New Glenn Evolution Speculation and Discussion

[yg1968]

On the issue of re-fueling, I wonder if it would be possible for New Glenn to use re-fueling of its second stage without the stage being re-usable?

[Solarsail]

Well, isn't that what ACES was trying to do with (similarly) hydrolox propellants?  They needed to use IVF to reduce the number of fluids to top up...  Do we know if the BE-3 family of engines are built for autogeneous pressurization?

[Darkseraph]

I have been thinking about the problem of second stage reuse and ways to achieve cost savings other than going down the current path that SpaceX is attempting with Starship. For smaller vehicles, landing the entire second stage could costly for payload capacity, takes a long time to develop and will make the entire stage a lot more complex.

Since engines tend to be the most costly part of any stage, what if you just recover them! Basically applying ULA's concept of SMART re-use, but for upper stage engine section. That uses a HIAD for entry and decent of just the engine section and a helicopter captures it. The fairings could also be captured in a manner similar to that being used on Falcon 9. Only the second stage propellant tanks are not recovered, which are a small fraction of the cost of the entire vehicle.

While it's not an immaculate solution and would not be as rapidly reusable as Starship promises to be, it could be a good enough interim solution. Returning the booster on a ship already limits how rapidly New Glenn can be reused and the demand for launches in the near term isn't high enough to require such a cadence.

[spacenut]

The second stage could have refueling capability and be used as a space tug. 

Or the engines returned and the tanks left for a fuel depot. 

[dante2308]

The second stage could have refueling capability and be used as a space tug. 

Or the engines returned and the tanks left for a fuel depot.

I'm sorry if this is a naļve question, but how could using second stages to refuel a second-stage tanker and result in a mass savings versus any space-optimized payload/propulsion pair? Wouldn't it be more efficient to launch an actual space tug and use/refuel that? My understanding was that New Glenn did not have a light second stage to begin with.

[spacenut]

The second stage itself would become the space tug.  The cargo for this tug would be say a Canada arm, and possibly a docking port.  Tanker second stages would refuel it.  Then a large payload could be attached, or several large payloads could be attached.  The fully fueled second stage tug would then transport 50-100 tons or more to say lunar orbit.  You don't waste the second stage, but refuel it.  Large single pieces of cargo launched from another New Glenn could then be taken to the moon orbit.  Individually New Glenn can only deliver what? 10-12 tons to the moon.  Refueling a second stage tug would allow much heavier payloads to be delivered to the Artemis orbit.  This idea has been floating around for 15 years or more using distributed launch and refueling to get larger payloads to cis-lunar space. 

Bezo's wants to industrialize the moon, so getting more cargo there is a must.  You could launch a completely dedicated newly designed tug, but you already have a second stage in orbit, why not just fill it and use it as a tug.  It has engines and tanks, instead of burning all the second stages up.  A stretched second stage could be optimized as a tanker to fill a tug adapted second stage.  Lots of second stage possibilities.  Tugs, tankers, habitats, fuel depots etc. 

[Eric Hedman]

I have been thinking about the problem of second stage reuse and ways to achieve cost savings other than going down the current path that SpaceX is attempting with Starship. For smaller vehicles, landing the entire second stage could costly for payload capacity, takes a long time to develop and will make the entire stage a lot more complex.

Since engines tend to be the most costly part of any stage, what if you just recover them! Basically applying ULA's concept of SMART re-use, but for upper stage engine section. That uses a HIAD for entry and decent of just the engine section and a helicopter captures it. The fairings could also be captured in a manner similar to that being used on Falcon 9. Only the second stage propellant tanks are not recovered, which are a small fraction of the cost of the entire vehicle.

While it's not an immaculate solution and would not be as rapidly reusable as Starship promises to be, it could be a good enough interim solution. Returning the booster on a ship already limits how rapidly New Glenn can be reused and the demand for launches in the near term isn't high enough to require such a cadence.

It all depends upon if saving two BE-3U engines on the upper stage is worth it.  The cost of those two engines needs to be compared with the cost of recovering and reusing them.  It starts with the development cost of separating them from the stage, the cost of a heat shield for atmospheric entry, the cost of parachutes and the deployment mechanism, the cost of the recovery equipment, the cost of the recovery operation and the cost of refurbishment.  You would also have to compare it to the possible cost reductions in manufacturing the engines.  Only Blue probably has ballpark figures close enough to make that analysis.  My wild guess is they would be better off looking at cost reductions in manufacturing the engines.

[Alberto-Girardi]

I have been thinking about the problem of second stage reuse and ways to achieve cost savings other than going down the current path that SpaceX is attempting with Starship. For smaller vehicles, landing the entire second stage could costly for payload capacity, takes a long time to develop and will make the entire stage a lot more complex.

