Author Topic: New Glenn: Blue Origin Announcement of Orbital Rocket Plan  (Read 1075358 times)

Offline harrystranger

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 654
  • Brisbane, Australia
  • Liked: 2742
  • Likes Given: 1841
Re: New Glenn: Blue Origin Announcement of Orbital Rocket Plan
« Reply #2920 on: 12/02/2023 04:25 am »
Excuse my poor understand, but how does the upper stage get fuelled?

If there's no umbilical arm for the second stage and the stages use the same propellant, propellant will be from the first stage, through some pipes in the interstage to the second stage. However, the second stage uses LH2 while the first stage uses LCH4, so I doubt that LH2 will be piped through the first stage to the second stage. A heavily insulated pipe would be required for LH2 due to the -253 C boiling point of LH2. Thus, I believe there will be an umbilical arm for the second stage, that will provide LH2 and LO2 to the stage.

Yes, Steven, and to add, the tower erected at their pad lacks any Umbilical arms and tower plumbing so we don't understand yet where those QD fuel lines may end up.
While the video is now 4 years old, it seems all fueling lines come from the TE. This makes sense as all propellant lines at the pad seem to run to the launch pad itself, and not to the tower.
« Last Edit: 12/02/2023 04:25 am by harrystranger »

Offline catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10671
  • Enthusiast since the Redstones
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 7946
  • Likes Given: 7379
Re: New Glenn: Blue Origin Announcement of Orbital Rocket Plan
« Reply #2921 on: 12/02/2023 04:40 am »
Excuse my poor understand, but how does the upper stage get fuelled?

If there's no umbilical arm for the second stage and the stages use the same propellant, propellant will be from the first stage, through some pipes in the interstage to the second stage. However, the second stage uses LH2 while the first stage uses LCH4, so I doubt that LH2 will be piped through the first stage to the second stage. A heavily insulated pipe would be required for LH2 due to the -253 C boiling point of LH2. Thus, I believe there will be an umbilical arm for the second stage, that will provide LH2 and LO2 to the stage.

Yes, Steven, and to add, the tower erected at their pad lacks any Umbilical arms and tower plumbing so we don't understand yet where those QD fuel lines may end up.
While the video is now 4 years old, it seems all fueling lines come from the TE. This makes sense as all propellant lines at the pad seem to run to the launch pad itself, and not to the tower.


I don't want to say big deal, but SpaceX had the same approach with their original Prototype video. 

SpaceX is now adopting a smart approach by leveraging the expertise of NSF members to develop our own solutions, which they eventually incorporate.   ;)



« Last Edit: 12/02/2023 04:45 am by catdlr »
Tony De La Rosa, ...I'm no Feline Dealer!! I move mountains.  but I'm better known for "I think it's highly sexual." Japanese to English Translation.

Online Rakietwawka2021

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 122
  • Liked: 91
  • Likes Given: 142
Re: New Glenn: Blue Origin Announcement of Orbital Rocket Plan
« Reply #2922 on: 12/02/2023 08:56 am »
Excuse my poor understand, but how does the upper stage get fuelled?

If there's no umbilical arm for the second stage and the stages use the same propellant, propellant will be from the first stage, through some pipes in the interstage to the second stage. However, the second stage uses LH2 while the first stage uses LCH4, so I doubt that LH2 will be piped through the first stage to the second stage. A heavily insulated pipe would be required for LH2 due to the -253 C boiling point of LH2. Thus, I believe there will be an umbilical arm for the second stage, that will provide LH2 and LO2 to the stage.

Yes, Steven, and to add, the tower erected at their pad lacks any Umbilical arms and tower plumbing so we don't understand yet where those QD fuel lines may end up.
While the video is now 4 years old, it seems all fueling lines come from the TE. This makes sense as all propellant lines at the pad seem to run to the launch pad itself, and not to the tower.


There is a good render made by BO showing New Glenn on the launch pad, where you can see all of that plumbings

Offline Robert_the_Doll

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 768
  • Florida
  • Liked: 1227
  • Likes Given: 436
Re: New Glenn: Blue Origin Announcement of Orbital Rocket Plan
« Reply #2923 on: 12/02/2023 10:28 am »
Excuse my poor understand, but how does the upper stage get fueled?

