New Glenn 9x4 discussion

[JEF_300]

If Blue Origin makes an 8.4m fairing for the upgraded New Glenn it could replace the SLS Block 1B cargo.

I welcome any heavy lifter able to loft 8.4 meter spin cast mirror telescopes.  Such mirrors only cost $30 million to make.  The folding Beryllium marvel that is the Webb telescope was only made as such due to limitations on mass and fairing size.  (Webb took forever to make and was ruinously costly.)  We would need to greatly expand facilities for production of spin cast mirrors, but in the near future it should become possible to mass produce relatively cheap Hubble style space telescopes with 3.5x the resolution and 12.25x the light gathering power of Hubble: https://mirrorlab.arizona.edu/

(nit: an 8.4 m fairing will not hold an 8.4 m mirror.)
Figure out a way to spin-cast in zero g, or perhaps spin-cast on the Moon.

Would need to be 8.5m to 9m PLF depending upon the outer diameter of the structure containing the mirror.

The new wider fairing is gonna be 8.7m guys. That's in literally the very first post of the thread.

[pochimax]

If Blue Origin makes an 8.4m fairing for the upgraded New Glenn it could replace the SLS Block 1B cargo.

I welcome any heavy lifter able to loft 8.4 meter spin cast mirror telescopes.  Such mirrors only cost $30 million to make.  The folding Beryllium marvel that is the Webb telescope was only made as such due to limitations on mass and fairing size.  (Webb took forever to make and was ruinously costly.)  We would need to greatly expand facilities for production of spin cast mirrors, but in the near future it should become possible to mass produce relatively cheap Hubble style space telescopes with 3.5x the resolution and 12.25x the light gathering power of Hubble: https://mirrorlab.arizona.edu/

Beryllium was chosen primarily because of its extreme thermal stability, for the temperatures at which an infrared telescope like Webb operates.

https://www.asminternational.org/results/-/journal_content/56/10192/17977653/NEWS/

[Starship Trooper]

If Blue Origin makes an 8.4m fairing for the upgraded New Glenn it could replace the SLS Block 1B cargo.

I welcome any heavy lifter able to loft 8.4 meter spin cast mirror telescopes.  Such mirrors only cost $30 million to make.  The folding Beryllium marvel that is the Webb telescope was only made as such due to limitations on mass and fairing size.  (Webb took forever to make and was ruinously costly.)  We would need to greatly expand facilities for production of spin cast mirrors, but in the near future it should become possible to mass produce relatively cheap Hubble style space telescopes with 3.5x the resolution and 12.25x the light gathering power of Hubble: https://mirrorlab.arizona.edu/

Beryllium was chosen primarily because of its extreme thermal stability, for the temperatures at which an infrared telescope like Webb operates.

https://www.asminternational.org/results/-/journal_content/56/10192/17977653/NEWS/

I forgot that part, the pathway to Webb was so long with all of the scheduled launch delays extending to 14 years, not to mention a tenfold increase in cost.  The reasons for delays were many, but the risks of the folding segmented mirror (will it open properly, can it be aligned properly?) were the cause of much angst and equivocation.  Well, with larger diameter heavy lifters the next cryogenic far IR telescope can be made properly in one piece and launched whole, with much less mission risk.

[russianhalo117]

If Blue Origin makes an 8.4m fairing for the upgraded New Glenn it could replace the SLS Block 1B cargo.

I welcome any heavy lifter able to loft 8.4 meter spin cast mirror telescopes.  Such mirrors only cost $30 million to make.  The folding Beryllium marvel that is the Webb telescope was only made as such due to limitations on mass and fairing size.  (Webb took forever to make and was ruinously costly.)  We would need to greatly expand facilities for production of spin cast mirrors, but in the near future it should become possible to mass produce relatively cheap Hubble style space telescopes with 3.5x the resolution and 12.25x the light gathering power of Hubble: https://mirrorlab.arizona.edu/

(nit: an 8.4 m fairing will not hold an 8.4 m mirror.)
Figure out a way to spin-cast in zero g, or perhaps spin-cast on the Moon.

Would need to be 8.5m to 9m PLF depending upon the outer diameter of the structure containing the mirror.

The new wider fairing is gonna be 8.7m guys. That's in literally the very first post of the thread.

We know that.

[StraumliBlight]

Grounds Systems Cryogenic Fluids Design Engineer position spotted on Reddit.

This role supports the development and operations of New Glenn's 2nd Generation launch vehicle. You will be a key contributor to developing launch sites dedicated to this new, highly capable launch system that leverages the success of the current generation.