Since engines tend to be the most costly part of any stage, what if you just recover them! Basically applying ULA's concept of SMART re-use, but for upper stage engine section. That uses a HIAD for entry and decent of just the engine section and a helicopter captures it. The fairings could also be captured in a manner similar to that being used on Falcon 9. Only the second stage propellant tanks are not recovered, which are a small fraction of the cost of the entire vehicle.

While it's not an immaculate solution and would not be as rapidly reusable as Starship promises to be, it could be a good enough interim solution. Returning the booster on a ship already limits how rapidly New Glenn can be reused and the demand for launches in the near term isn't high enough to require such a cadence.

It all depends upon if saving two BE-3U engines on the upper stage is worth it.  The cost of those two engines needs to be compared with the cost of recovering and reusing them.  It starts with the development cost of separating them from the stage, the cost of a heat shield for atmospheric entry, the cost of parachutes and the deployment mechanism, the cost of the recovery equipment, the cost of the recovery operation and the cost of refurbishment.  You would also have to compare it to the possible cost reductions in manufacturing the engines.  Only Blue probably has ballpark figures close enough to make that analysis.  My wild guess is they would be better off looking at cost reductions in manufacturing the engines.

Great point. The SMART reuse idea isn't that easy: you have to detach plumbing and have an heat shield in the front, you have to be stable(it is difficult because the engines are heavy, but away from the heat shield). Maybe is easier to recover the entire second stage, but i want to try some simple and rough calculations.

[Alberto-Girardi]

The second stage itself would become the space tug.  The cargo for this tug would be say a Canada arm, and possibly a docking port.  Tanker second stages would refuel it.  Then a large payload could be attached, or several large payloads could be attached.  The fully fueled second stage tug would then transport 50-100 tons or more to say lunar orbit.  You don't waste the second stage, but refuel it.  Large single pieces of cargo launched from another New Glenn could then be taken to the moon orbit.  Individually New Glenn can only deliver what? 10-12 tons to the moon.  Refueling a second stage tug would allow much heavier payloads to be delivered to the Artemis orbit.  This idea has been floating around for 15 years or more using distributed launch and refueling to get larger payloads to cis-lunar space. 

Bezo's wants to industrialize the moon, so getting more cargo there is a must.  You could launch a completely dedicated newly designed tug, but you already have a second stage in orbit, why not just fill it and use it as a tug.  It has engines and tanks, instead of burning all the second stages up.  A stretched second stage could be optimized as a tanker to fill a tug adapted second stage.  Lots of second stage possibilities.  Tugs, tankers, habitats, fuel depots etc.

That's intersting, could be very useful. There are difficulties, expecially in the refuiling part, because the LH2 is very cold, and they would need to mantain cryogenics temperatures for long time. I don't see this solution forhte first years, but maybe later...

[joek]

...
Since engines tend to be the most costly part of any stage, what if you just recover them! Basically applying ULA's concept of SMART re-use, but for upper stage engine section. That uses a HIAD for entry and decent of just the engine section and a helicopter captures it. The fairings could also be captured in a manner similar to that being used on Falcon 9. Only the second stage propellant tanks are not recovered, which are a small fraction of the cost of the entire vehicle.

While it's not an immaculate solution and would not be as rapidly reusable as Starship promises to be, it could be a good enough interim solution. Returning the booster on a ship already limits how rapidly New Glenn can be reused and the demand for launches in the near term isn't high enough to require such a cadence.

It all depends upon if saving two BE-3U engines on the upper stage is worth it.  The cost of those two engines needs to be compared with the cost of recovering and reusing them.  It starts with the development cost of separating them from the stage, the cost of a heat shield for atmospheric entry, the cost of parachutes and the deployment mechanism, the cost of the recovery equipment, the cost of the recovery operation and the cost of refurbishment.  You would also have to compare it to the possible cost reductions in manufacturing the engines.  Only Blue probably has ballpark figures close enough to make that analysis.  My wild guess is they would be better off looking at cost reductions in manufacturing the engines.

Good point, as that is where SMART starts to break down.  The more expensive the engines (as related to rest of LV), the more sense SMART makes.

However, as discussed in the old thread, increasing engine cost as a % of LV makes SMART more rational.  Which was one of my primary complaints with SMART (and Dr. Sower's model).  Inflating engine cost benefits SMART but may still result in a non-competitive launcher (Dr. Sowers never responded to that challenge). If you decrease engine cost as % of LV, SMART gets less rational.

In short, given cost projections for, e.g., Raptor, SMART makes little sense.  People still contemplating SMART as a cost-effective solution are at least a decade out of date and attempting to rationalize stupid choices.

