New Glenn 9x4 discussion

[catdlr]

Please refrain from comparing with SpaceX and BO. This is the BO 9X4 thread. Why do we need to constantly argue about these two companies? Please concentrate on BO. I could very easily delete about half a dozen posts above this, or you can simply cease and refocus on BO. 

Tony

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

Just a thought, and anyone working closer to the industry can correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't this is more of an iteration than an entirely brand new rocket design?  The engines are already developed and will be upgraded independently of 9x4 production, on a time table that would be relatively quick compared to new rocket development.  Blue Origin should have a pretty good head start on basic architecture of the rocket, although I'm sure tooling for a larger diameter tank, fuel distribution and other accommodations for 9 engines versus 7 is no small challenge.  But if the 9x4 is an expansion of the same basic architecture, the 7x2 has already been developed, flown, and the landing system for the 7x2 has already been worked out.  Similar considerations on the 4 BE-3U powered second stage design.

I would expect this to factor in on a 'most likely' timeline for 9x4 development, compared to historical announcements of brand new rocket designs.

The 7x2 took a little over 8 years from announcement to first flight, 9 years from announcement to first successful booster landing, and that was an entirely new, large rocket.  So why are people predicting 10 years for 9x4? 

I'm going to guess they have the first 9x4 prototype flying in 6 years or so, not 10.  Could even be within 5 years.

Let me know if I'm off base here, I'm curious why this should be comparable to a brand new rocket design.

[spacenut]

If they develop the 9x4, would it be faster to do a 3 core heavy version as a New Armstrong, or just develop say a 12m New Armstrong with say 27 BE-4 engines?  I thought if they develop the 9x4 quickly it might be quicker to make it into a 3 core heavy version. 

[sstli2]

So why are people predicting 10 years for 9x4? 

I'm going to guess they have the first 9x4 prototype flying in 6 years or so, not 10.  Could even be within 5 years.

A lot of people are pessimistic about Blue's ability to develop a new design because of the long time it took for them to get to the first launch of New Glenn. Some of that concern is fair and warranted, [deleted].

However, as you note, it really isn't a significant departure from the 7x2. The whole point was to use the same engines, the same manufacturing tooling, and the only thing you actually need to develop is a new aft section for GS1 and GS2 and a new launch tower. Everything else stays the same. Pursuing anything else - 3 cores, larger diameter - completely misses the point.

They've increased their manufacturing cadence significantly since a few years ago and my baseline expectation is not even 6 years, let alone 10 years. My baseline expectation is that we'll see 9x4 fly in 2028.

[zubenelgenubi]

Moderator:
Well, some members don't read moderator warnings and lose their posts.

Please refrain from comparing with SpaceX and BO. This is the BO 9X4 thread. Why do we need to constantly argue about these two companies? Please concentrate on BO. I could very easily delete about half a dozen posts above this, or you can simply cease and refocus on BO. 

Tony

[Metalskin]

I've always been hopeful for BO and then disappointed by the slow pace that they have historically moved at.

That said, I think I agree with sstli2. Management has changed, there appears to be more focus now, and I'm not really sure if the past is a good indicator of the future. I doubt if it will be 10 years, I suspect somewhere between 3 and 6 years.

But I'm guessing. We've not seen yet the velocity of the company in designing a new rocket with the current management. I don't think there has been any clear indicator on how focused they will be on the new one. But I also agree that it's not a brand spanking new rocket, it feels more incremental in nature and that should reduce the time needed (in theory).

[envy887]

However, as you note, it really isn't a significant departure from the 7x2. The whole point was to use the same engines, the same manufacturing tooling, and the only thing you actually need to develop is a new aft section for GS1 and GS2 and a new launch tower. Everything else stays the same.

Not quite everything stays the same. Besides the engine sections on both stages, they need to develop new landing legs, there are significantly bigger strakes, there's something new on the interstage, and the PLF is new. As is the TEL, though you probably meant that with "launch tower". And fair amount of manufacturing infrastructure will probably have to be updated to handle the new longer tanks.

