmann on 08/25/2021 04:32 am
    Latest from Tory:


    https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1430233735090278401

    Quote
    Blue 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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Lemurion on 08/25/2021 05:51 am
    I hope Tory gets his engines before the end of the year, but given Blue’s past history at this point I will expect them when we see them.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: deadman1204 on 08/25/2021 12:42 pm
    Latest from Tory:


    https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1430233735090278401

    Quote
    Blue 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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Jim on 08/25/2021 12:49 pm

    Any amount of money days this is pr and not true

    Proof please or delete
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: SpaceNerd26 on 08/25/2021 07:16 pm
    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 Engine plant looks to be operating around 60-65%. Not sure how many of those are new hires, but it does look like BO is picking up the pace. The question is, how long will it take to see results?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: meekGee on 08/25/2021 07:18 pm
    Latest from Tory:


    https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1430233735090278401

    Quote
    Blue 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

    One of these statements is not like the other.   ???
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 08/25/2021 09:30 pm
    How I understand it:
    ULA get's two flight design engines before the end of 2021. So they can integrate them into the Vulcan stage.
    But the engine qualification testing takes until 2022. So Vulcan is flight ready NET 2022.
    Payloads currently are ready later than Vulcan, but the margin is small. 
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: mn on 08/29/2021 02:06 pm
    https://spacenews.com/space-force-launch-director-on-vulcan-and-be-4-we-have-to-be-very-focused-from-here-on-out/

    A couple of quotes that caught my attention

    Quote
    Col. Robert Bongiovi: 'The engine is late but it is performing well. It really is'

    Quote
    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

    Quote
    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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 09/10/2021 08:53 am
    twitter.com/marcushouse/status/1435752787292213251

    Quote
    Are you still confident the BE-4's are on target for launch?

    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1436250597305593877

    Quote
    Yes
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 09/10/2021 08:56 am
    twitter.com/theprimaldino/status/1435763708240830472

    Quote
    there are literally be-4's attached to a Vulcan first stage, on the launch pad, right now.

    calling them vaporware is completely untrue

    https://twitter.com/eggeroses/status/1435766668861460480

    Quote
    That picture is from February and those test engines were not flight capable.

    twitter.com/theprimaldino/status/1435766882750115840

    Quote
    actually i think they are flight capable, or very close to it. im sure tory can elaborate more on this

    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1436251614155837441

    Quote
    Lots of hot fire time in this pair. Wore them out, but perfect for initial path finding activities
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/11/2021 05:48 pm
    https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1447619865876078599

    Quote
    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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Star One on 10/15/2021 08:28 pm
    Experience XEEx: Home of the BE-4 Rocket Engine:

    https://youtu.be/zgPIYT-w4zU
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Alvian@IDN on 10/28/2021 11:25 am
    https://twitter.com/DutchSatellites/status/1453641423190904835?t=eib7HHqmc-wMd_h7PsnTCw&s=19
    Quote
    According 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.
    1/2
    https://twitter.com/DutchSatellites/status/1453643778762420224?t=iGnrhOrHpPdpLrcTsWrf9A&s=19
    Quote
    Same 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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: deadman1204 on 10/28/2021 03:04 pm
    How many promised dates has blue missed?

    Of course, "development" engine could be in any condition.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: dglow on 10/28/2021 08:47 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: woods170 on 10/29/2021 10:59 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Purona on 10/29/2021 11:53 am
    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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: dglow on 10/29/2021 01:50 pm
    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.

    Correct. The Business Journal article (https://www.bizjournals.com/denver/news/2021/08/23/ula-blue-origin-be-4-vulcan-rocket-bezos-bruno.html), dated August 23, 2021, says exactly that. Tory: “I will not get them before the end of the year,” and “It will be shortly into the beginning of the 2022 calendar year”.

    And yet, only weeks earlier, a SpaceNews article (https://spacenews.com/tory-bruno-says-the-challenges-with-be-4-are-real-but-the-engine-is-moving-forward/) of August 5, 2021, quotes Tory saying “I expect that I will receive flight engines before the end of the year”.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Rebel44 on 10/29/2021 02:07 pm
    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

    "The ULA contract specified that Blue Origin would deliver the first two flight-ready BE-4 engines by April 2020, a person familiar with the deal told CNBC"

    source: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/01/jeff-bezos-blue-origin-talent-exodus-ceo-pushed-return-to-office.html
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: woods170 on 10/29/2021 02:51 pm
    OK, so, based on replies #1320 and #1321 we can conclude that Blue has broken its promised BE-4 delivery data at least twice.

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Reynold on 11/02/2021 07:54 pm
    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". 

    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." 
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: deadman1204 on 11/03/2021 12:58 pm
    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". 

    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."
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: clongton on 11/03/2021 01:42 pm
    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". 

    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."
    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.


    Actually responding to the bold text. It's too bad that we have to try to figure out what is true and what is doublespeak in BO's doling out of all too-often misleading statements.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: dglow on 11/03/2021 05:11 pm
    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". 

    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."
    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.

    My understanding, given woods170’s comments and the articles cited above, is that @dutchsatellites is correct – now. The current plan is to deliver ULA development (aka not-flight-capable) BE-4s by the end of this calendar year. And this plan represents a slip from the what was publicly communicated earlier this summer.

    @Reynold, I don’t think there was ambiguity but rather that the situation changed. As of early August ULA expected “flight ready” (flight-capable but not-yet-qualified) BE-4s in calendar 2021. Tory Bruno describes the situation in this SpaceNews article (https://spacenews.com/tory-bruno-says-the-challenges-with-be-4-are-real-but-the-engine-is-moving-forward/) as follows:

    Quote
    “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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: vaporcobra on 11/03/2021 10:21 pm
    Don't worry, guys, Blue Origin is laser-focused on putting all of its resources into meeting contract obligations!

    https://twitter.com/kmcannon/status/1455931199378001922
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: JCRM on 11/04/2021 02:18 am
    Don't worry, guys, Blue Origin is laser-focused on putting all of its resources into meeting contract obligations!

    https://twitter.com/kmcannon/status/1455931199378001922
    So the bits of Blue that aren't concerned with developing engines should do nothing until they are ready?

    Remember this?
    https://twitter.com/JimBridenstine/status/1177711106300747777
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: edzieba on 11/04/2021 08:39 am
    Don't worry, guys, Blue Origin is laser-focused on putting all of its resources into meeting contract obligations!

    https://twitter.com/kmcannon/status/1455931199378001922
    So the bits of Blue that aren't concerned with developing engines should do nothing until they are ready?

    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). One would be hard-pressed to argue that ULA are the source of delays to BE-4 development.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: electricdawn on 11/04/2021 09:10 am
    And we now know that SpaceX (in opposition to Boeing) delivered. The same can't be said of BO in regards to BE-4.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: abaddon on 11/04/2021 03:26 pm
    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).
    Quote
    One would be hard-pressed to argue that ULA are the source of delays to BE-4 development.
    That's putting it mildly.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: abaddon on 11/04/2021 03:27 pm
    Remember this?
    https://twitter.com/JimBridenstine/status/1177711106300747777
    I certainly do.  Looks like good 'ol Jimbo called out the wrong contractor, though.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 11/04/2021 04:36 pm
    Can we get back to BE-4?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: meekGee on 11/04/2021 04:43 pm
    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).
    Quote
    One 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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: abaddon on 11/04/2021 05:02 pm
    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).
    Quote
    One 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.
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: mandrewa on 11/04/2021 05:10 pm
    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).
    Quote
    One 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.

    I don't think that ULA developing its own engine was ever an option.  Remember that Lockheed Martin and Boeing would have had to okay this and also provide the funding.

    Practically speaking, ULA had two options: Aerojet Rocketdyne or Blue Origin.  ULA has had many years of experience with Aerojet Rocketdyne and they were familiar with that company's limitations.  In particular they knew that AJR would be charging a lot for its engines.  Perhaps enough to make the Vulcan uncompetitive for that reason alone.  Blue Origin was a bit of a gamble but I think most observers at the time thought it was the right decision.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: meekGee on 11/04/2021 05:21 pm
    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).
    Quote
    One 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.
    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.
    Fair enough.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: clongton on 11/04/2021 08:30 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: meekGee on 11/04/2021 08:56 pm
    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.

    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?"
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: matthewkantar on 11/04/2021 10:21 pm
    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.

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: meekGee on 11/04/2021 10:25 pm
    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.

    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.
    Exactly.  So even if the source of the problem is within BO, the responsibility and soul-searching belong in ULA. (As agreed upthread)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: woods170 on 11/05/2021 08:03 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: savantu on 11/05/2021 08:48 am
    It would be fascinating to see the agreed milestones between ULA and BO and ULA's reaction to BO missing them. Probably in a book 20 years from now...
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: ThatOldJanxSpirit on 11/05/2021 10:04 am
    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’m not sure Tory Bruno fully agrees with you.

    “…we allowed ourselves as a program, to have fewer test assets to work with than we originally planned.”

    https://spacenews.com/tory-bruno-says-the-challenges-with-be-4-are-real-but-the-engine-is-moving-forward/

    Blue is responsible for delivery of the engines, but ULA is accountable for delivery of the vehicle and should have maintained adequate oversight; as should the DoD. There is plenty of blame for all three parties to share here.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: deadman1204 on 11/05/2021 03:30 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Davidthefat on 11/05/2021 05:21 pm
    Does BO have a ULA spec engine vs internal New Glenn spec engine in development?


    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Rebel44 on 11/05/2021 06:28 pm
    ...


    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?

    No, ULA doesn't have an internal capability to design and manufacture booster engines.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: clongton on 11/05/2021 08:02 pm
    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robotbeat on 11/05/2021 08:10 pm
    It’s still not obvious that AJR would’ve been a better choice. Starting with lower thrust, however, could’ve helped. Hindsight is 20/20, though…
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: rcoppola on 11/05/2021 08:30 pm
    Tory / ULA were very clear from the outset that their production philosophy for Vulcan was NOT to be vertically integrated. They purposefully looked to spread the development risks and costs around by contracting with those they considered to be able to provide the best product for the best price, such as the Fairing's, Engines, etc..

    That they failed to appropriately reduce the risks involved with this strategy is completely on ULA. Full stop.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: woods170 on 11/05/2021 08:40 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: starsilk on 11/05/2021 09:58 pm
    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".
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Slarty1080 on 11/05/2021 10:32 pm
    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 see
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Rebel44 on 11/05/2021 10:59 pm
    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".

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: imprezive on 11/06/2021 12:32 am
    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?

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: woods170 on 11/06/2021 09:03 am
    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".

    Nope. That ship has sailed. ULA has received the final batches of RD-180 engines. The contract between ULA and Energomash has been closed out. The RD-180 production line has been shut down.

    Also: The one year (or so) that ULA would not be able to fulfill its NSSL obligations (due to BE-4 being late) is a period that is acceptable to the NSS community.

    Any rapidly required launches would go to the backup provider for the time being (SpaceX). Also, parts of the NSS community are in fact allowed to buy launches outside the NSSL agreement. For example, that's how Zuma got launched on F9. Test and development programs of the US NSS programs launch on non-NSSL launchers all the time (Pegasus, Electron, Falcon 1, etc.)

    In other words: there is no need to lobby US Congress to allow more RD-180's. Newly built engines would not be available for at least a year from now. By which time Vulcan has long since received its first batches of flight engines.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: savantu on 11/06/2021 12:02 pm

    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. An integrator is by definition a jack of all trades, master of none.
    From my experience you need low level specialists in the given area when pressuring a supplier, because they will sell you donuts when you wanted ice-cream. Apparently ULA took the donuts time and time again.
    I wonder if the external consultants brought to diagnose BE4 where there at ULA's request. Either way it didn't help them much. It could simply be that the difficulties in doing a 250t methane engine were/are above ULA+BOs expertise. No amount of oversight will give a spark when there is none. I've seen that as well in automotive field.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Jim on 11/06/2021 01:28 pm

    The problem I think is that ULA only has program managers when they also need engine specialists.

    Not true.  They have engine specialists. 
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Jim on 11/06/2021 01:30 pm
    Lets just stop this.  ULA has engine specialists just like airlines do. They understand the operation and construction of the engines.   But to solve real deep problems or to make changes, it still requires the OEM's involvement.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: trimeta on 11/06/2021 07:39 pm
    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.

    ULA has already lost contracts due to not having any spare Atlas Vs: they had to withdraw from the GOES-U weather satellite competition (https://spacenews.com/spacex-wins-contract-to-launch-weather-satellite-after-ula-withdraws/), even though according to Tory Bruno their bid would have been cheaper than SpaceX's.

    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1446151084322562051

    So if they were going to consider shunting Kuiper launchers to Vulcan to free up some Atlas Vs, they already would have.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: yoram on 11/06/2021 08:16 pm
    I'm not sure why people use language like "ship run to the ground". Blue is late with the engine but historically being late with new cutting edge rocket engines is more the norm than a unusual occurrence. So far the delays don't seem to be excessive. The ship would be run to the ground if the customer or Blue didn't see a way to fix the problems, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: TorenAltair on 11/06/2021 08:22 pm
    The delivery was planned for 2017, so it is quite late.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 11/07/2021 02:14 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Eric Hedman on 11/07/2021 02:34 am
    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.
    The voice of reason in this discussion.  Thanks Steve.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: TorenAltair on 11/07/2021 02:35 am
    Of course everybody is late, but everybody usually gets his share of blame. So I see no reason to handle Blue Origin's BE-4 situation as "everything's ok" (neither any of the other companies/programs where some delays were "unnecessary").
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Hamish.Student on 11/07/2021 02:44 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Rebel44 on 11/07/2021 08:02 am
    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.

    Well, the difference is that BE-4 is neither a low-priority project (which Falcon Heavy was) nor its development depends on external funding that was cut for several years (Commercial Crew).

    Starship being late compared to Elon's "aspirational" schedule is also not a big problem for SpaceX customers - unlike BE-4/Vulcan delays being an operational problem for ULA and its customers. There is also a big difference between being late compared to the internal aspirational schedule (which is normal) and being late with something that has a hard contractual delivery date.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: AlexP on 11/07/2021 08:52 am
    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.
    It was regarding the igniter, I believe:

    Quote
    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.”

    https://spacenews.com/tory-bruno-says-the-challenges-with-be-4-are-real-but-the-engine-is-moving-forward/
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: zubenelgenubi on 11/08/2021 07:12 pm
    Moderator:
    Thread trimmed. Stay on topic.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Purona on 11/09/2021 02:18 pm
    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.

    And in 2017 ULA were still deciding between the BE-4 and AR-1
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: AlexP on 11/09/2021 02:59 pm
    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.
    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/).

    Now, clearly, ULA knew when the deal was agreed that the engine was already a year past the original goal for qualification. Blue were also about a year into the test program. Bruno also said they would want to retire some key technical risks prior to selecting the engine (https://spacenews.com/bruno-vulcan-engine-downselect-is-blues-to-lose/). To me, this suggests that ULA went into the agreement with open eyes.

    To summarise - assuming the engine is ready in 2022, BE-4 is:

    5 years late for their optimistic internal goal of qualification (to use terminology others have used regarding other projects.)
    3 years late for their original goal for supporting a Vulcan launch.
    2 years late for the targeted first launch when the deal was put to paper.

    Edit - typo.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Joseph Peterson on 11/10/2021 08:12 am
    https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/606815241368772608?lang=en
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: deadman1204 on 11/10/2021 01:38 pm
    https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/606815241368772608?lang=en
    I'm reminded of the reddit sub agedlikemilk
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: wannamoonbase on 11/10/2021 01:44 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vonbraun on 11/10/2021 04:53 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Okie_Steve on 11/10/2021 06:00 pm
    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, finger pointing fest either. Just wondering if the current blocker issue seems to be thrust, stability, structure etc.

    Edit - Typo
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: LouScheffer on 11/10/2021 06:12 pm
    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...
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: niwax on 11/10/2021 06:22 pm
    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.

    Super short? Engine go boom.

    They have had all the same problems any engine development has - combustion stability, for example. There is no clear reason why their problems were so much worse than usual, but we can speculate. They went for a very large engine with a new fuel while also going for the first US oxidizer rich cycle. They also agreed to deliver engines to an external customer first at fixed specifications, including uprating thrust, instead of their own vehicles where they could start with lower performance.

    It might not just be a slip but an unrealistic schedule and overambitious project from the outset. A lot of Blue Origins calculation seem to be that if someone can make a 20t engine in five years, they can make a 200t engine with 10x the budget. It'll be interesting to see if the same will happen with New Glenn, since they are also pitching landing and reuse from the first flight. It seems like the sort of calculation a company led by finance and marketing would make.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Eric Hedman on 11/10/2021 06:24 pm
    Somebody wake me up when there is actual news on the status of the BE-4 engine.  This speculation is getting old and tiring.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: deadman1204 on 11/10/2021 07:21 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: savantu on 11/15/2021 10:29 am


    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 see it more as not having the know-how / manpower  concentration needed to build from scratch a methane powered ORSC. Concurrent  & diverging expectations from the propulsion team did not help at all.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Lars-J on 11/19/2021 04:02 pm
    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.

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: dglow on 11/19/2021 04:11 pm
    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.

    Yes, but ULA had not planned to introduce the heavy variant until some time after Vulcan's debut.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: flexbuffchest on 11/19/2021 04:40 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Lars-J on 11/19/2021 06:51 pm
    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. (be it due to optimistic estimates, or lacking the ability to execute)

    That is not the same as not being able to "walk and chew gum". If the reason for the delay is that the engine (as spec'ed) was too difficult to execute, the presence or lack of other projects would not make much of a difference.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Redclaws on 11/19/2021 08:27 pm
    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.

    There is of course an eventually ugly sliding scale here between “We’re not totally sure but there’s always some uncertainty” and “we certainly can’t do this, hah hah, but we’ll get more money once they’re stuck with it” where things like competitive pressure and competitive dishonesty come in to play.  It’s pretty complicated, and it goes from “oh no unexpected things” through to “reach exceeds grasp” to “aggressive exaggeration” through to “basically fraud” without  bright lines along the way.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: AU1.52 on 11/19/2021 09:01 pm
    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.


    If ULA wanted a Block 2 / 3 engine they should not have picked a supplier with limited engine experience and no production (scale) experience.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: spacenut on 11/19/2021 09:03 pm
    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. 
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: whitelancer64 on 11/19/2021 10:05 pm
    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.

    This is like saying SpaceX should have had the Falcon 9 up and running before they bid on COTS ISS resupply for NASA.

    And again with the 19 years fallacy.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DrHeywoodFloyd on 11/19/2021 11:58 pm
    What is the current status of the Test Stand 4670 at Huntsville now?

    Has BO completed their restoration work?

    Is it now being used?

    This from last year:
    https://www.al.com/news/2020/07/blue-origins-big-job-restoring-an-apollo-test-stand-in-huntsville.html?utm_source=reddit.com
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: spacenut on 11/20/2021 05:52 pm
    Does anyone have any idea when the BE-4 engine will be operational?  Logical guessing only please. 
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Rebel44 on 11/20/2021 06:48 pm
    Does anyone have any idea when the BE-4 engine will be operational?  Logical guessing only please.

    Based on the recent article from Eric Berger*, I would expect ULA to have 2 flight certified BE-4s in Q2 2022 - assuming their tests and tests of qualification engines go well (which is not guaranteed).

    * https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/11/rocket-report-clipper-to-fly-on-used-falcon-boosters-be-4-may-slip-further/
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: whitelancer64 on 11/22/2021 04:56 pm
    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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: dlapine on 11/22/2021 08:39 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: HoratioNelson on 11/22/2021 08:50 pm
    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 any 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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Rebel44 on 11/22/2021 10:08 pm
    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.

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: HoratioNelson on 11/22/2021 10:53 pm

    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.
    It remains the case that he has no reason to satisfy twitter's idle curiosity, so his choosing not to tells us nothing.
    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: meekGee on 11/23/2021 03:52 am

    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.
    It remains the case that he has no reason to satisfy twitter's idle curiosity, so his choosing not to tells us nothing.
    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....

    That's just "plausible deniability".  Just like the "BO is a private company and chooses secrecy" etc etc.

    Point is that when either of them had concrete positive information, they suddenly forgot about their secrecy and ran to tell the world.

    So when they're clearly behind and bleeding, being cagey is definitely meaningful.

    As posted above, what exactly is the fear? That SpaceX will get alarmed and stop being complacent and lazy?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: HoratioNelson on 11/23/2021 01:10 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Hamish.Student on 11/23/2021 01:27 pm
    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.
     
     
    Do you have any evidence SpaceX engages in pricing practices such as those? I get they are a business, and a profit driven enterprise but I have never heard anything that would imply SpaceX charges higher prices unnecessarily. In fact, space launch is cheaper than ever because of SpaceX. In fact, if any businesses have been documented to overcharge it is, well, Blue Origin. Proof? Look at their HLS lawsuit. 
       
    Let me get ahead of the predictable response too, Government launches are more expensive than commercial because there are additional services, and a lot more red tape involved. They dont just mark up for the US Govt because they know they can pay it. 
     
    But this is getting off topic for this thread, I would suggest creating a new one if you would like to continue this discussion lest the mods will get mad. <3
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: HoratioNelson on 11/23/2021 01:49 pm
    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?
    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.
    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 sports team rocket 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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: meekGee on 11/23/2021 01:55 pm
    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?
    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.
    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 sports team rocket 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.
    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...

    And soon, any year now, they will pounce.

    Aha.

    This is just another version of the "but Falcon reuse hasn't been proven yet" argument.

    Pedantically speaking, you're correct. Maybe it's all a ruse.

    Practically speaking though, we all hope ULA and BO managements are wiser than this, and we kinda fear they're at least in part, not.

    Put it this way: If Tory doesn't feel he has to release any info, why does he bother with vague assuaging messages?  Won't this just galvanize the competition?

    Answer is: He doesn't have concrete good news, he has to put out something since too prolonged a silence also looks bad, and so this is the best that the facts allow him to say.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Hamish.Student on 11/23/2021 02:05 pm
    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?
    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.
    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 sports team rocket company we're cheering for.
       
     
    Did you not raise the issue of SpaceX pricing first? You're also choosing your points to refute very carefully.   
     
    Quote
    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.
     
     
    That is certainly one interpretation of things. Not the one I would choose.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: LouScheffer on 11/23/2021 02:14 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Jim on 11/23/2021 02:15 pm

    That is certainly one interpretation of things. Not the one I would choose.

    That is a calibration statement, and it is pointing down
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: HoratioNelson on 11/23/2021 06:36 pm
    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 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.

    And soon, any year now, they will pounce.

    Yes. Specifically, mid-2022, with the Astrobotic Peregrine Lander.

    Did you not raise the issue of SpaceX pricing first? You're also choosing your points to refute very carefully.

    I did not. I pointed out that SpaceX pricing is one of the varied reasons Mr. Bruno might not be sharing information. The HLS lawsuit bit was a very odd digretion by Hamish.Student...

    That is certainly one interpretation of things. Not the one I would choose.

    Uh... exactly. Once we're choosing interpretations we're well past what we know and into what we fantasize about....
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: trimeta on 11/23/2021 07:55 pm
    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? He could just tweet nothing and not share "competitive information." That he wants to suggest that there's progress without making any statements actually confirming that there's progress is telling: given his demonstrated desire to make the public think there has been progress, why wouldn't he take that next step and give actual concrete facts about that progress? Unless he has no such facts.

    And as others have noted, he's posted such facts in the past, when he had them: we've probably seen more pictures of BE-4s in Tory's tweets than in anything Blue Origin has ever produced. But we haven't seen anything lately.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: HoratioNelson on 11/23/2021 08:10 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: trimeta on 11/23/2021 08:28 pm
    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."
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: HoratioNelson on 11/23/2021 08:42 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: darkenfast on 11/23/2021 08:53 pm
    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 tweet doesn't say: "Things are going well.". The tweet says: "Looking good. Major milestones recently passed in prequal testing. Running like a top. All nominal. First flight engines moving through the factory". That's a fairly specific set of statements for an Aerospace CEO to make. Two statements seem to be fairly unambiguous ("Running like a top" and "All nominal"). Two others are fairly positive ("Major milestones..." and "First flight engines"...").

    Whatever B.O.'s screw-ups have been, I'd like to see some evidence before I jump to the conclusion that the BE-4 engine is STILL having problems, whatever my opinion of the company. 

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: trimeta on 11/23/2021 08:57 pm
    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: delays shipping parts around, specific procedures taking longer, staffing and scheduling challenges meaning your workforce isn't at 100% speed. Things which won't impact the quality of the end product, but simply push back when it's delivered. You'll note that while Tory's message basically says "things are going well," it doesn't say "things are going on schedule." (His use of "nominal" could refer to engine performance, not adherence to schedule.) I wonder why that is, why he would avoid spelling it out (while still implying it so that people who didn't read carefully might think it's in the tweet).
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: HoratioNelson on 11/23/2021 09:17 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: trimeta on 11/23/2021 09:46 pm
    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.

    Those can refer to the performance of the engine (e.g., the "engine specifications in the contract and rocket design documents"), rather than adherence to the schedule. As long as the payload's own schedule slips as much or more than the rocket's schedule, the customer won't care if the rocket isn't ready by some arbitrary date they themselves cannot make. I'm sure Astrobotic has actual information about the BE-4's schedule. Which we do not, since all we have is a tweet about how well the engines are performing. Something Tory has been telling us for months, with no new information actually pertaining to the schedule.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: meekGee on 11/23/2021 11:20 pm
    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.
    But we've heard exactly that kind of statement before.

    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?



    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: HoratioNelson on 11/24/2021 11:52 am

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: woods170 on 11/24/2021 01:33 pm
    Boys and girls: please don't feed the troll. This is NOT the Battle of Trafalgar.

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: meekGee on 11/24/2021 01:56 pm

    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? 

    Shrug.  Doesn't matter.  I'm pretty sure at this point BO absolutely wants this thing done ASAP so they can get back to focusing on NG, so it's happening as fast as they can make it happen.

    We'll see what arrives by year's end, and whether Vulcan can make 2022.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: HoratioNelson on 11/24/2021 05:15 pm
    Errr...  Where does it say "remain on track"?
    And at this point, what track even? 

    Sorry, I haven't been communicating this part super well :'(. My contention is that saying "Looking good" and "running like a top" would be a lie with legal consequences if engine struggles were threatening to delay the 2022 launch. (though, IANAL)

    We'll see what arrives by year's end, and whether Vulcan can make 2022.

    I agree 100%  :).
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: deadman1204 on 11/24/2021 08:46 pm
    maybe the mods could do us a favor and close this thread. Its gotten WAY past bad.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: TrevorMonty on 11/24/2021 09:47 pm
    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.

    Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: spacenut on 11/25/2021 12:21 am
    Hopefully Bezos is on here and reads the threads. 
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: SteveU on 11/25/2021 07:37 pm
    Don’t know whether to ask this here or the Vulcan thread but here goes. How soon before launch does ULA need the engines?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Purona on 11/25/2021 09:43 pm
    Don’t know whether to ask this here or the Vulcan thread but here goes. How soon before launch does ULA need the engines?

    Closest information we have is to go all the way back to the Atlas V. They completed RD-180 testing in December 2001 and scheduled the launch for May of 2002.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: harrystranger on 11/26/2021 11:39 am
    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)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DrHeywoodFloyd on 11/27/2021 02:09 am
    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)

    I would be interested if they have tested their BE-4 engines in the NG configuration to sort out any vibration and resonance issues with running seven BE-4 engines at the same time?
    If they are testing here, perhaps that means they still have not sorted out the problems with the Test Stand 4670 at Huntsville .... does any-one know as to the Status of this?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Purona on 11/27/2021 10:36 am
    From what I remember they have 3 test stands at van horn for the BE-4 alone. So it could also be a numbers thing
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: envy887 on 11/29/2021 08:43 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: HoratioNelson on 11/29/2021 08:56 pm
    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...
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: meekGee on 11/30/2021 12:27 am
    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...
    Oh no...  So Tory's strategy is to cunningly trick SpaceX into underbidding and leave money on the table...

    Clever!

    But perhaps better, he should say Vulcan is late, trick them into overbidding, and then pounce with a surprise reveal, no?

    Eye roll.

    Here's a newsflash:

    Tory has a difficult enough of a task managing ULA, he doesn't need to manage SpaceX.

    Also, SpaceX has proven before that they don't get complacent and bid based on their low costs.  And win.  And don't lament about leaving money on the table.




    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: HVM on 11/30/2021 08:45 am
    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...)

    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...)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: edzieba on 11/30/2021 10:55 am
    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...)

    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...)
    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?".
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: meekGee on 12/01/2021 04:20 am
    Since this is a BO thread, I'll repeat here...

    What you're seeing at SpaceX is the opposite of the "we have all the money in the world so can take our time" approach taken by BO.

    Even from a position of leader-by-a-mile, SpaceX is behaving like the competition is 2 feet behind them. As they should.

    BO should take notice instead of snickering...
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: deadman1204 on 12/01/2021 02:07 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Alvian@IDN on 12/01/2021 02:39 pm
    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.
    Real world data will always beat analysis, when you can get that sooner it would be an advantage
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Purona on 12/01/2021 09:14 pm
    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.
    Real world data will always beat analysis, when you can get that sooner it would be an advantage

    It depends it's not like they aren't testing the engines or specific aspects of New Glenn they just aren't attaching them to a rocket and launching it in whatever specific environment New Glenn launches in

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Yggdrasill on 12/02/2021 05:11 am
    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.
    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.

    Sure, there have been some minor issues during ascent, but if they had happened during an orbital launch, the payload would still have made it to orbit. I would say the Raptors have been surprisingly reliable thus far. It wouldn't have been unusual to see engines go out during ascent, but all major issues like that have been confined to the landing attempts, where SpaceX is doing something that has never been done before, with the flip maneuver. And I am very much inclined to cut them some slack for that reason. (We also don't know how much of the fuel mixture variations during ascent have been intentional experimentation, just to mention it.)

    Almost all of what remains to be done with Raptor is optional improvements. They want more thrust, they want lower price, they want better producibility, they want better reliability, they want rapid reusability. But what they have right now is already quite good.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: dglow on 12/02/2021 06:00 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Yggdrasill on 12/02/2021 06:08 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Purona on 12/02/2021 09:11 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Steve G on 12/03/2021 06:01 pm
    Update on the engines.

    https://spacenews.com/tory-bruno-ula-wont-get-engines-by-christmas-be-4s-coming-in-early-2022/

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: JayWee on 12/03/2021 06:24 pm
    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.
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: kdhilliard on 12/03/2021 07:48 pm
    Update on the engines.
    https://spacenews.com/tory-bruno-ula-wont-get-engines-by-christmas-be-4s-coming-in-early-2022/

    CNBC's Morgan Brennan interview of Tory Bruno which is the source for that article:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9saMjN238qA
    "United Launch Alliance CEO: We have to strive to deter aggression in space"
    YouTube · CNBC Television · 4m51s

    BE-4 question comes at 1:35 (https://youtube.com/watch?v=9saMjN238qA&t=1m35s), answered at 1:54 (https://youtube.com/watch?v=9saMjN238qA&t=1m54s):
    Quote
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Purona on 12/04/2021 06:17 am
    Until Blue Origin becomes a reason why ULA cannot launch a payload on time as decided by themselves or their direct customer. I cannot bring myself to care about any developments involving BE-4 being decided as "late" or "delayed"

    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.
    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.

    Thats different from what I thought Yddrasill meant. What I thought being that Blue Origin had the engine for New Glenn and then reduced capabilities to meet requirements for Vulcan. But the existence of an upgrade to the BE-4 doesn't necessarily mean they rushed to make this variant specifically for Vulcan.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: meekGee on 12/04/2021 07:57 pm
    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..
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: HoratioNelson on 12/04/2021 08:46 pm

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: meekGee on 12/04/2021 10:51 pm

    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.

    So 1.5 weeks later, it is now confirmed - that's all.

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: HoratioNelson on 12/04/2021 11:29 pm

    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.


    Well, it's clear you and I continue to disagree about what Tory Bruno's tweets mean, what his motives are, and what can be inferred / speculated from them, etc. But we've derailed this thread more than enough by now - let's agree to disagree :).
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: dlapine on 12/05/2021 09:03 pm
    From the article:

    "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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Phil Stooke on 12/05/2021 09:13 pm
    I bet Astrobotic are kicking themselves.  Though on the bright side, the launch delay is less likely to be their fault.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: AlexP on 12/05/2021 11:34 pm
    From the article:

    "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.
    In fairness, it's better to stick to what Bruno actually said (see upthread) than a journalist's paraphrasing:

    Quote
    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.

    Still vague but you at least narrow it down to first quarter rather than the whole year. (And given previous form, still only put it in the diary in pencil.)

    Interesting trying to square this up with Berger's previous account of the planned "endgame":

    Quote
    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: edzieba on 12/06/2021 03:03 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Hamish.Student on 12/06/2021 10:10 pm
    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.
     
     
    Will all 4 engines be used on flight? So, the 2 cert testing engines, would they be destined for Vulcan #2?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: 2megs on 12/13/2021 04:33 pm
    https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/12/ula-disappointed-in-be-4-delay-but-still-aiming-for-2022-vulcan-launch/

    Quote
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: deadman1204 on 12/13/2021 06:45 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DigitalMan on 12/13/2021 06:49 pm
    I don't think you need to be so hard on him, he may be getting information warranting optimism, until the test results come in and show issues.

    If it was his engineers, under his control, you might have a point.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Jim on 12/13/2021 08:33 pm

    Why does he even bother, hes starting to sound like a fool with EVERY announcement .........

    Same thing happens with EVERY post
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: whitelancer64 on 12/13/2021 09:08 pm
    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.

    Every single part of that comment is nonsense.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: WiresMN on 12/13/2021 09:44 pm
    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.

    But we can give the head of another company some slack for unrealistic timelines? Give him a break. Schedules are what they are and are usually wrong.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: meekGee on 12/13/2021 11:10 pm
    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.

    Methinks there's the distinct possibility that these horses are not doing so well...
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: M.E.T. on 12/14/2021 01:18 am
    I reckon Bezos has Tory over a barrel. Tory can’t make too much noise, because he has precious little leverage. Without Blue’s engines, ULA is truly up the creek without a paddle.

    Tory has to present a brave face, because he is powerless to do anything about the state of affairs.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: xyv on 12/14/2021 02:42 am
    The two are tied to each other's fate at this point. Tory gets to put on the brave face without outright lying.  In a lot of ways he's he victim here...captive to previous decisions...granted some he helped make.

    And I realized I just responded in the wrong thread.  Have to figure out how to move iwhen I'm on a real computer
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 01/04/2022 05:03 pm
    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

    "The first stage of the New Glenn rocket is powered by seven BE-4 LOX/LNG (liquefied oxygen/liquified nitrogen [sic] gas) engines, which are currently being developed. Current manufacturing is happening in Kent, Wash., but production is shifting to Blue Origin’s engine manufacturing facility in Huntsville, Ala.

