Author Topic: New Armstrong Speculation and Discussion - Thread 2  (Read 43240 times)

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5184
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2589
  • Likes Given: 2898
Re: New Armstrong Speculation and Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #60 on: 01/28/2021 02:48 am »
Blue is not likely to make many improvements once New Glenn is operational.  They really don't seem to want to push the envelope.  So, I would think leaving it as is for current satellites and launches to be competitive, then working on a 3 core heavy version with reusable upper stage could get them in the 100 ton category without development of an entirely new rocket.  The rocket is already 7m wide which is large.  Making the upper stage stretch wouldn't be hard.  They could even develop cross feed to get the core further down range before the upper stage kicks in.  This may add about 10 tons to the payload. 

Falcon 9 can get about 23 tons to LEO expendable, probably about 18 tons with down range drone ship landing.  FH can get 63 tons to LEO expendable, and around 40-45 tons reusable. 

So New Glenn can get 40-45 tons with first stage reusability with down range landing.  A 3 core version with down range landing should get 100-110 tons to LEO.  I may be wrong, but just making comparisons. 

This would be without developing an entirely new rocket like a New Armstrong. 

One thing holding back Blue is their engine (BE-4) is fairly large in comparison to the Raptor.  They can only get so many under a given diameter.  They are putting 7 engines under the New Glenn with it's 7m core.  I don't think they can fit 9 of them under there. 

Online meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14173
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14058
  • Likes Given: 1392
Re: New Armstrong Speculation and Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #61 on: 01/28/2021 04:35 am »
I know it took a while for SpaceX to develop the Falcon Heavy, maybe 2-3 years,...

Falcon Heavy was announced in 2011 and flew seven years later.



Yes, but did they actually get started on it then or after they got the Full Thrust version of F9 so they could deliver more payload?  Since the version they have now had to wait until they got the full thrust and the landings down.
Yeah, exactly, it's a bad comparison, always used out of context.  FH development was slowed down on purpose until F9 1.2 was ready.   
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline DJPledger

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 808
  • Liked: 506
  • Likes Given: 33866
Re: New Armstrong Speculation and Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #62 on: 01/28/2021 08:42 am »
Blue is not likely to make many improvements once New Glenn is operational.  They really don't seem to want to push the envelope.  So, I would think leaving it as is for current satellites and launches to be competitive, then working on a 3 core heavy version with reusable upper stage could get them in the 100 ton category without development of an entirely new rocket.  The rocket is already 7m wide which is large.  Making the upper stage stretch wouldn't be hard.  They could even develop cross feed to get the core further down range before the upper stage kicks in.  This may add about 10 tons to the payload. 

Falcon 9 can get about 23 tons to LEO expendable, probably about 18 tons with down range drone ship landing.  FH can get 63 tons to LEO expendable, and around 40-45 tons reusable. 

So New Glenn can get 40-45 tons with first stage reusability with down range landing.  A 3 core version with down range landing should get 100-110 tons to LEO.  I may be wrong, but just making comparisons. 

This would be without developing an entirely new rocket like a New Armstrong. 

One thing holding back Blue is their engine (BE-4) is fairly large in comparison to the Raptor.  They can only get so many under a given diameter.  They are putting 7 engines under the New Glenn with it's 7m core.  I don't think they can fit 9 of them under there. 
BO will have learnt the lesson from protracted FH dev. of that you just can't simply strap 3 cores together without difficulty so any successor to NG will be a larger dia. single core fully reusable LV.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39276
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25256
  • Likes Given: 12119
Re: New Armstrong Speculation and Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #63 on: 01/29/2021 04:45 am »
Yeah, I also doubt BO will go for multicore.
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 MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2240
  • Likes Given: 3883
Re: New Armstrong Speculation and Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #64 on: 01/29/2021 05:07 am »
I think it's reasonable to assume that 'New Armstrong' will be in the 10-to-12 meter diameter range, with a matching wider upper stage. The engines will be just X-more of the existing BE-4 and BE-7 family.
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline Cheapchips

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1031
  • UK
  • Liked: 866
  • Likes Given: 1938
Re: New Armstrong Speculation and Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #65 on: 01/29/2021 06:37 am »
I think it's reasonable to assume that 'New Armstrong' will be in the 10-to-12 meter diameter range, with a matching wider upper stage. The engines will be just X-more of the existing BE-4 and BE-7 family.

Since Blue sell their engines, there's nothing to stop another company make a 10m+ BE4 vehicle either.  Other than having a reason to do so of course.  :)

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1811
  • Likes Given: 1302
Re: New Armstrong Speculation and Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #66 on: 01/29/2021 07:15 am »
I think it's reasonable to assume that 'New Armstrong' will be in the 10-to-12 meter diameter range, with a matching wider upper stage. The engines will be just X-more of the existing BE-4 and BE-7 family.