[dante2308]

The second stage itself would become the space tug.  The cargo for this tug would be say a Canada arm, and possibly a docking port.  Tanker second stages would refuel it.  Then a large payload could be attached, or several large payloads could be attached.  The fully fueled second stage tug would then transport 50-100 tons or more to say lunar orbit.  You don't waste the second stage, but refuel it.  Large single pieces of cargo launched from another New Glenn could then be taken to the moon orbit.  Individually New Glenn can only deliver what? 10-12 tons to the moon.  Refueling a second stage tug would allow much heavier payloads to be delivered to the Artemis orbit.  This idea has been floating around for 15 years or more using distributed launch and refueling to get larger payloads to cis-lunar space. 

Bezo's wants to industrialize the moon, so getting more cargo there is a must.  You could launch a completely dedicated newly designed tug, but you already have a second stage in orbit, why not just fill it and use it as a tug.  It has engines and tanks, instead of burning all the second stages up.  A stretched second stage could be optimized as a tanker to fill a tug adapted second stage.  Lots of second stage possibilities.  Tugs, tankers, habitats, fuel depots etc.

Refueling and then moving a second stage to the moon with a usable payload and returning it to LEO seems to be an architecture that requires so many refuelings with expendable second stages that I still can't quite detect where the savings can be found. In this scheme, every payload from Earth, including fuel, needs a new second stage, right? Does this throw more mass to the moon than the expended refueling second stages would? As proposed, I would have guessed it would throw less mass.

[spacenut]

Well, this is what ACES was trying to do back about 15 years ago with ULA.  Refueling an ACES stage for in space heavy lifting. 

You can either send five 10 ton payloads to TLI and waste 5 upper stages, when one piece of equipment needed at the moon weighs 50 tons.  OR, you can send the 50 ton payload into orbit with it's second stage still attached.  Then send 4 tanker first stages to deliver fuel, then the full second stage and 50 ton payload has enough fuel to tug it to the moon.  This is essentially what Starship is going to do for Mars.  With this at least one stage is reused delivering a heavy payload.   

[dante2308]

Well, this is what ACES was trying to do back about 15 years ago with ULA.  Refueling an ACES stage for in space heavy lifting. 

You can either send five 10 ton payloads to TLI and waste 5 upper stages, when one piece of equipment needed at the moon weighs 50 tons.  OR, you can send the 50 ton payload into orbit with it's second stage still attached.  Then send 4 tanker first stages to deliver fuel, then the full second stage and 50 ton payload has enough fuel to tug it to the moon.  This is essentially what Starship is going to do for Mars.  With this at least one stage is reused delivering a heavy payload.   

Except the word tug implies that the second stage returns to Earth which would mean that far less than 50 tons gets to the moon. I suppose if you end up expending everything, then you come out just a tag bit ahead. But that's not really reuse.

I think a key difference with Starship is that you technically only ever need to build two Starships to do anything. At that point, you are fairly free to waste all the fuel you like. The savings are dramatically different so the reasoning sort of changes. That and the fact that Starship is a super heavy lifter to begin with.

[Alberto-Girardi]

Developing a so complex (but very interstinfg and useful) in orbit second stage refueling system would be expensive, and I think that  if not stimulated by Nasa they won't do this, becaus this system could serve only a few of today costumers better than what is done today (obviusly not by New Glenn, but by other rockets ).  Maybe the HLS delivery to Moon orbit could push BO to develope this.

[spacenut]

Making second stages into tugs, even if they don't return to earth, refueling in space, having fuel depots, etc., is going to have to happen one way or another to have any kind of cis lunar program, or Mars program, or anything in deep space.  It doesn't matter about customers.  Look at SpaceX, they want to go to Mars.  They are spending money building Starship/Superheavy to get there.  They are going to do in space refueling, etc. 

Even the Artemis program will have to take fuel to the moon for the landers and the Artemis station keeping.  So, either you have to have large second stages and larger rockets, or in space refueling to carry large objects, cargo, landers, etc. to the moon.  New Glenn alone may not do it.  Being able to refuel a New Glenn upper stage with a large lander, cargo, or fuel for the lunar program will require refueling an upper stage at some point.  Blue has the money, why not develop a space tug out of the second stage.  The BE-3 engine can be throttled from 30-100 thousand lbs thrust.  (13mt to 45mt thrust), so it can deliver, slow down get into proper orbit, dock, and deliver whatever is needed.  Also, if it has enough fuel left, can return to earth for more.  This upper stage on New Glenn has a lot of possibilities, great engines, and large size.  It could also be stretched for a tanker to deliver a lot of fuel. 

[Alberto-Girardi]

Making second stages into tugs, even if they don't return to earth, refueling in space, having fuel depots, etc., is going to have to happen one way or another to have any kind of cis lunar program, or Mars program, or anything in deep space.  It doesn't matter about customers.  Look at SpaceX, they want to go to Mars.  They are spending money building Starship/Superheavy to get there.  They are going to do in space refueling, etc. 