    Those engines will also power United Launch Alliance's Vulcan Centaur rocket.

    “Our team in Texas has been busy testing the BE-4 engine, getting it ready for delivery early in the year to United Launch Alliance, as well as to our New Glenn booster,” Henderson said.

    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."


    Does anyone have any way to clarify Henderson's statement about the flight engine hardware, if they are individual sub-assemblies or parts being tested down at Texas, or if they have actually built a whole engine(s) and have sent those down there?

    *Note: I originally posted this in the L2 forum to see if anyone there could provide clarification through industry sources. I do so here for those who may be interested in this rather interesting bit of progress on BE-4 as well as New Glenn. And I do not take credit for the discovery of the article, that goes to Schrodinger's Cat on the Space News Discus commentary forum who brought it to everyone's attention there.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Purona on 01/06/2022 08:25 am
    i dont see why they would suddenly switch back to individual component testing after testing full engines for 4 years.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: russianhalo117 on 01/06/2022 04:45 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 01/06/2022 05:57 pm
    i dont see why they would suddenly switch back to individual component testing after testing full engines for 4 years.

    One theory floated on Space News postulated the component testing is to verify the quality of Huntsville's products before moving into final assembly of full engines. Those engines will then be acceptance tested at Marshall, and not at Corn Ranch.

    Another possibility is that the parts are being built, but because Henderson is speaking in a kind of train of thought way, he means that in addition to the flight engine parts being built at Huntsville, testing on the development engines is on-going.

    But that is all speculation, of course, hence the need for follow-on clarification.

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 01/06/2022 06:07 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DrHeywoodFloyd on 01/07/2022 01:31 am
    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]



    I have been very interested to know what is the status of this test stand, 4670, because this stand was once used to test the first stage of the Saturn 5 rocket. I have been wondering if that is also intention to test the first stage of the New Glenn in order to identify any vibrational defects, and do all up system test with a complete first stage?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: russianhalo117 on 01/07/2022 02:31 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Purona on 01/07/2022 10:00 am
    We have almost no performance metrics on the BE-4

    We know:
    intended thrust levels;
    years old max thrust durations for flight;
    potential psi of the BE-4 that came out in 2016 3 years before they released a new version of the BE-4 targeting 2400KN;
    Arianne stated that allegedly the BE-4 was designed for 25 uses but then corrected and said it was designed for 100 uses;
    In 2020 they said the next block version of the BE-4 was designed for at least 25 reuses before needing significant work done

    I remember last year Eric Berger making an article about the BE-4 specifically stating that ULA were upset because Blue Origin were developing the BE-4 for reusability.

    With the above said the following

    Quote
    not yet achieving the reuse case requirements for full reuse at flight levels, pressures and durations.

    Doesn't seem to be true because ...well there's no information on it.

    Quote
    During Block-1 development a while back a fork was created to explore and develop an fully expendable block-1 version for ULA

    I don't remember this ever happening.

    AS of now there's 3 versions of the BE-4. The first one targeting 1800KN, the second one targeting 2400KN and a block 2 targeting 25 reuses before significant work is done. All of which were developed with intention of being reusable

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 01/07/2022 02:56 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: JayWee on 01/07/2022 05:25 pm

    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/
    Quote
    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.”

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Rebel44 on 01/07/2022 06:25 pm

    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/
    Quote
    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.”

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 01/07/2022 08:09 pm

    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/
    Quote
    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.”

    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.


    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

    "Jen DiMascio:

    The [Government Accountability Office] recently put out a report talking about some of what we've discussed on the BE-4 engine experiencing some challenges and your continuance of the use of Atlas for national security missions into 2022. Do you have any more information on what some of those issues are with the BE-4 or are they just the normal type of issues you were talking about?

    Tory Bruno:

    "It really is the normal sorts of things you do to execute through development. And really our challenges are just scheduled, just getting through a pretty complicated and full qualification test program in ramping up production. I'll share with you, there were inaccuracies in the GAO report or at least things that people could easily misunderstand. They talked about a couple of specific items that really are not, they are not open technical items and they're not pacing the development of the engine. They did not talk to us. So I don't have any knowledge as to where that information that they talked about in the report came from. It wasn't from us. I don't believe it was from Blue [Origin], because like I said, it really wasn't accurate."

    The igniter issue is not an open one.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: JayWee on 01/07/2022 08:13 pm
    ...
    IIRC, that Block 2 mention was in the Europa Clipper selection statement.
    Yes! That's it:
    https://sam.gov/api/prod/opps/v3/opportunities/resources/files/93cd61f10da241e3bf2eaff83f274920/download?api_key=null&token=

    Quote
    Finally, the proposal did not define the BE-4 engine block version proposed.
    Quote
    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.

    So ULA didn't know the performance targets of Block 2 when they submitted the proposal (it had due date in April 2021).
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: JayWee on 01/07/2022 08:23 pm

    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.

    Oh yes, I didn't mean to bring up the igniter issue - sure that's already closed.
    The point was that it mentions that the engine design bifurcated between:
    a) version for ULA - let's call it "Block 1"
    b) version for New Glenn - let's call it "Block 2" - and as the Europa Clipper RFP shows, with upgraded performance.
    Only Block 2 is restartable in flight.
    Now, of course you can argue whether it implies that Block 1 can't be restarted on the ground. But if Block 1 goes only to Vulcan, it's not likely to be certified for multiple firings.

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 01/07/2022 09:10 pm

    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/
    Quote
    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.”

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: JayWee on 01/07/2022 09:26 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: deadman1204 on 01/11/2022 08:21 pm
    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.

    This is pure conjecture. That report not discussing a specific block means literally nothing about whether or not they knew there was gonna be blocks, much less that they would change.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Joseph Peterson on 01/26/2022 09:23 pm
    Quote
    ULA now projects receiving engines in mid-2022
    https://spacenews.com/space-and-national-security-what-to-expect-in-2022/

    One of these years the projection for when BE-4 will be ready has to be correct, doesn't it?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DrHeywoodFloyd on 02/01/2022 12:54 am
    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...
    https://www.reddit.com/r/BlueOrigin/comments/rm1vas/brevard_county_commissions_resolution_commends/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

    Here is the original source article read verbatim in this video...

    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

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: kdhilliard on 02/01/2022 12:55 am
    [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?

    1) The video's title may be correct on the technicality that if NG *ever* launches to orbit then it will have beaten B4/S20 as indications are now that it will be B7/S24 making the inaugural orbital flight.

    2) Gotta love the Lost in Space vibes put out by the News 13 report's name: Will Robinson-Smith!
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: dglow on 02/01/2022 01:21 am
    [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?

    So much of the SpaceX-adjacent category on YouTube is a veritable cesspool. Pure garbage content: plagiarized and/or sensationalized writing over 'borrowed' video footage, sometimes topped with the dulcet tones of an AI-voiceover.

    It is so excellent and admirable that the NSF crew has stuck with its current, wordless video format. I can imagine the temptation to add a talking head or voiceover was great, but restraint is the better part of valor. Boca Chica Gal and Nick Ansuini both deserve huge credit, and a giant hats-off to Jack Beyer: the attention he puts into editing, especially the naturalistic audio tracks, is magnificent.

    How fortunate we are to be gifted with a new rocket porn tone poem every day.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: GWH on 02/01/2022 05:43 am
    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DrHeywoodFloyd on 02/01/2022 10:41 am
    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....
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DrHeywoodFloyd on 02/01/2022 10:45 am
    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...."



    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 02/01/2022 08:12 pm
    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...."

     Spectrum News 13 article is one I am very familiar with having posted it here for clarification on what that statement about the engine production at Huntsville means. That article mentions Test Stand 4670 coming online in the 1st quarter of this year. Is there any sign that will be true or if not by the end of March, but sometime shortly thereafter?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Hamish.Student on 02/17/2022 08:33 pm
    https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1494342938436018177
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: deadman1204 on 02/17/2022 09:28 pm
    Notice the tacit slip.

    In January they said mid year, now its "this year".
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 02/17/2022 09:45 pm
    https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1494342938436018177

    Vague and not especially helpful, except to confirm that flight engines are being built as opposed to more development engines. Examples from last year describing flight engine construction:

    “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."
    - Scott Henderson, SpectrumNews 13, December 12, 2021

    "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."
    - Tory Bruno, SpaceNews, August 5, 2021

    - "Looking good. Major milestones recently passed in prequal testing. Running like a top. All nominal. First flight engines moving through the factory"
    - Tory Bruno, Twitter, November 18, 2021

    Therefore, we know that fabrication of the first flight engines and other flight engines has been under construction for at least several months.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: yg1968 on 02/18/2022 01:33 pm
    https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1494343283060969476
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 02/18/2022 01:53 pm
    <sigh>  "Going through the first flight builds".  I wonder how numb Bruno has become to these delays.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: niwax on 02/18/2022 02:02 pm
    Notice the tacit slip.

    In January they said mid year, now its "this year".

    For completeness sake, late last year they said February. With an average slip of 2-3 months per month, it looks like we have found a new JWST.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Purona on 02/18/2022 02:16 pm
    At this point if the BE-4 doesn't massively delay the first launch of Vulcan I'm going to be upset that i've had to sit through 2 years of people complaining, making jokes, and any other assortment of ridiculous comments about the BE-4 and/or Blue Origin only for it to NOT MATTER in the end

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Welsh Dragon on 02/18/2022 02:34 pm
    Erm, what indications do we have that it's NOT BE-4 that's the delay?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: lrk on 02/18/2022 04:18 pm
    I mean it's possible that the payload will end up being just as delayed as the rocket.  But in a world where the rocket wasn't delayed, I would have expected ULA to fly with no payload or offer a cheap flight to someone else rather than delay certification by 2+ years.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: GWH on 02/18/2022 05:01 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 02/18/2022 06:41 pm
    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.

    I've looked, but I don't see any real hints anywhere that there's an alternate payload in the wings for either of the first two of Vulcan's flights, not even a mass simulator.

    How much time it takes to find another customer to fit the Vulcans without any real changes to the rocket's configuration or for just a bunch of metal rods in a can?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Purona on 02/18/2022 07:20 pm
    Erm, what indications do we have that it's NOT BE-4 that's the delay?


    Tory Bruno already said they delayed due to added requirements from the Air Force

    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1055852455177654272?s=20&t=OgCOTd2GPHZOGftgNi1EyA

    There's just too much going on with Vulcan to know anything. And people keep assuming things, when we barely know anything.

    For one reason or another in 2018 they decided not to move forward with Centaur 3 on Vulcan launching in 2019 and we dont know why
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: edzieba on 02/18/2022 10:31 pm
    GEM63XL was put on hold for a while due to projected lack of requirement (and allowed work on getting it ready for the remaining Atlas V flights to be pushed forward). Similarly Centaur: not expected to be needed as soon, so the original plan (Centaur V being an enlarged Centaur, ACES following) was skipped for Centaur V getting a good chunk of the IVF work right from the start.
    Basically, when they found out the long-pole was exceptionally long, priorities for the other components changed to take advantage of the schedule opening up, either to front-load more R&D or to alleviate pressure on other vehicles.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: docmordrid on 02/22/2022 05:32 am
    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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: AU1.52 on 02/22/2022 01:35 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: vaporcobra on 02/22/2022 08:08 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DrHeywoodFloyd on 02/23/2022 06:27 am
    ...
    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

    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1496126398905581570?s=20&t=fDfaju6N5ezdo6SRMMjt3w



    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: deadman1204 on 02/23/2022 01:40 pm
    ...
    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.
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: markbike528cbx on 02/23/2022 02:04 pm
    ...
    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.

    First time integration not required, as pathfinder engines have been at ULA for years.
    But yes, my doubts generally align with deadman1204.

    https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/12/ula-disappointed-in-be-4-delay-but-still-aiming-for-2022-vulcan-launch/
    Quote
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 02/23/2022 02:10 pm
    I thought engine qual and delivery of first flight engines is supposed to be happening concurrently.  While I agree with you that Tory is/may be optimistic, he can only really relay schedule data from his supplier (BO).  To publicly discount those schedules is no bueno.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: trimeta on 02/23/2022 03:42 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Ben Baley on 02/24/2022 09:08 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FunBobby on 02/24/2022 09:25 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: whitelancer64 on 02/24/2022 09:52 pm
    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.

    No.

    There is no plan B.

    This late in the game it would be utterly foolish to halt all progress on Vulcan and wait 5 or more years to solicit an alternate engine, redesign Vulcan for it, and go through this process all over again.

    Keeping in mind that in those years, ULA would be unable to book new launches, and be missing out on more launches from the DOD and NASA than it already has.

    BE-4 does not need 2 years and even if it did, it would make far more sense, take less time, and less money, to just wait for the engines to be completed.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 02/25/2022 02:22 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: deadman1204 on 02/25/2022 02:44 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 02/25/2022 06:09 pm
    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.

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Redclaws on 02/25/2022 06:12 pm
    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.

    Sadly, the fact that he’s *still* saying it is news.  He’s at least claiming to still believe it can happen.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Kiwi53 on 02/25/2022 09:11 pm
    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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 02/26/2022 12:04 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: trimeta on 02/26/2022 02:21 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 02/26/2022 05:41 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: trimeta on 02/26/2022 09:21 am
    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.

    To paraphrase Mitch Hedberg, "The BE-4 engines used to perform above specifications. They still do, but they used to, too."

    (I suppose "further testing has not revised the performance estimates significantly downwards" is positive news, vaguely, but it's pretty thin.)

    Edit: It occurs to me, the dispute here may be somewhat philosophical. The last piece of information we had from Tory was "things are going somewhat better than the original plan." What is the proper expectation going forward from that? Do you expect that things will continue to go "somewhat better than the original plan," that this is the new baseline? Or do you expect a reversion to mean? If you expect the latter, then "things continue to go at the same level they were when I last gave an update" is real news, since that reversion to mean has not (yet?) occurred. But if you take the new level as the status quo, then saying "the status remains quo" isn't news.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 02/26/2022 10:49 am
    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 03/01/2022 01:46 am
    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?

    Quickly jamming out a tweet doesn't leave a lot of room. But we have other information to draw on:

    “The rocket engine has thousands of seconds of test time to get through all the operating conditions,” he said. “It is performing great — more thrust than we expected.”

    Though he has stated specifically in response to the ISP question the following:

    "Not yet released.  I can say that it is better than we expected" (https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1361047219923730433?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1361047219923730433%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redditmedia.com%2Fmediaembed%2Fljws3z%3Fresponsive%3Dtrueis_nightmode%3Dfalse)


    Note that the question was asked specifically with regards to what BE-4's ISP is.

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: cpushack on 03/22/2022 09:34 pm
    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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 03/22/2022 10:16 pm
    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

    Is it any worse than when SpaceX vice president of propulsion Will Heltsley "left" SpaceX?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/22/2022 10:31 pm
    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
    We don't why, could be health or personal reasons unrelated to Blue.

    Professionally would've been nice to see first engine fly before leaving.

    Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: cpushack on 03/22/2022 10:51 pm
    His (interim) replacement is also nearing retirement, after 35+ years in the industry, so I don't expect her to stay long either
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 03/22/2022 10:59 pm
    From the Ars Technica article:

    Quote
    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.

    Interesting that Cova originally lead the AR1 engine work. There is a certain irony to it, after all.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Comga on 03/22/2022 11:07 pm
    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/ (https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/03/the-manager-of-blue-origins-rocket-engine-program-has-left-the-company/)

    Probably not a great sign
    We don't [know] why, could be health or personal reasons unrelated to Blue.

    Professionally would've been nice to see first engine fly before leaving.

    Quote
    Vilja is said to be leaving Blue to pursue his "many" interests and hobbies outside of work.

    Doesn’t sound like resigning for health reasons
    At least it didn’t say “to spend more time with his family”, the cliche’ for being forced out.

    Buit is good to know he was so critical that
    Quote
    Vilja’s departure would have no effect on the production of BE-4 engines.

    Also interesting in the article:
    Quote
    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.

    So the head of the team that lost the competition is now leading the “winning” team.

    These are both probably stellar individuals but Blue’s messaging makes fools of them.

    Also of interest:
    Quote
    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”
    “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”?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Eric Hedman on 03/23/2022 02:27 am
    “reasonably short order”
    “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”?
    When they said June or July I noticed they didn't specify in what year. :(
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DrHeywoodFloyd on 03/23/2022 02:32 am
    [https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1506338701500162060?s=20&t=VG77lyRduWQn-ZYkGB_4Uw ]


    Michael Sheetz
    @thesheetztweetz
    Bruno: ULA expects to take delivery of the first flight-ready BE-4 engines in the middle of the year.

    Blue Origin is "testing about three times a week" with BE-4 engines.
    5:35 AM · Mar 23, 2022·TweetDeck

    ==========
    [ https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1506339755193163779?s=20&t=VG77lyRduWQn-ZYkGB_4Uw ]

    Michael Sheetz
    @thesheetztweetz
    ·
    8h
    Replying to
    @thesheetztweetz
     
    @ulalaunch
     and 6 others
    Bruno: Aerojet Rocketdyne is a great rocket engine company, but Vulcan is done being designed so ULA wouldn't switch from BE-4 engines to AR-1 engines.

    BE-4 "is nearly complete, it's running beautifully."

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: deadman1204 on 03/23/2022 12:41 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 03/28/2022 08:10 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: deadman1204 on 03/28/2022 08:28 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Ike17055 on 03/29/2022 12:00 am
    endless concern trolling. tiresome. delays affected SpaceX too. often.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 03/29/2022 12:40 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: deadman1204 on 03/29/2022 01:46 am
    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.
    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.

    In this case (this thread), its a blue timeline that is silly. However, Blue doesn't have the market cornered on dumb timelines.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: meekGee on 03/29/2022 02:53 pm
    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".
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Welsh Dragon on 03/29/2022 03:25 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Comga on 03/31/2022 04:35 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: spacenut on 03/31/2022 04:47 pm
    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. 
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/31/2022 05:43 pm


    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

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: spacenut on 03/31/2022 06:05 pm


    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. 
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: meekGee on 03/31/2022 09:59 pm


    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.

    Take his company roadmap, which he should have at least approved if not dictated and is completely nonsensical buzzword soup.  That's why they're wandering so aimlessly.

    I don't know what he remembers from school but I know people who graduated with an engineering degree and can't engineer shit.  They were never inclined that way to begin with, and so naturally lost whatever they gained afterwards.




    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: LouScheffer on 04/01/2022 01:40 am
    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.

    That being said, degrees are important for getting in the door in the first place, and correct professional certifications sometimes matter.   Otherwise a good engineering attitude means more than a fancy engineering degree.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DrHeywoodFloyd on 04/01/2022 05:09 am
    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.

    Like "Waiting for Godot"...
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuxISg9tjHk

    Two people forever waiting for some-one ........ forever!


    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Timber Micka on 04/01/2022 02:57 pm


    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.

    Far be it from me to want to interrupt this little conversation but if I'm not mistaken it's quite off topic.

    Also,

    Quote
    Musk seems to be more likeable and humble.

    Humble ? Lol
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Purona on 04/01/2022 02:58 pm
    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. 
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: whitelancer64 on 04/01/2022 03:20 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: edzieba on 04/01/2022 06:13 pm
    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.
    What has Blue Origin done?
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Redclaws on 04/01/2022 06:28 pm
    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.

    I know, it’s crazy for people outside the company to *checks notes* rely on media reports from highly respected industry journalists of long standing.  How could we think we know anything!
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 04/01/2022 11:46 pm
    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.
    What has Blue Origin done?
    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.

    Several errors or omissions in your listing.

    BE-4: while test firings continue, the production flight engines near completion and with luck will be delivered to either Corn Ranch or to Marshall's test stand 4670 (if that facility is ready then) in May or thereabout for acceptance test firing.

    You forgot to mention PM-2 among the development vehicle that was lost on its second flight. Used the BE-2, a pump-fed bipropellant engine burning kerosene and peroxide which produced 140 kN (31,000 lbf) of thrust.

    (http://space.skyrocket.de/img_lau/pm-2__1.jpg)

    The HLS descent stage appears to still be an on-going thing since a video was shown during the NS-20 countdown of a BE-7 test firing that supposedly took place earlier this year.

    Orbital Reef work, which remains on-going in partnership with Sierra Space and secondarily with Boeing, Redwire Space, Genesis Engineering Solutions, and Arizona State University.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: meekGee on 04/02/2022 01:04 am
    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.
    Funny thing, previous versions of you were equally indignant when NG was racing FH some 5 years ago...

    Yet here we are.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: HVM on 04/04/2022 12:13 pm
    Ok, here's Terran Space Academy's take:
    https://youtu.be/6zjdAQef3oY
    (I don't agree with the title)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: JayWee on 04/04/2022 02:49 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robotbeat on 04/04/2022 03:56 pm
    Ok, here's Terran Space Academy's take:
    https://youtu.be/6zjdAQef3oY
    (I don't agree with the title)
    Oh my Goddard, I hate YouTube clickbait.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: niwax on 04/04/2022 04:10 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: rsdavis9 on 04/04/2022 05:22 pm
    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.

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: HVM on 04/04/2022 05:25 pm
    Not only that, but did you see graphics in 19:02 wow, yikes.
    So here's updated version  ; )
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: dlapine on 04/04/2022 06:02 pm
    Perhaps more recent images of current engine articles
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: JayWee on 04/04/2022 06:12 pm
    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
    To be fair, to quote BO website - https://www.blueorigin.com/engines/be-4
    Quote
    BE-4 is the most powerful liquefied natural gas (LNG) fueled rocket engine ever developed.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: baldusi on 04/04/2022 06:46 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: JayWee on 04/04/2022 07:14 pm
    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Eric Hedman on 04/04/2022 09:48 pm
    One big red flag on the credibility of the video was when he said that 87 octane fuel is 87 percent made up of the octane molecule.  Aviation gas used at the end of WW II was rated as high as 150 octane.  I'd like to know how a fuel can be 150 percent octane.  Octane rating is not a direct linear correlation to octane content.  He didn't do enough homework before making the video. 
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: spacenut on 04/04/2022 10:35 pm
    I think the video was really very simplified so a lot of people who are not engineers could understand the basics. 
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: deadman1204 on 04/05/2022 12:55 am
    I think the video was really very simplified so a lot of people who are not engineers could understand the basics.

    Theres a difference between simplifying and outright false info
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: baldusi on 04/05/2022 01:05 am
    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 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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: TrevorMonty on 04/07/2022 10:50 pm
    Read one article (can't find it now) that says Blue plan on having 4 boosters early on.


    They are going to need  around 40xBE4 engines a year to service both Vulcan and NG. That will tailor off once Blue has recovery sorted and ULA move to SMART.
    NG will also need 2xBe3u per mission.

    Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Hug on 04/08/2022 08:28 am
    Read one article (can't find it now) that says Blue plan on having 4 boosters early on.

    That's from the NSF article. It's up from the 2 Block 1 boosters that Berger stated back in January, although that's no surprise with this increase in planned cadence.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: deadman1204 on 04/08/2022 02:27 pm
    Assuming thats 4 operational boosters, that means they will need far more than 4 right away.

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: abaddon on 04/08/2022 04:57 pm
    Assuming thats 4 operational boosters, that means they will need far more than 4 right away.

    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.
    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Jim on 04/08/2022 04:59 pm
    Assuming thats 4 operational boosters, that means they will need far more than 4 right away.

    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.
    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?

    New Shepard?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: abaddon on 04/08/2022 05:35 pm
    Assuming thats 4 operational boosters, that means they will need far more than 4 right away.

    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.
    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?

    New Shepard?
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Jim on 04/08/2022 05:48 pm

    - BE-4 does not run on LNG, it's pure methane


    https://www.ulalaunch.com/rockets/vulcan-centaur
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 04/08/2022 05:51 pm
    Can the BE-4 throttle deep enough that NG is expected to do a hover landing as opposed to the F9's "hoverslam" approach?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robotbeat on 04/08/2022 05:56 pm

    - 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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Jim on 04/08/2022 06:05 pm

    - 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.

    I am correcting that.  It is not pure methane.  "LNG" term is not being used as a substitute for Methane
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robotbeat on 04/08/2022 06:08 pm

    - 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.

    I am correcting that.  It is not pure methane.  "LNG" term is not being used as a substitute for Methane
    It is, in this case of BE-4. But I guess now I’ll have to search for the citation.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: baldusi on 04/08/2022 06:42 pm

    - 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.
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Comga on 04/08/2022 06:56 pm
    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 (http://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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 04/08/2022 07:32 pm
    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?

    That is a very out of date video. It predates the changes made to the fairing from 5.2 meters to 7 meters, and there are notable configuration differences in the landing gear, strakes, and so on for he first stage.  Here is the more recent video:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSftIaLhQzE
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: edzieba on 04/08/2022 09:51 pm

    - 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.

    I am correcting that.  It is not pure methane.  "LNG" term is not being used as a substitute for Methane
    Per Tory Bruno:
    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1174788727870083072
    Quote
    Actually, BE4 runs on methane. We sometimes use LNG as a shorthand. But, as you point out, that’s not strictly accurate.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robotbeat on 04/09/2022 12:51 am
    Thanks, edzieba! That’s what I was looking for.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Jim on 04/09/2022 02:25 am

    - 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.

    I am correcting that.  It is not pure methane.  "LNG" term is not being used as a substitute for Methane
    Per Tory Bruno:
    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1174788727870083072
    Quote
    Actually, 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. 
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 04/09/2022 05:53 am

    - 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.

    I am correcting that.  It is not pure methane.  "LNG" term is not being used as a substitute for Methane
    Per Tory Bruno:
    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1174788727870083072
    Quote
    Actually, 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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Jim on 04/09/2022 12:08 pm

    - 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.

    I am correcting that.  It is not pure methane.  "LNG" term is not being used as a substitute for Methane
    Per Tory Bruno:
    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1174788727870083072
    Quote
    Actually, 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?

    Yes,  it is LNG and not 100% methane.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: spacenut on 04/09/2022 01:25 pm
    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. 
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: JCRM on 04/09/2022 03:41 pm
    If it separates out, will that mean the first few percent of the fuel will be heavier, giving higher thrust but lower ISP?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: spacenut on 04/09/2022 05:49 pm
    If it separates out, will that mean the first few percent of the fuel will be heavier, giving higher thrust but lower ISP?

    The reason for separation is to remove the other gases and/or impurities to get pure methane for the rocket engines.  Before I retired, my company installed separators at what you would call city gate stations.  The reason was sometimes water got in the gas, it went to the bottom of the stack as well as occational compressor oil.  In a compressed pipeline, you may also get a little butane, or ethane.  We wanted the gas as pure methane as possible for the town or city customers.  Thousands of cubic feet of gas would go through the separator and it only had to be checked for any type of drainage once a month.  The gas had very little liquids. 

    I say this to say, the natural gas can come straight from the pipeline go through a couple of gas separators.  These are non mechanical, just a tower of large diameter pipe with drain valves placed on bottom and top.  This gets a lot of impurities.  Then when you liquify it, the same thing happens again through either the tank or another separator.  The more you go through separators, the purer the methane.  Separators are also used when taking gas from the ground and collection lines before it went into the transmission lines.  Most all gas going into towns and cities is 95-98% pure methane.  Using natural gas for rocket fuel is not going to be hard at all getting the pure methane.  Making is using Sabatier method will be more time consuming thus harder.  Excess wind or solar power can be used here, and will be on Mars. 
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: markbike528cbx on 04/09/2022 05:55 pm
    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/
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: spacenut on 04/09/2022 06:38 pm
    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. 
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robotbeat on 04/09/2022 07:04 pm
    You could get a performance benefit if you had some other, denser hydrocarbons in there. Especially if they settled to the bottom of the tank and we’re burned first.
    Title: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Bananas_on_Mars on 04/09/2022 09:29 pm
    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.
    What you‘re describing is Natural Gas, but if the methane isn‘t liquid, it’s not LNG…

    The main „impurity“ present in LNG should be ethane as it has it‘s melting point about 20 Kelvin below the usual temperature of LNG.

    For normal use of Natural Gas in heating etc, higher „impurities“ of other alkanes (ethane, propane and butane) are often preferred because they increase the energy per unit of volume.

    I guess they can either go with the ethane present, but then they have to possibly adjust their engine parameters depending on analysing the gas mixture, or go with a purified methane that can be simply achieved by subcooling LNG, and have more reliable results.

    It depends on the demand and the cost of purification, so there might be a scenario where they go with highly refined methane now and when the cost of fuel becomes significant because of reuse, using „dirtier“ fuel might become an economic choice at the cost of fine-tuning your rocket to the „mix“ that‘s available, possibly on a launch to launch base.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Comga on 04/09/2022 10:36 pm
    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.?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Gliderflyer on 04/10/2022 12:44 am
    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.?
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Jim on 04/10/2022 12:54 am
    there is a spec on it and all the analyses for flight performance are based on it
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Comga on 04/10/2022 07:01 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Gliderflyer on 04/10/2022 07:50 pm
    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.
    I doubt they made the spec public.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: markbike528cbx on 04/10/2022 08:13 pm
    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.
    I doubt they made the spec public.
    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. 
    That said, a few percentage points of performance either way, could mean mission success or failure.  Ooh, I forgot sulfur content might be a big deal.

    Similar specs for RP-1 attached.   Even small density differences need to be corrected for.

    I don't have time to look at the moment, but there might be a MIL- spec for rocket methane. There was a SpaceX AirForce contract to develop a methane upper stage, that is related to Raptor history.   I'm not sure if that _directly_ lead to Raptor or just the idea started there.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: JCRM on 04/26/2022 03:03 pm
    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1518965639272177665

    I'm guessing it's that one in the backgound with the powerhead attached?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: deadman1204 on 04/26/2022 09:02 pm
    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1518965639272177665

    I'm guessing it's that one in the backgound with the powerhead attached?
    Nice to see progress on them. Hopfully they can have then finished by the end of June
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 04/27/2022 12:09 am
    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1518965639272177665

    I'm guessing it's that one in the backgound with the powerhead attached?

    Unless Tory made a typo, I'd assume the more or less complete engine in the background is not included with the two nozzle/combustion chambers in the foreground, hence the plural usage.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 04/27/2022 12:26 pm
    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1518965639272177665

    I'm guessing it's that one in the backgound with the powerhead attached?
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DrHeywoodFloyd on 04/27/2022 12:54 pm
    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1518965639272177665

    I'm guessing it's that one in the backgound with the powerhead attached?
    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.

    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...
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: deadman1204 on 04/27/2022 01:53 pm

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 04/27/2022 09:16 pm

    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.
    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.

    Yes, but the important context of the situation given that date on the screen shows that Blue Origin did not just happen to start moving those two engine nozzles/combustion chamber assemblies yesterday to the build stands, or even a few days or weeks ago; this is a milestone that was reached months ago. And so people who might have some doubts about the May/June time frame can see that there is still some legitimacy to it as a target date.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 04/27/2022 11:30 pm
    It's very hard to read, but yes, the center of the three screens reads 1:37 Saturday January 8. The right side screen repeats the same info, but the day and month is nearly illegible.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: MTPATCAMI on 04/28/2022 03:29 am

    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...

    Engine testing has been happening at the TX site called XEEx, considering these engines are being built in Kent, they will likely go to TX, while Huntsville built engines will probably use 4670.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/28/2022 07:51 am
    I don't know how you can tell its January 8! Looks like a big blur to me.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: darkenfast on 04/28/2022 10:17 am
    January 8th was a Saturday. Seems to fit letter-wise.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: JCRM on 04/28/2022 10:19 am
    I don't know how you can tell its January 8! Looks like a big blur to me.

    Absolutely!

    but if that is a date,  "Saturday, January 8" is the most plausible match for the blur.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: meekGee on 04/28/2022 01:01 pm
    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.

    It's certainly not March or April, and it looks more like January than February.  It looks like an "S" day, and a long one.  It's a single digit day of the month, and not "1".

    So yeah, I think that's very likely correct.

    ...and if it's Feb 5, still the takeaway is similar.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 04/28/2022 06:41 pm
    I don't know how you can tell its January 8! Looks like a big blur to me.

    You can just make out the the "S" and "Y" for "Saturday" and "J" for "January". The size of the words, the obvious single digit number all fit. It seems others have figured it out:

    https://www.reddit.com/r/BlueOrigin/comments/ucekqq/torys_be4_engines_are_finally_coming_together/

    There was Michal Radwill replying to Tory who also brought up the January 8 date:

    https://twitter.com/Michal_Radwill/status/1518998409155428353

    At the latest, this was taken first week of February.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Comga on 04/28/2022 09:00 pm
    (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) ;)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DrHeywoodFloyd on 04/29/2022 02:16 am
    (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) ;)

    As Tory Bruno is in daily conference with Blue Origin...  one can assume that he knows the dates, and the status ... and is better informed than you or I...

     https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1519056853442912258?s=20&t=pGVe4NB__nI6luhcJ6zWJg  (https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1519056853442912258?s=20&t=pGVe4NB__nI6luhcJ6zWJg)





    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: jpo234 on 05/02/2022 07:12 pm
    https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1521204209516834816
    Quote
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: trimeta on 05/02/2022 07:32 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 05/02/2022 07:43 pm
    https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1521204217741946880/photo/1

    Quote
    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.

    Quote
    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).

    572,000 lbf is quite an accomplishment and this is the first time that we have a specific thrust figure and percentage. A 4% improvement over the requirement is very impressive.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: whitelancer64 on 05/02/2022 07:58 pm
    *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.

    The "QE" is probably for Qualification Engine. I would speculate that the "P" is for "Production," but it could be a wide variety of other things.

    We already knew long ago that the Qualification engines would not be sent to ULA, so that's not a revelation.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/02/2022 08:56 pm
    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.
    My take is its same build as flight engines.
    Long wait but ULA are finally getting their engines plus performance is better than expected. Plus it will be good for 10+ reuses.




    Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: bombyx on 05/02/2022 09:30 pm
    A third message from Blue Origin that wasn't posted here : (Looking at the background, it seems that  this photo was taken in the new Alabama factory )

    Quote
    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.

    https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1521204214084796416
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 05/03/2022 12:46 am
    It looks like we've got another photo taken earlier this year. Monday, January 24.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: edzieba on 05/03/2022 11:27 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Rakietwawka2021 on 05/03/2022 03:28 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: whitelancer64 on 05/03/2022 03:39 pm
    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.

    Obviously, they want to build and test a lot of engines.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/03/2022 04:22 pm
    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.


    Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: trimeta on 05/03/2022 04:59 pm
    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.