Through the TE as well, same principle in operations as SpaceX uses for fueling the second stage on Falcon 9, etc. Although out of date, this photo of a contractor model for concept of operations gives you an idea of how the TE supports both stages with propellants and services:


Offline Starshipdown

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 237
  • Space
  • Liked: 337
  • Likes Given: 356
Re: New Glenn: Blue Origin Announcement of Orbital Rocket Plan
« Reply #2924 on: 12/02/2023 05:55 pm »
Excuse my poor understand, but how does the upper stage get fuelled?

If there's no umbilical arm for the second stage and the stages use the same propellant, propellant will be from the first stage, through some pipes in the interstage to the second stage. However, the second stage uses LH2 while the first stage uses LCH4, so I doubt that LH2 will be piped through the first stage to the second stage. A heavily insulated pipe would be required for LH2 due to the -253 C boiling point of LH2. Thus, I believe there will be an umbilical arm for the second stage, that will provide LH2 and LO2 to the stage.

Yes, Steven, and to add, the tower erected at their pad lacks any Umbilical arms and tower plumbing so we don't understand yet where those QD fuel lines may end up.
While the video is now 4 years old, it seems all fueling lines come from the TE. This makes sense as all propellant lines at the pad seem to run to the launch pad itself, and not to the tower.


One thing that seems to have changed significantly, is that the launch mount can now stay outdoors, which in turn allows for the Mini-TE as well as Big-TE to come and "dock" with it for services, like propellants, power, and so forth. That lets the hydrolox 2nd stage to be tested independently as well as fired without disrupting other tests and preparations using Big-TE.

Given the investment, I'm guessing the Mini will be repurposed after the initial NG testing is done for the so-called "Jarvis/Clipper" program.
« Last Edit: 12/03/2023 04:45 am by Starshipdown »

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47373
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 80187
  • Likes Given: 36314
Re: New Glenn: Blue Origin Announcement of Orbital Rocket Plan
« Reply #2925 on: 12/06/2023 05:29 pm »
https://twitter.com/spaceoffshore/status/1732452233592119315

Quote
In a public meeting today featuring the below clip (Thanks!) Port Canaveral described Blue Origin's recent delivery as a break-over fixture to lay down the New Glenn booster.


Offline Starshipdown

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 237
  • Space
  • Liked: 337
  • Likes Given: 356
Re: New Glenn: Blue Origin Announcement of Orbital Rocket Plan
« Reply #2926 on: 12/06/2023 08:30 pm »
Is this breakover rig for the dock there when the 1st stage is offloaded from a barge after landing or for inside the factory?

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47373
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 80187
  • Likes Given: 36314
Re: New Glenn: Blue Origin Announcement of Orbital Rocket Plan
« Reply #2927 on: 12/13/2023 06:28 am »
https://twitter.com/stephenclark1/status/1734765415811764439

Quote
Blue Origin sure seems confident it will launch New Glenn in 2024.

https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/12/blue-origin-sure-seems-confident-it-will-launch-new-glenn-in-2024/

Quote
Blue Origin sure seems confident it will launch New Glenn in 2024
Does Jeff Bezos's heavy-lift rocket really have a shot at launching next year?

by Stephen Clark - Dec 13, 2023 2:25am GMT

For the first time, it's starting to feel like Jeff Bezos's space company, Blue Origin, might have a shot at launching its long-delayed New Glenn rocket within the next 12 months.

Of course, there's a lot for Blue Origin to test and validate before New Glenn is ready to fly.

I wonder if Blue is as confident as ULA were about Vulcan launching in 2023?

Article has some detail on Blue’s progress and planned test campaign, including:

Quote
Two Blue Origin officials told Ars that the company is not currently planning to perform a full-scale test-firing of an entire New Glenn booster, with all seven of its BE-4 engines, before the inaugural launch.