Even the Artemis program will have to take fuel to the moon for the landers and the Artemis station keeping.  So, either you have to have large second stages and larger rockets, or in space refueling to carry large objects, cargo, landers, etc. to the moon.  New Glenn alone may not do it.  Being able to refuel a New Glenn upper stage with a large lander, cargo, or fuel for the lunar program will require refueling an upper stage at some point.  Blue has the money, why not develop a space tug out of the second stage.  The BE-3 engine can be throttled from 30-100 thousand lbs thrust.  (13mt to 45mt thrust), so it can deliver, slow down get into proper orbit, dock, and deliver whatever is needed.  Also, if it has enough fuel left, can return to earth for more.  This upper stage on New Glenn has a lot of possibilities, great engines, and large size.  It could also be stretched for a tanker to deliver a lot of fuel.

Yes, IMO you are completely right. What I was saying is that I hope that Artemis program will accelerate this development (and  there you need political governament vision, but I won't talk about this). But normal costumers are not much intersted in second stage refueling. So there the dream of Musk (to colonize mars) and Bezos (to colonize space) are important, otherwise there isn't innovation.

Talking about potential space tug with second stage: it will need both energy and cooling. Docking technique will be needed, but in modern days with computer should not be too complicated (I men). But I think that  the physical docking systemm won't bee to easy tobuild, because, if they dock from the sides (IMO is the best option) you have to build a very small volume system. So IDK if solution like soft capture (to connect the spececrafts to further close the distance) and then hard capture to provide strong connection, and transfer propellant are possible, maybe yes but is complicated.

They will also need to develop a streched versoģion of the upper stage, to carry only propellant or a small payload, but is relatively easy.

[spacenut]

SpaceX is building the DragonX which is basically a 2nd stage with docking adapter, small habitat, no large engine, but smaller thrusters, solar panels, etc. 

The New Glenn upper stage is a lot larger, thus you could do even more with it.  Docking can be done various ways.  SpaceX already is good at Docking with the Dragon adapter.  They are planning to dock Starships end to end to refuel.  Shouldn't be too hard for Blue Origin to do. 

Bezos has spent billions on his launch facility and a manufacturing building in Florida.  He has also spent a lot building a rocket engine factory in Huntsville, Ala.  So, once all this is done, he can spend billions on "in space" hardware, like refueling, tugs, moon landers, etc. 

[TrevorMonty]

For near future NG 2nd is just too big to be used as space tug, would take too many launches to refuel, in between those launches there is boiloff losses. Better to use smaller Be7 powered dedicated tanker that can be refuelled with single NG launch. NGIS are developing this BE7 powered tanker its called Transfer Element. They have systems in place to reduce boiloff while in deep space.

Hopefully long term we will be creating 1000s tonnes of hydrolox from lunar and asteriod water, then we'll need larger Be3 tanker.



Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

[trimeta]

When it comes to refuelable space tugs, to me there's a huge difference between "we have a specific mission for which we'll launch N times, once with payload and N-1 times to refuel the second stage attached to that payload, so it can then perform some massive burn" and "we're going to just leave our second stage in orbit and hope that eventually we get a mission where it makes sense to refuel it and reuse it." The former case, which is what Starship is doing, means you know how long the second stages need to survive idling in orbit, you know exactly what orbits you need to target, and you can synchronize things to use the exact necessary amount of fuel.

The latter case feels like it's ignoring that "Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is." Unless subsequent missions happen to be going exactly where the tug already is, it seems that the delta-v to align with the tug isn't worth what you can get by exploiting in-space hardware. Plus, your new mission has its own second stage it could use. Unless you're launching a bunch of times, with some of those launches having no payload so they can carry extra fuel, it doesn't seem like it's worth it.

[Alberto-Girardi]

For near future NG 2nd is just too big to be used as space tug, would take too many launches to refuel, in between those launches there is boiloff losses. Better to use smaller Be7 powered dedicated tanker that can be refuelled with single NG launch. NGIS are developing this BE7 powered tanker its called Transfer Element. They have systems in place to reduce boiloff while in deep space.

Hopefully long term we will be creating 1000s tonnes of hydrolox from lunar and asteriod water, then we'll need larger Be3 tanker.



Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

Yes, in near future thi won't happen. Why would they need to refuel the stage completely? I really hope that this kinfd of projects are persued by BO, because Starship is very good, but runs on methane (and oxygen). That is good for mars, but not for the Moon, wher with ISRU is easier to extract Hydrolox. SO a space infrastructure based on H₂ /O₂ is good. Is even better to have two different infrastructures, so if one fails there is the other.