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: zubenelgenubi on 05/03/2022 05:27 pm
    Moderator:
    I split/merged the measurements units discussion to the party thread.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: bombyx on 05/03/2022 06:22 pm
    Quote
    Earlier this year, a BE-4 flight-configuration engine gimballed 8 degrees while operating at 100% power level. 🔥🔥🔥


    https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1521506159848427521?cxt=HHwWgsCs1dDyvJ0qAAAA
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 05/03/2022 06:24 pm
    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 will be and have been, testing BE-4 engines in a press towards finishing the qualification of it and getting ready to acceptance test the production flight engines.

    - LC-11 no longer appears to be for engine testing, at least for a while. It remains uncertain what the former pad is being repurposed to at this point.

    - Corn Ranch's XEEx stand has been doing very frequent testing of the flight-configuration development BE-4s, which is what the three major tweets from Blue Origin recently were about. Harry Stranger has been graciously tweeting Sentinal-2 imagery of the stands that show there is a lot of testing which is in-line with statements from Blue Origin officials who claim at least 3 tests a week are occurring.

    - The Marshall Spaceflight Center 4670 test stand is understood to be where production engines built at Huntsville will be acceptance test fired. Each such test firing for BE-4 is approximately 500 seconds duration.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: deadman1204 on 05/03/2022 08:30 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: nodinawe on 05/03/2022 08:58 pm
    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.

    The test stand at LC-36 appears to be no longer planned:

    https://twitter.com/Harry__Stranger/status/1514949782204465153
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 05/03/2022 08:58 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: deadman1204 on 05/03/2022 09:21 pm
    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.
    Whatever you think I guess...
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/11/2022 03:05 pm
    https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1524386115511324672

    Quote
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 05/11/2022 08:39 pm
    My hats off to Blue Origin's PR department for this. It's a wonderful reversal and hopefully a sign that an end is in sight for BE-4 development and the delivery of the flight engines.

    Now, on a more technical level, the the range of gimbal is very impressive in this test firing, and I noticed at 4 seconds the throttle up to full power.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DrHeywoodFloyd on 05/12/2022 07:51 am
    https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1524386115511324672

    Quote
    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.

    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!!!
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: LaunchedIn68 on 05/13/2022 04:34 pm
    Funny, in the video they don't show the shut down.  Don't sometimes strange and telling things happen during shut down?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 05/13/2022 06:07 pm

    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??
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: MaxTeranous on 05/13/2022 09:08 pm

    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??

    SpaceX blew up a Raptor on a test stand. Well, some kind of engine rich combustion certainly.

    Doesn't really say much tho, as we don't know what SpaceX were trying to achieve with the test. They may have been pushing boundaries, they may not have been.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 05/13/2022 10:09 pm
    That part I knew, it was the video reference that has me confused.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: meekGee on 05/14/2022 02:28 am
    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.

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Asteroza on 05/17/2022 12:48 am
    Funny, in the video they don't show the shut down.  Don't sometimes strange and telling things happen during shut down?

    Maybe they don't want their shutdown honks armchair analyzed?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: mule169 on 05/17/2022 02:03 am
    https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1524386115511324672

    Quote
    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.

    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?

    Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: dglow on 05/17/2022 05:28 am
    Where's the cost per ton to orbit calc?
    Hiding in Tim Dodd’s back pocket.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: deadman1204 on 05/17/2022 01:37 pm
    Where's the cost per ton to orbit calc?



    It doesn't even make sense for an engine. Cost per ton to orbit is a full rocket calculation.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/17/2022 04:32 pm
    https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1526600808720019456

    Quote
    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.

    Quote
    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.

    twitter.blueorigin/status/1526600813182734341

    https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1526600822557011968

    Quote
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 05/17/2022 04:57 pm
    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: deadman1204 on 05/17/2022 06:25 pm
    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?
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 05/17/2022 06:37 pm
    But that is the plan that Tory B. outlined last year, right?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: whitelancer64 on 05/17/2022 07:18 pm
    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?

    My understanding may be incorrect, but I thought that the qualification testing was happening concurrently with the building of the first flight engines.

    I thought that the recent string of tweets about qualification testing indicated that the qualification testing is completed, or nearly so. In which case, the flight engines only need to be acceptance tested and shipped to ULA.

    All further testing would be of flight engines.

    In other words, your number 3 should be before number 1.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 05/17/2022 07:30 pm
    Quote
    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.

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 05/17/2022 07:32 pm
    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? 



    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: whitelancer64 on 05/17/2022 07:55 pm
    Quote
    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.

    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.

    Oh, I see what you mean.

    My understanding is that qualification testing has (or had) been ongoing since approximately autumn of last year, and is now complete or nearly complete. The tweets of BE-4 engines having had thousands of seconds of hot fire testing and multiple full duty cycle burns would be the qualification engines.

    At the same time as qualification testing was happening, the flight engines have been under construction, and are now complete, or nearly so. These engines need to be acceptance tested and then shipped to ULA.

    You might be right, my quick searches haven't turned up what the plan is.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: ulm_atms on 05/17/2022 08:11 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: whitelancer64 on 05/17/2022 10:52 pm
    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 05/17/2022 11:18 pm
    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?

    As much as I want BE-4 flying, I don't think so.  I think if Tory B. had received actual flight engines, or if BO had successfully completed qual testing, they would have made tweets/press releases stating exactly that.  I know that in my previous career we tested, and tested, and tested, until we had everything right.  THEN we ran the qual tests.  Formal qual testing probably takes <1 month (a total guess on my part), but the testing prep beforehand.....
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: arachnitect on 05/18/2022 01:49 am
    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?

    my guess is they ordered/made another batch of covers and didn't want to wait for their company blue color.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 05/18/2022 04:02 am
    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?

    Could be nothing, but if it follows the same for other "remove before flight" type tags, red's a pretty traditional color to alert maintenance personnel that the component needs to be removed. What's more, using red or blue covers actually goes all the way back to the first BE-4:

    (https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/EbZvx_E-tcge2QWN8cScYso6u_E=/0x0:2048x1365/920x613/filters:focal(861x520:1187x846):format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/54101907/C6PVqvpWMAIDq4V__1_.0.jpg)

    Also look carefully around the turbopumps and you'll see traditional tags and smaller plug covers. The red covers also saw use on the spent development engines installed on the Pathfinder Tanking Test (PTT) booster:

    (https://i.redd.it/ad0hbur46ca61.jpg)

    Don't see any of the "company blue" covers until around 2017-2018:

    (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/Blue_Origin_BE-4_rocket_engine%2C_sn_103%2C_April_2018_--_LCH4_inlet_side_view.jpg)

    I might hazard a guess that the blue covers were made specifically for the engine(s) that were retired and taken out for show as the one above was. I'd also wager that because they're made of the same materials as the red ones, they decided to reuse them to save some money.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DrHeywoodFloyd on 05/18/2022 04:22 am
    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 ... 
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 05/18/2022 06:15 pm
    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'd hazard a guess that the Kent flight engines will go to Corn Ranch for testing until Kent is no longer in the business of building them and all engine build ops transfer to Huntsville. The official Blue Origin tweet stated that the first BE-4 to be fired up on 4670 is development engine PQE-900. It's a flight-configuration dev engine performing a pathfinder function to shakedown 4670's systems ahead of the production engines. So if something goes wrong, the proven Corn Ranch stands can fill in for a little while and no production engines get lost or damaged. The PQE-900 firing will also be the first time that I'm aware of a BE-4 being test fired vertically. The PTT fueling tests had the two dev engines vertical on LC-41 with everything functional and prop running through them, but never fired.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: ulm_atms on 05/18/2022 11:20 pm
    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:

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 05/19/2022 05:55 pm
    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:

    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.

    Then what two engines are those on the XEEx stand we saw in the recent Blue Origin tweets, if not qualification engines?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 05/19/2022 06:04 pm
    twitter.blueorigin/status/1526600813182734341

    https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1526600822557011968

    Quote
    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.

    This tweet tells me the flight configuration engines are getting ready for acceptance testing; based on previous public releases I expect the FF engines will go through acceptance testing, then ship to ULA.  While those engines are being integrated a 2nd set of flight configuration engines will start qualification testing.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/24/2022 03:25 pm
    https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1529121145349455885

    Quote
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DanClemmensen on 05/24/2022 03:41 pm
    From the BO tweet:
    Quote
    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.
    How does this compare to Raptor 2? Raptor 2 also throttles down to 40%. Is it less responsive than BE-4?

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: CorvusCorax on 05/24/2022 03:57 pm
    From the BO tweet:
    Quote
    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.
    How does this compare to Raptor 2? Raptor 2 also throttles down to 40%. Is it less responsive than BE-4?

    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.

    But both engines support vertical landing, so they need to throttle and gimbal fast and deep, i would expect the numbers to be comparable and in the same order of magnitude.

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DanClemmensen on 05/24/2022 05:15 pm
    From the BO tweet:
    Quote
    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.
    How does this compare to Raptor 2? Raptor 2 also throttles down to 40%. Is it less responsive than BE-4?
    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.
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: edzieba on 05/24/2022 05:23 pm
    From the BO tweet:
    Quote
    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.
    How does this compare to Raptor 2? Raptor 2 also throttles down to 40%. Is it less responsive than BE-4?
    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.
    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.
    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).
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Khadgars on 05/24/2022 05:27 pm
    From the BO tweet:
    Quote
    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.
    How does this compare to Raptor 2? Raptor 2 also throttles down to 40%. Is it less responsive than BE-4?
    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.
    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.
    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).

    I don't think being mounted to an early Starship prototype means very much other than fit checks.  The biggest advantage Raptor 2 has is being iteration of previous design imo.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/24/2022 05:49 pm
    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

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 05/24/2022 06:06 pm
    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DanClemmensen on 05/24/2022 06:11 pm
    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.

    DoD seems to procure launches under two programs: NSSL and STP.
    Vulcan is not yet NSSL certified. Both USSF and ULA seem to agree that Vulcan will be certified, but this cannot happen until Vulcan has flown at least three(?) non-NSSL flights first.
         https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Space_Launch
    DoD also uses launches under the Space Test Program (STP). These appear to require less "certification", but I don't know the details.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Test_Program

    My uninformed guess is that it will be easier to certify Vulcan Centaur because it is much more traditional than Starship and is thus easier to evaluate. NSSL in particular is supposed to be conservative because reliability is more important than cost for these launches. However, SpaceX is very likely to do a lot of Starship launches quickly, taking advantage of its captive Starlink customer, so the reliability statistics will rapidly shift in its favor. We'll see.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Redclaws on 05/24/2022 06:51 pm
    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?

    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robotbeat on 05/24/2022 06:59 pm
    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
    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…”

    I say, let’s wait and see. You’re probably right. And by all rights, Vulcan should’ve been to orbit years ago already, but…
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DanClemmensen on 05/24/2022 07:26 pm
    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.
    Why do you think DoD is going to certify either vehicle?
    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?
    This is all from Wikipedia, so you should check the sources if it's important to you.
    NSSL phase 2 runs from 2022-2027, and covers "from 30 to 34 flights" and awards 60% if them to ULA and 40% to SpaceX, so from 18 to 21 of these go to ULA.  ULA flights are on Atlas V, Deltas IV heavy, and Vulcan Centaur.  By my count, four of the remaining 23 Atlas Vs are allocated to NSSL and all three of the remaining Delta IV heavies, for a total of 7, leaving from 11 to 14 flights on Vulcan Centaur. It is not clear what will happen if Vulcan is delayed. USSF might choose to take flights away form ULA and assign them to SpaceX, or they might rearrange the schedule to keep the same number of Vulcan flights but defer them to the later part of the schedule.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: meekGee on 05/24/2022 08:35 pm
    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.


    Errr...  BE4 and LVs were competing with F9, remember?

    That they're now trying to compete with Starship's schedule is saying something.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/31/2022 06:24 pm
    https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1531650290604294145

    Quote
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: JCRM on 06/03/2022 01:32 pm
    https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1531650290604294145

    Quote
    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.
    Oh, did 'we' know it was designed to operate at different mixture ratios? (presumambly the same thrust ISP trade-offs as Satuen?)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 06/03/2022 05:21 pm
    Reminder that this is the BE-4 thread. I’ve moved recent posts discussing NG to the NG thread.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 06/06/2022 08:26 pm
    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1533908073483579392

    Quote
    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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Tywin on 06/06/2022 09:04 pm
    Spectacular power...

    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1533912186225049600
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Purona on 06/06/2022 10:53 pm
    BE-4 runs above 3300 KN now? unless this is its operational capability in vacuum which ...still wouldnt make sense
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 06/06/2022 11:20 pm
    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).
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: TrevorMonty on 06/06/2022 11:21 pm
    Spectacular power...

    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1533912186225049600
    That's 750klbs each compared to original 550k.


    Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 06/07/2022 01:20 am
    The flight BE4s are in the assembly stand ...

    So that implies that the flight engines haven't gone through their acceptance tests yet.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 06/07/2022 02:00 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Comga on 06/07/2022 02:03 am
    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%
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 06/07/2022 02:13 am
    . But when Tory last showed us a photo of the two flight engines, the photo was taken back in January of this year.

    I don't put any weight to the photo itself; I made my statement based on the text and date of Bruno's tweet.

    And I also hope for good things soon as well!
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 06/07/2022 02:24 am
    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%

    There are not many possibilities here.

    1. It is a typo.

    2. The engines have been made to perform above the 550,000 lbf goal.

    3. That is the vacuum performance.

    4. It is the increased performance and the vacuum thrust.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: daveglo on 06/07/2022 02:28 am
    Was at the Siemens turbine-generator plant in Charlotte a few weeks ago, and they have several BE-4 nozzles in their shop having some optical profilometry work done (there were dot stickers all over them), not sure where they were going from there.  That shop has large-scale precision hardware fabrication capabilities, and with the declining demand for heavy power equipment (sad), it looked like they're searching for new business opportunities.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 06/07/2022 04:50 am
    Profilometry is a process to check for rough surfaces. is it not? Then it makes sense that the engine nozzles were sent there, possibly as a way to save time in the manufacturing process by outsourcing some of it to other companies.

    I would imagine that this is work being done primarily for the Huntsville, Alabama factory since they started focusing on building production BE-4s as well as BE-3s just a few months ago.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Purona on 06/07/2022 11:01 am
    Tweet was deleted. so I guess that was a mistake or wasnt supposed to be made public.

    Which brings up the question who told said this?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DrHeywoodFloyd on 06/07/2022 12:02 pm
    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?




    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: JayWee on 06/07/2022 12:30 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Rekt1971 on 06/07/2022 01:04 pm
    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?

    Combined
    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1534158256431681536
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: meekGee on 06/07/2022 01:28 pm
     https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1534118354449219585?s=20&amp;t=yiXk0SDCL8Gva2lL5sbCdQ  (https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1534118354449219585?s=20&amp;t=yiXk0SDCL8Gva2lL5sbCdQ)


    That's a large thrust oscillation.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DanClemmensen on 06/07/2022 01:35 pm
    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?
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robotbeat on 06/07/2022 01:46 pm
    Isp proprietary is kind of silly & sad.

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: deadman1204 on 06/07/2022 01:55 pm
    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 06/07/2022 03:04 pm
    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?

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: whitelancer64 on 06/07/2022 03:26 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: JayWee on 06/07/2022 03:56 pm
    Isp proprietary is kind of silly & sad.

    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.
    While I agree with your suspicion in general, do we know the exact Isp of Raptor2?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robotbeat on 06/07/2022 03:56 pm
    I would think that an early assembly picture would actually be more ITAR sensitive than a later one, if only because the final assembly can’t easily be kept secret.
    Which means this picture might be old or it might mean they don’t have any assembled flight engines to take a picture of, or both.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: deadman1204 on 06/07/2022 04:07 pm

     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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 06/07/2022 04:10 pm
    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.

    I doubt it. The context appears to be within that of the two engines we saw last time, and that is clearly up at the Kent factory, not over at Huntsville, where there are also flight engines being built.

    It also looks like they were careful this time to release a pic that you have no way to suss it out, like the first one he tweeted since there's no computer monitor with a big time and date on it.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 06/07/2022 04:17 pm

     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.

    I'm not "wishing or dreaming", I'm speculating, just as you are. But I prefer to do so from all available facts.

    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 06/07/2022 06:40 pm
    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: seb21051 on 06/07/2022 06:40 pm
    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 06/07/2022 06:53 pm
    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?

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 06/07/2022 07:03 pm
    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?

    The first photo that Tory Bruno tweeted was taken back in January 8 or there about. Because we have no clues as to when this one was taken, it is anyone's guess at this point the significance of what we are seeing, other than it gives us insight into the assembly process, and we know what gaseous oxygen dome looks like and that it is made using additive manufacturing processes.

    And as pointed out, it is quite possible that one engine may be more ahead in assembly than the other.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 06/07/2022 07:21 pm

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: whitelancer64 on 06/07/2022 07:23 pm

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 06/07/2022 08:15 pm

    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.


    You are making a bad assumption about what I assume or do not. The test stand team, along with ULA counterparts, preparing to receive and test the flight engines in such a fashion seems pointless if there will not be any engines to test some time in the relatively near future. I also never said they had been acceptance test fired, I simply point out the fact that the teams at Corn Ranch were passed a milestone that implies strongly the engines being near ready for that test.

    The latest photo could have been taken yesterday or it could have been taken three months ago.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 06/07/2022 08:57 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: whitelancer64 on 06/07/2022 10:42 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 06/07/2022 10:52 pm

    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: whitelancer64 on 06/07/2022 11:18 pm

    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?

    Probably the ITAR sign-off from Blue Origin.

    Likely the same reason he tweeted a ~3 month old picture of the engines before this one.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: deadman1204 on 06/08/2022 01:45 pm

    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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: whitelancer64 on 06/08/2022 04:55 pm

    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 issue is the "face value" information does not line up with other information we know.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: deadman1204 on 06/08/2022 08:01 pm

    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 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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 06/08/2022 08:27 pm
    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>
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: TrevorMonty on 06/08/2022 09:02 pm
    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.

    Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: meekGee on 06/08/2022 11:15 pm
    Sounds like Vulcan will be ready by end of 2022, just not payload.
    Well the article says:
    Quote
    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.

    You have to search for it, it is hiding between the title and the fourth paragraph.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Zed_Noir on 06/09/2022 04:18 am
    Sounds like Vulcan will be ready by end of 2022, just not payload.
    Well the article says:
    Quote
    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.

    You have to search for it, it is hiding between the title and the fourth paragraph.

    The article also says:
    Quote
    .....
    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.
    Third paragraph from the bottom.

    So it appears that of the various components of the Astrobotics mission stack. Only the payload fairing and the GEM-63XL solid boosters are ready for launch currently.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: MTPATCAMI on 06/11/2022 01:43 am

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 06/11/2022 07:31 pm

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: edzieba on 06/11/2022 08:45 pm

    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.
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 06/12/2022 12:16 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: MTPATCAMI on 06/13/2022 05:26 am

    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.

    because a readiness review could take weeks or even months to fully closeout. usually action are generated from questions or suggestions during the review, and it take time for these things to be implemented. And if there is a critical gating item that wasn't accounted for and was discovered during the review, there could be significant setbacks.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 06/14/2022 11:52 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 06/15/2022 02:15 am
    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?

    That's not the way development works.  As I've said before, the two development paths are independent.

    Quote
    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 Blue Origin tweeted that the test team was preparing to receive the first flight engines and they had "recently" hosted the readiness review.

    He tweeted on June 6th that the flight engines were in the assembly stand.  Not that they were coming out of the assembly stand, not that they were wrapping up assembly, just that they were in the assembly stand.

    I spent 32 years doing this work, and the development schedule NEVER works out as clean as you plan.  That holds for both the test articles and test stands.

    EDIT: corrected May 17th tweet source
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 06/15/2022 05:10 am
    Quote from: Vettedrmr
    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.

    https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1526600822557011968?cxt=HHwWgMCj5YPXya8qAAAA

    Bruno has tweeted the only two official photos shown thus far of the flight engines. The first one identified as both flight engines going to the build stand he posted on April 27. But for the the monitor on the build stand displaying a date of January 8, we would not know when it was taken.

    We do not know when the photo of the engine with the gaseous oxygen dome installed on it was taken since the laptop monitor date is not legible. But assuming it is not very recent is not unreasonable.

    Hopefully, more photos will be soon released of them to inform our speculation better.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 06/15/2022 09:43 am

    Bruno did not tweet that on May 17, that was tweeted by Blue Origin.

    Thanks for the correction: I've fixed that in my post.

    Have a good one,
    Mike
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 06/16/2022 03:22 pm
    https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1537450525339156480

    Quote
    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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 06/16/2022 06:08 pm
    It goes without saying how refreshing it is for Blue Origin to share all that they have for over a month since Tory Bruno began sharing the flight engine photos.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: rsdavis9 on 06/16/2022 08:18 pm
    So is this a photo of the main injector (in the MCC) or the injector in the preburner(O2 rich)?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: briantipton on 06/16/2022 08:58 pm
    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)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 06/17/2022 07:49 am
    Here is the pre-burner in all its glory! Are they using vanes like in the F-1 for combustion stability?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: briantipton on 06/17/2022 07:23 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: laszlo on 06/18/2022 12:44 am
    Here is the pre-burner in all its glory! Are they using vanes like in the F-1 for combustion stability?

    Skewers for the hot dogs and marshmallows. (Available on Amazon, arriving tomorrow if ordered in the next 10 hours.)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: edzieba on 06/18/2022 08:12 am
    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.
    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. 
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 06/21/2022 03:10 pm
    twitter.com/sts1251/status/1539258225232601090

    Quote
    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.

    https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1539258666272055302

    Quote
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 06/21/2022 05:31 pm
    https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1539299602352025600

    Quote
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: dglow on 06/21/2022 05:57 pm
    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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 06/21/2022 07:23 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: dglow on 06/21/2022 08:19 pm
    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.

    Exactly my point, thank you. When everything is considered historic then nothing really is.

    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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 06/21/2022 09:02 pm
    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

    You are talking individual tooling and such, but a building may still be considered historic, especially in the context of its contributions. Without this ability to battleship static test the first stage, Saturn V would have very likely been another N-1.

    Also, 4670 is eligible to be on the National Register of Historic Places.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Eric Hedman on 06/21/2022 09:35 pm
    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vahe231991 on 06/21/2022 11:05 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 06/21/2022 11:18 pm
    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?

    That engine isn't there for show, it's the engine that's going to commission this stand with a test firing(s). I'm guessing soon since the engine is there with the nozzle cover cover off like that, which might be as little as a few days or weeks since you don't want to leave hardware like that out unprotected.

    Also, it should be obvious what affect it has since this test stand is for the acceptance test firing of production engines built at the nearby Huntsville factory. As others have pointed out, this is a big step in moving away from Kent as the builder of BE-4, which has much more limited capacity than Huntsville, and it in turn also means that acceptance tests will be done here rather than at the XEEx in Texas, thus removing another big bottleneck in BE-4 testing. XEEx can focus on development testing while this handles the more mundane acceptance tests.  Take note of the fact that this BE-4 lacks any of the heavy harnesses and instrumentation that the prior dev engines had, something that isn't needed for production engines. So, in addition to the flight engines being tested at XEEX and that one engine tested here, they're going to be hammering out the procedures for all future such tests.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: gongora on 06/23/2022 09:43 pm
    Going a bit off topic here.  Trimmed a few posts.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Sotar on 06/25/2022 06:10 pm
    The crew working on the refurbishment of 4670 has done a great job.  Unfortunately, Blue fully underestimated what it would take both in time and money to bring that stand back online. 

    BE-4 was a great idea, 1 engine for both ULA and for Blue.  Unfortunately, a decision was made to bifurcate the design and have separate ULA and New Glenn designs.  This caused a tremendous delay in the design of both engines.  ULA should have had flight engines in 2021 if not sooner.  Deliveries have continued to push and unfortunately that caused a "fall guy" to "retire to pursue personal interests". (just reading between the lines of the press announcement).

    Perhaps ULA will receive flight shipsets this year.  However, Vulcan won't fly until 2023 at the earliest. (my guess)

    It is indeed great to see 4670 awakenings again. Great job to the team there.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 06/29/2022 01:13 pm
    https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1542122591741267973

    Quote
    Our #BE4 and West Texas test teams love an engine hotfire test! 🔥🔥🔥
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 06/29/2022 07:08 pm
    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Purona on 06/29/2022 09:37 pm
    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?

    They are doing both at the same time
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: JCRM on 06/30/2022 08:31 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: woods170 on 06/30/2022 03:49 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 07/01/2022 02:14 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: whitelancer64 on 07/01/2022 02:44 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: JCRM on 07/01/2022 08:28 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 07/01/2022 10:54 am
    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.

    Exactly what I was thinking.  32 years I worked at General Dynamics (now Lockheed Martin), and *every day* there were people parked on the road paralleling the runway watching F-16s (now F-35s) take off and land.  Plus all the action at Carswell AFB.  Planes (and rockets) are cool.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: deadman1204 on 07/01/2022 01:47 pm
    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.
    There is a history of every photo or release from Blue being called "the last one/time/thing/ect".
    Its just a picture of a test firing. There is no reason to make the claim that its the "last one", because people on this board having been saying that for years now.

    Of course everyone is gonna want to watch a test firing, wouldn't you? They gotta leave the area of the engine anyways for safety.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: whitelancer64 on 07/01/2022 02:15 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Redclaws on 07/01/2022 02:45 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: whitelancer64 on 07/01/2022 03:10 pm
    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Redclaws on 07/01/2022 03:21 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: whitelancer64 on 07/01/2022 03:39 pm
    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.

    The tweet isn't a pitch for recruitment, though. It's just a bunch of Blue Origin employees watching an engine test. And maybe that is all it is, but it seems unlikely to me that Blue Origin would allow something like that to be tweeted without an underlying reason for the picture being taken.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: edzieba on 07/01/2022 04:39 pm
    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.
    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!

    To run an engine test, all the personnel that operate the engine test stands, and all the personnel that are handling that given engine on the stand, need to clear the stand and move to a safe distance. Those teams (teams!) could stay nearby and watch their respective equipment in its impressive operation, or they could go further away to try and do something else for a few minutes and waste more time getting back to the stand to continue work again once the test is over.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: dglow on 07/01/2022 06:40 pm
    The real question about the photo: is the guy in the cowboy hat also wearing hearing protection?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Tywin on 07/02/2022 07:50 pm
    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1543308960622690304
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 07/02/2022 08:58 pm
    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1543338042739548160

    Quote
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: JayWee on 07/02/2022 09:48 pm
    That somehow looks bigger than I expected (yeah, it seems perspective at work too).
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 07/03/2022 01:31 am
    Nice shot!  So, looks like the powerhead is into final assembly (but how far?), and I assume acceptance testing immediately thereafter.  I wonder how far along SN #2 is?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 07/03/2022 06:32 am
    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1543393904116043777

    Quote
    Ok, since you asked, here’s a close up of the @blueorigin Flight 1 #BE4
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 07/03/2022 06:41 am
    Hmm, Tory says BE-4 delivery is ‘so close now’:

    twitter.com/rocketrepreneur/status/1543307418871820288

    Quote
    Any ETA on when you think you'll have flight qualified engines to start integrating onto Vulcan's first stage?

    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1543308960622690304

    Quote
    It’s so close now…

    Yet still in final assembly:

    twitter.com/frikilinux2/status/1543345561297981440

    Quote
    So, ULA has now received the first flight-ready BE4 or am I understanding it incorrectly?

    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1543350085504962562

    Quote
    This engine is in final assembly at Blue in Kent, WA

    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DrHeywoodFloyd on 07/03/2022 06:42 am
    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1543393904116043777

    Quote
    Ok, since you asked, here’s a close up of the @blueorigin Flight 1 #BE4

    This the same engine as that Tory released the photo of about a month ago [6:25 AM · Jun 7, 2022]

    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1533908073483579392?s=20&t=u8ugnUcMRGjEoWmCivwH8Q (https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1533908073483579392?s=20&t=u8ugnUcMRGjEoWmCivwH8Q)

    And the build stand from a different perspective with the two flight engine nozzles..

    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1518965639272177665?s=20&t=oieVd5YXu2cILQgNWyW83w (https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1518965639272177665?s=20&t=oieVd5YXu2cILQgNWyW83w)

    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...
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: hoku on 07/03/2022 06:53 am
    <snip>
    Quote
    Ok, since you asked, here’s a close up of the @blueorigin Flight 1 #BE4
    For reference, one of the tweet replies shows a better view of the annotated BE-4 drawing on the engineer's T-shirt:

    "One of my favorites!"
    https://twitter.com/NAFoxtrot/status/1543478274939969537/photo/1

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DrHeywoodFloyd on 07/03/2022 07:30 am
    Once these engines have completed assembly [which looks close... I am guesstimating release from factory to test stand testing at the end of july??], how long will it take to complete system testing of them, and then complete [ULA] Acceptance testing for flight? Eight weeks, or twelve weeks or more?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 07/03/2022 10:39 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DrHeywoodFloyd on 07/03/2022 11:30 am
    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.

    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 07/03/2022 12:04 pm
    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1543566095180865538

    Quote
    Ask and you shall receive. The second of the pair of @blueorigin  flight #BE4 engines
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DrHeywoodFloyd on 07/03/2022 12:15 pm
    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Llian Rhydderch on 07/03/2022 01:03 pm
    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1543338042739548160

    Quote
    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.

    There are some differences...   :o
    ... between this version of the BE-4 in 2022 and the first hot-fire test engine that I photographed at Space Symposium in early 2018.

    (those photos from April 2018 are all open source available here (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:BE-4_(rocket_engine)), on Wikimedia.)

    NOte:  I also uploaded all those images to NSF back in the day, but don't have a good way to search for/find them just now.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 07/03/2022 03:08 pm
    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1543612437097766912

    Quote
    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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Jim on 07/03/2022 06:56 pm

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 07/03/2022 07:02 pm
    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...

    Um, no. The first flight engine photo Tory Bruno released April 26 was determined to have been taken all the way back on Saturday 8 January at 1:37 pm.

    We know this because the monitor has the date and time on it. We don't know when the GOX dome photo from June 6 was taken. Nor do we know when the most recent July 3 tweet photos were. If we had dates on a monitor or board, then we could more correctly say how long it takes.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 07/03/2022 08:59 pm
    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?

    I can only base my response is based on my experience on F-22 and F-35 development.  First flight set of any kind of equipment (engines, hydraulics, etc) always took a lot longer to get through the test suite, mainly because test failures would either require a product change or a detailed analysis of the test results to see if there were operating limitations we could impose to get a test waiver approved.  Those waivers had to be approved by our customer.

    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.

    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?

    2nd ship set of hardware always lags behind the first set, for various reasons: assembly process, limited supply of parts, assembly toolsets, etc.  Should take less time to actually assemble but there will be a lag.

    Have a good one,
    Mike
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 07/03/2022 09:23 pm
    Quote from: Vettedrmr
    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

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 07/04/2022 12:51 am
    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1543566095180865538

    Quote
    Ask 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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: russianhalo117 on 07/04/2022 01:22 am
    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1543566095180865538

    Quote
    Ask 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.
    One is in the cell closest to the wall and next one is one cell further away on the same row of integration cells.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Jim on 07/04/2022 01:45 am
    Quote from: Vettedrmr
    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

    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.

    no, not that either
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: JayWee on 07/04/2022 02:31 am
    Any idea why doesn't BO ship the engines fully assembled?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DrHeywoodFloyd on 07/04/2022 03:48 am

    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... 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] ?

    " 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

    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, and the purpose of acceptance testing is for the customer to verify that the delivered product meets their requirements [as per the {customer} requirement specification]  and "is fit for the purpose" of the customer, once the product passes the acceptance testing phase, the customer will take ownership of the product... and most importantly.... pay the vendor!

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: MTPATCAMI on 07/04/2022 06:37 am
    ahhhh the fruit of my 80hr work week...

    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1543566095180865538

    Quote
    Ask and you shall receive. The second of the pair of @blueorigin  flight #BE4 engines
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: russianhalo117 on 07/04/2022 06:50 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: whitelancer64 on 07/04/2022 09:34 am
    That somehow looks bigger than I expected (yeah, it seems perspective at work too).

    It's not just you, BE-4 is a big engine.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 07/04/2022 10:35 am
    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] ?

    The answer to your question is, I expect: "No one knows."  Maybe BO, but they're not telling.

    Quote
    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, ...

    Except in this case, qualification testing happens after acceptance testing.  ULA has agreed to integrate flight-worthy engines into Vulcan while BO carries out qualification testing (which ULA has to sign off on) on a 2nd set of flight-worthy engines.

    Is it risky?  Sure. Has concurrent testing of a first ship set of a product ever not had issues requiring some kind of rework/retest?  Not in my experience.  Will it result in a net shortening of the schedule required to get Vulcan ready for 1st flight?  We hope so.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Jim on 07/04/2022 01:33 pm

    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..


    Wrong.
    1.  The fact that the customer doesn't do the acceptance test is not a "semantic"

    2.   Qualification test validate the design.  Once qualification tests are done, they are not repeated.  For engines, it is an extended set of test firings.
    Acceptances tests are done on every engine.  They validate the construction of the article.   For engines, it is a short test firing.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Jim on 07/04/2022 01:39 pm

    " 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


    Not remotely to applicable to this discussion

    Manufactured structural hardware is not subject to active testing. Most of the time, it is just dimensional checks.  A payload adaptor is not load tested.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: JCRM on 07/05/2022 10:39 am
    Hmm, Tory says BE-4 delivery is ‘so close now’:

    Quote
    It’s so close now…

    Yet still in final assembly:


    Quote
    This engine is in final assembly at Blue in Kent, WA

    You seem to be implying that these two statements are, in some way, contradictory.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 07/05/2022 09:12 pm
    https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1544428627684741120

    Quote
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 07/28/2022 02:54 pm
    https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1552659712876748800

    Quote
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: LouScheffer on 07/28/2022 03:11 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: vapour_nudge on 07/28/2022 03:16 pm
    It is throttling like never BE4
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: meekGee on 07/28/2022 04:27 pm
    It is throttling like never BE4
    An Original joke!
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: xyv on 07/29/2022 12:54 am
    Have to say that is very impressive.  Blue has certainly been on some kind of PR tear lately.  They keep releasing things like this that actually demonstrate progress.  While they needed to be here two years ago this makes me believe that at least Vulcan is about to happen.

    New Glenn remains to be seen (literally...)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DrHeywoodFloyd on 07/29/2022 03:02 am
    I got these response from Tory Bruno:
    1. Flight engines very nearly finished....end of July?
    2. Acceptance testing will be done in Texas... complete by end of August-mid september?
    3. For rate testing [testing for full rate production engines] will occur at Test Stand 4670 at Huntsville ...