Offline Purona

  • Member
  • Posts: 96
  • Liked: 81
  • Likes Given: 28
Re: New Glenn: Blue Origin Announcement of Orbital Rocket Plan
« Reply #2928 on: 12/13/2023 10:33 am »
i have more confidence that Blue Origin is launching in 2024 considering they went out of their way to slow down development to that year due to not getting NSSL

Very interesting that there wont be a full scale test firing as of today
« Last Edit: 12/13/2023 11:31 am by Purona »

Online LouScheffer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3368
  • Liked: 6067
  • Likes Given: 828
Re: New Glenn: Blue Origin Announcement of Orbital Rocket Plan
« Reply #2929 on: 12/13/2023 12:13 pm »
Stephen Clark says:
Quote
Two Blue Origin officials told Ars that the company is not currently planning to perform a full-scale test-firing of an entire New Glenn booster, with all seven of its BE-4 engines, before the inaugural launch.
I'm quite skeptical of the interpretation that there will be no 7-engine test at all. I could certainly believe there will be no full-duration test of the stage - Vulcan, for example, is doing the same, as does Starship.   But it's hard to believe there will be no 7-engine static fire.  This would imply launching the rocket with an engine and plumbing configuration that has never been tried, not even once.  That would be a bold move, and a serious gamble, by a company not known for boldness or risk-taking.  It's so out of character that I don't find it credible.

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5340
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 4182
  • Likes Given: 1683
Re: New Glenn: Blue Origin Announcement of Orbital Rocket Plan
« Reply #2930 on: 12/13/2023 01:13 pm »
Stephen Clark says:
Quote
Two Blue Origin officials told Ars that the company is not currently planning to perform a full-scale test-firing of an entire New Glenn booster, with all seven of its BE-4 engines, before the inaugural launch.
I'm quite skeptical of the interpretation that there will be no 7-engine test at all. I could certainly believe there will be no full-duration test of the stage - Vulcan, for example, is doing the same, as does Starship.   But it's hard to believe there will be no 7-engine static fire.  This would imply launching the rocket with an engine and plumbing configuration that has never been tried, not even once.  That would be a bold move, and a serious gamble, by a company not known for boldness or risk-taking.  It's so out of character that I don't find it credible.
That makes sense. Maybe this hinges on the meaning of "full scale". Perhaps the "BO officials" were just ruling out a full-throttle, full-time test, but did not intend to rule out a short half-throttle test.

How would they even test the GSE if they don't do some sort of 7-engine static fire?

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12039
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7298
  • Likes Given: 3733
Re: New Glenn: Blue Origin Announcement of Orbital Rocket Plan
« Reply #2931 on: 12/13/2023 01:26 pm »
How would they even test the GSE if they don't do some sort of 7-engine static fire?

I agree. There is more to a full blown static fire than just the engines. There is literally no way to test the GSE systems without the full static fire. To launch without the static fire is more than a bold gamble. In my opinion it is stupid. If they attempt to launch without it I fear a catastrophic failure - a completely unnecessary failure. The odds are against them.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Online trimeta

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1661
  • Kansas City, MO
  • Liked: 2123
  • Likes Given: 57
Re: New Glenn: Blue Origin Announcement of Orbital Rocket Plan
« Reply #2932 on: 12/13/2023 02:20 pm »
How would they even test the GSE if they don't do some sort of 7-engine static fire?

I agree. There is more to a full blown static fire than just the engines. There is literally no way to test the GSE systems without the full static fire. To launch without the static fire is more than a bold gamble. In my opinion it is stupid. If they attempt to launch without it I fear a catastrophic failure - a completely unnecessary failure. The odds are against them.
I wouldn't necessarily expect a catastrophic failure, but rather the first few launch attempts turning into static fires when aborts are called during the countdown due to issues that would have been caught during a proper static fire.

And I wouldn't call this out of character for Blue Origin. After all, their computer simulations and component-level tests say everything should work, so they don't need any other sort of real-world testing; what they have is enough to give them confidence that everything will work perfectly the first time.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39250
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25202
  • Likes Given: 12104
Re: New Glenn: Blue Origin Announcement of Orbital Rocket Plan
« Reply #2933 on: 12/13/2023 02:30 pm »
How would they even test the GSE if they don't do some sort of 7-engine static fire?

I agree. There is more to a full blown static fire than just the engines. There is literally no way to test the GSE systems without the full static fire. To launch without the static fire is more than a bold gamble. In my opinion it is stupid. If they attempt to launch without it I fear a catastrophic failure - a completely unnecessary failure. The odds are against them.
I wouldn't necessarily expect a catastrophic failure, but rather the first few launch attempts turning into static fires when aborts are called during the countdown due to issues that would have been caught during a proper static fire.