Blue hasn't provided a current status or a future timeline for 9x4, as far as I've seen. But their past projections haven't been particularly accurate; e.g. in 2016 they expected 7x2 to fly in 3 years, but it took almost 9 years.

I don't think it will take them 10 years, but until we see the new hardware being built I'd say 3 years is pretty optimistic.

[sstli2]

Besides the engine sections on both stages, they need to develop new landing legs,

I said "aft section", which includes the legs.

there are significantly bigger strakes

Sure, but these are fundamentally the same design. This does not strike me as material with regard to our present discussion of how long it would take to develop 9x4.

there's something new on the interstage

We cannot see the inside, but the "interstage" i.e. forward module externally appears the same and I believe what you are referring to is the new GS2 aft section I mentioned previously.

and the PLF is new

This is more material, however, they are already expanding their composite facility for payload fairings. Probably not the long pole.

As is the TEL, though you probably meant that with "launch tower".

The 9x4 was depicted without a transporter-erector and I believe that was an intentional omission, hence my wording.

And fair amount of manufacturing infrastructure will probably have to be updated to handle the new longer tanks.

Not really. A longer GS2 tank...is effectively just a GS1 tank. And the GS1 factory tooling is already variable length due to the need to hold the LH2 and LOX tank sections individually for friction stir welding and then the combined tank section. There is plenty of recent video of the factory that you can refer to, I don't see much needing to change due to tank length. And that was precisely the point.

But their past projections haven't been particularly accurate; e.g. in 2016 they expected 7x2 to fly in 3 years, but it took almost 9 years.

In 2016, they had a few hundred employees. They didn't cross 1,000 employees until almost 2018. Now they have over 10,000 employees. It's not the same company anymore.

until we see the new hardware being built

This is the thing with Blue Origin - you won't see it. This isn't like SpaceX where you can point a camera through the window of their factory or see a test tank at Massey's. We probably won't see it until it is far along.

[TrevorMonty]

But their past projections haven't been particularly accurate; e.g. in 2016 they expected 7x2 to fly in 3 years, but it took almost 9 years.

Blue's projections were accurate, what we didn't realise was they were based on Elon time.

[meekGee]

However, as you note, it really isn't a significant departure from the 7x2. The whole point was to use the same engines, the same manufacturing tooling, and the only thing you actually need to develop is a new aft section for GS1 and GS2 and a new launch tower. Everything else stays the same.

Not quite everything stays the same. Besides the engine sections on both stages, they need to develop new landing legs, there are significantly bigger strakes, there's something new on the interstage, and the PLF is new. As is the TEL, though you probably meant that with "launch tower". And fair amount of manufacturing infrastructure will probably have to be updated to handle the new longer tanks.

Blue hasn't provided a current status or a future timeline for 9x4, as far as I've seen. But their past projections haven't been particularly accurate; e.g. in 2016 they expected 7x2 to fly in 3 years, but it took almost 9 years.

I don't think it will take them 10 years, but until we see the new hardware being built I'd say 3 years is pretty optimistic.

The same way F9 1.1 was a "completely new rocket" according to most people, even though it was still 9 engines, only upgraded and arranged in a 8+1 circle instead of a 3x3 grid. 

And according to folks here, SS v3 is an entirely new thing too.

NG 9x4 is a significant upgrade.  It is not just a slightly modded NG 7x1.

[Robert_the_Doll]

We cannot see the inside, but the "interstage" i.e. forward module externally appears the same and I believe what you are referring to is the new GS2 aft section I mentioned previously.

He is erroneously referring to this structure I've outlined in red is actually added structure to the 9 x 4's GS2. Note the corrugation on the outside, which indicates a true boat tail compartment rather than just MLI blankets surrounding the BE-3U turbomachinery.

   

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

However, as you note, it really isn't a significant departure from the 7x2. The whole point was to use the same engines, the same manufacturing tooling, and the only thing you actually need to develop is a new aft section for GS1 and GS2 and a new launch tower. Everything else stays the same.