    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1552238343932596224?s=20&t=yHNinMp6GZZBpZeuSLt1ug (https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1552238343932596224?s=20&t=yHNinMp6GZZBpZeuSLt1ug)

    And....

    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1552681239404056576?s=20&t=yHNinMp6GZZBpZeuSLt1ug
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Hog on 07/29/2022 03:04 am
    Good on you Blue.  That's some impressive content there.  Love the follow-along throttling trace.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 07/29/2022 09:33 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 07/29/2022 09:39 am
    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.

    They have already done Vulcan full duty cycle firings. But this is clearly part of the engine qualification firings where the engine is being put through a series very extreme limit tests.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 07/29/2022 11:07 pm
    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.

    Blue Origin has done that. It was mentioned several months ago:
    https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1511338838106558481?lang=en
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: StormtrooperJoe on 07/30/2022 02:11 am
    First completed flight engine.

    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1553198911212457985?s=20&t=95gb98IMQZJaCv3MhNyyAg
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: ThatOldJanxSpirit on 07/30/2022 06:08 am
    I’ll say it ‘cos a lot of people will be thinking it.

    There’s a bit of a Raptor 1 Christmas tree vibe going on here. Have we just been spoiled by the clean lines of Raptor 2? Would it be normal for early flight engines to have extra instrumentation?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 07/30/2022 07:21 am
    The nozzle looks 3D printed to me, with some areas then machined down. Is that the case?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: trimeta on 07/30/2022 08:02 am
    First completed flight engine.

    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1553198911212457985?s=20&t=95gb98IMQZJaCv3MhNyyAg

    Reminder that "first completed engine" doesn't mean that this engine has been fully tested (or at least, tested to the degree that's planned) and is ready to be shipped to ULA's factory. I'll believe "Tory has his engines" when I see a picture of them installed on Vulcan, and not a day sooner.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: LouScheffer on 07/30/2022 10:41 am
    Presumably acceptance testing still needs to be done.  How long does this normally take?  It's not many firings, if my understanding is correct.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DrHeywoodFloyd on 07/30/2022 11:04 am
    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...

    Assume 4-8 weeks of systems integration, and then systems integration, and acceptance testing to release for launch ... then Mid October to beginning of december would be the likely launch window....

    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1552681239404056576?s=20&t=yHNinMp6GZZBpZeuSLt1ug (https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1552681239404056576?s=20&t=yHNinMp6GZZBpZeuSLt1ug)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 07/30/2022 11:11 am
    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 07/30/2022 11:22 am
    Presumably acceptance testing still needs to be done.  How long does this normally take?  It's not many firings, if my understanding is correct.

    There's only one, 500 second acceptance firing. It could take about 3 weeks for the engine to get to Texas, installed on one of the stands, tested to make sure it's functional, and then fired up. Finally, if the engine passes, it has to be inspected, removed from the stand, refurbished, then packed up, and shipped to Decatur for installation on Vulcan.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Purona on 07/30/2022 01:39 pm
    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?

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 07/30/2022 05:24 pm
    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1553431057374003201

    Quote
    Wow. You guys really do like seeing rocket engines. OK, Flight Engine #1 (fully assembled) on the left. #2 (almost done) on the right.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: StormtrooperJoe on 07/30/2022 06:18 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: meekGee on 07/30/2022 06:23 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 07/30/2022 07:10 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 07/30/2022 08:33 pm
    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1553478588078338049

    Quote
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 07/30/2022 08:43 pm
    twitter.com/nasaspaceflight/status/1553480904282185728

    Quote
    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!

    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1553481088642588672

    Quote
    Marshall’s not quite ready yet
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vahe231991 on 07/30/2022 08:45 pm
    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.
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 07/30/2022 09:18 pm
    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1553478588078338049

    Quote
    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.

    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.  :'(
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Redclaws on 07/30/2022 09:57 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: meekGee on 07/30/2022 10:27 pm
    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.

    Yup - I was making the point that the time lapse between these two engines is not related in any way to the production rate.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 07/30/2022 11:14 pm

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: russianhalo117 on 07/31/2022 12:42 am

    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.
    The photos EXIF data tends not to lie unless modified.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 07/31/2022 12:51 am
    First completed flight engine.

    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1553198911212457985?s=20&t=95gb98IMQZJaCv3MhNyyAg

    Fair enough: since I have no idea how to get the Exif data (heck, I can barely get the info on my own pics) for the attached image?

    Thanks for the info/help, and have a good one,
    Mike
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DrHeywoodFloyd on 07/31/2022 01:07 am
    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.

    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!!
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: LouScheffer on 07/31/2022 01:50 am
    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.

    However, at this point neither the looks or even the cost are main issues.  It just needs to work.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 07/31/2022 02:32 am
    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.

    There is good reason for people to be suspicious of when the photos were taken since the first photo that Bruno posted on April 26 was discovered by the sharp-eyed among those here and other forums to have been taken on Saturday 8 January 2022. This was possible due to the big monitors on the assembly stand displaying the time and date.

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: PSR B1937+21 on 07/31/2022 03:25 am
    is the BE-4 channel wall nozzle manufactured by brazing, HIP bonding, or other advanced method?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 07/31/2022 04:12 am
    The 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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: russianhalo117 on 07/31/2022 04:45 am
    The 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
    https://exiv2.org/tags.html

    exif.image.datetime

    Tools help to extract it. Sometimes it is stripped out.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Purona on 07/31/2022 10:38 am

    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.

    Nice you seem to have perspective on the qualification test program of rocket engines. Could you tell me the timeline of Qualification testing of a few 2MN staged combustion engines?

    They have been doing Qualification testing since DECEMBER as I said. They completed their first engine as produced by Huntsville Alabama in DECEMBER and it and other engines have been on the test stand since. And that wasnt Tory Bruno speaking that was the Vice President of flight and operations at Blue Origin

    And as already stated his photos have already shown to be out of date. More likely to continue the trend of out of date images  rather than to randomly start posting pictures taken yesterday
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 07/31/2022 10:53 am
    Of course I have no direct knowledge; if I did I wouldn't be able to post it.  But I have had 32 years in flight control system software development and testing, and so yeah, I have an idea of what qualification and acceptance testing looks like.  Every program I worked on started test development on non-flight worthy hardware, to get the test cases, procedures, and support systems (which themselves have to be qualified) ready for the qualification testing of the first flight hardware and software.

    Tory Bruno posted on July 29th a tweet announcing the completion of the first flight-configuration BE-4.  It can't have been in qualification testing since December.  Sure, BO has been working on qualification testing since December, but I expect that's development of the qual tests themselves.

    No one knows how long this qualification testing will take, since BO hasn't announced it.  A consensus here has been it will take hopefully no longer than it takes to get Vulcan ready for flight; that's the whole point of concurrent testing.  It is also a high risk methodology.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Rakietwawka2021 on 07/31/2022 11:59 am

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DrHeywoodFloyd on 08/01/2022 07:18 am

    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.

    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 ?

    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1552681239404056576?s=20&t=yHNinMp6GZZBpZeuSLt1ug (https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1552681239404056576?s=20&t=yHNinMp6GZZBpZeuSLt1ug)

    [Looks like in Huntsville ... things are going to rumble!]

    I am assuming acceptance testing on the New Glenn Engines will be done in Texas. I would imagine once the first two BE-4 engines have been handed over to ULA, Blue will be building the flight engines for New Glenn....

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: JCRM on 08/01/2022 09:55 am

    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.

    They're not running the windows screen saver.

    If this intentional, they must have been taken after the dates were noticed on the others.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: LouScheffer on 08/01/2022 11:18 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 08/01/2022 07:51 pm
    twitter.com/felixschlang/status/1553773846741880834

    Quote
    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!

    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1554192628811345920

    Quote
    Now in Texas. Static acceptance firing, then straight to Decatur for immediate installation
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DrHeywoodFloyd on 08/01/2022 09:27 pm
    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...

     https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1554216644112551936?s=20&t=1dvlC8IPQjK4L9LAIsLI4w  (https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1554216644112551936?s=20&t=1dvlC8IPQjK4L9LAIsLI4w)

    Means these engines will be delivered to ULA by mid to late august, and so first flight could be mid to late October!
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 08/01/2022 09:38 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DrHeywoodFloyd on 08/01/2022 11:30 pm
    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DanClemmensen on 08/02/2022 12:04 am
    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?
    Since as early as October 2019, the public plan of record has been that the first Vulcan launch would launch the Peregrine lander.
      https://www.space.com/intuitive-machines-moon-lander-spacex-2021.html
    There is no announced change, and earlier this year Tory Bruno tweeted that the Vulcan launch would wait as late as January 2023 if necessary if peregrine could be ready by then, but the plan was for December 2022.
    ... and we have a lengthy thread on this topic:
       https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43448.0
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: trimeta on 08/02/2022 12:10 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 08/02/2022 12:27 am
    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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 08/02/2022 12:36 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: whitelancer64 on 08/02/2022 12:52 am
    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.

    Presuming they come through the tests looking good, I'd bet the qual engines go from the test stand to the New Glenn assembly building.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: whitelancer64 on 08/02/2022 01:00 am
    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!

    Not so soon, probably more like late November into December.

    The first BE-4 Pathfinder engine arrived at ULA in July 2020, but it wasn't installed until January 2021. And it only took a couple weeks to install them, but it took nearly a month to ship the Pathfinder out to the pad for on-pad testing.

    Besides transportation time, there will be many in-building checkouts and tests with the engines integrated into the Vulcan. Then upper stage (the new Centaur V) integration and checkouts. Then they will very likely roll out to the pad and perform a WDR test with the flight engines and flight Vulcan core. Then the payload - if Peregrine is completed by then - needs to be integrated with the stack and confirmed healthy, only then they can roll out to the pad for launch.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DrHeywoodFloyd on 08/02/2022 02:12 am
    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

    Thank You... although I have a background in avionics [hardware, RF {Electronics Engineer}, GEC Avionics, UK ~1985-87], my testing experience is from software testing, where when performing Acceptance Testing one is testing against the User Requirements [Contact Requirements from ULA to Blue for the BE-4], and the expectation is not to find defects, but to verify that the delivered BE-4 meets their contracted [user] requirements.... that is why executing the Acceptance Testing test suite will only take about 1-2 weeks....

    Whereas everything before that, System Testing, Systems Integration Testing, Sub-system Integration Testing, and Unit Testing would have boundary value test case as you mentioned ["....while qual tests will test all the edges of the operating envelope..."]... trying to cause likely failures, or defects identified in the [BE-4] design docs for all the components[units], sub-systems, and systems ...

     https://insights.sei.cmu.edu/media/images/F1_-_Traditional_V_Model.original.jpg  (https://insights.sei.cmu.edu/media/images/F1_-_Traditional_V_Model.original.jpg)

    Thank you Vettedrmr, and ..
    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?

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 08/02/2022 09:33 am
    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'm going to step away from that one; I just don't think my experience will transfer very well to answering those questions.  I will say that, in general, qualification tests are done on a configuration basis, so once done satisfactorily aren't repeated until the configuration changes.  Acceptance tests, OTOH, are done on every unit produced.

    Have a good one,
    Mike
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Jim on 08/02/2022 11:19 am

    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.  The BE qual tests are what ULA uses
    2.  Same with acceptances tests.

    ULA is a partner in developing both test criteria.

    The remaining testing is just part of the assembly process (leak checks, electrical tests, hydraulic tests, etc)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: deadman1204 on 08/02/2022 02:02 pm
    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).
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: edzieba on 08/02/2022 02:57 pm
    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?
    Yes.
    Qual testing: tests if the engine design functions as expected and meets all specification requirements. Performed if the design changes (or if the specifications change).
    Acceptance testing: tests if a given engine functions as designed.
    Quote
    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).
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: whitelancer64 on 08/02/2022 05:48 pm
    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, acceptance tests are pretty much standard for rocket engines made today. For example, the RS-68A for the Delta IV does a 3 minute burn for an acceptance test.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: whitelancer64 on 08/02/2022 05:55 pm

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 08/04/2022 01:06 am
    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1554840748960256000

    Quote
    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…
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Hog on 08/04/2022 01:17 pm

    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.
    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?

    What kind of duration will the FRF be?  Shuttle was approx. 20 seconds in duration.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 08/08/2022 03:39 pm
    https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1556666213538926594

    Quote
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: whitelancer64 on 08/08/2022 04:18 pm

    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.
    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?

    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.

    I don't work for ULA so I have no insight into the duration of a hot fire test. My guess is that it would be a single digit time.

    The Delta IV FRF hot fire test was about 5 seconds.

    https://spaceflightnow.com/delta/delta4/021014frf/
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Jim on 08/08/2022 08:13 pm

    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.


    Atlas V didn't do one.  And Delta IV was a static fire with only a qual first stage.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 08/23/2022 12:12 am
    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?).
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DrHeywoodFloyd on 08/23/2022 12:25 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 08/23/2022 12:44 am
    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!
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DrHeywoodFloyd on 08/23/2022 03:08 am
    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!

    Yeah, I think I will drop Tory a tweet about this progress in 2 Weeks... because when I tweeted him at the beginning of August he indicated at that stage 1-2 weeks...

    Anyway does anyone know what is happening with the certification of the 4670  Test Stand at Huntsville, because at the end of June there was a picture of a BE-4 on the test stand, and so by now one would have expected a test firing... does anyone have an update?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DrHeywoodFloyd on 08/23/2022 07:09 am
    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 interesting that Tory mentioned the un-mentionable..."NUCLEAR"...!! In terms of Nuclear Thermal propulsion.

    Good on him!

    It is interesting that Blue Origin has a contract to develop nuclear propulsion for spacecraft.....
    https://www.businessinsider.com/jeff-bezos-blue-origin-award-pentagon-nuclear-space-contract-darpa-2021-4

    Blue Origin are also develop a space tug..
    https://www.geekwire.com/2021/founded-blue-origin-veterans-starfish-space-raises-7m-satellite-servicing-tug/

    I hypothesise that Blue origin Will develop a Space tug that is repelled by nuclear thermal propulsion to move cargo from orbital Reef to the moon and back. In addition, as nuclear thermal propulsion engines use hydrogen, this will be fuelled by hydrogen from the moon.


    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: woods170 on 08/23/2022 12:48 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DrHeywoodFloyd on 08/23/2022 02:22 pm
    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.

    Yes I'm aware of Eric Berger's tweet .... I intend to tweet Tory Bruno for an update about the 14th of September...
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Rakietwawka2021 on 08/23/2022 04:02 pm
    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."
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 08/23/2022 06:05 pm
    Good to see confirmation that FE2 is complete and was successfully and safely delivered to Corn Ranch for its ATP. Also good to see that Blue Origin and ULA are agile and planned well enough to be able to switch the engine firing order.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 08/23/2022 06:25 pm
    Also, in case anyone missed it, the question concerning Kent or Huntsville for the next set of engines was also answered:
    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1562115304884420608
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 08/26/2022 10:15 pm
    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1563279095940915200

    Quote
    @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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 08/26/2022 10:28 pm
    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1563292230957166593

    Quote
    Ok, then.   I spy a BE4 Flight Engine #2 on the test stand...
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: RDMM2081 on 08/27/2022 04:55 am
    I don’t understand, why horizontal?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DanClemmensen on 08/27/2022 04:58 am
    I don’t understand, why horizontal?
    :) Image fits on the screen better.  :)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: RDMM2081 on 08/27/2022 05:00 am
    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DrHeywoodFloyd on 08/27/2022 10:06 am
    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?

    I would say, given the pressures and force produced by the BE-4 engine [~2.4 Mn], the force due to gravity is minuscule....
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DrHeywoodFloyd on 08/27/2022 10:11 am
    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."

    Delivery from BO to ULA in 2-3W?..M [... and most importantly to BO... invoicing ULA for their engines.. I would if it is "Cash On Delivery"?!!]
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Jim on 08/27/2022 01:22 pm
    I don’t understand, why horizontal?

    Because it is easier.  Don't need a flame trench.  Orientation doesn't affect the engine operation
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: EspenU on 08/27/2022 01:36 pm


    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: JayWee on 08/27/2022 01:59 pm


    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?

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 08/27/2022 04:22 pm


    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?

    Gimbal tests do not need to be done vertically, either.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udvvtkR4R5Q
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 08/31/2022 03:49 am


    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 might point out that Blue Origin is not entirely without experience with BE-4s being fueled while vertical:
    https://blog.ulalaunch.com/hubfs/DSC_9603_1.jpg
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 08/31/2022 05:46 pm
    Harry Stranger is reporting the following regarding Flight Engine 2's test firing:

    https://twitter.com/nasaspaceflight/status/1564961942975938560

    Hopefully Blue Origin and or Tory Bruno will give us an update regarding how well it went.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DrHeywoodFloyd on 09/04/2022 02:38 am
    Any updates on Test Stand 4670.... the last update was 22 Jun 2022.... anyone out there living in Huntsville... have they heard the sound of a rocket engine test at 4670...

     https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1539299602352025600?s=20&t=nlW9shODP0fgQ3fI3ggf8A  (https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1539299602352025600?s=20&t=nlW9shODP0fgQ3fI3ggf8A)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Rakietwawka2021 on 09/04/2022 08:30 am
    Tory said that 4670 wasn't quite ready for engine test.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: harrystranger on 09/04/2022 12:36 pm
    Harry Stranger is reporting the following regarding Flight Engine 2's test firing:

    https://twitter.com/nasaspaceflight/status/1564961942975938560

    Hopefully Blue Origin and or Tory Bruno will give us an update regarding how well it went.
    Some higher resolution imagery of the possible test :)
    https://twitter.com/Harry__Stranger/status/1566402719463575552
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 09/13/2022 04:14 pm
    https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1569702765181702146

    Quote
    Big launch panel coming up at #WSBW, with executives from Arianespace, Blue Origin, ILS, MHI, SpaceX and ULA.

    https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1569708540423438336

    Quote
    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.)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: cpushack on 09/13/2022 10:31 pm
    Quote
    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.)

    We have heard this before.....
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 09/14/2022 12:06 am
    Quote
    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.)

    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 09/14/2022 04:11 am
    Quote
    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.)

    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?

    It appears to have, if you look at Harry Stranger's work with the Sentinel satellite imagery showing the exhaust plume from the test cell FE-2 is mounted in. It was fired. Now it would be a matter of waiting for FE-1 to do its ATP.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Hamish.Student on 09/14/2022 08:25 am
    https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/09/as-summer-turns-to-fall-ula-still-waiting-for-its-be-4-rocket-engines/ 
     
    Quote
    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.

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 09/15/2022 09:06 pm
    https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/09/as-summer-turns-to-fall-ula-still-waiting-for-its-be-4-rocket-engines/ 
     
    Quote
    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.

    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."


    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 09/16/2022 12:16 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 09/16/2022 02:32 am
    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.

    I specifically bold highlighted Rye's answer that FE-1 was due to go back to Corn Ranch. If the engine was due shortly when he talked to her, did he call her a day before for comment before going "to press" or did he talk to her several days ago while putting the article together? 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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: sdsds on 09/16/2022 02:48 am
    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 09/16/2022 01:38 pm

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 09/16/2022 07:47 pm

    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.

    We have seen two engines occupying both test cells at the same time:

    https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1526600808720019456

    So it is possible for them to have had both or preparing to have both at XEEx with FE-1 firing first, followed closely by FE-2 and then both get delivered as a pair or within days of each other rather than sent weeks apart.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vahe231991 on 09/22/2022 10:31 pm
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-16/bezos-s-rocket-engine-nears-debut-ending-us-reliance-on-russia?leadSource=uverify%20wall
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: whitelancer64 on 09/22/2022 10:43 pm
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-16/bezos-s-rocket-engine-nears-debut-ending-us-reliance-on-russia?leadSource=uverify%20wall

    Relevant quotes from the article:

    "Now, the US Space Force is expressing optimism, saying in a statement that “Vulcan launch system development activities continue to make progress” toward a first test launch by December because “ULA and Blue Origin have completed originally planned BE-4 development testing, and have successfully demonstrated full engine performance.”

    and

    “The first BE-4 flight engine is undergoing acceptance testing at Blue Origin’s facilities in Van Horn, Texas,” company spokesman William Boyington said in a statement. “Once final acceptance testing is completed, flight engines will be delivered to ULA, with full-rate BE-4 production already underway.”
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 09/23/2022 09:55 am
    “The first BE-4 flight engine is undergoing acceptance testing at Blue Origin’s facilities in Van Horn, Texas,” company spokesman William Boyington said in a statement. “Once final acceptance testing is completed, flight engines will be delivered to ULA, with full-rate BE-4 production already underway.”

    Is this FE-1 or is this a generic reference to FE-2 (which technically is now the first engine in the line up)?

    If it is FE-1, it is interesting since Berger's Ars Technica article came out just three days prior and thus Rye's "shortly." statement with regards to it being shipped back to Texas has been been validated.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 09/23/2022 05:32 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: meekGee on 09/25/2022 12:02 am
    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".

    Another week and we're into October.

    Maybe FE-2 is ok but acceptance 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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: WindnWar on 09/25/2022 05:29 am
    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.

    As with all things BE-4 I've learned not to hold my breath. When it arrives at ULA and is finally bolted to a Vulcan then we'll know for sure, till then I expect no date to be accurate.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 09/26/2022 07:37 pm
    https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1574482099981148160

    Quote
    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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 09/26/2022 07:52 pm
    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: jstrotha0975 on 09/26/2022 09:36 pm
    When will ULA have at least the first flight engine delivered to them?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 09/26/2022 11:25 pm
    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?

    This assumes there was not a delay to FE-2's testing by the NS-23 launch failure and possible subsequent double-checking that may have occurred in the aftermath of that incident as well as the discovery of the issue with FE-1 before that.

    It also needs to be kept in mind that there was also severe weather in Texas that delayed NS-23 almost two weeks, and that might also have contributed to delays in testing FE-2.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 09/27/2022 12:36 am
    When will ULA have at least the first flight engine delivered to them?

    After it completes its acceptance testing.  Right now FE-2 is in the lead.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: xyv on 09/27/2022 01:33 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 09/27/2022 01:40 am
    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.

    Ah, but you're completely forgetting the bureaucracy that goes with building something like this (and IMO BO is really good at bureaucracy).
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 09/28/2022 01:20 pm
    As usual, excellent observations by Harry:

    twitter.com/harry__stranger/status/1575111924802416642

    Quote
    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.

    https://twitter.com/harry__stranger/status/1575111940501667840

    Quote
    This is also seen in Sentinel-2 imagery which you can browse on @soar_earth for free: api.soar.earth/short/s41r1417…
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 09/28/2022 04:34 pm
    As usual, excellent observations by Harry:

    twitter.com/harry__stranger/status/1575111924802416642

    Quote
    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.

    https://twitter.com/harry__stranger/status/1575111940501667840

    Quote
    This is also seen in Sentinel-2 imagery which you can browse on @soar_earth for free: api.soar.earth/short/s41r1417…

    If this is not FE-1 or 2, then I am going to guess that this is a qualification engine firing.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 09/28/2022 08:43 pm
    twitter.com/torybruno/status/1575223484615393280

    Quote
    Anybody feel like seeing a full Misson duration BE4 engine video?

    https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1575224434864029717

    Quote
    Looks like the BE-4 flight engine two video I mentioned a few days ago is finally being released.

    Ok, so we know there’s at least one successful full duration test.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 09/28/2022 09:12 pm
    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1575231771913994240

    Quote
    Found it!  Ok, since you asked so nicely... here is a full duration @BlueOrigin #BE4 firing.   #VulcanRocket #CountDownToVulcan.  Enjoy...
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: trimeta on 09/28/2022 09:16 pm
    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.)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 09/28/2022 09:22 pm
    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/1575233586885689357

    Quote
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 09/28/2022 09:28 pm
    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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: trimeta on 09/28/2022 09:30 pm
    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/1575233586885689357

    Quote
    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.

    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.)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 09/28/2022 10:36 pm
    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/1575233586885689357

    Quote
    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.

    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.)


    Except that he never previously mentioned, nor did Tory Bruno, that there would be two test firings, only a single one. Also, is this happening in the same test cell we saw FE-2 mounted on here?

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: whitelancer64 on 09/28/2022 10:44 pm
    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.)

    IIRC the acceptance test is a full duration burn of the engine, so this should be that.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: whitelancer64 on 09/28/2022 11:04 pm
    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

    No idea on the vented gas that pools on the ground, I assume because it's cold. It seems like an odd place to vent it.

    I presume the yellow color means it's not completely pure methane. The BE-4 runs on purified liquid natural gas, which is mostly, but not completely, methane. Pure methane burns blue.

    *edit*  Comments in the tweets note that there is water being injected into the exhaust plume, that is probably the cause of the color change. Groundwater in Texas often contains sodium.  Also, some dust is being drawn up into the plume further out, which also causes color changes.

    Also, Just A Tinker suggests the white gas might be a Nitrogen purge to reduce the possibility of brush fires.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: whitelancer64 on 09/28/2022 11:05 pm
    Tory: "This is an Acceptance Test Firing of the FE2 First flight engine"

    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1575244407208493057
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: harrystranger on 09/29/2022 11:30 am
    It may be worth noting that they seem to have expanded their propellant capacity in recent months. Satellite imagery showed work starting back in June (I think I posted about that a few pages back on here).
    Here's a screenshot from the video showing the area I'm talking about :)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 09/29/2022 05:11 pm
    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/1575233586885689357

    Quote
    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.

    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: whitelancer64 on 09/29/2022 05:26 pm
    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*

    Quote
    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.

    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?

    I asked about that on Twitter, but no reply yet :P
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 09/29/2022 05:26 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: litton4 on 09/29/2022 05:43 pm
    Did I hear a "honk" as it shut down?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: whitelancer64 on 09/29/2022 05:48 pm
    Did I hear a "honk" as it shut down?

    Yes.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Eric Hedman on 09/29/2022 06:46 pm
    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."
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 09/29/2022 08:24 pm
    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.

    It's always been stated in the singular, like this one from August:

    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1554840748960256000
    "The BE4 Flight engine #1 is in Texas for its acceptance firing." Not "firings", just "firing".

    The closest to a plural is this one from a month ago:

    "BE4 Flight Engine #2 is on the test stand in Texas for acceptance testing"

    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1563279095940915200

    We knew by that time that the engines are put through a cold ATP (cryo and prop) and then a firing, but no indication directly of multiple firings.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Gliderflyer on 09/30/2022 12:17 am
    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."
    That was the shutdown purge, a lot of XCOR engines did that.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: LouScheffer on 10/01/2022 01:21 am
    As usual, excellent observations by Harry:

    twitter.com/harry__stranger/status/1575111924802416642

    Quote
    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.
    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).
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: trimeta on 10/01/2022 01:51 am
    As usual, excellent observations by Harry:

    twitter.com/harry__stranger/status/1575111924802416642

    Quote
    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.
    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).
    In fact, a calendar which only lets you write one entry per month would be sufficient...
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: harrystranger on 10/02/2022 02:19 pm
    Signs of possibly another test
    https://twitter.com/Harry__Stranger/status/1576563722708914178
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vahe231991 on 10/02/2022 02:37 pm
    Signs of possibly another test
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 10/03/2022 12:26 am
    Fortunately, we do indeed now have a high-resolution overview of FE-2's test firing to compare the plume interaction dynamics with that of the satellite imagery:

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 10/03/2022 02:47 pm
    It's hard to say for sure whether the BE-4 shown in this satellite image is the FE-1 or FE-2.

    As has been pointed out before, it may be neither engine. We could be looking at the test firing of one of the qual engines since XEEx can handle two engines at the same time, and we know that they've done at least 3 firings in a single week.

    And that's something Harry should keep an eye for is evening and very early morning test firings, not just for daytime ones.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: whitelancer64 on 10/09/2022 01:33 am
    @blueorigin
    Our @ULAlaunch teammates came to West Texas to check out their first new flight engine: Two thumbs up! Now it’s off to ULA!

    https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1578907437033492480
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 10/09/2022 01:42 am
    Outstanding!  Now ULA can get started on integrating this engine (FE-2?) while the other goes through its acceptance tests.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vahe231991 on 10/09/2022 02:57 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 10/09/2022 04:14 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Eric Hedman on 10/09/2022 04:27 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 10/09/2022 05:04 am
    Tory Bruno indicated a few months ago when it was expected that Vulcan would fly in December that he could give Astrobotics until January. So not too long. A few months at most.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: deadman1204 on 10/10/2022 02:15 pm
    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/10/2022 02:33 pm
    https://twitter.com/joroulette/status/1579474930659627008

    Quote
    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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 10/10/2022 02:41 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 10/10/2022 08:57 pm
    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.


    There have a been enough test firings spotted via satellite and posted by Harry Stranger on Twitter and elsewhere that indicate there have been qualification test firings by a BE-4 engine and most certainly could not have been FE-2.

    So, unless FE-1 has long been back in Texas and test fired already, then the only other logical conclusion is that this is one or more of the qualification BE-4s.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 10/10/2022 09:56 pm
    It's very interesting to see a work stand at XEEx that's very similar to the assembly stands up at the Kent factory. I wonder what work would need to be done to bring XEEx up to a comparable standard to Kent so that work, like that needed to be done to correct the flaw on FE-1 can be done there instead of having to waste weeks shipping an engine back and forth:

     
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Tywin on 10/10/2022 11:44 pm
    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1579617777559949314

    Prime delivery fast furious...
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: TrevorMonty on 10/10/2022 11:59 pm
    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1579617777559949314

    Prime delivery fast furious...
    Fast is last word to describe anything to do with BE4 program.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Tywin on 10/11/2022 12:08 am
    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1579617777559949314

    Prime delivery fast furious...
    Fast is last word to describe anything to do with BE4 program.

    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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DanClemmensen on 10/11/2022 12:42 am
    Tory Bruno asks: "Hmm. What’s that?  Looks like a BE4 flight engine being uncreated at the Rocket Factory in Decatur."

    Wow, that's an impressive Freudian slip. "Uncreated", indeed. We've seen several Raptors get uncreated, but I thought the industry-standard term was "RUD".
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 10/11/2022 02:53 am
    Sadly, those engines being delivered will eventually be "uncreated" at the end of their mission, even if they're successful. And those're engines proven now capable of many flights. :(
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 10/11/2022 03:51 am
    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1579617777559949314

    Prime delivery fast furious...

    My dog and I's happy faces for this milestone.

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: meekGee on 10/11/2022 05:53 am
    A bone fide victory party no less...  This is entirely comic.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/11/2022 06:07 am
    Tory’s view of BE-4:

    twitter.com/kerballaunch/status/1579618172294270976

    Quote
    Confident 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/1579620565819981824

    Quote
    Yes. Performing better than I expected
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Tywin on 10/11/2022 09:15 am
    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...
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: kevinof on 10/11/2022 09:21 am
    Same line he has used every couple of months for the last 2 years. When I see it in a booster and lifting off the pad I'll raise a glass to it.

    Tory’s view of BE-4:

    twitter.com/kerballaunch/status/1579618172294270976

    Quote
    Confident 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/1579620565819981824

    Quote
    Yes. Performing better than I expected
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Hamish.Student on 10/11/2022 11:03 am
    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...
     
     
    You're a broken record. Stop baiting. Nobody is playing today.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Hog on 10/11/2022 01:34 pm


    Prime delivery fast furious...
    Fast is last word to describe anything to do with BE4 program.

    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
    Don't forget the other Staged Combustion engine's development which began over 50 years ago for STS.

    RS-25
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-25#Development

    It's It'll be a great time in spaceflight when we have all 3 Staged Combustion engine variants in operational status. (Fuel Rich, Full Flow and Oxidizer Rich)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: meekGee on 10/11/2022 04:48 pm


    Prime delivery fast furious...
    Fast is last word to describe anything to do with BE4 program.

    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
    Don't forget the other Staged Combustion engine's development which began over 50 years ago for STS.

    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)
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: clongton on 10/11/2022 04:54 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Hog on 10/11/2022 04:59 pm


    Prime delivery fast furious...
    Fast is last word to describe anything to do with BE4 program.

    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
    Don't forget the other Staged Combustion engine's development which began over 50 years ago for STS.

    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)
    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.
    There's only one engine that's currently operational.(as of the time this post is time/date stamped)

    Alas, the nits are there to be picked and enthusiasm to be doused-fixed.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 10/11/2022 05:11 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DanClemmensen on 10/11/2022 05:23 pm
    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.
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: meekGee on 10/11/2022 06:13 pm


    Prime delivery fast furious...
    Fast is last word to describe anything to do with BE4 program.

    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
    Don't forget the other Staged Combustion engine's development which began over 50 years ago for STS.

    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)
    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.
    There's only one engine that's currently operational.(as of the time this post is time/date stamped)

    Alas, the nits are there to be picked and enthusiasm to be doused-fixed.
    Agreed.  I never said Raptor was operational.

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: sdsds on 10/11/2022 06:33 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Purona on 10/11/2022 06:53 pm
    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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: meekGee on 10/11/2022 07:15 pm
    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!

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Tywin on 10/11/2022 07:27 pm
    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!

    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...
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Tommyboy on 10/11/2022 07:48 pm
    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!

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Purona on 10/11/2022 07:58 pm
    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.

    The current BE-4 can be reused as long as its recovered. The issue with its current design is that the igniters don't allow for propulsive flyback and landing. Which isn't required for SMART
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: meekGee on 10/11/2022 08:30 pm
    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!

    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...
    Errr..  imply what exactly?  and where? You're losing me. I think you even forgot what you wanted to say except "BE4 shiny".
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 10/12/2022 01:18 am
    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!

    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.

    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.

    https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1521204209516834816
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: LouScheffer on 10/12/2022 02:38 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 10/12/2022 03:00 am
    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.

    That is not the end of it:
    https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1521204214084796416
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: LouScheffer on 10/12/2022 03:15 am
    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).
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: MTPATCAMI on 10/12/2022 04:00 am

    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.

    where did it ever say the fault or issue was caught by ULA and not Blue Origin themselves, as far as we know, the engine never made it to ULA.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/12/2022 06:36 am
    Nice BE-4 shot at ULA:

    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1580014463318601728

    Quote
    I 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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Tywin on 10/12/2022 08:30 am
    Tory Bruno scale  :)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 10/12/2022 11:18 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: deadman1204 on 10/12/2022 01:41 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 10/12/2022 02:28 pm
    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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Purona on 10/12/2022 02:37 pm
    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.

    The tweet in the post says another engine has 2500 seconds of mission duty hotfire. If every engine can perform close to that then the BE-4 was fired for around 10 times consistently
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: whitelancer64 on 10/12/2022 05:32 pm
    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).

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: whitelancer64 on 10/12/2022 05:37 pm
    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.

    "Blue hides everything. ...  Blue would be crowing that everything was perfect if it was."