And I wouldn't call this out of character for Blue Origin. After all, their computer simulations and component-level tests say everything should work, so they don't need any other sort of real-world testing; what they have is enough to give them confidence that everything will work perfectly the first time.
Huh? What projects have they even done that worked first time?

The first kerosene-based New Shepard failed its first supersonic flight attempt.

I guess hydrolox New Shepard launched, but the booster landing failed in spite being merely suborbital (OG Grasshopper never failed because it was only suborbital so could be built like a tank… F9RDev1 was built like regular F9 boosters which need orbit-class margins and performance, less battleship style construction).

BE-4 was very, very late (in spite of Blue’s PR) and had a bunch of issues as well.

And what else, except for some earlier hopper vehicles from like 15-20 years ago that we’re even lower performance?

Where does this assumption that they make stuff that works first time come from? I mean I HOPE it works first time given they’re putting a real payload on the first launch and given how long it has taken, but hope is not a strategy, certainly no grounds for assuming.
« Last Edit: 12/13/2023 02:32 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5340
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 4182
  • Likes Given: 1683
Re: New Glenn: Blue Origin Announcement of Orbital Rocket Plan
« Reply #2934 on: 12/13/2023 02:33 pm »
How would they even test the GSE if they don't do some sort of 7-engine static fire?

I agree. There is more to a full blown static fire than just the engines. There is literally no way to test the GSE systems without the full static fire. To launch without the static fire is more than a bold gamble. In my opinion it is stupid. If they attempt to launch without it I fear a catastrophic failure - a completely unnecessary failure. The odds are against them.
I wouldn't necessarily expect a catastrophic failure, but rather the first few launch attempts turning into static fires when aborts are called during the countdown due to issues that would have been caught during a proper static fire.

And I wouldn't call this out of character for Blue Origin. After all, their computer simulations and component-level tests say everything should work, so they don't need any other sort of real-world testing; what they have is enough to give them confidence that everything will work perfectly the first time.
Until recently Range availability has not been an issue, but we seem to now need to worry about it as the overall launch rate increases. Are there going to be consequences when a Launch is scrubbed when the scrub was avoidable? A scrubbed NG launch might consume a launch slot that could have been used by another LV.

Online trimeta

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1661
  • Kansas City, MO
  • Liked: 2123
  • Likes Given: 57
Re: New Glenn: Blue Origin Announcement of Orbital Rocket Plan
« Reply #2935 on: 12/13/2023 02:46 pm »
How would they even test the GSE if they don't do some sort of 7-engine static fire?

I agree. There is more to a full blown static fire than just the engines. There is literally no way to test the GSE systems without the full static fire. To launch without the static fire is more than a bold gamble. In my opinion it is stupid. If they attempt to launch without it I fear a catastrophic failure - a completely unnecessary failure. The odds are against them.
I wouldn't necessarily expect a catastrophic failure, but rather the first few launch attempts turning into static fires when aborts are called during the countdown due to issues that would have been caught during a proper static fire.

And I wouldn't call this out of character for Blue Origin. After all, their computer simulations and component-level tests say everything should work, so they don't need any other sort of real-world testing; what they have is enough to give them confidence that everything will work perfectly the first time.
Huh? What projects have they even done that worked first time?

The first kerosene-based New Shepard failed its first supersonic flight attempt.

I guess hydrolox New Shepard launched, but the booster landing failed in spite being merely suborbital (OG Grasshopper never failed because it was only suborbital so could be built like a tank… F9RDev1 was built like regular F9 boosters which need orbit-class margins and performance, less battleship style construction).

BE-4 was very, very late (in spite of Blue’s PR) and had a bunch of issues as well.

And what else, except for some earlier hopper vehicles from like 15-20 years ago that we’re even lower performance?

Where does this assumption that they make stuff that works first time come from? I mean I HOPE it works first time given they’re putting a real payload on the first launch and given how long it has taken, but hope is not a strategy, certainly no grounds for assuming.
I'm not saying that it will work the first time, I'm saying that Blue Origin themselves assume it will. I mean, that's what "we're not going to perform a static fire" would imply. And in general, what their Old Space ethos embodies: "we're trained NASA engineers, doing things according to procedures which have been refined for decades; once we've simulated every possible scenario, what could go wrong?"