Blue Origin is dedicated to building a road to space and are seeking a Level 3 Cryogenic Fluids Engineer to join our team. This position involves developing and implementing fluid systems for our new launch site and follow-on aerospace projects. The ideal candidate will have experience in fluids and thermal systems, engineering principles, and the ability to work in a fast pace, collaborative environment. This position will directly impact the history of space exploration and will require your dedicated commitment and detailed attention towards safe and repeatable spaceflight.

Its based in Florida so might indicate that the first 9x4 pad will be at LC-12 and not Vandenberg.

[StarSailor]

Grounds Systems Cryogenic Fluids Design Engineer position spotted on Reddit.

This role supports the development and operations of New Glenn's 2nd Generation launch vehicle. You will be a key contributor to developing launch sites dedicated to this new, highly capable launch system that leverages the success of the current generation.

Blue Origin is dedicated to building a road to space and are seeking a Level 3 Cryogenic Fluids Engineer to join our team. This position involves developing and implementing fluid systems for our new launch site and follow-on aerospace projects. The ideal candidate will have experience in fluids and thermal systems, engineering principles, and the ability to work in a fast pace, collaborative environment. This position will directly impact the history of space exploration and will require your dedicated commitment and detailed attention towards safe and repeatable spaceflight.

Its based in Florida so might indicate that the first 9x4 pad will be at LC-12 and not Vandenberg.

As is I think LC-12 is a bit too close to LC-13. Despite the companies leasing LC-13 it likely being vaporware technically it is leased.   

However if they removed the test facilities from LC-11 and formally closed/demolished it as part of Space Force approved reconfiguration then you might be able to extend LC-12 site further south right up to the edge of the canal and have both enough space between it and LC-13 to the north and LC-36 to the south.  Alternatively you could close LC-12 and push LC-11 a bit northward.

Regardless of where it goes some consolidated development plan for CCSFS needs to happen.  It has two dozen inactive launch sites but they were all designed for small rockets and infrequent use so many are quite close together.    Demolishing and formally closing some to improve spacing and increasing the footprint of others would make CCSFS more useful to growing commercial launch providers.  The SF doesn't even need to do the conversions just create a unified approved plan and allow launch providers to do the work as part of a lease agreement.

At the same time combine KSC with CCSFS. You can keep the name Kennedy ("Kennedy Space Force Station") for historical reasons if you want.   The distinction between NASA facilities and military facilities is long gone at this point anyways.  I know NASA will complain but it doesn't really make sense anymore.

[jstrotha0975]

Would NG 9x4 be able to put the Orion spacecraft into TLI?

[StarSailor]

Would NG 9x4 be able to put the Orion spacecraft into TLI?

Short answer is BO hasn't provided detailed enough specs to say for certain but maybe with some conversion.

Longer answer is  BO reports TLI is >20t.  How much greater remains to be seen.  Orion w/ ESM is 26.5t in orbit, 33.4t on the pad.   The difference is the utterly massive LAS. The LAS is discarded part way to orbit so neither the 26.5t or 33.4t is directly comparable to a rocket's rated TLI performance.  The comparable payload mass would be somewhere between those to values so lets say 28t. However unless BO is sandbagging the TLI performance with >20t it likely would require some modification of Orion.

The simplest route would be to only lift Orion to LEO with a 7x2 and then use a version of the cislunar transporter to push Orion to lunar orbit.  If you are doing distributed launch anyways the launch vehicle doesn't need to send the payload directly to the moon.

If you wanted to go direct and Orion was slightly too heavy there are a couple ways around that.  The LAS is so comically oversized because Orion was originally going to be on Ares I.   When it moved from Area I to SLS they never redesigned the system in order <snicker> save money and time. A redesigned LAS for anything not as stupid as launching crew on top of a solid rocket motor would be less mass.  The abort system wouldn't need as much acceleration and total impulse. 

The LAS for Ares I had to ensure it could outrun the solid rocket motor even at max acceleration.  It also had to ensure the Orion spacecraft was thrown way down range of the damaged SRB otherwise as it deployed parachutes burning fragments from the SRB would rain down on it, ignite the chutes, and doom the crew.  How much mass you could save I don't know but that would be the place to start.

Another option would be using a hypothetical third stage for NG 9x4 to improve TLI performance.  If New Glenn 9x4 can lift 70t to LEO then it could lift an Orion (w/ ESM) and a >40t third stage to LEO.  A 40t third stage would have the needed impulse to make the TLI burn from LEO.