Not quite everything stays the same. Besides the engine sections on both stages, they need to develop new landing legs, there are significantly bigger strakes, there's something new on the interstage, and the PLF is new. As is the TEL, though you probably meant that with "launch tower". And fair amount of manufacturing infrastructure will probably have to be updated to handle the new longer tanks.

Blue hasn't provided a current status or a future timeline for 9x4, as far as I've seen. But their past projections haven't been particularly accurate; e.g. in 2016 they expected 7x2 to fly in 3 years, but it took almost 9 years.

I don't think it will take them 10 years, but until we see the new hardware being built I'd say 3 years is pretty optimistic.

The same way F9 1.1 was a "completely new rocket" according to most people, even though it was still 9 engines, only upgraded and arranged in a 8+1 circle instead of a 3x3 grid. 

And according to folks here, SS v3 is an entirely new thing too.

NG 9x4 is a significant upgrade.  It is not just a slightly modded NG 7x1.

2 comments:

1)  I thought we were keeping SpaceX out of this, and

2)  Please explain how this is a significant upgrade, not just slightly modded, at least to the degree that it provides a counter point to the more detailed discussion above.  Otherwise I'd counter that the semantics make little difference if the processes and tooling are mostly there already.

[envy887]

We cannot see the inside, but the "interstage" i.e. forward module externally appears the same and I believe what you are referring to is the new GS2 aft section I mentioned previously.

It appears that is correct. But that doesn't really change my larger point. They are roughly doubling the size of the rocket, so almost every single structural element probably needs to be redesigned for the higher loads. Starting with a working design helps, but it still needs to be fully updated and requalified throughout, part by part. And the manufacturing processes also needs to be qualified to make sure it can make the new design.

A longer GS2 tank...is effectively just a GS1 tank. And the GS1 factory tooling is already variable length due to the need to hold the LH2 and LOX tank sections individually for friction stir welding and then the combined tank section. There is plenty of recent video of the factory that you can refer to, I don't see much needing to change due to tank length. And that was precisely the point.

GS1 tanks are orthogrid. Aren't they going to skin and stringer for GS2? That's going to be an extremely expensive upper stage otherwise.

[meekGee]

However, as you note, it really isn't a significant departure from the 7x2. The whole point was to use the same engines, the same manufacturing tooling, and the only thing you actually need to develop is a new aft section for GS1 and GS2 and a new launch tower. Everything else stays the same.

Not quite everything stays the same. Besides the engine sections on both stages, they need to develop new landing legs, there are significantly bigger strakes, there's something new on the interstage, and the PLF is new. As is the TEL, though you probably meant that with "launch tower". And fair amount of manufacturing infrastructure will probably have to be updated to handle the new longer tanks.

Blue hasn't provided a current status or a future timeline for 9x4, as far as I've seen. But their past projections haven't been particularly accurate; e.g. in 2016 they expected 7x2 to fly in 3 years, but it took almost 9 years.

I don't think it will take them 10 years, but until we see the new hardware being built I'd say 3 years is pretty optimistic.

The same way F9 1.1 was a "completely new rocket" according to most people, even though it was still 9 engines, only upgraded and arranged in a 8+1 circle instead of a 3x3 grid. 

And according to folks here, SS v3 is an entirely new thing too.

NG 9x4 is a significant upgrade.  It is not just a slightly modded NG 7x1.

2 comments:

1)  I thought we were keeping SpaceX out of this, and

2)  Please explain how this is a significant upgrade, not just slightly modded, at least to the degree that it provides a counter point to the more detailed discussion above.  Otherwise I'd counter that the semantics make little difference if the processes and tooling are mostly there already.

Well thrust of the first stage goes up by about 30-40% (2 extra engines and added thrust) and number of engines goes up by 2, so the engine section gets pretty much redone.  Legs get moved to the outside, so the aft section gets redone.  Tank is stretched. So Aerodynamics now change.