    You've got yourself a nice Catch-22 there.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 10/12/2022 06:09 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: edzieba on 10/12/2022 06:23 pm
    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.
    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).
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: meekGee on 10/12/2022 07:32 pm
    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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: JEF_300 on 10/12/2022 09:54 pm
    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.

    Ok, so I've seen maybe a dozen posts like this on this thread over the years, and they're kind of a pet peeve of mine. They don't actually hurt anything, so don't take this as me saying you guys shouldn't make these posts; do whatever you want.

    That said, to those of you who've made posts like this... why do you make them? You don't need, to stretch the metaphor a bit here, to 'wake up' every time there's a minor update, seemingly only to then say 'wake me up when there's a big update'.

    If you don't care about anything but a vehicle on the pad, thats fine, but you don't need to keep telling us that. You can just stop paying attention. It's ok. I personally promise that when the rocket does get to the pad, there will be plenty of articles to make you aware.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: WindnWar on 10/12/2022 10:43 pm
    Nice BE-4 shot at ULA:

    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1580014463318601728

    Quote
    I 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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 10/13/2022 01:31 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: c4fusion on 10/13/2022 02:32 am
    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.

    I thought this was the flight engine that was delivered to ULA?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 10/13/2022 02:37 am
    Yes, that's my assumption as well.  Lots of instrumentation for the first n flights (2 required for NSSL certification), but subsequent versions I expect will tidy up a lot.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: AmigaClone on 10/13/2022 04:36 am
    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.

    The only advantage of disposable rocket stage vs a reusable one is that only a few of the earlier ones will have all the extra instrumentation the engine that arrived at ULA appears to have.

    By comparison, I seem to recall that the Space Shuttle Columbia was heavier than the later built shuttles in part because part of the extra instrumentation used for the test missions was left on board because of the difficulty in accessing their location.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Rakietwawka2021 on 10/13/2022 11:14 am
    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1580508306887520257?t=Cm0ErwhSYtXrZjbjIPPOlw&s=19

    What does ATP mean?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 10/13/2022 11:55 am
    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1580508306887520257?t=Cm0ErwhSYtXrZjbjIPPOlw&s=19

    What does ATP mean?

    Probably Acceptance Test Program
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 10/13/2022 07:56 pm
    That would be correct as Tory Bruno has used that acronym before in regards to the acceptance tests for both FE-1 and 2 alike.

    And the "YES" is obviously the answer to the second question.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 10/13/2022 08:11 pm
    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


    It did change and he was right.

    https://twitter.com/hubert25696308/status/1580275622202421249
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 10/13/2022 08:18 pm
    The standard banana is an essential measuring tool for scale:

    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1580271839644786688
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 10/13/2022 08:22 pm
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: meekGee on 10/13/2022 08:44 pm

    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.

    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...
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 10/13/2022 09:06 pm

    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.

    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.

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 10/13/2022 09:20 pm
    Quote from: meekGee
    First of all, he did exactly what I said he did.

    No, I didn't. If you had something to say about my citing Harry Stranger's satellite imagery or anything else, I ask that you directly address that. I definitely changed things with regards to the information, confirming some things and making some improvements to others. You're dismissing it offhand because it doesn't fall in line with your views about ULA and Blue.

    We know there's a good chance the images Harry Stranger posted on Twitter and here are not FE-2, but another BE-4. Thanks to Tory now, that's pretty solidly confirmed that FE-1 has been in Texas for an indeterminate time and resumed testing.

    Don't ya think that's kinda significant?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: spacenut on 10/13/2022 09:27 pm
    SpaceX fans have become used to successes.  Many of us are older and remember that Weiner Von Braun said in the late 1960's we could use the Saturn V and go to Mars by 1986, by assembling large units with it to build a large mothership.  I am getting older and want to see us go to Mars before I pass. 

    SpaceX brought us space fans so much hope.  A reusable rocket, that has landed over 100 times.  Cheaper access to space.  SpaceX has and does move much faster than other rocket companies.  Our hope was the Blue Origin could do the same with Bezos' billions.  Instead he has moved as slow as "old space". 

    Now there are three other companies who have and are developing orbital rockets very fast.  We are very disappointed at Blue's progress.  It seems like it didn't take them long to develop a very good, if not the best hydrolox engine in BE-3.   BE-4 was chosen for Vulcan because ULA though it would be ready before any other engine they could buy.  They are way behind schedule and everyone knows it, but doesn't admit it.  It is probably going to be a great engine, more mass than Raptor, but a great engine.  SpaceX developed, tested, and flew Rapor 1 already.  They started on Rapor 2 due to having to wait on launch and environmental permits. 

    We are not just SpaceX fans, we are fans of all space flight.  I'm 69 and want to see us get to Mars.  SpaceX is the only company who's sole purpose it to colonize Mars.  Blue wants to build factories in space.  They should pretend no one else will do it, and get rockets built to do it.  Instead, they seem to have focused on everything space related instead of one goal and purpose. 
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 10/13/2022 10:02 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: meekGee on 10/13/2022 10:44 pm

    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)
    First of all, he did exactly what I said he did.

    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.

    You're shooting the messenger.

    Everyone recognizes the fact the BO got an engine through acceptance.
    Everyone recognizes the likelihood that in some order, they'll get the second engine accepted and the other two qualified.  Maybe even this year.
    Everyone recognizes the likelihood that Vulcan will fly sometime next year, probably within the first half.

    Everyone also recognizes how much "very little and very late" this is.  And that's what BO needs to understand, just how dire it is for them now, and how much harder they need to work. 

    The "oh wow look we beat SpaceX" victory dance, it just oozes of "our current strategy was a success after all", and "oh look the turtle is going to win" so we should continue with our current way of doing business.

    Telling it how it is, that's not being sadistic.  Lulling you to sleep, THAT would be sadistic.

    ULA has a problem. They are very good at getting DOD contracts, so they didn't have a sense of urgency. They won't fold, but they'll become irrelevant with Vulcan. Not the end of the world, because ULA is a trucker, and doesn't have lofty goals of making an impact.

    VG had a similar problem.  They were so good at PR and fund-raising that they lulled themselves to sleep.  And BO is eating their market. (Though what a late lunch it is.)

    BO (orbital) has a similar problem.  It thinks it has infinite funding, and now it might also thinks that it is somehow doing well in the space race.  It'll end up sharing the same fate - except in this case, the end goal was supposed to be making an impact, so it is a very big problem.

    Maybe you can see from the last paragraph that I'm not a BO hater.  I see a giant difference between BO and many of the others.  BO has lofty goals and is making a credible run at them.   I am a BO disapointee, and while seeing an engine getting accepted is encouraging, seeing the response to that milestone makes me think BO hasn't learned anything. (To the extent that BO mgmt shares the sentiment of the posters here)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: spacenut on 10/13/2022 10:54 pm
    Yes, so am I, a BO disappointee.  Hindsight is 2020, but they should have worked on an orbital reusable rocket first before anything else.  Got it working, and then worked on other stuff.  Getting to space is the hardest part of all space things.  Once in orbit, one can build anything to go anywhere. 
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Purona on 10/13/2022 11:15 pm
    They didnt have the money to make a reusable launch vehicle, unless said reusable launch vehicle was suborbital.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 10/13/2022 11:22 pm
    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.

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: meekGee on 10/13/2022 11:46 pm
    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.

    But I'll give you a very specific engine argument.

    Remember back in the day, when SpaceX, after only a few flights, switched Falcon from 1.0 to 1.1 and did a major Merlin upgrade? The ULA sentiment was "they'll never become a serious launch company if they can't stick with a stable configuration". And then again a little bit later with densified propellants, and various other engine upgrades.

    With time though, people came to realize that all those iterations were actually a good thing.

    So now fast forward to today.  If you look upthread you'll see that the BO sentiment is that SpaceX are somehow behind because SpaceX keeps upgrading from Raptor v1 to v2 to v3, whereas BO has arrived at a "stable" configuration first.

    Zero learning.

    That's what I was talking about.  It's not about money, it's about attitude and leadership.  Someone's got to make BO change its ways or else it's a giant waste of blood, sweat and tears.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: abaddon on 10/14/2022 02:40 am
    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Nomadd on 10/14/2022 04:17 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: meekGee on 10/14/2022 04:44 am
    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.

    Also from that other thread.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Tywin on 10/14/2022 01:48 pm
    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.

    100% agree...
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vahe231991 on 10/14/2022 03:34 pm
    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.

    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.
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 10/14/2022 03:51 pm
    ...Blue Origin has just delivered the first BE-4 engines qualified for flight to ULA...

    FYI, neither of those engines are actually qualified for flight, but rather one has passed its acceptance tests (which aren't as rigorous as qualification tests), the 2nd is undergoing its acceptance tests.

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 10/14/2022 08:13 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 10/14/2022 08:16 pm
    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.

    I didn't say those tests were being done concurrently; I said they'll be using two separate engines.  Whether in parallel or serial, the two engines ULA will be integrating into Vulcan will not be the engines used in qual test.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: deadman1204 on 10/14/2022 08:42 pm
    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.

    Also, if there was 4 fully completed engines, Blue would've been posting about it.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Eric Hedman on 10/14/2022 10:52 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Purona on 10/14/2022 11:00 pm
    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.

    Also, if there was 4 fully completed engines, Blue would've been posting about it.
    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 random
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: RDMM2081 on 10/15/2022 03:46 am
    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: LouScheffer on 10/16/2022 12:36 pm
    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).
    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.
    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.

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: whitelancer64 on 10/17/2022 07:38 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 10/17/2022 07:45 pm
    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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: whitelancer64 on 10/17/2022 07:52 pm
    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).
    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.
    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.

    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 comment was pretty sarcastic - meant to emphasize the double standard to which you, and many others, hold Blue Origin when compared to SpaceX.

    In short: There's no reason to expect that Blue Origin and SpaceX have the same engine testing requirements.

    Blue Origin had to significantly change the BE-4 design to meet ULA's requirements, which is part of the development hell it's been through.  ULA needed a mature design for Vulcan, a design path which Blue Origin may not have intended. They could have gone more of a fly, inspect, iterate route if not for that.

    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.

    So there's no reason to presume that the design of the BE-4 is frozen. Obviously, they will inspect recovered engines and learn from them. Early engines may not be good for 25 reuses, but they will learn as they go along. It's a reasonable design goal, though.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: whitelancer64 on 10/17/2022 07:57 pm
    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

    ........ which is why I said the Qual engines could be used for fit checks and other engineering testing, etc. for New Glenn, and it's unlikely that ULA would want them.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: JayWee on 10/17/2022 09:00 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Rakietwawka2021 on 10/18/2022 12:03 pm
    BE-4 is also confirmed by Blue Origin. They want to achieve 100 flights on one engine.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: whitelancer64 on 10/18/2022 03:47 pm
    @torybruno
    That is a beautiful sight!  One more BE4 and he's off to the Cape.  #VulcanRocket #CountdownToVulcan

    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1582184276077879298
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 10/18/2022 04:16 pm
    Assuming they've done all the integration work they can prior to all up integration, that went smoothly!
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Steve G on 10/18/2022 08:52 pm
    I'd like to see the assembly manual for hooking that thing to the rocket.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 10/18/2022 10:03 pm
    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.

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: raptorx2 on 10/18/2022 10:32 pm
    BE-4 is also confirmed by Blue Origin. They want to achieve 100 flights on one engine.

    Let's get to orbit in one piece first.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: WindnWar on 10/19/2022 03:33 am
    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.

    I don't think it's a lot fewer, it's just routed differently and they are all silver now. If you look at the first engine that orange bundle goes underneath and then up in between the lox inlet, on the flight engine most of it instead of going between the lox and methane inlets is going up the side of the engine over the pump and then routed to the top, where there is very little cabling there on the first engine, there is now a pretty thick bundle there on the flight engine.

    Just probably figured out more efficient cable routing or a less risky route for them. There is probably a bit less but with all the cables silver and the engine wrapped in silver insulation it's harder to see it all.

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Rakietwawka2021 on 10/20/2022 12:05 pm
    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: WindnWar on 10/21/2022 02:27 am
    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?

    Not done a lot of image posting so hopefully this works. I've marked the two most obvious places and attached them but there is tons more changes across the engine. Those simply stand out the most. On the section I circled near the nozzle you can see a bolt on flange quite a bit different from the original engine where it looks welded instead and the tubing it attaches to the circles the engine bell looks a lot larger in diameter on the new engine.

    On the section circled to the left you can see near that pump there is one pipe and barely any cables there on the original and on the new one there are several pipes and a large bundle of cables there now. I attached the pics to the post. not sure if the embedding will work.

    (http://Pathfinder BE-4 #1 change.png)

    (http://Tory scale change.jpg)

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: WindnWar on 10/21/2022 02:32 am
    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?

    (http://pathfinderbe4 enlarged.jpg)

    Enlarged it some to make it easier to see.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: WindnWar on 10/21/2022 02:43 am
    If anyone has some higher res images of that pathfinder engine it would be helpful, that low res image at a slightly different angle makes it harder to see all the changes even zoomed in but they look quite extensive to the wiring and much of the small piping.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Rakietwawka2021 on 10/21/2022 05:54 am
    Has anyone got idea why there is so much difference in colour of nozzle?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Eric Hedman on 10/21/2022 05:57 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/22/2022 05:40 am
    twitter.com/hubert25696308/status/1583544542451576832

    Quote
    @torybruno why there is so much difference in nozzle comparing to pathfinder BE4?

    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1583587777261711360

    Quote
    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)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/24/2022 06:51 am
    https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1584325580832399360

    Quote
    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. 🚀
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DanClemmensen on 10/25/2022 03:05 am
    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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/25/2022 07:42 am
    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

    Exactly. Moved about a dozen posts there, several posts to the BE-3 thread, couple more to general Blue Origin discussion thread and trimmed the rest. Net result, no new posts on topic since Eric Berger’s latest update. Please post to the correct threads, there are plenty of them!
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/25/2022 05:21 pm
    https://twitter.com/felipe_stipp0/status/1584957501069721600

    Quote
    @torybruno how are the tests with the BE-4 FE1 engine going?

    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1584957764144885760

    Quote
    Going really well. A little ahead of plan
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: sebk on 10/26/2022 08:46 am
    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. 
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 10/26/2022 11:36 am
    Yep, that's the question that many are asking getting zero hints about (which is not surprising for BO).  My fear is damage to an engine during qual testing that requires major repair or replacement of the engine.

    Actually, for that matter, have we heard anything definitive about the qual engines actually undergoing their qual tests?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: GWR64 on 10/26/2022 04:35 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: sebk on 10/26/2022 05:04 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 10/26/2022 05:08 pm
    But the qualification test can still take place before the first flight of the Vulcan, right?

    Sebk has it right: the BE-4 has to successfully complete (note I didn't say "pass") all qualification tests before it'll be cleared for flight.  Failures during qual tests aren't that uncommon, but the nature, cause, and workarounds for qual test failures have to be known before a "flight certificate" would be authorized.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: GWR64 on 10/26/2022 06:35 pm
    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.

    Of course must
    it sounded like there was some doubt
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: deadman1204 on 10/26/2022 07:28 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 10/26/2022 07:40 pm
    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.

    This is nothing new as a rocket development strategy. SSME(RS-25) was in qual testing with the Main Propulsion Test Article aka MPTA-098 (an orbiter aft fuselage with 3 engines) almost right up until STS-1 Columbia in April 1981 with flight engines 2005, 2006 and 2007 installed on her. It wasn't planned that way, but it it wound up being that way, and fortunately it worked out and the engine was qualified by January 17 after a 625-second firing, just in time for Columbia's Flight Readiness Firing (FRF) on February 20 1981.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: LouScheffer on 10/26/2022 07:53 pm
    I'd assume that each qualification test has been passed by at least one engine (just not all tests by the same engine).  So if tests A and B passed, then C required some tweaks to pass, then D passed, now they have to go back and ensure the final design can pass A, B, C, and D.    Basically to ensure the tweaks needed to pass the later tests do not now cause the previously passed tests to fail.

    Presumably if they had any reason to suspect this, they would have gone back and re-tested already.  So all that should be left is some sort of unexpected interaction, or maybe the wear from earlier tests affecting some of the later tests (in which case they might get a waiver since these engines only need last through two firings, a static fire and a launch).   So like others, I think it's reasonably likely (but not certain) that the qualification engines will pass all their tests.

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Purona on 10/27/2022 06:54 pm
    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.

    not a guarantee

    There's 3 sets of engines
    There's engines that were made at Kent washington that were used for pre-qualification
    There's engines made in huntsville alabama that have been in testing since December
    There's these 2 flight engines that were built in Kent Washington and were completed recently.

    Tory Bruno in August of 2021 stated that it was possible that qualification program could be finished before the two flight engines were completed. Which means that that the qualification program was intending to use already produced kent engines, or newly to be produced Huntsville engines.

    Last month ULA said Blue Origin were on path to completing qualification testing.

    And in March/May Blue Origin said they were about to enter formal Qualification testing after refurbishing some engines
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: edzieba on 10/28/2022 11:58 am
    https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1539299602352025600

    Quote
    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.

    4 months on, has there been any news on the status of 4670?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/28/2022 01:51 pm
    More great finds by Harry:

    https://twitter.com/harry__stranger/status/1585990937250914304

    Quote
    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

    twitter.com/harry__stranger/status/1585990950903390210

    Quote
    This is further backed up by higher resolution imagery showing the visible change happening on either the 21st or 22nd.

    https://twitter.com/harry__stranger/status/1585990954225319936

    Quote
    If my analysis of this imagery is correct, it lines up well with Eric's tweet below. Let's hope we hear more soon 🚀
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 10/28/2022 07:50 pm
    I trust that people will make the appropriate vote.

    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1586036406538756096?cxt=HHwWgICjyazt3YIsAAAA
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Hamish.Student on 10/29/2022 12:41 am
    I trust that people will make the appropriate vote.

    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1586036406538756096?cxt=HHwWgICjyazt3YIsAAAA
     
     
    Or ya know, just post the video he knows we want.  ::)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/29/2022 05:04 am
    So far there have been 3,851 votes!
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 10/29/2022 05:04 pm
    Final tally was 4,499, and here it is!

    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1586401465924321280?cxt=HHwWgICg-czug4QsAAAA
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 10/29/2022 05:36 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: edzieba on 10/29/2022 08:51 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 10/29/2022 09:22 pm
    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.

    Possible, but it's not likely given what we've seen with FE-2 and other "broad daylight" photos and video. And we have confirmed early evening/night time test firings:

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 10/30/2022 01:30 am
    Articles like this one go into the night time test firings of the engine, which also links to Bezo's Instagram:

    https://www.geekwire.com/2021/jeff-bezos-kicks-back-full-thrust-firing-blue-origins-4-rocket-engine-texas/
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/30/2022 07:14 am
    Someone has uploaded Tory’s latest tweeted video to YT:

    https://youtu.be/HabmpdHkH-Y
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: harrystranger on 10/30/2022 09:41 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DrHeywoodFloyd on 10/30/2022 08:10 pm
    What is happening with Test Stand 4670... have they qualified the test stand yet?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/31/2022 04:17 pm
    https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1587129379552911364

    Quote
    The first shipset. The first of many.
     
    #BE4 flight engines are now being integrated into the @ulalaunch #VulcanRocket. bit.ly/3zvAVET
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/31/2022 04:19 pm
    https://www.blueorigin.com/news/blue-origin-completes-the-delivery-of-flight-engines-to-ula-for-vulcan-initial-launch/

    Quote
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/31/2022 05:40 pm
    Not too long now:

    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1587152163750322177

    Quote
    BE4 is in the house!!

    FE2 is on. FE1 will join it momentarily.  #VulcanRocket #CountdownToVulcan #BE4 @blueorigin
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 10/31/2022 06:35 pm
    A great treat to savor on this All Hallows' Eve day.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 10/31/2022 07:40 pm
    Rightfully very happy employees.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vahe231991 on 10/31/2022 08:24 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Hog on 10/31/2022 11:04 pm
    If FE-3 and FE-4 were available tomorrow, would they be held to support this launch as a backup pair of booster engines or would they automatically be assigned to a different flight?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 10/31/2022 11:14 pm
    BO still has to get through qualification tests with flight-representative engines.  I *think* they were going to be using two engines, but it's not required.  So I would expect the next engine will be running through qual tests.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DrHeywoodFloyd on 11/01/2022 01:09 am
    Does anyone know what testing has been done at Test Stand 4670, as I thought it was still being certified and I have not seen any reports in the media about there being test fired at the test stand?  Have I missed something?


    https://www.blueorigin.com/news/blue-origin-completes-the-delivery-of-flight-engines-to-ula-for-vulcan-initial-launch/

    Quote
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 11/01/2022 02:52 am
    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.

    Tory Bruno in several interviews as well as at least one tweet has stated that the next sets of engines are being manufactured and built up. We do not know how far along they are, but we do know the the first sets will be assembled at the Kent factory, and with many parts manufactured by Huntsville.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Hamish.Student on 11/01/2022 04:52 am
    This is absolutely fantastic to see. It's great to finally see real progress getting Vulcan to the pad. I hope for a speedy and uneventful final integration and pre-launch campaign!
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 11/07/2022 03:19 pm
    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1589653625080451072

    Quote
    Fine looking BE4 engines. #VulcanRocket #CountdownToVulcan #BE4 @BlueOrigin
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 11/08/2022 02:15 am
    The unboxing video is very interesting.

    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1589659097800245248?cxt=HHwWgIDQ5d2hzY8sAAAA
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Hamish.Student on 11/08/2022 03:47 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: JCRM on 11/08/2022 09:49 am

    I wonder why they carry the container inside the truck like they did instead of just on a trailer as is regularly done.

    Cleanliness?

    definitely a cut in the video between the container being secured and opened - no trace of lorry and hardhats
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 11/08/2022 01:53 pm
    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1589653625080451072

    Quote
    Fine 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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: TrevorMonty on 11/08/2022 03:12 pm
    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1589653625080451072

    Quote
    Fine 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?
    ULA are showing 2 BE4 engines are ready for fitting to Vulcan. Don't over think it.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 11/08/2022 03:16 pm
    Except here FE-2 is at least mechanically mounted to the aft bulkhead.  Why disconnect it?

    Not too long now:

    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1587152163750322177

    Quote
    BE4 is in the house!!

    FE2 is on. FE1 will join it momentarily.  #VulcanRocket #CountdownToVulcan #BE4 @blueorigin
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: edzieba on 11/08/2022 03:32 pm
    Except here FE-2 is at least mechanically mounted to the aft bulkhead.  Why disconnect it?

    Not too long now:

    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1587152163750322177

    Quote
    BE4 is in the house!!

    FE2 is on. FE1 will join it momentarily.  #VulcanRocket #CountdownToVulcan #BE4 @blueorigin
    Why do you think either engine is unmounted?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 11/08/2022 04:42 pm
    Why do you think either engine is unmounted?[/quote]

    Good call.  Got a break from teaching and tried my pitiful hands at photoshopping, and, yep, the left engine (FE-2, I guess) does appear to be mounted.  As I was looking at it casually it looked disconnected, but closer inspection belies that.

    Thanks for pointing that out, and have a good one,
    Mike
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: whitelancer64 on 11/08/2022 05:18 pm
    *snip tweet*
    Quote
    Fine 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 could be something was visible that falls under ITAR, or is proprietary, or both.  You sometimes see similar blurring on officially released SpaceX images.

    As for the difference between the more recent picture and the uncensored older picture, the people who review these images for release might vary from day to day, or their interpretation of what's restricted might vary.

    Generally, it's better to be safe than sorry.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: jimvela on 11/08/2022 05:24 pm
    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. 
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: markbike528cbx on 11/08/2022 06:05 pm
    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".

    Example:
    Quote
    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

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 11/08/2022 06:59 pm
    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?

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: John-H on 11/09/2022 02:58 am
    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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 11/09/2022 03:54 am
    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!
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: MTPATCAMI on 11/09/2022 04:01 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: MTPATCAMI on 11/09/2022 04:03 am
    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1589653625080451072

    Quote
    Fine 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?
    ULA are showing 2 BE4 engines are ready for fitting to Vulcan. Don't over think it.

    both engines are mounted and fitted. its done.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: MTPATCAMI on 11/09/2022 04:06 am
    The unboxing video is very interesting.

    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1589659097800245248?cxt=HHwWgIDQ5d2hzY8sAAAA

    GSE takes quite a while to develop and get right. just as important as engines.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 11/09/2022 04:16 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: deadman1204 on 11/09/2022 06:41 pm
    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.
    It could also simply be inconsistent IP control. One person thought it should be scensored, another didn't.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 11/09/2022 08:17 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 11/11/2022 05:09 pm
    Hard to disagree with Tory:

    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1591130522314764288

    Quote
    Now that is one handsome roman god namesaked rocket...#VulcanRocket #CountdowntoVulcan #BE4 @blue_origin
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Kiwi53 on 11/11/2022 09:46 pm
    Blurred BE-4 bits again?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DrHeywoodFloyd on 11/12/2022 12:11 am
    Blurred BE-4 bits again?

    Imagine that New. Glenn is going to look like with seven BE-4 rockets?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: MTPATCAMI on 11/12/2022 06:59 am
    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.

    Its the BE3PM/BE3U test stand. you can see the vehicle building right behind him. BE-4 test stand is a bit further away, and you wouldn't want to be that close when a BE-4 fires speaking from experience.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: meekGee on 11/12/2022 07:11 pm

    Imagine that New Glenn is going to look like with seven BE-4 rockets?

    &lt;cantResist&gt; like the inner ring of some other rockeT? &lt;/cantResist&gt;
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: JCRM on 11/12/2022 11:21 pm
    Blurred BE-4 bits again?
    looks like the gimbal mechanism, which would be ULA, presumably.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: WindnWar on 11/13/2022 06:49 pm
    I'm guessing there will be some sort of covers/flex boots installed over that similar to how Atlas V is now that they are installed?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 11/22/2022 06:26 pm
    The two flight engines already delivered to ULA?

    https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1595115466548465665
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: NH22077 on 11/22/2022 06:53 pm
    The two flight engines already delivered to ULA?

    https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1595115466548465665

    And mounted on Vulcan. Look above at post #2110

    Ned
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: trimeta on 11/22/2022 07:00 pm
    The two flight engines already delivered to ULA?

    https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1595115466548465665

    And mounted on Vulcan. Look above at post #2110

    Ned
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Purona on 11/23/2022 12:41 pm
    it's the first set of engines

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vahe231991 on 11/23/2022 02:43 pm
    it's the first set of engines

    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.
    That'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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 11/30/2022 11:12 pm
    https://twitter.com/harry__stranger/status/1598106301363781632

    Quote
    Sentinel-2 satellite imagery shows evidence of a @blueorigin BE-4 engine test fire in the past week.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 12/01/2022 08:09 pm
    Welp, we now know which two engines that ain't out there firing! So this might be our first look at a qual test.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 12/01/2022 08:42 pm
    Follow-ups to Harry’s tweet:

    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1598365633057419264

    Quote
    Probably. @blueorigin has made BE4 engine testing pretty routine. Hot firings every week…

    twitter.com/mkanug1/status/1598366297103994880

    Quote
    Are they testing your engines

    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1598381245431484429

    Quote
    Yes
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 12/02/2022 09:40 am
    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Purona on 12/02/2022 10:04 am
    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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 12/02/2022 12:00 pm
    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?

    I can't see BO spending test time/assets on ATPs for a 2nd shipset of engines before completing qual tests on the 1st ship set design.  I just wish we got some info on how the qual tests are going.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 12/04/2022 06:28 am
    Further follow-ups (and not what I was expecting!):

    twitter.com/hexhawk_2/status/1598492781990871040

    Quote
    These would be flight 2 engines?

    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1599033216123695106

    Quote
    No. This was a half scale demo
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: bombyx on 12/04/2022 01:59 pm
    Half scale demo is for LOFTID , not BE-4  :

    https://twitter.com/Felipe_Stipp0/status/1599412787289079809

    Quote
    Tory, i think that you confused this question about the second pair of the BE-4 with LOFTID.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 12/04/2022 03:25 pm
    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

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: harrystranger on 12/05/2022 05:19 am
    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

    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.
    Working on a fix for daily, or as close as possible :)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: JCRM on 12/05/2022 11:51 am
    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"
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 12/05/2022 04:48 pm
    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"

    If he had meant that, then"A hot firing every week" is what I would expect to have seen him write. It is possible he made a typo and accidentally put in the "s". It has happened before. However, we know from other sources that XEEx has done up to three test firings in a week.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: jimvela on 12/05/2022 07:15 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DrHeywoodFloyd on 12/06/2022 02:46 am
    Does anyone know what is happening with the Test Stand 4670 at Huntsville? Has it been certified to start testing BE-4 Engines?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 12/06/2022 07:39 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: deadman1204 on 12/06/2022 09:43 pm
    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 won't happen. All statements are intentionally vague so that exact status cannot be determined. We're just reading tea leaves.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: harrystranger on 12/07/2022 11:04 pm
    Narrowed the time of the test down to between 2022-11-28 16:39:01 UTC and 2022-11-29 17:17:56 UTC :)
    Now we wait for the next one
    https://twitter.com/Harry__Stranger/status/1600512530077450240
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vahe231991 on 12/18/2022 08:43 pm
    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 12/18/2022 09:51 pm
    Um, "Sure"???
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 12/19/2022 04:08 pm
    https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1604886172215705600

    Quote
    This is the BE-4 engine.

    https://youtu.be/hdS4azOaF2M
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DrHeywoodFloyd on 12/20/2022 07:27 am
    https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1604886172215705600

    Quote
    This is the BE-4 engine.

    https://youtu.be/hdS4azOaF2M

    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Purona on 12/20/2022 09:42 am
    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.

    As far as we can tell and as much as I care. The BE-4 went into production last year prior to December at Huntsville Alabama. Either during or after Pre-Qualification testing. With the first testing of engines manufactured at Huntsville being tested in December 2021

    Whatever "issue", it was a singular problem on a singular engine, the BE-4 had being manufactured by Kent Washington might not even factor into general production from Huntsville.


    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 12/20/2022 10:07 am
    Quote from: DrHeywoodFloyd
    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?

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: edzieba on 12/20/2022 12:20 pm
    Quote from: DrHeywoodFloyd
    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?

    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.
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: JayWee on 12/20/2022 02:11 pm
    Quote from: DrHeywoodFloyd
    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?

    Question: Does testing at the Marshall 4670 require NASA personell?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DrHeywoodFloyd on 12/20/2022 05:23 pm
    Quote from: DrHeywoodFloyd
    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?

    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...
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 12/20/2022 07:07 pm
    From ULA SMART thread:

    https://twitter.com/felixschlang/status/1605241242283016193

    Quote
    Thanks, 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/1605249752861491202

    Quote
    A dozen would not surprise me
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: meekGee on 12/20/2022 08:04 pm
    Quote from: DrHeywoodFloyd
    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?

    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...
    As per the post above, it's not the stand that's holding anything up.

    Right now, they don't even have the Vulcan version of BE-4 qualified, not to mention the NG version.  Maybe they'll initially fly NG with the Vulcan version?
    But even so - Vulcan wants to fly a dozen times in 2023, so they'll want 24 engines.  Can BO make 30/yr?

    And the first stage - we haven't seen anything except a sort of form-and-fit article - do you think it'll be ready soon enough to that those 6 engines can be integrated to it by year's end?

    ANY 2024 date would be very good news for a 6-engine integrated test.  It's the reasonable time frame assuming there are no more set backs.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: lrk on 12/22/2022 12:10 am
    Doesn't NG use 7 BE-4s?

    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. 
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robotbeat on 12/22/2022 01:02 am
    Doesn't NG use 7 BE-4s?

    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.
    They might, actually. But they only need one engine capable of relight for the first stage.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 12/22/2022 05:42 pm
    Given the BE-4's demonstrated deep throttling capability, Blue Origin could put more on than one BE-4 that can relight, if for no other reason than to allow some kind of a backup in the advent of a failure of the primary center engine, where very low-throttled engines could take over and try to land the first stage.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 01/06/2023 12:14 pm
    Right now, they don't even have the Vulcan version of BE-4 qualified,...

    Have we heard anything about qualification testing progress on BE-4?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Rakietwawka2021 on 01/06/2023 12:47 pm
    I think they will give us an update in March
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vahe231991 on 01/06/2023 04:03 pm
    Doesn't NG use 7 BE-4s?

    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.
    The first stage of the New Glenn uses seven BE-4s, while the second stage is to use two BE-3Us.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 01/11/2023 04:04 am
    More news from Tory Bruno in reply to a question about the next set in production as well as confirmation of qualification testing.

    https://twitter.com/Hubert25696308/status/1612829994249555969
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 01/11/2023 05:10 am
    Here is Tory's reply.

    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1612834448302804994

    "Soon.  In build now, then Acceptance testing. Completing the formal qual testing (on the qual engines) is first priority on the test stand until finished."
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 01/11/2023 12:12 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 01/11/2023 12:27 pm
    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!
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: deadman1204 on 01/11/2023 01:54 pm
    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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: edzieba on 01/11/2023 01:58 pm
    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
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: deadman1204 on 01/11/2023 02:00 pm
    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
    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.
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 01/11/2023 02:32 pm
    That's not the way I read it.  "Soon.  In build now, then Acceptance testing." was in answer to "when do you expect more engines."

    "Completing the formal qual testing (on the qual engines) is first priority on the test stand until finished." implies (and it's only an implication) that qual test engines exist.

    Remember that the original plan (that I've not heard revised) for ULA was to receive two engines that have passed ATP, and concurrently two engines will be going through qual tests.

    Sure wish Tory would give us a hint as to how qual test is going, or when it's expected to be completed.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: whitelancer64 on 01/11/2023 03:00 pm
    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
    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.
    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.

    "In build now" refers to the next two BE-4s for ULA. They can only be acceptance tested after the qualification testing is complete.

    I think the tweet is very straightforward.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 01/11/2023 04:34 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: TrevorMonty on 01/11/2023 04:34 pm
    Can anybody explain difference between all tests.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 01/11/2023 04:40 pm
    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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: trimeta on 01/11/2023 05:03 pm
    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).
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 01/11/2023 05:31 pm
    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

    You forgot to mention development testing, without which, none of the above could even happen, and was completed on BE-4 about six months ago.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 01/11/2023 05:42 pm
    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).

    Yes, we've known this was the plan for quite a while now. And nothing you wrote above even invalidates anything I wrote. Note that I clearly stated "so far". Which means that nothing bad has happened to prevent shipping Vulcan. 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. But things appear to be going well enough that shipping now looks to be worth the risk.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: TrevorMonty on 01/11/2023 10:26 pm
    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
    Thanks
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 01/11/2023 11:53 pm
    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.

