Blue Origin project Jarvis/Clipper - reusable NG 2nd stage

[Tywin]

This is the way...

[spacenut]

Even if Blue can't beat SpaceX on price, if they can be lower on price that ULA, then they can compete.  Then ULA will have to develop a reusable vehicle to stay in business. 

[JEF_300]

I feel like we're all picturing a smaller hydrolox Starship right now, so I'd just like to remind everyone that this is Blue Origin we're talking about. They'll build the most conservative, margin wealthy version of Starship that can be devised. So, for example, instead of activating the main engines at the last moment to flip from the reentry orientation to the landing one, I'd expect Jarvis to use an aerodynamic surface, or perhaps even a drogue chute, up at altitude. That's of course assuming it would need to flip at all.

Personally, I'm really excited to see what they do differently. I'd say SpaceX's greatest strength and weakness is how extremely radical they are, and that Blue Origin's greatest strength and weakness is how conservative they are. So between both of them, we should be able to get at least a vague idea of what the best way to execute the reusable upper stage is.

[jedijeff123]

I'm curious if it will land on a runway. Something along the lines of the original Max Faget shuttle orbiter design  Part of the reason Starship is designed the way it is has to do with landing on Mars-Blue isn't beholden to such plans. Besides, I still harbor doubts that Starship will be a viable passenger vehicle. Something about that flip and burn maneuver makes me nervous for human-rating. Starship might be the ideal cargo and BEO hauler, but for airline-like operations to LEO, a normal runway landing seems better suited.

[Jim]

but for airline-like operations to LEO, a normal runway landing seems better suited.

Not really. 

[punder]

The most exciting part of the article isn’t that yet another company has decided to emulate SpaceX rather than dismiss it. The most exciting part is the in-space propulsion and, especially, ISRU projects. That’s what Blue ought to be doing, rather than try chasing a bus that’s already miles down the road.

After I posted, I realized there’s probably a separate thread… 

[GalacticIntruder]

Bezos had to go Skunkworks because his current BO engineering teams rejected Starship as not viable.

[AlexP]

If we take this together with the nuggets on ISRU and propulsion - could we, just maybe, be seeing them alighting on a strategy that's worth spending all this time, effort and money on?

Accordingly, for Blue's own sake, I hope NASA ignores the latest offer regarding the lander so they can take the lesson they've apparently learned here with the second stage: go back to the drawing board and come up with something that's coherent with these other projects as well as their own stated goals - an ambitious, reusable system targeted at Lunar travel and exploration. Focus on that tangible end goal and pursue it aggressively (ferociously?).

As an aside, if the stuff about Bezos being told that Starship would likely falter is true, you have to assume that's going to affect how he views the current structure and ethos of the organisation, right?

[thirtyone]

...Maybe it's a reusable Centaur. =P

In all seriousness, I doubt that's what they're doing and I doubt it'd be possible, but in an ideal world that would be good expertise to draw from. Centaur is already SS and has hydrolox propulsion, and has a heck of a lot more heritage than anything BO has done. It's a lot of work to make a reusable, but it's probably a better starting point?

[lrk]

I'm curious what they would use for landing propulsion.  A BE-3 alongside the BE-3U engines would be in the right ballpark.  A single landing engine would seem to imply a design rather like starship, with header tanks and a last-minute flip maneuver. 

I guess the aerosurfaces could look a bit different, they could maybe get by with only one set of movable flaps as the vehicle would only need to be capable of re-entering earth's atmosphere.   

[FutureSpaceTourist]

A reminder of SpaceX’s original F9 S2 reuse concept a decade ago:



See about 1:10 into the video.

[JEF_300]

I'm curious if it will land on a runway. Something along the lines of the original Max Faget shuttle orbiter design  Part of the reason Starship is designed the way it is has to do with landing on Mars-Blue isn't beholden to such plans. Besides, I still harbor doubts that Starship will be a viable passenger vehicle. Something about that flip and burn maneuver makes me nervous for human-rating. Starship might be the ideal cargo and BEO hauler, but for airline-like operations to LEO, a normal runway landing seems better suited.

Gliding to a runway landing gives you more control for more of the decent, better time margins, and wings are more reliable than rocket engines. All that comes at the cost of a big chunk of your mass margins. Seems to me like exactly the sort of trade the Blue Origin would make, so I think it's likely that Jarvis will be a glider.

...then again, I think it's likely that every reusable proposal I here about will be a glider, so it may be best to ignore me.

I will say that I don't think Blue will ever put a crew compartment on a reusable stage, preferring to land them separately. They seem to like having people in a separate vehicles design entirely around having crew, which I suspect is a part of their zealous (perhaps over-zealous) dedication to caution and safety. I point to New Shepard as my example of this. I would expect to see crew landing separately in a capsule (biconic?) rather than on Jarvis.