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39250
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25202
  • Likes Given: 12104
Re: New Glenn: Blue Origin Announcement of Orbital Rocket Plan
« Reply #2936 on: 12/13/2023 02:52 pm »
Hubris, then. As even NASA did the Green Fire (in spite of some wanting to skip it to maintain schedule).

Honestly, I think they will do a static fire. They would absolutely be nuts, even by OldSpace standards, to insist on a launch without a static fire. That is almost N-1 level lack of testing.
« Last Edit: 12/13/2023 02:54 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline GWH

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1741
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1924
  • Likes Given: 1277
Re: New Glenn: Blue Origin Announcement of Orbital Rocket Plan
« Reply #2937 on: 12/13/2023 02:57 pm »
And I wouldn't call this out of character for Blue Origin. After all, their computer simulations and component-level tests say everything should work, so they don't need any other sort of real-world testing; what they have is enough to give them confidence that everything will work perfectly the first time.

This exactly.  They have shown a tendency to rely on theory and simulation far more than real world data and incremental testing with consistency.

While granted no one is camped outside Van Horn to capture every engine test it does seem like there are less than certain other engines. Early on in the development of BE-4 they quickly ran out of hardware. Clearly there are no hoppers or other test development vehicles. No boiler plate stages to test GSE (yet?).

Skipping a static fire seems really foolish. Even SLS with it's slow methodical testing didn't pass it's green run the first time. One might even point to the fairly recent BE-3 failure in flight due to an untested change...

Hopefully their sims are really accurate on the start up sequence of those 7x550,000 lb engines!

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5340
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 4182
  • Likes Given: 1683
Re: New Glenn: Blue Origin Announcement of Orbital Rocket Plan
« Reply #2938 on: 12/13/2023 03:04 pm »
Hubris, then. As even NASA did the Green Fire (in spite of some wanting to skip it to maintain schedule).

Honestly, I think they will do a static fire. They would absolutely be nuts, even by OldSpace standards, to insist on a launch without a static fire. That is almost N-1 level lack of testing.
I thought OldSpace generally did static fires whenever it was technically feasible?   It's not feasible for SRBs on the pad or for odd configurations like Shuttle or SLS, and in those cases they adapt the tests to the reality, yes?   I think we can consider ULA to be OldSpace, and they did a static fire for Vulcan on the pad.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39250
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25202
  • Likes Given: 12104
Re: New Glenn: Blue Origin Announcement of Orbital Rocket Plan
« Reply #2939 on: 12/13/2023 03:10 pm »
Hubris, then. As even NASA did the Green Fire (in spite of some wanting to skip it to maintain schedule).

Honestly, I think they will do a static fire. They would absolutely be nuts, even by OldSpace standards, to insist on a launch without a static fire. That is almost N-1 level lack of testing.
I thought OldSpace generally did static fires whenever it was technically feasible?   It's not feasible for SRBs on the pad or for odd configurations like Shuttle or SLS, and in those cases they adapt the tests to the reality, yes?   I think we can consider ULA to be OldSpace, and they did a static fire for Vulcan on the pad.

ULA is, like, *good* oldspace ("Raptor Space" I heard one ULA person say one time). I guess the idea Trimeta is talking about is a sort of cariacature of Oldspace hubris, highlighted by Boeing and others for some projects, of skipping physical testing and relying on "process" (although I'm sort of thinking of early Starliner here, a fixed-price contract... NASA would likely insist on testing if it were cost plus, which Boeing ended up having to do anyway due to the Starliner problems).

SpaceX has tended to do more physical testing than Oldspace (especially when developing the F9 after experiencing the 3 Falcon 1 failures, they did a ton of full duration booster test fires, etc, to acceptance test the stages), but yeah. I think the industry standard is to do *some* amount of physical testing like static fires, even if not as extreme as what SpaceX has sometimes done (and had to skip for the Super Heavy booster as they couldn't feasibly do a full duration, full thrust static fire on the launch pad and couldn't transport it too and from McGregor, which also would've had challenges test firing it... although SpaceX is also not putting a real payload on the first Starship flight... the closest thing would be the CFM orbital propellant transfer test, but that just repurposes the existing hardware).
« Last Edit: 12/13/2023 03:12 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1