    Quick example:  The 1st F-22 built (not the YF prototypes), after completing its flight testing, was subjected to live fire survivability testing: place the airframe into a load-test jig, load the structure to 9g's, then fire an 88mm artillery shell into the wing root, have to survive to return home.  Pass.  Do structural repairs (3 of 9 wing spars + lesser structures), then do the same thing with a 20 ft. detonation of an expanding rod missile warhead.  Passed again.

    But you would NEVER actually fly that airframe afterwards.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: JCRM on 01/12/2023 09:14 am
    And nothing you wrote above even invalidates anything I wrote.

    It addresses the tone.

    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)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 01/12/2023 12:16 pm
    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.

    Concurrent processing works great, when everything works great.  IMO, the true price paid is in a large increase in the need for GOOD management coordination (which in many programs is akin to finding an albino unicorn).
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: JCRM on 01/12/2023 05:33 pm
    (and an implication that qualification hadn't failed yet)

    It doesn't even mean that. 

    hence "impication"
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DanClemmensen on 01/12/2023 06:03 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 01/12/2023 06:17 pm
    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.

    According to our own Jim, they don't have any way to do that. I kind of doubt it since 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.

    I also doubt that beyond the tanking tests of a full Vulcan Centaur stack (with adapter ring and Centaur V), most of the other issues should've been identified and resolved thanks to the extensive work done in advance with the PTT core.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 01/12/2023 07:22 pm
    Quote from:  Starshipdown
    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

    If the equipment is actually there yet to do so. I have seen what look very much like the BE-4 assembly stands seen at Kent and the BE-4 work stands at Corn Ranch in a few of the videos and Twitter photos in video of the New Glenn factory. The issue I believe for adapting the hardware would come from how BE-4s are installed on Vulcan versus New Glenn. For example, are they both installed horizontally? Very likely, but not a given.

    Are there platforms needed for New Glenn that would be incompatible with Vulcan? Any one thing, however small it seems, could prevent New Glenn engine installation hardware from working with Vulcan.

    And where would the work be done? At Exploration Park? Could the New Glenn installation hardware and platforms be moved over to ULA's hanger safely and efficiently that would make it worthwhile to even try?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Jim on 01/13/2023 05:50 pm
    Need to move past this talk of Blue and ULA sharing hardware and engine changes at the launch sites.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 01/13/2023 06:26 pm
    Why?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: edzieba on 01/18/2023 10:45 am
    Quote from: DrHeywoodFloyd
    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?

    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.
    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.
    And just to hammer the point home:
    twitter.com/nasaspaceflight/status/1615430589095583745
     (http://twitter.com/nasaspaceflight/status/1615430589095583745)
    Quote
    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!

    1000 firings in 9 months, at a site with testing hour restrictions not in place at Corn Ranch.
    If BO are firing rate limited in terms of engine development pace, there has been nothing to stop BO building out a test site of similar scale to alleviate that restriction other than BO themselves.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Purona on 01/18/2023 05:48 pm
    You cant compare them like that

    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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: edzieba on 01/18/2023 06:10 pm
    You cant compare them like that

    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
    I 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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: deadman1204 on 01/18/2023 09:24 pm
    You cant compare them like that

    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
    While 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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: whitelancer64 on 01/18/2023 11:14 pm
    You cant compare them like that

    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
    While 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.

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: deadman1204 on 01/19/2023 02:21 pm
    You cant compare them like that

    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
    While 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.

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 01/19/2023 03:10 pm
    You cant compare them like that

    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
    While 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.

    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.

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: tssp_art on 01/19/2023 08:27 pm

    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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 01/19/2023 11:03 pm

    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

    That is interesting, but there are significant differences between the two facilities, and the type of testing conducted. And if 6 month cutouts are possible, then why could not Corn Ranch have a similar NOTM, if that is what is needed?

    In other words, there does not have to be a filing for every time a test is carried out, but rather a large scale blanket NOTM that covers a large span of time where the testing is taking place, regardless of whether it is one or a thousand tests.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 01/20/2023 03:40 pm

    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

    So where're the NOTMS for Corn Ranch? If they exist, it should and has to be a matter of public record, right?

    So put your sleuthing skills to work, and let's see if that's true or not.

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 01/20/2023 03:49 pm
    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!
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 01/20/2023 04:41 pm
    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!

    Then where is the NOTM for Corn Ranch? And yes, we're talking about BE-4 here in context by seeing if any NOTMs can tell us about frequency of test firings. We've heard there are weekly firings, and we have Harry's satellite photos, but there's not enough coverage to tell us the whole story.

    If there's a blanket NOTM like at McGregor, then it covers everything, and we can't tell anything other than test firings are happening, but no exact numbers.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Purona on 01/20/2023 05:39 pm
    Theres 3 for the area of Van Horn texas. none of them cover the land area owned by Blue Origin.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 01/20/2023 06:29 pm
    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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 01/20/2023 11:24 pm
    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

    That still isn't what I'm asking for. Can someone one way or the other produce from the public record any of these NOTAMs? All I see is a lot of speculation, but not backed up by anything. And we know that testing has been pretty frequent as per Tory Bruno's own statements, the fact that we know development testing and the flight engines ATPs firing was pretty frequent, and should've produced NOTAMs or a blanket NOTAM during the time periods in question.

    So where are they?

    Same for the qual testing. We know its happening and Tory tells us it's a big priority, even over any ATPs for the next shipset of flight engines.

    Finally, I'd expect them to push the engines to failure, that's one of the things qual testing is supposed to do, but hopefully well after the engines have passed their limits.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: JayWee on 01/20/2023 11:34 pm
    If they were testing at Corn Ranch, why would they refurbish the test stand at MSFC?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: sdsds on 01/20/2023 11:37 pm
    (Drop previous post and replace.)

    It doesn't take much sleuthing to find NOTAMs. For those near Waco, TX try:
    https://flightaware.com/live/airport/KPWG
    and look for areas marked in red.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: AlexP on 01/20/2023 11:50 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 01/21/2023 10:12 am
    If they were testing at Corn Ranch, why would they refurbish the test stand at MSFC?

    Because 4670 is needed to exclusively rate test the BE-3Us and BE-4s that are produced at the Huntsville factory without interrupting the development and qualification work at Corn Ranch. For now, Blue Origin is doing both at Corn Ranch.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: matthewkantar on 01/21/2023 03:05 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Eric Hedman on 01/21/2023 03:37 pm
    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.
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DanClemmensen on 01/21/2023 03:38 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: matthewkantar on 01/21/2023 06:47 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Eric Hedman on 01/21/2023 06:53 pm
    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.
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DanClemmensen on 01/21/2023 07:07 pm

    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".
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: matthewkantar on 01/21/2023 08:31 pm

    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".

    A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Eric Hedman on 01/21/2023 10:06 pm

    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".

    A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: deadman1204 on 01/23/2023 02:55 pm

    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".

    A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
    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.
    If only the world was so black and white...
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Jim on 01/25/2023 07:20 pm

     All B.O. presence in Alabama can be described as light corruption.

    Not true at all.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: deadman1204 on 01/26/2023 02:32 pm

     All B.O. presence in Alabama can be described as light corruption.

    Not true at all.
    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).
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DanClemmensen on 01/26/2023 02:42 pm

     All B.O. presence in Alabama can be described as light corruption.

    Not true at all.
    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).
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: WindnWar on 01/26/2023 08:38 pm

     All B.O. presence in Alabama can be described as light corruption.

    Not true at all.
    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).
    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.

    The main reason they chose to build the factory there was it eliminated a certain former senator from Alabama known for putting riders in bills to keep production in Alabama from weighing in on which manufacturer was selected by ULA for Vulcan. If both engines were going to be built there, then he wouldn't care which one won the contract, if one of the two meant the production was going to land in another state then he likely would have intervened in some way. And if ULA hadn't chosen BE-4 for Vulcan they weren't going to build the factory there. Call it whatever you want but it was the only means to defuse the situation from becoming a political one. Everything else about production there was just a side benefit.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: whitelancer64 on 01/26/2023 08:56 pm
    For the record, the selection of Huntsville for the BE-4 and BE-3 engine production facility was made in 2017.

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: edzieba on 02/22/2023 09:10 am
    Qual test update from Tory Bruno:
    Quote
    Hubert @Hubert25696308
    @torybruno
     what is going on with BE-4 qualification tests? Have they already passed those tests?
    Quote
    Tory Bruno @torybruno
    Replying to
    @Hubert25696308
    Not yet.


    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1626610532223696897
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 02/22/2023 12:07 pm
    Dang.  "Not Yet." 

    Not "almost", "not yet, but making good progress", or any other similar Tory-type response.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: bombyx on 02/22/2023 02:46 pm


    Quote
    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.


    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1627687067147980805
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Zed_Noir on 02/23/2023 06:15 pm
    For the record, the selection of Huntsville for the BE-4 and BE-3 engine production facility was made in 2017.

    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.
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: spacenut on 02/23/2023 07:21 pm
    For mass production of the rocket engines, Alabama has a much lower labor cost as well as cost of living.  My brother lives in Oregon and I live in Alabama.  He is moving back.  Gasoline is almost twice what it is here.  Groceries are much higher there, as well as property taxes and cost of homes.  He can make as much here as there and spend less money to do so.  Homes cost between 1/3 to double what they cost here.

    The certain senator is no longer senator in Alabama, and hasn't been since the end of 2022. 
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Eric Hedman on 02/23/2023 09:06 pm
    For the record, the selection of Huntsville for the BE-4 and BE-3 engine production facility was made in 2017.

    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.
    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.
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 02/23/2023 10:09 pm
    Deja vu

    twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1628894298950324224

    Quote
    Bruno: 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/1628894884982579201

    Quote
    Bruno 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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 02/23/2023 10:33 pm
    https://twitter.com/tgmetsfan98/status/1628896807601201152

    Quote
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Zed_Noir on 02/23/2023 10:39 pm
    For the record, the selection of Huntsville for the BE-4 and BE-3 engine production facility was made in 2017.

    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: matthewkantar on 02/24/2023 12:08 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 02/24/2023 01:12 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robotbeat on 02/24/2023 02:23 pm
    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.
    "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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: PreferToLurk on 02/24/2023 05:54 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DanClemmensen on 02/24/2023 06:02 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: AlexP on 02/24/2023 06:19 pm
    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.

    Unless I'm misreading, they've already taken it apart and made their conclusions:

    Quote
    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.

    https://spacenews.com/ula-announces-may-launch-of-first-vulcan/
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 02/24/2023 06:49 pm
    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.
    "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.

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: meekGee on 02/24/2023 10:24 pm
    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.
    "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.

    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.
    We need a BO gentrification thread
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DrHeywoodFloyd on 02/24/2023 11:20 pm

    After Vulcan comes online, ULA plans to dramatically increase launch cadence...

    "..."We have to ramp up," Bruno said. "Before the end of 2025 we expect to be really at a tempo, which is flying a couple of times a month, every two weeks."

    This would be a cadence unprecedented in the history of United Launch Alliance, even during its heyday of flying Atlas and several variants of the Delta rocket. However, Bruno said the company is making the investments needed in launch sites in Florida and California, as well as production factories, to meet this demand.

    For now, ULA's focus is on scaling up Vulcan flight rates. That means that the company's goal of reusing the BE-4 engines on its rocket—the plan is to separate the engine section, and capture the engines with a helicopter as they descend to Earth—will take a backseat for now..."

    https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/02/after-vulcan-comes-online-ula-plans-to-dramatically-increase-launch-cadence/ (https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/02/after-vulcan-comes-online-ula-plans-to-dramatically-increase-launch-cadence/)

    Looks like there is a lot of confidence that Blue Origin will be able to scale up their production of BE-4 Engines...

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: LouScheffer on 02/25/2023 03:13 am
    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.

    Of course this is worrying, since as the clearances get smaller, the pump gets more efficient, until the clearances reach zero, then BLAM.  So the engineers would want to make sure this was due to some worst-case stacking of tolerances, not some off-nominal dimensioned part.  Apparently this was the case, and the design is OK.  But I can certainly see why they checked.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Rakietwawka2021 on 02/28/2023 04:18 pm
    Qualification engine number 1 was made in the Engine Factory in Alabama. That's pretty good news
    https://fb.watch/iZYd3wJfwG/
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Purona on 02/28/2023 07:24 pm
    so they have been testing that engine since December 2021
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 03/01/2023 05:12 am
    so they have been testing that engine since December 2021

    The video time stamps show December 9, 2022.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 03/01/2023 05:29 am
    Some screenshots from the Blue Origin video, highlighting the Qualification-1 engine and final assembly of an engine at Huntsville.

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Purona on 03/01/2023 09:40 am
    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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 03/01/2023 12:08 pm
    Regardless of when the first qual engine was built, they're still doing qual tests.  I know that when we started qualifying our flight control systems for the first time it always took a lot longer than we planned for (mainly because the engineers aren't solely in charge of the schedules).

    I always go to the three rules of <insert whatever project you want here>:

    1. It takes twice as long as you think
    2. It costs twice as much as you think
    3. You're not the exception

    Hopefully BE-4 qualification will conclude in time to not be the long pole for Vulcan.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 03/01/2023 07:56 pm
    Facebook's been a bit of a treasure trove lately. Nice photo of a gentleman posing (rightfully proud) with a BE-4 at the Kent factory. Lots of great detail here and it shows us substantial hardware is being built.

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 03/03/2023 07:09 pm
    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

    If you meant this article (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), here's the quote:

    “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.

    We can't say for sure what this means exactly, other than it means that some hardware was being tested at the XEEx at Corn Ranch, Texas. This could be a reference to the Qual-1 engine or it could be to individual large pieces of hardware to qualify manufacturing processes before proceeding to assembly of a full engine.

    We only definitively know that Qual-1 was firing as early as December 9 of last year. And I'd be really surprised that it began qual testing as far back as you claim, especially since the dev and pre-qual testing hadn't finished up at that time. Pre-qual officially finished up no earlier than August 2022, so qual testing probably began around September or October, especially once the ATP testing on Flight-1 and 2 were finished around then.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 03/09/2023 03:16 pm
    An interesting point was brought up in the SpaceNews comments. Since the Qualification-1 engine was built at Huntsville, does that mean that the second one was built by Kent?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/15/2023 06:17 pm
    https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1636083955421130753

    Quote
    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/15/2023 06:35 pm
    Cross-post:

    https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1636087533489516545

    Quote
    Bruno: 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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 03/15/2023 06:49 pm
    This is the same video that first premiered on Facebook just over two weeks ago on February 28.

    https://www.facebook.com/blueorigin/videos/1139782826705882/?extid=CL-UNK-UNK-UNK-AN_GK0T-GK1C&mibextid=2Rb1fB
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkykk3yjERo
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: edzieba on 03/16/2023 02:17 pm
    https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1636086726811590656

    Quote
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 03/16/2023 02:25 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: trimeta on 03/16/2023 02:38 pm
    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 03/16/2023 02:42 pm
    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?

    That's the risk of concurrent testing.  If they have to change the design enough such that the engines installed on Vulcan are invalidated, then someone either takes a deep breath and says "we're going anyway since we're in the middle of the design envelope" (which is where first flights usually take place), or they take a deep breath and say "we're not going to risk it and take the schedule hit."
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: deadman1204 on 03/16/2023 03:08 pm
    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.
    This is why vulcan probably won't do a static fire until qual is done. Because they might need to do another one due to changes from qual testing.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Comga on 03/16/2023 04:02 pm
    Cross-post:
    Quote
    Bruno: 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.

    Quote
    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.

    The latter quote makes a good case that Qual testing of the BE-4's is taking most of a year.
    Doesn't this strongly suggest that elements are being changed?
    While we don't know how much is hardware changes vs operational changes, it is probably some, and likely something significant for all that time.

    The former quote says that the next two BE-4's for Vulcan are well into production, which only rules out the unthinkable that Blue would have waited until the testing was done.
    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.
    Not only does all of this make thier unprecedented "couple of months" between Vulcan flights 1 and 2, seem even more overly optimistic, but it increases the odds against a May debut.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: butters on 03/16/2023 04:08 pm
    They're not hardware-rich. They can't afford to damage the qual engines. No fail-fix-test cycle. It takes a long time to gradually expand the envelope while minimizing risks.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: whitelancer64 on 03/16/2023 04:19 pm
    *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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 03/16/2023 04:28 pm

    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.

    Dang, I didn't realize that.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: matthewkantar on 03/16/2023 04:42 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DanClemmensen on 03/16/2023 04:49 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: matthewkantar on 03/16/2023 06:12 pm
    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.

    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.

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: butters on 03/16/2023 06:19 pm
    Vulcan was designed for the engines to be installed in the horizontal orientation, but the LC-41 infrastructure is all vertical.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: whitelancer64 on 03/16/2023 06:26 pm
    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.

    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 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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: matthewkantar on 03/16/2023 06:36 pm
    I guess we will know soon if the stage goes on 6000 mile odyssey. Its swapping engines, not inventing a warp drive. Would have been prudent to get such in the works at the same time they decided on parallel testing.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: whitelancer64 on 03/16/2023 06:39 pm

    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)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DanClemmensen on 03/16/2023 07:04 pm

    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.
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: matthewkantar on 03/16/2023 07:25 pm

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: whitelancer64 on 03/16/2023 07:41 pm

    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.

    I thought you wanted to pull out the engine and repair it at the VIF.

    If you "just" want to swap, then you need to have backup engines at the Cape too, in some kind of dedicated, climate controlled storage, just sitting there on the off chance that they're needed. What a waste of resources. Or are we waiting the long days needed for an engine to be shipped over from Decatur?

    Either way, they need to de-stack the payload, de-stack the 2nd stage, then tip Vulcan horizontal so they can remove the engine. Swap the engine, go back to vertical, then re-stack everything.

    And all of this assumes that Vulcan ever needs to swap an engine in the first place.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: matthewkantar on 03/16/2023 08:04 pm
    …are we waiting the long days needed for an engine to be shipped over from Decatur?

    Shipping an engine Vs shipping a stage? 🙄



    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: whitelancer64 on 03/16/2023 08:17 pm
    …are we waiting the long days needed for an engine to be shipped over from Decatur?

    Shipping an engine Vs shipping a stage? 🙄

    Why do either if it's not needed? Which goes back to, why have engine replacement kit at the Cape if it's not needed?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: AlexP on 03/16/2023 08:26 pm
    https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1636086726811590656

    Quote
    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.

    Bruno said qual would take "six more weeks" on Feb 23 (see tweet here (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39674.msg2460528#msg2460528).)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 03/16/2023 08:45 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: trimeta on 03/16/2023 09:12 pm
    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: whitelancer64 on 03/16/2023 09:30 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: trimeta on 03/16/2023 09:37 pm
    They did have to stop, disassemble an engine, and then presumably reassemble it to continue the qual testing.

    So basically "there was a failure (unexplained overperformance is still a failure), but they decided it was unit-to-unit variation and thus didn't require changes to the engines installed on Vulcan"?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 03/16/2023 10:12 pm
    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?

    As I said, it is not "continuously failing tests". The one real issue we know of is the stopping to examine the 5% over performance of one engine and then testing resumed.

    As to the alleged 6 months of testing. We do not know for sure when testing started. The earliest real confirmation of qualification testing is the Facebook, now YouTube video I referred to. Perhaps you have not seen it yet? But there is footage of the Qualification-1 engine undergoing a firing on December 9th of last year. That is the absolute earliest known firing of a qualification BE-4. This footage is given in context of Devin Gardner stating that the engine had a successful hotfire, implying the footage is showing us the very first firing of the engine.

    It is possible that Qualification-2 was finished and fired earlier, but we know little about it other than it exists, and has seen test firings along with its sibling.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: matthewkantar on 03/17/2023 01:15 am
    Without dozens of engines in test, it’s hard to know what’s a blip and what’s a potential kaboom.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: LouScheffer on 03/17/2023 11:43 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 03/17/2023 12:03 pm
    However, ULA *did* report that, after analysis, they concluded it was within the family of accepted performance parameters.  The launch will tell the tale, although I expect this first launch will be right in the center of the performance envelope engine performance-wise.  Kinda like SpaceX stating that the first launch of SS will be at 90% thrust.

    And, while I look at any first launch date with skepticism, the projected date for Vulcan is getting closer to the current date.  Soon we'll start seeing day to day slips as they work through the final issues that crop up.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 03/17/2023 02:31 pm
    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!
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: seb21051 on 03/17/2023 08:23 pm
    "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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: meekGee on 03/17/2023 08:39 pm
    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!
    Drug testing, or a hospital.

    What he was saying was that an overperformance of one side of the pump stack was not a "best day of their lives" scenario.

    It's like when the heartbeat increases but without a corresponding increase in respiration.

    And indeed it was looked at, but I don't think it was dismissed as "acceptable" but rather as "understood".  Which is ok in the context of qualification testing.  It doesn't mean you'd want to fly like this.





    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: LouScheffer on 03/17/2023 09:36 pm
    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.

    Quote
    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."
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Eric Hedman on 03/18/2023 05:09 am
    Quote
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 03/18/2023 06:10 am
    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.

    Quote
    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."

    I would say that shows just how far we've fallen in recent years. Making the assumption that everyone's always cheating as a way to explain great feats as men and women push themselves to their limits.

    Probably for the best that greats like Babe Ruth, Jesse Owens, Sir Don Bradman, Jackie Robinson, Ted Williams, Jim Thorpe, and more never lived to see this shameful time in our history.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 03/18/2023 07:28 am
    "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?

    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. The closest that came was when samples taken from him in 1999 were retested in 2005 supposedly testing positive for EPO, but the lab work was found later found to be sloppy. His 2013 confession is likely due to him being put under so much duress and give him some chance of salvaging his life which was utterly destroyed because of the allegations.

    And remember, he was tested many times throughout his career as an athlete. But remember, most of the "evidence" was from Floyd Landis' allegations to the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA). Landis, who, as you probably know, did twice fail a urine test.  The USADA's claims all boil down simply to "He and his team took low doses that would not show up in tests or used saline injections to mask hematocrit levels that would indicate use of EPO". A plausible, but also very convenient series of explanations because a person cannot defend against that since there is no way for them to do so years after the fact with more tests.

    As far as BE-4 is concerned, the engine that had the 5% overperformance was disassembled and it was determined that there was no problem and testing has since resumed. Hopefully the qualification testing will be able to finish up in the weeks ahead.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: LouScheffer on 03/18/2023 01:31 pm
    "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?
    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.
    Interesting you mention Armstrong in the context of unexplained 5% performance improvements.

    In most races, the winning time gradually shrinks as technique, training, and equipment improve.   However this pattern does not hold in bicycling.  Look at the winning times up the Alpe de Huez (https://www.stickybottle.com/races-results/cycling-fastest-times-alpe-dhuez/), for example.   In 1997-2006 the record was smashed by 5%, by Armstrong and others.   This is an *enormous* improvement in sports, equivalent to breaking the 100 meter record by 0.5 second, or the marathon record by 6 minutes.  Then came increased drug testing, and the best since then is 5% worse than in that period, and in fact only 6 seconds better (out of 40 minutes) than the record before this era.

    So maybe Armstrong had the ride(s) of his life, along with a bunch of others, all during this time period, and later athletes are wimps that cannot come within 5% of the previous best.  But that's not the way I'd bet.

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DanClemmensen on 03/18/2023 01:54 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 03/18/2023 02:19 pm
    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.

    I'd pay money to see BE-4, Raptor, Archimedes, and Aeon-R compete in the Tour de France.  ;D
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 03/18/2023 03:47 pm
    https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1636086726811590656

    Quote
    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.


    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: WindnWar on 03/19/2023 12:02 am
    https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1636086726811590656

    Quote
    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.


    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.

    The problem with those sat images is they don't capture how many times a day/week those test fires are happening. It leaves a lot of guess work and wiggle room in comparison to say Raptor or Merlin tests where there are basically live camera feeds watching it. So it is really difficult to tell what sort of test firing pace they are doing, based on does the dirt look a bit different from the last image taken X days ago.

    So no way to tell when it was placed on the stands, if it's had to be removed at any point, etc. All the bits you need to be able to actually guess how the test campaign is actually going. But that is par for the course for Blue. At least when they start using the test stand near the Bama factory it'll be easier to know how and when test firings are done.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 03/19/2023 02:00 am
    The idea is not necessarily to show how many times the engine is firing per week, but instead to give us another data point in how far back the qualification firings started.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: WindnWar on 03/19/2023 05:34 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: LouScheffer on 03/19/2023 11:44 am
    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.

    So when the sightings are low-detail static snapshots once a week, it's hopeless to try to infer the details.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 03/19/2023 12:09 pm
    Quote from: WindnWar
    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.


    What other engine test would it be around that time frame?

    I don't know how it could be anything else that wasn't qual testing related.

    If you read the evidence I posted, the Blue Origin press release quotes Tory Bruno that development is over (this by early October).

    Therefore, the satellite photos showing an engine test firing in late November are most likely qual tests or something very closely related to it, like a qual engine ATP firing. The November test firings are just mere weeks (23-29) before a known test seen in this video of the Qual-1 engine (December 9):
    https://youtu.be/rkykk3yjERo?t=34

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: LouScheffer on 03/19/2023 11:33 pm
    Quote from: WindnWar
    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.
    What other engine test would it be around that time frame?
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Comga on 03/20/2023 12:13 am
    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.

    I was just watching Tim Dodd’s  fascinating tutorial (https://twitter.com/erdayastronaut/status/1630648686991515657) on “How to Start a Rocket Engine”.
    It shows the amazingly complex interactions between all the parts of the RS-25, valves, turbines, igniters, coolant channels, etc. and all the ramp-ups, transients, oscillations, and dampening.  It showed things like moving a valve by a fraction of a degree at a precise moment to suppress a particular transient.
    It would seem to be even harder to get right if the performance of individual subsystems like, say, a turbopump, vary by +/-5% due to manufacturing tolerances.

    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 03/20/2023 09:40 am
    Quote from: WindnWar
    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.
    What other engine test would it be around that time frame?
    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.

    As far as we know, the difference between the NG BE-4 and the Vulcan BE-4 is "slight" as per Tory Bruno. The air restart capability is something that only one engine on NG will need, and also recall that Vulcan and its BE-4s have priority over NG's. With delays to NG, I doubt Blue Origin will be doing much qual work on the restart BE-4 until everything else is done.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Jim on 03/20/2023 01:35 pm

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: trimeta on 03/20/2023 01:47 pm

    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: xyv on 03/21/2023 12:20 am

    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.  We don't even know much about how Raptor starts ("...the secret sauce..." from another Everyday Astronaut video) and Blue is famously silent compared to Elon.  I am acutally surprised that showing start sequences doesn't start to cross into ITAR technical data concerns (not being able to watch the video yet).
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Jim on 03/21/2023 12:54 pm
    "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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: trimeta on 03/21/2023 01:09 pm
    "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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: LouScheffer on 03/21/2023 01:50 pm
    "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.

    So I'd guess a spin start of some kind.  If so, what they use for initial spin power we don't know.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Jim on 03/21/2023 01:52 pm
    "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.

    One turbine and pump is easier to manage than the separate pumps of the RS-25
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: harrystranger on 04/01/2023 02:33 pm
    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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 04/01/2023 07:01 pm
    This is quite impressive and encouraging as well, too.

    https://twitter.com/Harry__Stranger/status/1641812069644406784
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 04/01/2023 08:35 pm
    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

    The only thing this might suggest is:

    1. Stockpiling for a test of the systems and plumbing, but no engine.

    2.  A cold flow test with an engine installed in the stand, either BE-3 or 4, hydrolox or methlox.

    3. Actual preparations for an engine test firing.

    The actual stand and facilities around it look fairly complete. And we know from a few weeks back from that Devin Garner video that Huntsville was given the go ahead for engine production, so they should have engines sometime in the coming months to rate test.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 04/01/2023 08:46 pm
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DrHeywoodFloyd on 04/08/2023 03:38 am
    Keeping with the Test Stand 4670.... it appears as though with the ULA Centaur, there was a hydrogen explosion ...

    https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1644507446516301826?s=20 (https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1644507446516301826?s=20)

    That Tory Bruno described....
    "...Obviously, the balloon tanks are no longer “inflated”"
    [ https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1644515735555940353?s=20 ]

    Here is the view behind Test Stand 4670... that appears to be where ULA were testing their ULA Centaur stage...
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 04/19/2023 10:46 pm
    An amazing look at BE-4 part production and assembly at the Huntsville factory. I count at least six engine sets. This is far and away more impressive than the production at the older Kent, Washington factory. I also suspect that this is a prelude to a likely upcoming announcement that BE-4 qualification testing is complete or very nearly so.

    https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1648775272240648197?cxt=HHwWisDQhfyX0OEtAAAA
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 05/03/2023 11:10 pm
    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.

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 05/04/2023 12:11 am
    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.

    Looks like the BE-4 has at least progressed to the point that turbopump machinery has been installed. Also, interesting that there's only that one engine in the stand and not a pair in final assembly. Not unless its twin got delivered and the other is nearly done.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: GWH on 05/04/2023 02:36 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 05/04/2023 12:44 pm
    Quote from: GWH
    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.

    Nothing's ever truly gone from the Internet. If you know the thread where that was said in, you can find it via archive sites like The Wayback Machine.

    Also, the engine in the final assembly stand is good news on several fronts since it tells us Blue is completing engines and delivering them to ULA, and it's been part of the plan for a long while now that the first engine sets would be done by Kent and they'd be sent to ULA first before any will be given over for use on New Glenn.

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 05/04/2023 12:50 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DrHeywoodFloyd on 05/04/2023 01:36 pm
    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? 
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 05/04/2023 03:57 pm
    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 05/04/2023 04:04 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 05/04/2023 05:10 pm
    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.

    They might've, but there was that Centaur V qual stage that got burniated by leaking hydrogen during the expected time frame BE-4 qual was supposed to be finished. We did get this interesting tweet from Tory a while back when the Centaur test failure was going down and he was giving updates:
    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1646593698480943104?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1646593698480943104%7Ctwgr%5E2101a1accafebcce7590c4a2c8774cdbf182db58%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fforum.nasaspaceflight.com%2Findex.php%3Ftopic%3D44390.2420

    BE-4 being done or very nearly so would explain the Devin Garner story video and especially the much more recent Huntsville factory video, which falls well in line with past history of Blue releasing videos even without an announcement of a milestone until well after the fact.  Case in point, the announcement of all development and prequal being finshed didn't come until October 31st of last year, even though the videos hinted it was over in the January through May time period, and no announcement was made of the huge milestone of the two qual engines being delivered and tested until March of this year, even though they'd been delivered over 8 months ago and had been in qual testing since about November.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 05/04/2023 06:18 pm
    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!
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 05/04/2023 06:37 pm
    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!

    First off, Centaur's test failure is not resolved, so nothing can be "on track" for anything at this point until the exact cause of the leak is understood. If it is a result of the GSE of the test rig, then Centaur is off the hook, but if not, then the cause needs to be analyzed to ensure it's not something that could in any way affect the WDR and then test firing, because Centaur has to be fueled as part of those tests. And finally, it cannot in any way be something that effects the stage in flight.

    I also am very offended you dismissed my evidence, including Tory's own tweet. I understand that accepting BE-4 being finally done and over with is hard for some folks, but the history of how Blue has handled previous milestones and their publicity or lack thereof is important here. Moreover, the most recent Huntsville video is only a bit over two weeks old. I believe based on prior history, that Blue was going to use the Huntsville video of the BE-4 regen nozzle room to showcase the engine in production after qual testing was finished, but the Centaur debacle pushed the announcement back since that could be a bad look by touting being done when the customer suffered a critical failure on their end.

    You may disagree with their choice or my analysis, but please don't just handwave evidence away.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 05/04/2023 07:48 pm
    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/1636086726811590656

    Quote
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 05/04/2023 10:29 pm
    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/1636086726811590656

    Quote
    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.


    I'll give you a participation trophy. The difference is that you pulled a chronological fallacy as well as out-of-context fallacy here, and on top of that, you gave only one piece of counter-evidence as though that somehow was absolute.

    So, let's see here. The quote you gave is well before the "Literally everything else is done" tweet. On top of that, about the same time as the tweet you gave, Tory also tweeted this:

    https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1628894884982579201?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1628894884982579201%7Ctwgr%5E3ccab484b2624979bf72456c5094274495af0afa%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fforum.nasaspaceflight.com%2Findex.php%3Ftopic%3D39674.2220

    So six weeks left to finish just over half the testing. Combined with the other evidence I provided, your case is pretty weak.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: YetAnotherLurker on 05/04/2023 10:56 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 05/05/2023 01:30 am
    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.

    New Glenn is only peripheral. This is about BE-4 getting delivered to ULA for use and is about whether or not qual testing is done to allow Cert-1 to fly once the Centaur problems are resolved.

    Yes, there are some here as well as on other places who can't and might never accept that BE-4 and thus Blue's responsibility for the Vulcan Centaur delays is over and done with. They've delivered on their second major aerospace product (the first being New Shepard) after all this time and difficulty, and there's no more memes to be had, at least for now. I provided huge loads of evidence (without violating site rules about posting L2 material in the public forums) that it's very likely finished and all I got was a reply in turn that used an out of context tweet from back in March while leaving out Eric Berger's "six weeks" quote from Tory as well failing to address Blue's general lack of fanfare regarding milestones or how they do tweet blitzes months before announcing it.

    And I see lots and lots of "ridiculous suggestions that something that hasn't even flown yet" type comments, especially in some certain special forums here about a certain space company.

    It's time to move on.

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 05/05/2023 01:50 am
    Quote from: YetAnotherLurker
    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.

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: meekGee on 05/05/2023 02:20 am
    Quote from: YetAnotherLurker
    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.

    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 think we'll accept it when we see it.

    That's the flip side of being so secretive.  They get people thinking that they have a lot of things they don't, but OTOH when they finally do get something done, until they show it, most people won't believe it actually exists.

    Gots nobody to blame except their own patterns and habits.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: GWH on 05/05/2023 03:13 am
    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. As until that certification is publicly declared complete and an excess of engines has been delivered to ULA, it is still late and getting more late with every day that passes.

    While ULA is very much also behind on Centaur V, lets not forget that they took a calcuated risk to move away from a staggered development path using the current Centaur due to BE-4 delays that were already apparent years ago.

    I for one will be very happy to see Vulcan lift off on top of a brilliant blue flame.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 05/05/2023 05:25 am
    Many things are late. Very late. BE-4 is but one of them. I do believe that it is fair to say that Blue Origin's tendency to hold secrets so much tends to work against them, such as not clearly announcing not only the delivery of the flight engines, but also the two qualification engines around that same time.

    They have made perhaps a bad choice in going with such an incredibly ambitious leap from New Shepard to heavy lift New Glenn instead of the original medium lift vehicle semi-reusable rocket they planned for use in Commercial Crew. It has perhaps cost the company a great deal of potential contracts and experience.