Since Blue sell their engines, there's nothing to stop another company make a 10m+ BE4 vehicle either.  Other than having a reason to do so of course.  :)

Think that the New Glenn might be too small to be fully reusable. So anyone using BE-4 engines from Blue will likely be making 9 to 12 meter diameter cores for their launcher in the future.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39276
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25256
  • Likes Given: 12119
Re: New Armstrong Speculation and Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #67 on: 01/29/2021 06:13 pm »
I think it's reasonable to assume that 'New Armstrong' will be in the 10-to-12 meter diameter range, with a matching wider upper stage. The engines will be just X-more of the existing BE-4 and BE-7 family.

Since Blue sell their engines, there's nothing to stop another company make a 10m+ BE4 vehicle either.  Other than having a reason to do so of course.  :)

Think that the New Glenn might be too small to be fully reusable....
No. Where the heck did this magical thinking come from that You somehow need a 100ton SHLV to get to full reuse??

Heck... You could make RocketLab's Electron fully reusable if you wanted. Helicopter/drone recovery of both stages (upper stage would use a small HIAD-like device).
« Last Edit: 01/29/2021 06:13 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 Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1811
  • Likes Given: 1302
Re: New Armstrong Speculation and Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #68 on: 01/30/2021 06:19 am »
I think it's reasonable to assume that 'New Armstrong' will be in the 10-to-12 meter diameter range, with a matching wider upper stage. The engines will be just X-more of the existing BE-4 and BE-7 family.

Since Blue sell their engines, there's nothing to stop another company make a 10m+ BE4 vehicle either.  Other than having a reason to do so of course.  :)

Think that the New Glenn might be too small to be fully reusable. So anyone using BE-4 engines from Blue will likely be making 9 to 12 meter diameter cores for their launcher in the future.
No. Where the heck did this magical thinking come from that You somehow need a 100ton SHLV to get to full reuse??

Heck... You could make RocketLab's Electron fully reusable if you wanted. Helicopter/drone recovery of both stages (upper stage would use a small HIAD-like device).

@Robotbeat, you edited out my post text in orange. That anyone using BE-4 engines will likely be making 9 to 12 meter diameter cores for their launcher in the future.

Somehow I don't see a BE-4 powered launcher any time soon that can use the Corona mid-air recovery method.

Online meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14173
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14058
  • Likes Given: 1392
Re: New Armstrong Speculation and Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #69 on: 01/30/2021 06:50 pm »
I think it's reasonable to assume that 'New Armstrong' will be in the 10-to-12 meter diameter range, with a matching wider upper stage. The engines will be just X-more of the existing BE-4 and BE-7 family.

Since Blue sell their engines, there's nothing to stop another company make a 10m+ BE4 vehicle either.  Other than having a reason to do so of course.  :)

Think that the New Glenn might be too small to be fully reusable....
No. Where the heck did this magical thinking come from that You somehow need a 100ton SHLV to get to full reuse??

Heck... You could make RocketLab's Electron fully reusable if you wanted. Helicopter/drone recovery of both stages (upper stage would use a small HIAD-like device).
"Practically reusable".  Reusable in the context of what you termed an "expansive" space program, which to me means lots of people BEO, as opposed to comm sats in LEO or GEO.

So to have thousands (forget millions) of people somewhere, in a habitat that at least has basic ISRU (forget self sufficiency) - you need much larger rockets.

SS is in the ballpark, though clearly is a down-compromise, and likely will grow in the future.

NG is sized to compete with FH. Simply not large enough, nor even designed for rapid reuse.

Electron can be made fully reusable, for colonies of ants :) (ref Zoolander)
« Last Edit: 01/30/2021 08:55 pm by meekGee »
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline Tywin

Re: New Armstrong Speculation and Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #70 on: 08/04/2022 01:45 pm »
They talking about something bigger than the New Glenn, in the New Shepard direct...
The knowledge is power...Everything is connected...
The Turtle continues at a steady pace ...

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39276
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25256
  • Likes Given: 12119
Re: New Armstrong Speculation and Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #71 on: 08/04/2022 01:57 pm »
They talking about something bigger than the New Glenn, in the New Shepard direct...
do you have direct quotes and a link?

Vague allusions to a livestream do a poor job of preserving my for posterity.
« Last Edit: 08/04/2022 01:58 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 Tywin

Re: New Armstrong Speculation and Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #72 on: 08/04/2022 02:12 pm »
When they finish the Livestream I put the minute...
The knowledge is power...Everything is connected...
The Turtle continues at a steady pace ...

Offline Tywin

Re: New Armstrong Speculation and Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #73 on: 08/04/2022 02:31 pm »


Minute 23:45 start...
The knowledge is power...Everything is connected...
The Turtle continues at a steady pace ...

Offline whitelancer64

Re: New Armstrong Speculation and Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #74 on: 08/04/2022 03:57 pm »
Mention of a larger rocket is just after the 27:55 minute mark. Very brief remark. "New Glenn will be the smallest orbital class launch vehicle that we build"
« Last Edit: 08/04/2022 04:01 pm by whitelancer64 »
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Online Purona

  • Member
  • Posts: 96
  • Liked: 81
  • Likes Given: 28
Re: New Armstrong Speculation and Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #75 on: 08/04/2022 04:33 pm »
That was always their intention though.