Second stage changes too, even more aggressively.  But no legs or return aerodynamics.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad they're leaning into it, but (and that's where the comparisons come in) if F9.1 and SS v3 are considered major upgrades if not entirely new rockets, the I don't see how this one doesn't.

[JEF_300]

GS1 tanks are orthogrid. Aren't they going to skin and stringer for GS2? That's going to be an extremely expensive upper stage otherwise.

Supposedly, according to Bezos like a year+ ago, they'll be moving to "monocoque" tanks for the GS2. By which he seemed to mean neither orthogrid nor skin and stringer. Just skin, that's thick enough to handle the structural loads, and they just take the mass hit.

[Comga]

https://www.blueorigin.com/es-MX/new-glenn/9x4

Our First Super-Heavy Class Vehicle
More volume, performance, and affordability. 9x4 is nearly 400 feet tall. Its 8.7 meter fairing packs 29,000 cubic feet of volume, nearly 70% more than New Glenn's 7x2 configuration. 9x4 evolves the 7x2 variant, using existing designs, subsystems, manufacturing processes, and operations footprint.

Snip

Scaling off of the Blue Origin image of the bottoms of the 7x2 and 9x4 New Glenn first stages, and using 1.83 m as the diameter of the BE-4 engine bells, the diameters of the two engine modules are 8.3 and 9.9 meters.
One implication is that the packing density of 9x4 is actually 10% less than that of the 7x2, despite moving the legs from inside the diameter to outside.

[Brigantine]

It's also relevant where the centre of each outer engines is relative to the LOx tank wall.

Do the 8 engines happen to be at a radius of 3.5m? i.e. the engine bells reach out to ~4.415m. Sounds pretty close.

[EDIT to add: Post #500! I've nearly caught up to Falcon 9  ]

[spacenut]

Does anyone think they will attempt to make a 3 core heavy version instead of New Armstrong first?

[Brigantine]

Does anyone think they will attempt to make a 3 core heavy version instead of New Armstrong first?

To what end? You'll just get a less economical rocket.

I really don't think GS1 is an easy candidate to make into a 3-core version. Square-Cube law with the 7m diameter, and everything to do with the strakes and wider engine section.

I think a fully optimized 9x4 with orbital refueling is the end point of development, until there's a whole new paradigm.

I leave open the possibility for even further increasing the power of BE-4's and stretching 9x4 vertically. That is basically the replacement for New Armstrong. They reduced the scope. (IMO)

[Robert_the_Doll]

https://www.blueorigin.com/es-MX/new-glenn/9x4

Our First Super-Heavy Class Vehicle
More volume, performance, and affordability. 9x4 is nearly 400 feet tall. Its 8.7 meter fairing packs 29,000 cubic feet of volume, nearly 70% more than New Glenn's 7x2 configuration. 9x4 evolves the 7x2 variant, using existing designs, subsystems, manufacturing processes, and operations footprint.

Snip

Scaling off of the Blue Origin image of the bottoms of the 7x2 and 9x4 New Glenn first stages, and using 1.83 m as the diameter of the BE-4 engine bells, the diameters of the two engine modules are 8.3 and 9.9 meters.
One implication is that the packing density of 9x4 is actually 10% less than that of the 7x2, despite moving the legs from inside the diameter to outside.

You are slightly off. The 2018 Payload User's Guide states the 7 x 2 configuration aft module skirt is 8.5 meters wide:

https://yellowdragonblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/new_glenn_payload_users_guide_rev_c.pdf

1.2 SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS
1.2.1 First Stage

The aft module of the booster contains seven (7) BE-4 LOX/LNG engines with 1.71
x 104 kN (3,850,000 lbf) total thrust at sea level. The restartable BE-4 engines
provide precision thrust vector control and continuous deep throttle capability
to support propulsive deceleration and landing maneuvers, while featuring long
design life. The 8.5 m (28 ft) diameter engine skirt protects the engines from
atmospheric reentry conditions and contains six (6) stowed landing gear.

This would potentially make the 9 x 4 configuration 10.1 meters in diameter.