    But, that being said, there has been a great deal of progress. New Shepard has flown operationally and will again despite the NS-23 setback. BE-4 is clearly in the last leg of the race, the finish line finally in sight. We have ample proof that production at both Kent and Huntsville is in full swing. The timing of the Centaur testing incident was about as bad as it could have been and probably has put a damper on any announcements. And the maiden flight of Vulcan Centaur is postponed and along with it, the maiden flight of BE-4.

    But the evidence shows us BE-4 is nearly done, if not actually done, and we must be patient as we are with the loss of Starship Super Heavy or Terran-1.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: SoftwareDude on 05/05/2023 07:48 am
    I am sure ULA has a non-disclosure agreement with Blue Origin and vice versa. Just because we don't hear something, good or bad, doesn't mean it wasn't communicated between the various companies.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 05/05/2023 03:29 pm
    Certainly. But Tory Bruno does seem to be able to release information regarding BE-4 or anything related to Vulcan Centar in general more often than not when he is asked on Twitter.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: edkyle99 on 05/05/2023 03:44 pm
    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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 05/05/2023 03:58 pm
    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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 05/05/2023 04:13 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: whitelancer64 on 05/05/2023 07:42 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 05/05/2023 07:52 pm
    I just wasn't sure what Ed's criteria for "failure" was.  IMO Terran's first stage was a total success; IDK if the 2nd stage failure to light was engine related or upstream.

    Also don't know if Raptor's failures were attributed to the engine itself, debris, or just the configuration of 33 engines.  For sure SpaceX has a lot of changes to make from B7's flight.  How many of those changes are already done (probably quite a lot to the booster) is an unknown to me.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 05/05/2023 11:18 pm
    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.

    Yes, but it is unclear what caused those particular engines to fail whereas we know that the other three failed before the countdown reached T-0, and thus there were no outside variables, such as debris or acoustic shockwaves to take into account.

    With BE-4, that will not be as much of a problem since there will only be two on Vulcan's first stage, and seven on New Glenn's.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 05/06/2023 01:39 am
    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.

    The tests were separate tanking tests: Beginning with the first stage and then for the Centaur V several days later. Both went very well, though there was a minor GSE issue during the Centaur tanking. The Wet Dress Rehearsal will be the first time the two stages are fueled up together. The Flight Readiness Test will do that and fire the two BE-4s for 3.5 seconds at 70% thrust.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: edkyle99 on 05/06/2023 02:05 am
    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
    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. 

     - Ed Kyle
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DrHeywoodFloyd on 05/06/2023 05:39 am
    Hello I posted this and did not get a response... does any one know the status of Test Stand 4670?


    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Eric Hedman on 05/06/2023 07:11 am
    Hello I posted this and did not get a response... does any one know the status of Test Stand 4670?


    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?
    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:

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DrHeywoodFloyd on 05/06/2023 08:11 am
    Hello I posted this and did not get a response... does any one know the status of Test Stand 4670?


    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?
    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:

    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 ...

    " 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...

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Eric Hedman on 05/06/2023 04:25 pm
    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 ...

    " 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...
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: GWH on 05/06/2023 05:27 pm
    Would hazard a guess that since they can test engines elsewhere, and Huntsville production isn't yet churning out fully completed engines, that there simply is no need. Test procedures and teams are all set up in Texas already for the few BE-4s they've completed. 

    Hopefully that need will be there soon.

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: JCRM on 05/11/2023 11:16 am
    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1656609776783208448
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Purona on 05/11/2023 11:30 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 05/11/2023 12:54 pm
    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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DrHeywoodFloyd on 05/11/2023 01:31 pm
    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.

    The Quiet Achiever. No fanfare, just get out of the way of the engineers, and let them get on with their job without distracting PR.....
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: LouScheffer on 05/11/2023 02:03 pm
    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.
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: GWH on 05/11/2023 02:09 pm
    *cough* L2 *cough*
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 05/11/2023 02:16 pm
    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.

    I can only speak to my experiences, but we always designed to a set of requirements, which in this case wouldn't be a complete set for BO's use.  And we always tested to those requirements (by a different team of engineers from the designers), and when that design passed Qual, we put the word out.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/11/2023 02:52 pm
    Bit more info on qualification timescale:

    Quote
    Awesome news! Does this mean the BE-4 quals are all complete now?

    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1656612692097138688

    Quote
    Yes. BE qual was complete several weeks ago
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 05/11/2023 04:03 pm
    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

    I hate to say that "I told you so", but yeah. I told you guys so. This is par for the course for Blue Origin. They have a long history of understating or not announcing major milestones like this. The only reason we had the big shipset announcement back in October was because of the ULA angle. A lot of what we know is because of the partnership with ULA, and today's tweets were no exception.

    So, I suspect now that Tory has spilled the beans, we'll get an understated tweet or press release from Blue in the coming days or weeks, and or since it looks like the Centaur V STA investigation is close to wrapping up, we'll get something after that.

    Finally, indications are that both companies were waiting until after the test firing since that really is the true capstone of BE-4 Vulcan dev with two of them firing as part of a complete system.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 05/11/2023 05:10 pm
    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.
    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.

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DanClemmensen on 05/11/2023 05:17 pm
    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.
    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.

    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: whitelancer64 on 05/11/2023 05:59 pm
    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.
    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.

    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?

    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 strakes 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.

    Picture source:  https://www.blueorigin.com/new-glenn/
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: spacenuance on 05/11/2023 06:04 pm
    Quote
    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 sincerely hope they plan for RTLS. NG is huge; there will be many payloads that will not require the full performance of the first stage. Now I know NG is planned to land downrange at some obscene distance of 1400km or something, and that would make for quite a long trip for the recovery assets. RTLS could theoretically cut into the payload performance to LEO by half and it would still be worth it IMO. I guess we'll see. The only issue might be low TWR of the second stage after SES but I doubt it, its not centaur with its 0.3 TWR at stage sep lol
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 05/11/2023 06:06 pm
    Quote from: DanClemmensen
    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?

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: whitelancer64 on 05/11/2023 06:09 pm
    If they do a boost-back / RTLS, it will almost certainly have to be to a landing just offshore, there won't be any land-landing sites available after 2025.

    Vaya and Phantom Space are taking over SpaceX's lease on LC-13 in 2025.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: spacenut on 05/11/2023 06:10 pm
    I would think that if the BE-4 is successful with Vulcan, it would be successful with New Glenn.  New Glenn will have multiple engines and would have to land. 
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: whitelancer64 on 05/11/2023 06:16 pm
    Quote from: DanClemmensen
    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?

    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.

    New Glenn's capacity is supposed to be 61 Kuiper satellites per launch. They are supposed to be about 700 kg each, so that's around 43,000 kg, not counting the payload adapter / dispenser etc.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robotbeat on 05/11/2023 06:34 pm
    Quite possible that will just be done expendably.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: whitelancer64 on 05/11/2023 07:20 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robotbeat on 05/11/2023 07:33 pm
    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.
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vahe231991 on 05/11/2023 07:50 pm
    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1656609776783208448
    Bingo to Blue Origin on having the BE-4 pass qualification firing tests.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: whitelancer64 on 05/11/2023 07:56 pm
    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.

    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.

    They only need the center engine to re-light for a landing burn. It's worth a shot, IMO, even for the very first launch. And if it doesn't work the first time, they've got 11 - 26 more Kuiper launches to work on it.

    https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1537099932926152704?s=20
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: matthewkantar on 05/11/2023 08:17 pm
    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: spacenut on 05/11/2023 08:28 pm
    How much would RTLS reduce the payload. 
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: whitelancer64 on 05/11/2023 09:11 pm
    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?

    My guess is simiple economics. Jacklyn was much larger and would have cost much more to operate. I also think the refit was costing a lot more than anticipated. Plus the landing barge is a simpler solution.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: whitelancer64 on 05/11/2023 09:15 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: jimvela on 05/11/2023 09:41 pm
    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?

    For F9 the booster targets a spot in the ocean, and the barge station keeps at that spot.
    The BO ship would be much more difficult to station keep, and IIRC the conops was the ship would be moving instead of stationary.
    There's been a lot of debate about which approach is more practical/technically challenging.
    There was also a lot of discussion about what the vessel classification is for an autonomous ship and whether it was even within a reasonable regulatory framework to operate that vessel type unmanned.
    Between the operating cost of the ship being higher, and the possible technical difficulties with landing a reentering booster on a moving ship...
    A SpaceX style drone barge may have traded out better in the long run.

    Quote
    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?

    My bet is that as they worked out the details, they realized that they were on the more expensive, more difficult, and less likely to succeed path for initial recovery operations.  Especially given the super track record of F9 ASDS recoveries recently.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 05/11/2023 09:55 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: whitelancer64 on 05/11/2023 10:03 pm
    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.

    This is why I used the phrase "at least" to describe the payload to LEO as 45,000 kg. This is the LEO payload that Blue Origin announced in 2018, and it was widely believed to be sandbagged even at the time. There have been no updates to New Glenn's performance numbers since then.

    I would not be surprised if the LEO capacity of New Glenn with the current BE-4s (with downrange recovery) were in the ballpark of 55,000 kg or better. It would mean that the expendable payload to LEO for New Glenn is near to or better than Falcon Heavy.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 05/11/2023 10:32 pm
    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!
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DrHeywoodFloyd on 05/11/2023 11:14 pm
    Looks like the stars are starting to align!
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/12/2023 03:12 am
    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!

    I think Blue and ULA will be happy with reliable 100% at this stage.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 05/12/2023 06:42 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Eric Hedman on 05/12/2023 10:05 pm
    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..

    From this NASA site:  https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/fs/rs25.html (https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/fs/rs25.html)

    "During the Shuttle Program, the RS-25s routinely operated in flight at 104.5% of their original 100% rated thrust level but were tested up to 111% thrust. To meet the demands of SLS flight, more power and performance would be required."
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: jdon759 on 05/12/2023 10:16 pm
    I noticed this from Tory:

    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1656612692097138688?cxt=HHwWgIDUreydvP0tAAAA (https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1656612692097138688?cxt=HHwWgIDUreydvP0tAAAA)

    No announcement from Blue, surprisingly.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 05/12/2023 10:43 pm
    You're a bit late to the party. Go back a page in the BE-4 thread:
    https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39674.msg2486654#msg2486654
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: jdon759 on 05/12/2023 11:51 pm
    Oh whoops, must have missed a page. 

    Still, exciting!
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: GWH on 05/14/2023 04:40 am
    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.

    Quote
    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.

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Ultimograph5 on 05/14/2023 05:52 am
    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.

    Quote
    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.

    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 05/14/2023 06:11 am
    I am a bit perplexed by this myself. While some of the tests would have likely been counted in terms of 10-30 seconds, some of them would have been minutes. Also, Tory Bruno did state that there is very little difference between the BE-4s used on Vulcan and those that would be used on New Glenn. Furthermore, we have heard numerous times from Blue Origin spokespersons and engineers in interviews that BE-4 is designed for reuse.

    With SMART now confirmed as very likely in the future for use on Vulcan, especially to ensure the Kuiper missions it flies will have a high cadence, having reusable BE-4s is more important than ever, and Tory Bruno did state that they are hoping for at least six reuses from the engines, with everything else beyond that as "gravy".
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: novo2044 on 05/14/2023 12:39 pm
    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.

    Quote
    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.

    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? 

    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. 
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 05/14/2023 04:40 pm
    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.

    Quote
    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.

    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? 

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: novo2044 on 05/14/2023 06:32 pm
    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.

    Quote
    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.

    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? 

    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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 05/14/2023 06:52 pm
    Quote
    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

    You didn't define it that way. New Shepard still goes to space (107 km) and is travelling approximately the same speed at landing as its bigger counterpart Falcon 9. Both the NS and F9 1st stages are suborbital, but F9 is going horizontally far faster. But at landing, they're not supersonic, they're subsonic.

    New Glenn's 1st stage will not be needing any reentry burn for the reasons I outlined previously, only maybe occasionally a boost back burn for RTLS. That happens far above the atmosphere. And restartable engines have been a feature for decades on upper stages, some staging well inside the atmosphere, and then relighting again, sometimes nearly a dozen times.

    I think part of the problem with your thinking is that because SpaceX does it a certain way that everyone else needs to do it that way. They don't. There's plenty of ways to skin the proverbial cat. Rocket Lab showed that a reentry burn was unnecessary for tiny Electron. Stoke is using an aerospike engine to VL land their 2nd stage, etc.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: KilroySmith on 05/14/2023 07:06 pm
    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: joek on 05/14/2023 07:12 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 05/14/2023 07:15 pm
    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?

    When do you think the engine restarts for landing on both boosters?

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: niwax on 05/14/2023 07:22 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 05/14/2023 07:23 pm
    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.

    Why does that matter for rockets that are not, as far as we know, doing reentry restarts, but still doing VL at touchdown? The only case for that is a boost back on some possible number of missions. Neutron will supposedly boost back nearly all the time for RTLS, but that booster also doesn't need to do a reentry burn as far as can be told.

    And as I pointed out, many upper stages light in-flight and often restart several times thereafter.

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 05/14/2023 07:44 pm
    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.

    Both do precision landings more or less. Both initially and intentionally miss their pad to avoid damaging it in case of a problem and then at the last seconds correct to land on the pad, which they both do and fairly well. Interestingly enough, according to Blue, New Shepard is deliberately kept conservative in its performance and is apparently capable of a lot more. Which is understandable given it's supposed to carry people most times and Blue has to keep it from flying off the Corn Ranch reservation, both PM and capsule or they get into trouble with the public and FAA. However, it's also know that Blue has looked seriously into a variant of NS that is orbit capable, so yeah.

    We also know that NS has been a test bed for NG. The original plan was for NG was to land on a moving ship that was moving at 5-6 knots. Needing to not only precision landings but the ability to hover and track to the landing platform for touchdown. You can see it in the old promotional videos. They are not doing a "hoverslam" maneuver with it as is the case with F9, which has to do that, as you well know, because Merlin 1D can't throttle down below 60% while we know BE-4 can do down to at least 45%. We've seen the video of it in action doing this!

    https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1552659712876748800

    Keep in mind, this capability will be available for Vulcan, even though it'll never likely be used, because it's essentially the same basic BE-4 as NG's.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Comga on 05/15/2023 03:39 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 05/15/2023 04:13 am
    You are both wrong.

    According to the Falcon 9 user's guide, the standard first stage Merlin 1D cannot throttle below 70%, which is why the hoverslam maneuver is necessary. The Merlin 1D Vacuum can go much lower, but I do not know if that has been demonstrated on any flight.

    The capabilities for throttle range on a BE-4 are unknown, but 45% is the lowest official number we have. But 45% is one of the lowest ranges demonstrated by any large engine in that size category.

    And have we ever been given an official mass for a nearly dry New Glenn first stage? We might be able to back engineer what percent they need to hover it, even briefly to land on a now stationary barge.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Comga on 05/15/2023 04:33 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: GWH on 05/15/2023 06:01 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 05/15/2023 09:34 am
    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.

    Telling people to "behave yourself" is rude  and uncivil as well, especially when given in the tone you are implying. Telling someone they are wrong is not uncivil.

    The 2021 Users gude does indicate it is down to 57%. And scaling from Falcon 9 is not accurate since the two vehicles are not identical in all ways.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 05/15/2023 09:38 am
    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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: briantipton on 05/15/2023 10:03 am

    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.
    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.

    HOWEVER, as GWH points out, hovering is not efficient so just because NG can (maybe) hover, doesn't mean it should. In practice, I would expect it to execute some form of hover slam.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: novo2044 on 05/15/2023 12:52 pm
    Not sure how we got into throttling discussions but the root of this was a rumor that BO was having difficulties with reuse despite many test stand firings.  I’m also not sure how much experience with New Shepard matters given New Glenn will have different engines, fuel, and vastly different flight profiles.  If adding in air restarts is so easy, then where do the difficulties lie?  Assuming the rumor is true of course
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Purona on 05/15/2023 01:59 pm
    I don't remember any report of Blue Origin having trouble with reuse. The only things i remember that's been said are.

    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/

    2. "“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.”"

    with the response from Tory Bruno being 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,

    https://spacenews.com/tory-bruno-says-the-challenges-with-be-4-are-real-but-the-engine-is-moving-forward/
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robotbeat on 05/15/2023 02:18 pm
    You may not have heard of it but it is a thing.  The first engines aren’t optimized for reuse
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: whitelancer64 on 05/15/2023 03:14 pm
    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.

    This isn't just a response to your comment, but also to the whole conversation thread about hovering.

    New Shepard deliberately targets away from the landing pad during descent. It slows down to a hover so it can slide itself back over to the landing pad for touchdown. This is why some people think it looks somewhat out of control during the landing burn, and wobbly during the hover, it's doing some pretty aggressive maneuvers to get to the landing pad.

    Aside: also, they don't target the center of the landing pad, as soon as NS detects the flat landing site it goes for touchdown, this is why NS landings are always near the ring of the landing pad paint job.

    The descent profile for New Glenn will be somewhat different, including a longer landing burn. It should look very similar to what SpaceX does during their landing burn.

    I agree that they should start practicing hoverslams with NS flights, because they will probably have to for NG.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: whitelancer64 on 05/15/2023 03:19 pm
    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.

    Quote
    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.

    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?

    The engine being *certified* for  one-time-use now doesn't preclude it being certified for reuse in the future.

    Minor tweaks will need to be made, New Glenn will need a slight variant for an engine capable of in-flight restart, but that has been true of what SpaceX has done for the Merlin and Raptor engines as well. It's not a showstopper.

    And you need to recover engines first, before you can certify them for reuse.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: meekGee on 05/15/2023 03:56 pm
    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
    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).

    A combination of all these factors for a 7 m rocket with new engines is not outside of reason.

    But the F9 hoverslam is aggressive. It's pulling what looks to me like 0.5-1 g on touchdown.

    So for NG to hover it needs to find another 1.5-2.0x improvement, and that's getting unlikely, given that F9 is pretty optimized by now.

    I take the videos with a grain of salt.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: JayWee on 05/15/2023 07:54 pm
    The igniter is not a technical challenge but a design issue,

    https://spacenews.com/tory-bruno-says-the-challenges-with-be-4-are-real-but-the-engine-is-moving-forward/
    From that very article:
    Quote from: Spacenews
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vahe231991 on 05/15/2023 10:45 pm
    I don't remember any report of Blue Origin having trouble with reuse. The only things i remember that's been said are.

    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/
    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 05/16/2023 12:30 am
    I don't remember any report of Blue Origin having trouble with reuse. The only things i remember that's been said are.

    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/
    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?

    Beyond the method of recovery, the SMART BE-4s won't need in-flight restart capability like the NG ones do. And even then, only of one of the BE-4s on NG need to be restartable, the rest don't, so the other six should be very nearly identical to their Vulcan SMART counterparts. Tory Bruno says that the business case for SMART recovery needs only 3 reuses:

    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1604956423808421888

    As he says, everything above that is gravy. So, the more reuse ULA gets with BE-4, the better for them. And that means that Blue pushing 25 reuses on NG dovetails very nicely together.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Purona on 05/16/2023 10:14 am
    The igniter is not a technical challenge but a design issue,

    https://spacenews.com/tory-bruno-says-the-challenges-with-be-4-are-real-but-the-engine-is-moving-forward/
    From that very article:
    Quote from: Spacenews
    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.

    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 "
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: LouScheffer on 05/16/2023 12:53 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: joek on 05/21/2023 12:02 pm
    ...
    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.

    Certainly SMART will not (or should not) require supersonic-hypersonic relight. As to whether "...being able to at least recover the most expensive part of the 1st stage: the engines..." is optimal or a path to success, think we beat that to death long ago (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37295.0).
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DrHeywoodFloyd on 05/27/2023 12:59 am
    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)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Gliderflyer on 05/27/2023 01:03 am
    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)

    Could be they test fire the torch igniters (assuming they use those, I don't see why they wouldn't with methane) during the count. Maybe something was a little off with them. They aren't that hard to make, but a lot of people have issues with them if they choose a finicky configuration.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 05/28/2023 12:14 am
    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)

    I recommend you read this to get an idea of how torch and other ignition systems work:

    https://blogs.nasa.gov/J2X/tag/ignition/

    And Tory Bruno stated it was a timing and response issue. So it could simply be it was not coming up as quickly as it should to provide the electrical spark necessary for proper stable combustion of the oxygen and methane/LNG in the injector. This could be a sensor issue and the system is fine.

    Until it is looked at, anything is merely speculation.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: JCRM on 05/28/2023 11:25 am
    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.

    They need to work out what that issue is, and correct it
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: ulm_atms on 05/28/2023 12:28 pm
    Currently BE-4 is tested horizontally right?  I wonder if everything acts slightly different vertical.  My WAG.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 05/28/2023 10:00 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/28/2023 10:47 pm
    Its new a LV there are always going to be teething issues.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: edzieba on 05/30/2023 10:05 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 05/30/2023 10:58 am
    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.

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: edzieba on 05/30/2023 11:04 am
    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.

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 05/30/2023 11:18 am
    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.

    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.

    I don't think you get it. The point in the countdown at which the torch igniters were being tested wouldn't have ignited anything because there was no propellant loaded yet. This is part of the systems checks that happen. And this is a thing that has to happen to understand if all their procedures and equipment work before they commit to that prop loading.

    It's not like the moment the countdown for a rocket starts they start loading prop. Sheesh.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 05/30/2023 11:59 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: matthewkantar on 05/30/2023 04:12 pm
    A test of the igniters without propellant isn’t really a test. The rehearsal is supposed to be wet, not flamey.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: ulm_atms on 05/30/2023 11:06 pm
    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.

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: edzieba on 05/31/2023 08:17 am
    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).
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 06/02/2023 08:48 am
    Another glimpse of what looks to be BE-4 hardware under construction behind this young woman:
    https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=568718198709202&set=a.500432992204390

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: jimvela on 06/02/2023 12:21 pm
    Have we heard of the new Jackson project in any detail?  It’s the project name on her shirt.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Purona on 06/02/2023 12:57 pm
    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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: VoodooForce on 06/02/2023 11:55 pm
    Quote
    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 was thinking "New Jackson" would be some sort of moon walker project.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: jimvela on 06/03/2023 12:18 am
    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

    That’s awesome!! 
    Great to see the recognition and enthusiasm.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: mn on 06/06/2023 11:06 pm
    The igniter is not a technical challenge but a design issue,

    https://spacenews.com/tory-bruno-says-the-challenges-with-be-4-are-real-but-the-engine-is-moving-forward/
    From that very article:
    Quote from: Spacenews
    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.

    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/

    Quote
    The 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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 06/07/2023 12:17 am
    The igniter is not a technical challenge but a design issue,

    https://spacenews.com/tory-bruno-says-the-challenges-with-be-4-are-real-but-the-engine-is-moving-forward/
    From that very article:
    Quote from: Spacenews
    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.

    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/

    Quote
    The 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".
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DrHeywoodFloyd on 06/07/2023 01:35 am
    The igniter is not a technical challenge but a design issue,

    https://spacenews.com/tory-bruno-says-the-challenges-with-be-4-are-real-but-the-engine-is-moving-forward/
    From that very article:
    Quote from: Spacenews
    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.

    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/

    Quote
    The 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 posit the holdup/pacing item is the Test Stand 4670 Huntsville which in 1965 was used to test all five F1 engines of the Saturn Five in a static test...
    https://youtu.be/ouYoF9cQI44

    Yet why has this stand not been qualified as being qualified as there was a media release last year with a BE-4 on the test stand indicating that they shall soon be testing it.... ???

    Here is the announcement from Blue Origin June 22 last year...

    https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1539299602352025600?s=20 (https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1539299602352025600?s=20)

    But nothing happened.... just crickets...!!! I posit this is the pacing item... commissioning tests of the MSFC Test Stand 4670... what happened??!!



    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Gliderflyer on 06/07/2023 02:39 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DrHeywoodFloyd on 06/07/2023 05:26 am
    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.



    Thank you, here is the SLS mult-engine test from about two years ago....

     https://www.youtube.com/live/M0X0womVi7w?feature=share&t=3543  (https://www.youtube.com/live/M0X0womVi7w?feature=share&t=3543)

    I would be interested as to how they will undertake this test? I would posit that this is a very important system test, given the seven engines, and the complexity of the plumbing, and the potential for structural resonances to do damage to the booster, and other issues....

    I would suggest that this would be a very important subsystem test to undertake in the MSFC Test Stand 4670 before assembling the complete first stage of new Glenn.

    Granted they could take a new Glenn booster out onto the pad and by holding it down, they could test the operation of the seven BE-4 engines. Yet that might not be the best way, as testing the BE-4 engine booster subsystem  in a test stand, as it would be easier to instrument extensively the engines and the  booster subsystem components, and after the test identify any defects, and resolve them in the subsystem, and rather than a complete all up first stage test new Glenn booster.

    The situation with the MSFC Test Stand 4670 is a complete mystery:
    1. Surely the particular benefit of the MSFC Test Stand 4670 is to undertake multi-engine testing, because blue origin appears to have the testing facilities in order to test and qualify singular BE-4 engines in Texas..

    2. I think testing a singular BE-4 engine in the MSFC Test Stand 4670 is going to shake a lot of buildings regardless!! Not doubting what you are saying "... 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)....".so I posit that may or may not be a factor [i do not know..].. but maybe NASA leased out a "Bum Steer", and this is the one time Blue should have looked the gift horse in the mouth to make sure the "gift" they were getting was in fact a good deal.???!!!... At the time it looked a great deal, but maybe it is an Albatros around Blue Origin's neck's that they greatly regret...

    Still for the engine factory, the intent is to have Engine testing capacity in Huntsville; so they can undertake System testing and acceptance testing of engines coming out of the factory in Huntsville. One wonders if they would build their own BE-4/BE-7 engine test stand in order to expedite their factory production flow?

    I guess we will find out..... It is fun watching this develop, but like all of you, frustrating not knowing...........




    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 06/07/2023 08:36 pm
    https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1666544205848805376

    Quote
    Watch the @ULALaunch live broadcast of #VulcanRocket’s Flight Readiness Firing and see our two BE-4s in action.

    Details being posted to the Vulcan inaugural flight thread: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43448.0

    https://youtu.be/UhWc8-Oyug8
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 06/07/2023 10:54 pm
    Never before seen camera view:
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 06/07/2023 10:58 pm
    Another angle shown of the engines in the webcast:
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DrHeywoodFloyd on 06/07/2023 11:46 pm
    Just dropped a hint they will be testing production BE-4 engines at the MSFC Test Stand 5670 soon!
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 06/08/2023 12:01 am
    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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DrHeywoodFloyd on 06/08/2023 12:26 am
    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

    No you are not, with respect to your youtube video... I am just reporting the fact of their statement made by their what the commutator just stated during their June 7 Live Broadcast: Vulcan Cert-1 Flight Readiness Firing (FRF) broadcast.... they would not make that statement unless there is clear intent to make it happen...
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DrHeywoodFloyd on 06/08/2023 01:42 am
    Tory's Happy with the FRF...

    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1666617678025596928?s=20 (https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1666617678025596928?s=20)

    Although I am confused, as I thought the test would run longer....but if Tory and Jeff are happy, then so am I!
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 06/08/2023 01:46 am
    Replay of the engines firing off, huge win for ULA, Blue Origin, Vulcan, and by extension, New Glenn:
    https://twitter.com/ulalaunch/status/1666619621724794881
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robotbeat on 06/08/2023 02:03 am
    Presumably for the same reason Starship’s static fire was so short. It’s being tested on its launch mount, not a specialized test stand built for >minute-long firings.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 06/08/2023 02:21 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robotbeat on 06/08/2023 03:07 am
    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.
    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.

    BE-4 has 550lbf thrust each, RD-181 432lbf thrust, and NK-33 367lbf of thrust. Pretty comparable. (And I think people often under-estimate Antares for some reason. Having ~80% of the thrust of single stick Vulcan and about the same as Atlas V is not so bad. It's a pretty big rocket given there are so many truly small rockets recently developed, from LauncherOne, Electron, Astra's rockets, Terran-R, Firefly, ABL's RS1, etc.)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 06/08/2023 05:21 am
    https://youtu.be/IT9VelncT2g
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: JCRM on 06/08/2023 11:34 am
    Sparklers? Does this mean Vulcan won't set fire to itself before launch?

    Shame.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Zed_Noir on 06/08/2023 01:32 pm
    Sparklers? Does this mean Vulcan won't set fire to itself before launch?

    Shame.
    There wasn't any Hydrogen involved. So no self-immolation.  ;)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: catdlr on 06/08/2023 09:23 pm
    Sparklers? Does this mean Vulcan won't set fire to itself before launch?

    Shame.

    That's why they painted a flame on the stage.  (They should have done that to Delta IV Heavy).
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: JCRM on 06/09/2023 10:13 am
    Sparklers? Does this mean Vulcan won't set fire to itself before launch?

    Shame.
    There wasn't any Hydrogen involved. So no self-immolation.  ;)
    I'm pretty sure methane can catch fire too
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: lightleviathan on 06/09/2023 11:35 am
    ULA probably saw Starship and didn't want to repeat that.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Jim on 06/09/2023 01:03 pm
    Sparklers? Does this mean Vulcan won't set fire to itself before launch?

    Shame.

    Delta IV used ROFIs too
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Jim on 06/09/2023 01:04 pm

    There wasn't any Hydrogen involved. So no self-immolation.  ;)

    Methane is also lighter than air
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Zed_Noir on 06/09/2023 03:23 pm

    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. Presuming the Vulcan Centaur will have a more control release of Methane to drastically reduces the chances of a Delta IV style self-immolation spectacle during lift off.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Jim on 06/09/2023 03:43 pm

    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.

    the hydrogen comes from engine start sequence
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: lrk on 06/09/2023 04:20 pm
    Note that the large pre-ignition fuel bleed is something specific to the RS-68; this isn't seen even with other LH2-burning engines like RS-25 on the shuttle/SLS.  Generally dumping a lot of fuel prior to engine start is something preferable to avoid - there were some studies done on eliminating the fireball entirely if Delta was to be human-rated.

    In general it is better to start a rocket engine fuel-rich to avoid damage during startup transients, but I've never got a clear answer on why RS-68 releases so much more fuel on startup than other engines. 
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: edzieba on 06/09/2023 05:04 pm
    IIRC, the RS-68 generates a 'fireball' because it's a gas-gen engine (unusual for hydrolox) with a conservative start sequence. That means plenty of Hydrogen-rich exhaust is dumped outboard before the MCC really starts getting going (after which any GG exhaust is entraining along with the surrounding air down into the flame duct), and Hydrogen has a very wide range of flammability (4-75% in air) so you can either burn it in a controlled manner, or it will burn itself in an uncontrolled manner.
    The BE-4 is a full-flow engine so has no fuel-rich (or oxidiser-rich) gas gen exhaust to dump, Methane has a relatively narrow range of flammability in air (5-17% in air), and BE-4 appears to have a relatively rapid startup sequence (maybe even sub-second from main valves opening).
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 06/09/2023 05:07 pm
    ULA probably saw Starship and didn't want to repeat that.

    Very unlikely. Methane's flammability is well-understood and there was considerable work done with the PTT core and the BE-4 engines mounted on it that would have allowed them to understand how much of the gas builds up under the pad during a typical countdown.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Jim on 06/09/2023 06:30 pm

    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.

    or it could be more for a shutdown sequence
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DJPledger on 06/09/2023 07:58 pm
    The BE-4 is a full-flow engine
    BE-4 is ORSC not FFSC.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: edzieba on 06/15/2023 09:54 am
    The BE-4 is a full-flow engine
    BE-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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 06/20/2023 10:40 pm
    I have a stupid question:

    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: tssp_art on 06/21/2023 01:07 pm
    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?

    First thing that comes to mind (just a semi-educated guess) - the New Glenn booster can maintain stability on ascent with TVC of the main engines, but it will be re-entering the atmosphere tail first to land. To stabilize that re-entry aerodynamically you need the CG as far aft as possible and thus the heavier LOX tank "leading" the way (i.e. closest to the tail). The Vulcan isn't doing controlled re-entry to land so it only needs the aerodynamic stability on ascent which is achieved with the CG forward.

    Edit: for clarification
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Hog on 06/21/2023 09:07 pm
    The BE-4 is a full-flow engine
    BE-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.
    That's Closed vs. Open cycle engines.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 07/11/2023 07:10 pm
    https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1678844068703477762

    Quote
    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:

    https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/11/jeff-bezos-blue-origin-be-4-rocket-engine-explodes-during-testing.html

    Quote
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: trimeta on 07/11/2023 07:31 pm
    And before anyone suggests it, the fact that this engine was scheduled to be delivered to ULA for use on the Cert-2 launch means they absolutely weren't attempting to test it to the point of failure.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: ATPTourFan on 07/11/2023 07:51 pm
    Bold response from ULA:

    Quote
    ULA 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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: meekGee on 07/11/2023 07:55 pm
    Bold response from ULA:

    Quote
    ULA 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
    ULA at this point be like "Fuck it we're going, enough is enough"...

    Or, more likely, they had the ability to quickly rule that 1) this was a defect, and 2) it doesn't affect the engines they have on that rocket.

    They didn't even say it won't affect the schedule.  They said it won't even affect the plans.  Not even extra testing then, or maybe I'm reading too much into the verbiage.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 07/11/2023 08:15 pm
    Or, any corrective action will be done before qual of Centaur is completed.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 07/11/2023 08:35 pm
    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1678865222604574720

    Quote
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: HVM on 07/11/2023 08:42 pm
    Amateurs, SpaceX has blown up at least ~ten raptors at the same time frame.

     ; P [This is not intended to be real discussion it's jk man]
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 07/11/2023 09:13 pm
    https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1678871112468373505

    Quote
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: spacenut on 07/11/2023 09:22 pm
    Amateurs, SpaceX has blown up at least ~ten raptors at the same time frame.

     ; P

    SpaceX had intentionally blown up several trying to get more pressure out of the whole engine, pumps, chamber, to increase thrust.  They have thus increased the capability of Raptor one, Raptor 2 and now they are working on Raptor 3.  Blue has to get their first run working before they can increase pressure beyond that. 
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: meekGee on 07/11/2023 09:30 pm
    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1678865222604574720

    Quote
    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.

    Tory's response is based on a very sharp line between Qualification and Acceptance testing, and in principal he's exactly right.

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: abaddon on 07/11/2023 09:38 pm
    Please direct any Raptor vs BE-4 discussion here (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47513.0).
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: ccdengr on 07/11/2023 10:14 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: trimeta on 07/11/2023 10:22 pm
    Tory's response is based on a very sharp line between Qualification and Acceptance testing, and in principal he's exactly right.

    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.
    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: HVM on 07/11/2023 10:31 pm
    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.

