I agree that BO are unlikely to go down the BFR many engine route for NA as they have the financial resources to dev. F-1 class FFSC engines which SpaceX don't. BFR is an example of HLLV dev. on a shoestring.
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.
To truly reduce costs, LEO to BLEO will need fully reuseable OTV that is refuelled in LEO and BLEO destination. Something like ULA ACES.
Quote from: DJPledger on 01/29/2018 09:48 amQuote from: TrevorMonty on 01/29/2018 07:06 amA 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. BE-4 ISP sucks if you want BEO heavy lifting which NA will be designed for. Just go with all new FFSC Methalox engine for NA which will give better ISP and have greater thrust density to keep core dia. reasonable. Perhaps BO should get NASA to partially fund new large FFSC engine dev. by offering it to power Block 2 SLS advanced boosters. New engine for NA 3-5 x thrust of BE-4 to keep engine no. commonality with NG.What is BE-4's ISP?
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 01/29/2018 07:06 amA 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. BE-4 ISP sucks if you want BEO heavy lifting which NA will be designed for. Just go with all new FFSC Methalox engine for NA which will give better ISP and have greater thrust density to keep core dia. reasonable. Perhaps BO should get NASA to partially fund new large FFSC engine dev. by offering it to power Block 2 SLS advanced boosters. New engine for NA 3-5 x thrust of BE-4 to keep engine no. commonality with NG.
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.
If they were to use a booster on NG I think a shortened SLS booster would be a closer fit.
2)Large LEO crew vehicle.3) Smaller crew vehicle with 3rd stage for lunar mission.
Quote from: MATTBLAK on 01/29/2018 05:13 amYes - 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.If they were to use a booster on NG I think a shortened SLS booster would be a closer fit.Quote from: DJPledger on 01/29/2018 09:48 amQuote from: TrevorMonty on 01/29/2018 07:06 amA 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. BE-4 ISP sucks if you want BEO heavy lifting which NA will be designed for. Just go with all new FFSC Methalox engine for NA which will give better ISP and have greater thrust density to keep core dia. reasonable. Perhaps BO should get NASA to partially fund new large FFSC engine dev. by offering it to power Block 2 SLS advanced boosters. New engine for NA 3-5 x thrust of BE-4 to keep engine no. commonality with NG.NA could end up using an all new second stage with a larger hydrogen engine maybe something similar to IPD.This would not kill reusability or ISRU esp since BO seems more interested in the Moon and asteroids than Mars and there hydrogen makes more sense.
Would cost a lot of money to redesign and retest the SLS SRBs. Better to just buy off-the-shelf SRM's like the GEM-63XL's which produce about 400,000 pounds thrust (1.78 meganewtons) each at liftoff.
The theme for NA is moon rocket. Another BFR would be boring, even if it's original size.I want to see Blue try something different on NA, or on a NG evolution.
On the New Armstrong side I still like multi core configurations. If you count full stage length SRB just about everyone has them. Not going to bet on it though. Even the moon theme does not really help. Is Blue after a single launch moon rocket? Or is it about throwing large mass and/or volume into a convenient orbit and them move on from there after a bit of docking? Is there a large variation in payloads?Does it have to be full reuse from day one or is partial reuse on some parts feasible?
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.
More like, Bezos would be all "hey, it costs MORE money to make it single core, but it's more 'ideal'? where do I sign!?"No way New Armstrong will be triple core. I'll make you a bet with odds in your favor.