Quote from: Ludus on 09/17/2016 07:22 amIf New Armstrong comes with a Lunar Colonial Transport would that be hydrogen/LOX? If it was optimized for Lunar vs Mars ISRU the relative difficulty of finding carbon to make Methane might suggest that.Maybe Methalox first stage (for Earth launches) but Hydrolox everything else (the first stage doesn't go to Luna and doesn't need to be refueled there)
If New Armstrong comes with a Lunar Colonial Transport would that be hydrogen/LOX? If it was optimized for Lunar vs Mars ISRU the relative difficulty of finding carbon to make Methane might suggest that.
Quote from: oldAtlas_Eguy on 09/17/2016 02:19 amQuote from: Robotbeat on 09/17/2016 02:09 amNot millions.Bezos wants millions, so price has to be cheaper.Which means I bet New Armstrong will be fully reusable. Otherwise, no real point.A direct competitor in price and payload to the MCT. A 12-15m diameter payload of 100+mt for <$100M per flight. $500/kg<[NA $/kg to LEO]<$1,000/kgHe's one generation behind with New Glenn coming out about the same time as BFR/MCT and New Armstrong after BFR has been launching for several years. He's the tortoise that has plenty of capital without catering to commercial markets he doesn't care for....
Quote from: Robotbeat on 09/17/2016 02:09 amNot millions.Bezos wants millions, so price has to be cheaper.Which means I bet New Armstrong will be fully reusable. Otherwise, no real point.A direct competitor in price and payload to the MCT. A 12-15m diameter payload of 100+mt for <$100M per flight. $500/kg<[NA $/kg to LEO]<$1,000/kg
Not millions.Bezos wants millions, so price has to be cheaper.Which means I bet New Armstrong will be fully reusable. Otherwise, no real point.
Well-placed, yes, but still a generation behind. Challenge will be testing orbital launch and recovery with such a large vehicle. Maybe rockets want to be bigger, but bigger is also more expensive to develop and test.The competition will have a generation (or several) of experience before NG flies -- this can obviously be overcome, but not automatic no matter how well-placed the vehicle.
Quote from: AncientU on 09/18/2016 01:18 pmWell-placed, yes, but still a generation behind. Challenge will be testing orbital launch and recovery with such a large vehicle. Maybe rockets want to be bigger, but bigger is also more expensive to develop and test.The competition will have a generation (or several) of experience before NG flies -- this can obviously be overcome, but not automatic no matter how well-placed the vehicle.You are talking about SpaceX, right?
Quote from: Robotbeat on 09/15/2016 02:57 amAlso, a SpaceX booster would have no problem reaching orbit by itself and payload. SSTO, though expendable.SSTO has no point unless you are reusable or really love being inefficient.
Also, a SpaceX booster would have no problem reaching orbit by itself and payload. SSTO, though expendable.
I'd bet strongly against a triple core New Armstrong for two reasons:1. Their goal is operational re-usability. Complex triple core systems don't help that. More complex recovery, more engines, more points of failure etc.2. Lowering development costs is not as big a concern for Blue Origin. They're sufficiently funded by Bezos not to have to cut corners. From public comments their business philosophy seems to be 'Do it right, rather than do it right now'.Speculating,New Armstrong will probably be like New Glenn, but scaled up to at least 10 meters with new 'BE-6' engines. The first two stages will be reusable, return to launch site. An optional third stage will be a 'BE-5' powered reusable lunar lander/spaceship that can be refueled from a lunar depot created in the Blue Moon program. The notional BE-5 would be a higher efficiency hydrolox engine to succeed the BE-3. Similarly, BE-6 would be an F1 class full-flow staged combustion methalox engine intended to replace BE-4. Rather than use dozens of engines like BFR, Blue Origin will simply invest adequate resources in developing larger engines.
A larger single core LV is not that difficult for Blue, especially if it is scaled version of flight proven NG.Not sure of engine choices, but there is nothing wrong with using more BE4, especially if they are flight proven. If they mass producing BE4 for Vulcan and NG then maybe cheapest option. I'd fly with BE4 while working on new larger engine.I think it will be 3-5 times size and with reuseable 2nd stage. To truly reduce costs, LEO to BLEO will need fully reuseable OTV that is refuelled in LEO and BLEO destination. Something like ULA ACES.
Yes - I doubt we'll ever see a 3-core New Armstrong. Blue Origin would have been paying close attention to the difficulties surrounding Falcon Heavy, not to mention Delta IV-Heavy. If they wanted to upgrade New Armstrong's capabilities we could expect the traditional engine and structural upgrades to achieve better performance.And if they were ever desperate - redesign the main booster stage to accommodate a cluster of strap-on, expendable solid boosters, such as the Orbital-ATK GEM-60 or 63XL that Vulcan is going to use.