Online meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14173
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14058
  • Likes Given: 1392
Re: New Armstrong Speculation and Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #76 on: 08/04/2022 04:37 pm »
Mention of a larger rocket is just after the 27:55 minute mark. Very brief remark. "New Glenn will be the smallest orbital class launch vehicle that we build"
That quote goes back to the beginning of NG, lost in the fog of time...

And strictly speaking it doesn't even mean they'll build something larger...  It was originally more of a "we don't intend to build something smaller on the way from NS to NG".

Awright BO.  It's been a while and everyone's ready.  You almost have an engine, let's see a rocket!
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline DrHeywoodFloyd

Re: New Armstrong Speculation and Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #77 on: 08/04/2022 07:11 pm »
My take on this...

To make space a profitable business, there will be need for a re-launcher and usable re-entry vehicle larger than any current launcher currently in development.

This may be what "New Armstrong"will be.. this will be to space, what bulk ore carriers are to shipping... moving high margin rare earths and other minerals from mining on the moon back to Earth. This thing would need to be BIG, VERY, VERY BIG, FAAARKING HUGE!

It would be launched from the ocean, and re-enter back to the ocean.....

Right now, New Glenn is what Blue Origin needs, but from this, there is a whole architecture that they know that they are not fully sharing, but dropping bread crumbs for....

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: New Armstrong Speculation and Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #78 on: 08/04/2022 11:00 pm »
My take on this...

To make space a profitable business, there will be need for a re-launcher and usable re-entry vehicle larger than any current launcher currently in development.

This may be what "New Armstrong"will be.. this will be to space, what bulk ore carriers are to shipping... moving high margin rare earths and other minerals from mining on the moon back to Earth. This thing would need to be BIG, VERY, VERY BIG, FAAARKING HUGE!

It would be launched from the ocean, and re-enter back to the ocean.....

Right now, New Glenn is what Blue Origin needs, but from this, there is a whole architecture that they know that they are not fully sharing, but dropping bread crumbs for....
Don't need large LV to return large quantities of raw materials from space. Only a heatshield and fuel both of which come from ISRU, also propulsion but this can be small high performance engines eg BE7. The BE7 power spacetug can stay space and reused multiple times.
« Last Edit: 08/05/2022 09:18 am by zubenelgenubi »

Offline DrHeywoodFloyd

Re: New Armstrong Speculation and Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #79 on: 08/06/2022 12:54 am »
My take on this...

To make space a profitable business, there will be need for a re-launcher and usable re-entry vehicle larger than any current launcher currently in development.

This may be what "New Armstrong"will be.. this will be to space, what bulk ore carriers are to shipping... moving high margin rare earths and other minerals from mining on the moon back to Earth. This thing would need to be BIG, VERY, VERY BIG, FAAARKING HUGE!

It would be launched from the ocean, and re-enter back to the ocean.....

Right now, New Glenn is what Blue Origin needs, but from this, there is a whole architecture that they know that they are not fully sharing, but dropping bread crumbs for....
Don't need large LV to return large quantities of raw materials from space. Only a heatshield and fuel both of which come from ISRU, also propulsion but this can be small high performance engines eg BE7. The BE7 power spacetug can stay space and reused multiple times.

Evolving my thoughts ... Using the Blue Origin LV naming convention as a guide... I suspect New Armstrong will be as a earth based launch vehicle ... whereas New Glenn is about shifting cargo to low earth orbit, New Armstrong will be about shifting cargo to the moon, and so as a guide the Nova Family of rockets would be a good starting point for New Armstrong...

http://www.astronautix.com/n/nova.html

Being a business, I am sure Blue Origin are thinking of how they can make the Moon a profitable business for itself and supporting the businesses in orbital around earth rather than just being a trucking company on government hand-outs from Nasa... so I posit that the business case for this LV will not be justified for at least 10-20 years ...

I suspect New Armstrong would use evolved BE-4 engines equal in performance to the Aerojet M-1 or even bigger, rather than the Russian N-1 30+ engine approach that Space X are using....

It would be big, and re-usable, but re-entering and landing into the ocean, and so handled like a ship.... It depends on the size of the cargo ...

Yet I do posit in order to make an enterprise on the Moon profitable it would be mining that would be the business case. I am not including Helium 3, as this just conjecture at present, and I do not see Fusion energy becoming practical in the next 1-20 years [as much I would like !]. It would have to be extremely rare elements such as Iridium and others that are extremely rate, but have a high value; so mining them on the moon would be economic. There would need to be processes on the moon to refine the ore, and there would be some kind of "bulk carrier" that would return the mined product back to earth ..... "Ladies you are not in Kansas! "

 

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