    Can we get some data, example RD-170 and 180 from ULA's own paper: "Incorporation of RD-180 Failure Response Features in the Atlas V Booster Emergency Detection System"
    Quote
    "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"

    https://www.ulalaunch.com/docs/default-source/supporting-technologies/incorporation-of-rd-180-failure-response-2011.pdf
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: meekGee on 07/11/2023 10:32 pm
    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.
    Of course they don't.  Nobody ever does though.

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Coastal Ron on 07/11/2023 11:00 pm
    ...
    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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: meekGee on 07/11/2023 11:06 pm
    ...
    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

    Yes was meaning to say fabrication process, came out process design, but yeah it can be anything in the spectrum between a bone-fide design issue (e.g. not enough margin and then variance hit them) or process fabrication (variance was higher than intended) and it can be in the stuff they make, or the stuff they buy.

    In all cases, when the count is this low, failing an acceptance test should at least cause concern with respect to qualification.  Qualification assumes the variance is understood well enough that if you qualified the design, it holds true for all subsequent units.

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: ulm_atms on 07/11/2023 11:59 pm
    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.
    Of course they don't.  Nobody ever does though.

    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.
    I can't see ULA launching the first Vulcan flight without that minimum.

    And remember everyone, we only know a BE-4 blew up.  We don't know if it was it's fault yet.  GSE having a bad day at a bad time can happen.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: mn on 07/12/2023 12:04 am
    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.
    Of course they don't.  Nobody ever does though.

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: meekGee on 07/12/2023 12:14 am
    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.
    Of course they don't.  Nobody ever does though.

    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.

    Ah cool.  I missed that statement.
    I Only saw "no change in plans" and Tory's "It was ATP so it's ok".
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 07/12/2023 12:39 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: xyv on 07/12/2023 01:16 am
    Maybe it's just me but when I hear "ATP failure" I expect say... missing a key spec item or some shortfall in perfromance.  I don't expect the third deliverable to end up as shrapnel.  This early in the game I would have also expected enough subsystem testing to be done to have a high confidence of passing ATP or passing it after minor corrective action.

    Statistically small data is the bane of high asset value test programs in a hardware poor environement (I live it regurlarly, just not on this scale).

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: mn on 07/12/2023 03:14 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: whitelancer64 on 07/12/2023 04:13 am

    https://twitter.com/Avboden/status/1678865888123195392

    https://twitter.com/noor_thedoor/status/1678885167711092736
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Lars-J on 07/12/2023 04:41 am
    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.

    Tory is absolutely not above stretching the truth when ULA’s future and big DoD contracts are on the line. He has done it before.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Yggdrasill on 07/12/2023 04:48 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: meekGee on 07/12/2023 05:53 am
    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".
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: ThatOldJanxSpirit on 07/12/2023 07:35 am
    From Blue’s statement they have the proximate cause but are still assessing the root cause. In other words they know what failed but not why it failed. Any statements of the ‘move along, nothing to see here’ type must be treated with caution until root cause is established.

    Whatever happened there has been a failure of the quality process. I’d also note that Blue’s only operational engine, BE-3, is also down; in this case because of a major failure in their change control process.

    Multiple failures of management systems and management system failures in programs under schedule pressure are pretty good leading indicators of systemic issues.

    My safety management sixth sense is twitching. Last time I had this feeling was the Starliner pad abort test when Boeing failed to connect a drogue. Hope I’m wrong here.


    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Eric Hedman on 07/12/2023 07:56 am
    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: tntnt on 07/12/2023 10:43 am
    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?

    Blue, from the Michael Sheetz CNBC article (https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/11/jeff-bezos-blue-origin-be-4-rocket-engine-explodes-during-testing.html):

    A Blue Origin spokesperson, in a statement to CNBC on Tuesday, confirmed the company "ran into an issue while testing Vulcan's Flight Engine 3."
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: harrystranger on 07/12/2023 02:23 pm
    While not very high res, this is the only satellite imagery we have before and after the explosion for now.
    https://twitter.com/Harry__Stranger/status/1679126593393029120
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 07/12/2023 04:40 pm
    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".

    Problem is there's no real solid information other than there was an explosion, and they know what happened, though not necessarily why.

    1. How bad was it? Was there any real damage to the test cell? There's two at Corn Ranch for BE-4, so in theory they can keep testing on the other cell. This also means getting Test Stand 4670 operational soon because severe damage to the ones at Corn Ranch means everything grinds to a halt until they can be repaired.

    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.

    3. Unlike the Centaur V qual article test rig, there's not a bunch of equipment surrounding the engine to have to crack through to even get at it, just make sure the engine and stand are safed ahead of techs going in there to remove the engine. That shouldn't take more than a few days to a couple weeks.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 07/12/2023 04:52 pm
    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?

    There have been ATPs done on development engines, the first two flight engines, and finally on the two qual engines.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: whitelancer64 on 07/12/2023 07:31 pm

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 07/12/2023 08:34 pm

    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.

    This was true about two years ago when Huntsville began spinning up production of hardware, and the Kent factory was falling behind. But the failure might be for faulty workmanship in final assembly as much as it might have been one for the manufacture of an individual part.

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: RDMM2081 on 07/12/2023 08:49 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DJPledger on 07/12/2023 08:56 pm
    Perhaps BO should redesign BE-4 to be FFSC while keeping current chamber pressure which should make it much more reliable.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Purona on 07/12/2023 08:57 pm
    Perhaps BO should redesign BE-4 to be FFSC while keeping current chamber pressure which should make it much more reliable.

    Thats quite literally INSANE to even bring up
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 07/12/2023 09:11 pm
    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.


    I have not seen how severe the explosion was, much less what happened exactly. There is any number of ways the engine could have failed. This Space Shuttle Main Engine/RS-25 footage shows us a lot of ways, and resulting in damaged, but still largely intact to full destruction:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzUgq14kBwA

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: mn on 07/12/2023 09:42 pm

    ...

    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.

    From the original story:
    Quote
    the engine detonated about 10 seconds into a test firing
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: whitelancer64 on 07/12/2023 09:43 pm
    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. I don't know if this has changed, but several years ago the Acceptance Test Fire was supposed to be a single full-duration, (approx. 500 seconds) burn of the engine at nominal throttle. It could be significantly shorter. IIRC Merlin and Raptor acceptance tests are about 10 seconds long, but this is to conform to McGregor noise ordinances, something they don't have to deal with at Corn Ranch.

    Acceptance test failures should be expected early in an engine's life. They should become increasingly rare as they get better at building them. Explosions should be very rare, the test stand should have the capability to shut down an engine if it's going out of range. That's also something that will be dialed in as they get more test experience.

    Tory Bruno has some informative Twitter responses about all of this.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 07/12/2023 10:38 pm
    twitter.com/torybruno/status/1678865222604574720

    Quote
    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.

    https://twitter.com/lrocket/status/1679235191003566081

    Quote
    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!
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: WindnWar on 07/12/2023 10:49 pm
    The fact that a previous engine had performance variance large enough to be sent back to figure out why and then deemed normal part to part variation, and that this engine that blew up had already undergone rework after a previous failed test identified some part not up to spec, tells me their QC still needs a lot of work. They've never really mass produced anything at this point and yet they will need to get up to speed fairly quickly at producing a lot of these engines and getting the quality of mass production right. It's one thing to design something, it's quite another to design it in a way it can be built repeatedly without issues and lots of rework. It's too early to tell which way the issues they had here are but it's not a great look.

    It's quite a different thing if it was poor procedures at the stand that caused the failure. This might be flight engine 3 for ULA but it's possible they've built other flight engines for New Glenn. Knowing that would be helpful to put this all in perspective. If this is the first engine to the stands built for flight for either vehicle then they aren't producing them at a quick rate yet. At some point they'll have to go from one engine build in 3-6 months to at least 1 every couple weeks by some point next year.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: ulm_atms on 07/12/2023 11:49 pm
    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.  ???
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 07/13/2023 12:42 am
    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.

    Just to expand slightly on Whitelancer's comment, ATPs are not intended to find design deficiencies, but problems in manufacturing.  So, every design change will go through *some* qual test before ATP, and every delivered part will go through its ATP.  So it could be a part failure, or a failure of parts assembly.  Or multiple low level failures that combined to the final Kaboom.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: meekGee on 07/13/2023 12:54 am
    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.  ???
    If it were SpaceX, it'd be either BE-4.1 or BE.a-4
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Asteroza on 07/13/2023 05:18 am
    Idle speculation time;

    they think they have a good lead on why, and they believe that it shouldn't affect other engines

    this implies something simple and/or dumb happened

    not a software issue

    they did not see the problem in time to prevent the engine blowing up, software couldn't/didn't react fast enough to shut down either

    but it ran for several seconds, so not something like a missing bolt or a temporary cover left in place


    what would you guess?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Yggdrasill on 07/13/2023 05:35 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Asteroza on 07/13/2023 08:13 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: LouScheffer on 07/13/2023 12:10 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: trimeta on 07/13/2023 12:37 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 07/13/2023 01:21 pm
    I'm guessing it's some kind of process failure:

    1. They have identified the proximate cause (but probably not the root cause)
    2. ULA have pretty firmly stated that it doesn't affect FE-1 and 2

    That implies to me that its not a design issue (design may need to become more robust, but still good enough for this flight), which leaves a production issue.  Quality control, assembly error, etc.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: whitelancer64 on 07/13/2023 03:19 pm
    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.

    Tory Bruno said on Twitter that the engine that failed had previously undergone rework. This is very vague, of course, but he clearly stated he is very certain this is a problem with the assembly and not the design.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 07/13/2023 03:40 pm
    From Tory Bruno Vulcan status update press call:

    twitter.com/thenasaman/status/1679514432072761344

    Quote
    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.

    https://twitter.com/thenasaman/status/1679515110350389250

    Quote
    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"
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 07/13/2023 03:44 pm
    I wish we could have a transcript since this sounds like there's a lot of good info here that won't get reported on. I'd like to know of that number of engines how many are flight engines versus development and the qual engines.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 07/13/2023 03:55 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 07/13/2023 04:13 pm
    Actually, we know of three, but since FE-3 had been sent back for rework, that could've taken weeks or even up to a couple months, as was the case with FE-1 last year, and during that time FE-2 was successfully cold tested and then hot fired. And we don't know if they may have tested FE-5 in there as well while FE-3 was undergoing its rework (at Kent?).

    So, that then gets back to my question of what the exact breakdown of the engine number is. We're guessing otherwise and there's no context.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 07/13/2023 04:15 pm
    https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1679524602869956609

    Quote
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Purona on 07/13/2023 06:06 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 07/13/2023 06:33 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 07/13/2023 06:37 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Purona on 07/13/2023 06:55 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 07/13/2023 07:02 pm
    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.

    It was mentioned in the March 2023 Devin Garner video. And yes, for a while when Huntsville was starting up, they sent parts to Kent to get them back up to speed.
    https://youtu.be/rkykk3yjERo
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 07/13/2023 08:56 pm
    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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: catdlr on 07/13/2023 08:59 pm
    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: niwax on 07/13/2023 09:08 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: whitelancer64 on 07/13/2023 09:21 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Asteroza on 07/13/2023 09:56 pm
    Well then, burn through might suggest the burn spot was in a reworked area, indicating something wrong with the repair method or the repair itself from the previous failed ATP run. That would be somewhat easy to identify I suppose.

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 07/13/2023 10:09 pm
    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.

    Eleven in the first views with three combustion chambers, then about after O:40 in, there is a jump cut showing a completely different part of the Regenerative Nozzle room and several more engine bells along with up to two combustion chambers that bring the total count up to 16 nozzles, 5 combustion chambers, plus various other small parts.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Hog on 07/13/2023 10:26 pm
    I'd call it "lots".  These are regen. nozzles.  The local copper thieves would have a conniption if they walked into this joint.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 07/13/2023 11:22 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Eric Hedman on 07/13/2023 11:40 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DrTadd on 07/14/2023 12:18 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 07/14/2023 12:47 am
    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.

    That is a very good point. I agree with the point that it would be nice to have been able to listen in on this news conference to understand the exact context and what the follow up questions were to this.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 07/14/2023 01:47 am
    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.

    First, welcome to NSF!

    Second, there's a ton of info on this forum.  Rather than tell you "trust me, that's not what's been said", go take a read through the Vulcan and BE-4 threads; there's a lot to learn!  Also, if you desire, the L2 forums are great for non-public released info.  Usually not as much as we'd like, but certainly more than has been publicly released, and provides some really good context.

    Have a good one,
    Mike
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 07/14/2023 04:57 am
    https://twitter.com/nasaspaceflight/status/1679684105162616833

    Quote
    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)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 07/14/2023 05:24 am
    Excellent, in-depth article
    https://twitter.com/SpaceflightNow/status/1679629853660725257

    Quote
    ULA outlines path to inaugural Vulcan launch following upper stage issues
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 07/15/2023 08:28 am
    https://twitter.com/w_robinsonsmith/status/1679519884282150914

    Quote
    19/ Bruno adds to that answer, saying the ramp-up has started and they are building ahead of need.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 07/18/2023 05:39 pm
    https://mainenginecutoff.com/podcast/254

    Quote
    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.

    On the BE-4 test stand explosion Eric said that his source told him it was caused by FOD and there’s no engine design issue. So there was a screw-up but doesn’t sound like there’s lasting impact.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Purona on 07/18/2023 07:20 pm
    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?!?!

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Comga on 07/18/2023 07:40 pm
    Excellent, in-depth article
    https://twitter.com/SpaceflightNow/status/1679629853660725257 (https://twitter.com/SpaceflightNow/status/1679629853660725257)

    Quote
    ULA 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”?  ::)
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 07/18/2023 08:00 pm
    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?!?!

    Yep.  I will say this: FOD control is a fundamental manufacturing process.  So while the design may be fine, there's some process somewhere that either needs strengthening, or multiple people need to be fired.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Asteroza on 07/18/2023 10:35 pm
    How is the “wasn’t able to shut the engine down  before..” statement compatible with the idea that the root cause was FOD?

    FOD in propellant got dislodged during the middle of the test (but not at the beginning somehow), got lodged in cooling lines reduced engine cooling, and caused a burn through due to lack of cooling?

    That would be distinct from a hypothesis of a part of the plumbing that got reworked previously, broke free and lodged in the cooling channels. That would be internal so not foreign per se...
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: whitelancer64 on 07/18/2023 11:15 pm
    *yeet tweet*
    Quote
    Quote
    ULA 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”?  ::)

    It's fully compatible. Think about it this way, the test stand not being able to shut down the engine fast enough wasn't the cause of the burn-through failure, the FOD was. Without the FOD the engine would have run fine. Or maybe this is better: The burn-through is a fever, only a symptom of sickness, the FOD is the virus that actually causes you to be sick.

    Curse you, FOD. It's something we have to control where I work, too.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 07/19/2023 07:04 pm
    Origin Story drop, note the nozzle, combustion chamber, jacket lining, and then later a nearly complete liquid oxygen and fuel turbopump assembly:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdGx1NXDBh0
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: AllenB on 07/19/2023 07:14 pm
    Some good views in that video, thanks.

    I found this line interesting: "We're making sure we get things right the first time."
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 07/19/2023 07:32 pm
    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:
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: GWH on 07/20/2023 02:54 am
    From Tory Bruno Vulcan status update press call:

    twitter.com/thenasaman/status/1679514432072761344

    Quote
    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.


    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 found this line interesting: "We're making sure we get things right the first time."

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 07/20/2023 04:08 pm

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: ThatOldJanxSpirit on 07/21/2023 07:21 am

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 07/21/2023 10:58 am

    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.

    Oh, no doubt.  Even if BE-4 hadn't had any issues I think those with skin in the game will have to be reminded to breathe until launch.  Even Falcon launches *still* have that air of anticipation of something going wrong, to me at least.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 08/03/2023 11:50 pm
    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:

    Actually, it is a powerpack that has been installed on an engine. I have made a higher resolution screencap from the video. You can see that the turbopumps are bolted to the gaseous oxygen dome and below the dome, the injector, combustion chamber, and engine nozzle throat assemblies (black arrow pointing at it). Compare to this view of Flight Engine-1 from a similar angle, but wider field of view for context to see that the one at Huntsville is in final assembly:



    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 08/22/2023 10:19 pm
    Look what is sitting next to the BE-3U during that August 3 test firing! A BE-4!

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 08/22/2023 11:50 pm
    Here's that same BE-4 test cell from over a year ago with a dev engine installed for fit checks.

    https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1539299602352025600
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 10/10/2023 08:19 pm
    Cross-posted: BE-4s for Cert-2 finished and in ATP:

    https://twitter.com/Mkanug1/status/1707024461613105423
    Quote
    @torybruno
     how are the flight 2 engines coming along, and are you done with the failure investigation
    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1707059461314208026
    Quote
    In ATP Yes, done
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 10/10/2023 08:31 pm
    That's good news.  Hopefully design changes made between these 2 engines and the 1st set (perhaps zero?) won't require much in the way of additional qualification tests (what we called "delta QT").
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 10/10/2023 10:49 pm
    Tory Bruno has said that there would be no redoing of qualification as the issue was due to workmanship and not a design issue.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 10/10/2023 10:59 pm
    Tory Bruno has said that there would be no redoing of qualification as the issue was due to workmanship and not a design issue.

    Which issue are you referring to?  The one from several months ago that was satisfied?

    All I'm referring to is the normal design process of incorporating improvements in early releases of hardware or software.  In my career (military aircraft development), all changes had to be qualified.  Those parts that were directly affected had to be completely retested; those that weren't but that interfaced with the changed components just had integration tests rerun.

    And obviously, as we got more real-world experience this work tailed off until entire blocks of products were delivered in a typical production fashion.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 10/27/2023 02:16 am
    Cross posting this to here since it is news about the status of the fourth and fifth known flight BE-4s.

    https://twitter.com/SgtSchrodinger/status/1717603172708229449
    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1717643108379222205

    Quote
    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.

    Quote
    Going well.  Booster is built up and ready to receive them.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 11/08/2023 08:16 pm
    Cross posting these links here from the Blue Origin websites since BE-4 is being exclusively shown in the Huntsville video:
    https://www.facebook.com/blueorigin/videos/1270696480283142/

    https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1722310807357186251

    Some screencaps. The blue plate is interesting since this part has been refurbished and is dated back to February of this year over 8 months ago.



    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: harrystranger on 12/12/2023 01:07 pm
    For what it's worth, this is the first sign of testing that I can see in about two months
    https://twitter.com/Harry__Stranger/status/1734565764659892643
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Rakietwawka2021 on 12/12/2023 05:26 pm
    https://youtu.be/QVa1bP92TIg?si=I9Pr8Eubg3KfcHzQ
    Huntsville tour
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 12/12/2023 08:22 pm
    Incredible inside views of Huntsville, and this finally helps to put to rest the "only parts" of BE-4s seen:
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: spacenut on 12/12/2023 08:36 pm
    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. 
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 12/12/2023 09:06 pm
    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.

    They all ready have increased not only thrust, but also specific impulse, according to Tory Bruno in tweets and in interviews.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: matthewkantar on 12/12/2023 09:12 pm
    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: catdlr on 12/12/2023 09:15 pm
    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?

    I got tired of him holding the camera on himself instead of just panning around with voiceover.  Just a few minutes and I gave up.  I could have been a way better video of what's happened in that building.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Rakietwawka2021 on 12/12/2023 10:13 pm
    Do you have any idea what's this?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: matthewkantar on 12/12/2023 11:02 pm
    Do you have any idea what's this?

    Looks like a BE4 combustion chamber?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DanClemmensen on 12/12/2023 11:17 pm
    Do you have any idea what's this?
    It's a Dalek. I think it's a female.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Steve G on 12/13/2023 12:34 am
    Have we seen a video from SpaceX with a similar tour of Raptor production?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: bombyx on 12/13/2023 12:38 am
    Do you have any idea what's this?

     It is a BE-3U combustion chamber.   

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 12/14/2023 07:41 am
    I went through the video and grabbed a few very high-res pics. Also, a huge shout out and thanks to Blue for allowing Titans of CNC Machining to do this. It helps put to rest a lot of nonsense and it gets people excited about what you're doing here.

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: harrystranger on 01/07/2024 12:12 am
    A high resolution satellite image of the BE-4 test stand in Texas that was captured yesterday.
    https://twitter.com/Harry__Stranger/status/1743631549877371225
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Tywin on 01/08/2024 06:40 am
    Congrats!!! Blue team...

    The most powerful methalox engines, in the world are NOW operational!!!!

    What a BEAST BE-4!!!
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Tywin on 01/08/2024 06:54 am
    What a beauty!!!

    https://twitter.com/DJSnM/status/1744258122477371765
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: meekGee on 01/08/2024 11:23 am
    Congrats to BO on powering the Vulcan launch. A lot was riding on this.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: abaddon on 01/08/2024 12:34 pm
    Congratulations on a flawless debut launch to the Blue team!
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Tywin on 01/08/2024 01:31 pm
    Could the BE-4 in the future, have a similar evolution that the Merlin did form the first engine, to Merlin D?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 01/08/2024 01:40 pm
    Could the BE-4 in the future, have a similar evolution that the Merlin did form the first engine, to Merlin D?

    BO had to get a massive amount of data from this flight; I can't fathom them NOT using it to optimize BE-4.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Purona on 01/08/2024 01:55 pm
    Could the BE-4 in the future, have a similar evolution that the Merlin did form the first engine, to Merlin D?

    current plan is for more reusability not performance.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Rakietwawka2021 on 01/08/2024 03:02 pm
    Some time ago, during broadcast from NS flight, one gentleman said that with BE4 Block 2 they were aiming for lifetime of one engine to be 100 fights
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: dglow on 01/08/2024 07:28 pm
    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.

    To the same extent as Merlin? Given the challenges encountered in BE-4's development I think "no" is a wise bet.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: briantipton on 01/08/2024 11:01 pm
    Congrats!!! Blue team...

    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: laszlo on 01/09/2024 11:24 am
    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.

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Tywin on 01/09/2024 01:54 pm
    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...
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: abaddon on 01/09/2024 02:33 pm
    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.

    Regardless, this is not "BE4 vs Raptor" which is in the Starship forum, this is "Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine".  Can we all try harder to keep the ****-measuring contest in the vs thread where it belongs?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: ugordan on 01/09/2024 02:41 pm
    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.

    Nah, don't bother. In his mind BE-4 did all the work on Vulcan all the way to orbit, anyway. Best engines evah.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: ulm_atms on 01/09/2024 02:46 pm
    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?

    IFT-2 has NOTHING to do with BE4.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Tywin on 01/09/2024 02:51 pm
    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?

    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...
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: laszlo on 01/09/2024 03:36 pm
    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...

    Sorry I mentioned it. The intention was to remove booster performance from this BE4 engine discussion thread, not to hijack it into yet another SpaceX über alles thread.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: dglow on 01/09/2024 04:55 pm
    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...
    No, you're the person who brought Merlin to the conversation.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 01/22/2024 12:38 am
    Photo taken at Kent shows that there are still BE-4 or at least BE-4 parts being manufactured there. Take note of what looks to be either a BE-3U or BE-7 nozzle to the far right hand side.

    https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=689389319975422&set=a.500432992204390

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Rakietwawka2021 on 01/22/2024 02:09 pm
    Do u think that they've produced already some BE4 for New Glenn?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 01/22/2024 02:58 pm
    Do u think that they've produced already some BE4 for New Glenn?

    If you mean do they have parts in production for NG, my guess would be "probably".  If you mean completed engines that are ready to undergo acceptance testing, I think the first several engines are slated for Vulcan.  Latest I read is the next pair of flight engines for Vulcan are either in ATP or are getting ready to start ATP.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Rakietwawka2021 on 01/22/2024 08:05 pm
    I think Tory doesn't say us everything. In the video from factory tour, they had 3 engines in final assembly and as we can see they are still producing engine in Kent, so IMO they have at least one engine for New Glenn
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: catdlr on 02/01/2024 10:43 pm
    https://twitter.com/TurbulentSphere/status/1753192847959073029

    https://twitter.com/Alexphysics13/status/1753200248598466917
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: catdlr on 02/01/2024 10:44 pm
    https://twitter.com/_AstroGuy_/status/1753200479725633844
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 02/02/2024 12:11 am
    https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1753198864318841109
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 02/02/2024 01:18 am
    https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1753238508519444763

    Quote
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 02/02/2024 01:46 am
    Screenshot.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 02/02/2024 02:01 am
    A green TEA-TEB moment at ignition. The first I can truly recall seeing so clearly.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Tywin on 02/02/2024 04:51 am
    The Roar of the LION, BE-4 is a massive engine...
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Rakietwawka2021 on 02/02/2024 07:24 am
    Should the nozzle be so red?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Purona on 02/02/2024 09:27 am
    Should the nozzle be so red?

    looks like the reflection of the environment in the metal the actual nozel doesnt change before or after firing.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DrTadd on 02/02/2024 12:37 pm
    Did the vulcan CERT 1 launch use sparklers?

    Could this be a New Glenn re-start BE4 model?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 02/02/2024 01:54 pm
    Did the vulcan CERT 1 launch use sparklers?

    They did, but that didn't have anything to do with engine startup (other than risk abatement for gaseous methane).
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 02/02/2024 02:43 pm
    Should the nozzle be so red?

    The hotfire test occurred late in the afternoon or early evening when the sun was setting, so the lighting conditions changed considerably and give it that reddish cast once the the light from the plume was added in and reflecting off the stand with the sunlight.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DrTadd on 02/02/2024 04:06 pm


    They did, but that didn't have anything to do with engine startup (other than risk abatement for gaseous methane).
    [/quote]

    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?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 02/02/2024 04:48 pm
    Those igniters are, I believe, internal to the engine, not the external "sparklers" that were seen during the ignition sequence on Vulcan's launch.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 02/02/2024 06:39 pm
    Quote
    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?

    Those "sparklers" are there to burn off excess methane just as similar ones were there to burn off excess hydrogen under the Shuttle SSMEs, Delta IV RS-68s, and SLS's RS-25s. They do NOT start internal engine ignition.

    The torch igniters are internal and clearly involve TEA-TAB (the greenish color at start up). The engine is apparently PQE-900, a veteran of over 36 starts and 5000 seconds of accumulated firing time, and underwent a major overhaul between its previous line of work and this pathfinder work here in testing 4670's systems ahead of the rate testing of production BE-4s.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 02/02/2024 06:57 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 02/02/2024 11:28 pm
    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.

    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.

    One of the things about PQE-900 was that it did do restarts as part of the dev program:
    https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1521204214084796416
    Quote
    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

    I'm surprised no one ever caught that bit two years ago.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 02/03/2024 12:01 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 02/03/2024 12:09 am
    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. That's how the SSME/RS-25s worked and those type have to be replaced between flights with new ones. With Vulcan it doesn't matter in the near or long term since its expendable for now, and there's no need for air restart with SMART recovery.

    For New Glenn, they've got to be able to do restarts and this may be an offshoot of the restart igniters used on BE-3 PM and U.

    If I'm right, PQE-900 was not only doing prequal testing for Vulcan, it was doing New Glenn work at the same time!

    Impressive, if that's the case.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 02/03/2024 12:19 am
    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
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Gliderflyer on 02/03/2024 12:48 am
    Yeah, the whole point of torch igniters is that they are reusable. I doubt they were using TEA TEB for ignition, you kinda have to fire hose it in to get stuff to ignite so you end up with a much more sustained green and not just a quick flash. It was probably just some little bit of copper that burnt off of something (it happens).

    Also, while the video made it seem like a short burn, it ran for about a minute.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 02/03/2024 01:01 am
    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

    Which turned out to be very complex for them and they were replaced with... some kind of secret sauce ignition system, though the lox and powerhead still use them.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 02/07/2024 02:59 pm
    Crosspost:

    https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1755259367668998298

    Quote
    Nothing quite as pretty on a Wednesday morning as a brand new shiny #BE4 rolling over to get installed on the next #Vulcan...
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Rakietwawka2021 on 02/07/2024 08:27 pm
    Those ATP tests took looong time
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 02/13/2024 11:54 pm
    Possible BE-4 firing:

    https://twitter.com/TeamRedstone/status/1757490369317499111
    Quote
    The rumble you may hear today, Feb. 13, is the sound of rocket engine hot-fire testing at Redstone Arsenal.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Torlek on 02/21/2024 01:11 am
    Definite BE-4 test tonight. That thing rumbles with a purpose. Feels like a train passing within 10 m from about 10 km out.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 02/21/2024 04:53 pm
    We have confirmation in the Aviation Week and Space Technology article (https://aviationweek.com/aerospace/commercial-space/new-glenn-rolls-launchpad-tanking-test) that BE-4s for New Glenn are in qualification and currently remain on track for installation on the the pathfinder for a hotfire this summer:
    Quote
    “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.”
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Torlek on 02/28/2024 06:30 am
    Seems like they're trying to test them every four days or so on the stand in Huntsville. Test this evening was extremely long, at least eight minutes. At 2 km out you almost need hearing protection and you feel the vibrations in your chest and through the ground.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 03/01/2024 10:17 pm
    New video dropped. It has some of the footage from the Facebook video, but there is more, including historic film footage from the 1960s:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUr18OkIkYM
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 03/04/2024 06:12 pm
    This post provides a good close up view of a BE-4 at Huntsville's final assembly area. Note the detail, especially the outlet and the rest of the assembly hall area in the background:

    https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=712521290995558&set=a.500432992204390

    Quote
    “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

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 03/05/2024 12:50 am
    Interesting details to be sure of the engine, but I think that's Kent, not Huntsville. I'd be interested in knowing when that photo was taken since we've not heard much about Kent for engine production or much of anything else in a very long while.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Rakietwawka2021 on 03/05/2024 06:04 am
    Thye said some time ago that they were still running production in Kent
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 03/05/2024 10:43 am
    That was a long, long time ago, and Tory Bruno stated in a tweet last year that Huntsville was coming up with engines far faster, so the engines for Cert-2 and subsequent missions as well as for New Glenn will be from there as well. This indicates that things are winding down at Kent.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: whitelancer64 on 03/05/2024 03:32 pm
    It is my understanding that development work is still being done at Kent. Huntsville is for mass production. Kent is and will be working on upgrades, design tweaks, etc. and that will flow down to Huntsville.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: lrk on 03/05/2024 03:55 pm
    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 - I wouldn't be surprised if there was a small amount being liberated during start-up transients.  If the chamber wall is too thick in some places, then cooling will be reduced and the wall will erode until it is thin enough for sufficient regenerative cooling.  We saw the same thing sometimes during raptor startup.  So, I wouldn't say it is necessarily a bad sign, or indicative of imminent failure.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: JCRM on 03/05/2024 04:39 pm
    It doesn't take much copper vaporizing to add a green tinge to the flame

    It's more than just a tinge, but definitely transient

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 03/07/2024 09:26 pm
    https://twitter.com/Harry__Stranger/status/1765845111970447787
    Quote
    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)."

    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: dglow on 03/08/2024 09:51 am
    https://twitter.com/Harry__Stranger/status/1765845111970447787
    Quote
    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)."

    What is Blue’s need to use Marshall rather than Van Horn?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: LouScheffer on 03/08/2024 12:04 pm
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: whitelancer64 on 03/08/2024 02:10 pm
    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.

    My understanding is that Stennis Marshall is primarily to be used for acceptance testing of the mass produced engines at their Huntsville factory. This is also a matter of logistics, Stennis Marshall is much closer to Huntsville than Van Horn is, about 10 miles away.

    Thank you Gliderflyer, for the correction.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Gliderflyer on 03/08/2024 04:02 pm
    They don't test at Stennis, they test at Marshall.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 03/08/2024 05:46 pm
    a) They would like to do testing with the engine vertical, a configuration closer to how it will be used.

    While this is true, it is not necessary as the Flight 1 and 2 engines proved on the flight readiness firing last June, and then the Certification-1 launch back in January. The recent video and various prior interviews confirm that they do want to rate test engines vertically as much as possible.

    Quote
    b) They would like at least two physically separate test stands so a single failure can't derail their (and ULA's) whole schedule.

    This is not quite true. There are two physically separate BE-4 test stands cells at Corn Ranch, to maintain development and rate testing while one stand was down for maintenance or because of damage. See the attached photo.

    Quote
    c) Sometimes it's helpful separate by purpose.  Maybe R&D tests at Van Horn, acceptance tests at Marshall.

    Rate testing is the primary purpose of Marshall 4670 per interviews with Tory Bruno and Blue Origin officials, and having it online means that Corn Ranch is able to focus on doing development testing more. Right now, Corn Ranch is doing both rate and qualification testing. Marshall is much closer to both Huntsville and to Decatur, so it means less shipping of engines very long distances. Engines for Vulcan can go immediately to ULA for installation or stock piling.

    4670 is also duel-use: it does both BE-3U and BE-4. It is actually two test stands in one. See second attached image.




    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 03/08/2024 05:50 pm
    When you say "rate" testing, are you talking about acceptance testing, and the rate that engines can be run through ATPs?
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 03/08/2024 09:23 pm
    When you say "rate" testing, are you talking about acceptance testing, and the rate that engines can be run through ATPs?

    Sorry about the misunderstanding as the software term is not 100% the same in usage between the disciplines. The acceptance tests (ATPS) for testing if the product performs to the customer specification, though the term rate testing (software) is not directly applicable, it sometimes gets used interchangeably because it could include elements of stressing a product to see how it handles load. So, depending on the context, "rate testing" might be used loosely to refer to a specific type of performance test conducted during acceptance testing.

    Also, Certain hardware engineering fields might have adopted "rate testing" as a specific term within their own testing procedures. It's possible the term refers to a particular type of performance test relevant to that specific domain.

    Hence the back and forth colloquial usage, and so I probably should have used acceptance testing as the more correct term in this instance since that is what test stand 4670 is supposed to be doing most of the time.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Starshipdown on 03/08/2024 10:20 pm
    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:

    "Now we have test firings going on at Marshall 4670 to inaugurate rate testing of BE-4 and BE-3U"
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Vettedrmr on 03/08/2024 10:58 pm
    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"

    I remember that.  Coming from a background of software control system development and testing, I thought they were referring to some kind of throttle rate testing, or TVC, or something like that.

    RTD, thanks for the explanation. 

    Y'all have a good one,
    Mike
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: DrTadd on 03/18/2024 11:44 am
    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.

    Unless of course its a raptor issue as I read somewhere that raptor does not use a chemical match to start. It manages a pseudo hypergolic start with methane and LOX. I may have that very wrong, but I thats what I recall.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: ugordan on 03/18/2024 11:51 am
    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.
    Title: Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
    Post by: Zed_Noir on 03/20/2024 09:01 pm
    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.

    AIUI the Vulcan can only lite up the BE-4 engines with the aid of ground support equipment at pad SLC-41. It isn't capable of an inflight BE-4 startup, AFAIK.