An even better option would be to do that and convert Orion to use a pusher abort mechanism such as the ones used by Dragon 2 and Starliner in a redesigned service module.  Then use any excess mass savings to increase the propellant mass which would allow Orion to reach LLO for example and have better propulsive abort options on the way to the moon.

[jstrotha0975]

What's the plan with NG 7x2? Will it be retired once 9x4 flies or will BO use both NG rockets at the same time?

[StraumliBlight]

What's the plan with NG 7x2? Will it be retired once 9x4 flies or will BO use both NG rockets at the same time?

There's a r/BlueOrigin thread about that question.

Blue will likely maximise the ROI on the 7 engine NG boosters before expending so there may be a significant overlap of time where both boosters are used. Perhaps the better question is, will they standardise on a common 2nd stage or keep both variants before a reusable second stage is introduced.

[Brigantine]

What's the plan with NG 7x2? Will it be retired once 9x4 flies or will BO use both NG rockets at the same time?

If 9x4 and 9x2 need to use the VAB, Mobile Launcher 2 and LC-39B (per recent EJ Flame Trench speculation) then maybe 7x2 stays around as a cost-effective high-cadence moderately-heavy-lift workhorse.

If 9x4 gets horizontal integration and a transporter-erector, then my guess was they'll stop producing new 7s and eventually you'll only have a choice of 9x4 or 9x2.

(when they re-use upper stages it makes more sense to standardize to 1 type of upper stage IMO - Do SpaceX still make stubby nozzle F9 upper stages to save a bit of metal from being expended?)

[Jim]

If 9x4 and 9x2 need to use the VAB, Mobile Launcher 2 and LC-39B (per recent EJ Flame Trench speculation) then maybe 7x2 stays around as a cost-effective high-cadence moderately-heavy-lift workhorse.

 9x4 and 9x2 won't use the VAB, Mobile Launcher 2 and LC-39B, because then they won't be cost effective.

[Jim]

At the same time combine KSC with CCSFS.

There is no need to do that.  Commercial users can lease land from NASA.  See LC-49 discussions.

The distinction between NASA facilities and military facilities is long gone at this point anyways.

that would be wrong.

[Jim]

Grounds Systems Cryogenic Fluids Design Engineer position spotted on Reddit.

This role supports the development and operations of New Glenn's 2nd Generation launch vehicle. You will be a key contributor to developing launch sites dedicated to this new, highly capable launch system that leverages the success of the current generation.

Blue Origin is dedicated to building a road to space and are seeking a Level 3 Cryogenic Fluids Engineer to join our team. This position involves developing and implementing fluid systems for our new launch site and follow-on aerospace projects. The ideal candidate will have experience in fluids and thermal systems, engineering principles, and the ability to work in a fast pace, collaborative environment. This position will directly impact the history of space exploration and will require your dedicated commitment and detailed attention towards safe and repeatable spaceflight.

Its based in Florida so might indicate that the first 9x4 pad will be at LC-12 and not Vandenberg.

LC-46?

[DanClemmensen]

If 9x4 and 9x2 need to use the VAB, Mobile Launcher 2 and LC-39B (per recent EJ Flame Trench speculation) then maybe 7x2 stays around as a cost-effective high-cadence moderately-heavy-lift workhorse.

9x4 and 9x2 won't use the VAB, Mobile Launcher 2 and LC-39B, because then they won't be cost effective.

I believe you. What if they get the facilities rent-free, under some strange justification involving historical preservation? Are they still too expensive based on cost of operations, compared to the lease and buildout of a modern pad?

[Jim]

Regardless of where it goes some consolidated development plan for CCSFS needs to happen.

It exists

It has two dozen inactive launch sites but they were all designed for small rockets and infrequent use so many are quite close together.    Demolishing and formally closing some to improve spacing and increasing the footprint of others would make CCSFS more useful to growing commercial launch providers.  The SF doesn't even need to do the conversions just create a unified approved plan and allow launch providers to do the work as part of a lease agreement.

They know what they are doing.

They have users/tenants:

LC-1/2/3/4 - Blue Origin and CCSFM
LC-11/12/36 - Blue Origin
LC-13 - Vaya Space & Phantom Space
LC-14 - Stoke Space
LC-16 - Relativity Space
LC-20 - Firefly Aerospace
LC-37 - SpaceX
LC-40 - Space X
LC-41 - ULA

LC-15/19/34 are buffer zones

LC-46 my be reassigned
LC-48 is available.
there is north of LC-39

[avmich1]

Does anybody know, is there publicly available New Glenn User's Guide for 9x4 variant? What is the latest available letter of revision for the guide?