[meekGee]

I'm curious if it will land on a runway. Something along the lines of the original Max Faget shuttle orbiter design  Part of the reason Starship is designed the way it is has to do with landing on Mars-Blue isn't beholden to such plans. Besides, I still harbor doubts that Starship will be a viable passenger vehicle. Something about that flip and burn maneuver makes me nervous for human-rating. Starship might be the ideal cargo and BEO hauler, but for airline-like operations to LEO, a normal runway landing seems better suited.

Gliding to a runway landing gives you more control for more of the decent, better time margins, and wings are more reliable than rocket engines. All that comes at the cost of a big chunk of your mass margins. Seems to me like exactly the sort of trade the Blue Origin would make, so I think it's likely that Jarvis will be a glider.

...then again, I think it's likely that every reusable proposal I here about will be a glider, so it may be best to ignore me.

I will say that I don't think Blue will ever put a crew compartment on a reusable stage, preferring to land them separately. They seem to like having people in a separate vehicles design entirely around having crew, which I suspect is a part of their zealous (perhaps over-zealous) dedication to caution and safety. I point to New Shepard as my example of this. I would expect to see crew landing separately in a capsule (biconic?) rather than on Jarvis.

It's an argument as old as time itself, but there's no winged vehicle that can land if "any two of its three wings are working properly", so it's far from settled or even settable because it really depends on other factors of the design...

But irrespective of that, BO needs to achieve relevancy ASAP, and speed of development is super important.

I'm pretty sure that the path to a vertical lander is shorter, either a downscaled SS or an original design better suited for a smaller rocket.

[TrevorMonty]

Blue will go with propulsive landing, they are experts at it plus have perfect engine for job ie BE3.

Big aerospace companies like Boeing, LM, NGIS and SNC would be more likely to HL as that is their area of expertise.

Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

[Steve G]

Both BO and SpaceX have adopted the propulsive landing technique. In fact. Blue did it before SpaceX, so I would think they would go that route for the second stage. If not, then we're looking at wings, maybe like the X-37. But the unknown factor is the billionaire ego issue. Musk has taunted Bezos with several obnoxious tweets, and I can't help but believe Bezos didn't have a "of course, you realize this means war" moment. Bezos (I assume) would never have a design too close to Starship to give Musk any homage.

[M.E.T.]

The challenge I see here (well, apart from all of BO’s other, lengthily articulated challenges), is that this sounds like a knee jerk, disjointed attempt to shoehorn a reusable upper stage onto a pre-existing rocket designed for only partial reusability.

As opposed to the Starship architecture which was conceptualized and designed from the start for the sole purpose of full and rapid reusability.

This was one of the reasons SpaceX did not continue to pursue upper stage reusability for F9.

Yes, Blue may succeed in achieving upper stage reusability. But with lots of trade offs. And as Elon said, full reusability alone is not sufficient. It has to be full and RAPID.

So while the technical goal of upper stage reuse may eventually be achieved with the New Glenn rocket, (to much fanfare, no doubt), I’m not sure that it will be in a way to satisfy the associated business goals that drove them down this path.

So once again, prestige over substance, if I had to bet on it.

[RonM]

A key aspect of Starship is orbital refueling for Mars missions, so it has to have full and rapid reusability for tanker operations.

New Glenn is for putting payloads into orbit. Blue needs reusability, but it doesn't have to be rapid.

Elon recently said Starship development would have been easier if it was a little smaller than its 9 m diameter. New Glenn is 7 m. Jarvis just might be the right size for its job.

[TrevorMonty]

The challenge I see here (well, apart from all of BO’s other, lengthily articulated challenges), is that this sounds like a knee jerk, disjointed attempt to shoehorn a reusable upper stage onto a pre-existing rocket designed for only partial reusability.

Why do assume the NG was not going to be fully reuseable. An expendable US + fairing while being easier and quicker path to initial flight is nice option to have even if NG has reuseable US.
Allows for heavier and physically larger payload than reuseable US with cargo pay. Can also do higher performance missions which could also benefit from tanker refuellings.

Further BLEO US goes more expensive it is to return to earth,  sometimes a lower cost expendable US is cheaper option.


Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

[yg1968]

I wonder what this means for Blue's plans for a biconic capsule (apparently they continued to work on it after CCDev-2). I imagine that they would continue working on the capsule at the same time.

[meekGee]

A key aspect of Starship is orbital refueling for Mars missions, so it has to have full and rapid reusability for tanker operations.

New Glenn is for putting payloads into orbit. Blue needs reusability, but it doesn't have to be rapid.

Elon recently said Starship development would have been easier if it was a little smaller than its 9 m diameter. New Glenn is 7 m. Jarvis just might be the right size for its job.

True, but they have to stay relevant.

If SS is successful in attaining rapid reusability, then once again BO will have aimed too low.