Author Topic: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5  (Read 46380 times)

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47313
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 80124
  • Likes Given: 36283
Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« on: 02/09/2023 05:33 pm »
Thread 5 for this general Blue Origin discussion thread

Thread 1:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=10685.0

Thread 2:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43998.0

Thread 3:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=53979.0

Thread 4:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=54914.0

Please keep this civil and avoid repeating arguments over and over (which was the problem at the end of thread 4). Just agree to disagree and stop discussion.

Posts that don’t follow this may be deleted without warning

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47313
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 80124
  • Likes Given: 36283
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #1 on: 02/09/2023 05:34 pm »
https://twitter.com/free_space/status/1623742767015788546

Quote
Staffing for @blueorigin in-space programs increased by a factor of four last year, to more than 1,000 employees,  Brent Sherwood, Blue Origin sr vp for advanced programs, said during panel session at FAA Cmcl Space Transportation conference

That’s a lot of people not working on launch.

Offline whitelancer64

Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #2 on: 02/09/2023 10:31 pm »
*yeet tweet*

Quote
Staffing for @blueorigin in-space programs increased by a factor of four last year, to more than 1,000 employees,  Brent Sherwood, Blue Origin sr vp for advanced programs, said during panel session at FAA Cmcl Space Transportation conference

That’s a lot of people not working on launch.

Reminder that Blue Origin employs over 6,000 people.

Presumably "in-space programs"  refers to the Blue Moon lunar lander, Lunar Clipper, Orbital Reef, and Blue Ring projects.
"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

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9097
  • Likes Given: 885
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #3 on: 02/10/2023 04:19 am »
This is hilarious:

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1623783560141307905

Quote
Meanwhile on the chicken and space beat ... Blue Origin’s nonprofit, Club for the Future, will partner with Big Chicken’s leadership team and founder Shaquille O’Neal.

Shaq's Big Chicken and Blue Origin Join Forces on Dream to Pursue Restaurant in Space



"I’m proud to team up with Blue Origin to help inspire the next generation,” said Shaquille O’Neal, who opened the first Big Chicken location in 2018. “This first-of-its-kind partnership is a game changer and I’m excited to take the chicken sandwich game to a whole new level.”



Maybe Jeff can send Shaq to space to convince him that the Earth is, in fact a sphere.

Shaquille O'Neal Says His Flat-Earth Comments Are 'Just a Theory' While Questioning If Earth Spins
« Last Edit: 02/10/2023 04:19 am by su27k »

Offline GWH

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1741
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1924
  • Likes Given: 1276
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #4 on: 02/11/2023 12:16 am »
Blue Origin published this news release today on their "Blue Alchemist" project, which is pretty dang cool, and a fantastic in depth write up which is pretty rare for them.
https://www.blueorigin.com/news/blue-alchemist-powers-our-lunar-future/

Twitter link to embed some quick info, more in that thread:
https://twitter.com/megsylhydrazine/status/1624180430290427904

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47313
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 80124
  • Likes Given: 36283
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #5 on: 02/11/2023 03:20 am »
Here’s the Blue post:

https://www.blueorigin.com/news/blue-alchemist-powers-our-lunar-future/

Quote
BLOG | FEB 10, 2023

Blue Alchemist Technology Powers our Lunar Future

Since 2021, Blue Origin has been making solar cells and transmission wire from regolith simulants.

To make long-term presence on the Moon viable, we need abundant electrical power. We can make power systems on the Moon directly from materials that exist everywhere on the surface, without special substances brought from Earth. We have pioneered the technology and demonstrated all the steps. Our approach, Blue Alchemist, can scale indefinitely, eliminating power as a constraint anywhere on the Moon.

We start by making regolith simulants that are chemically and mineralogically equivalent to lunar regolith, accounting for representative lunar variability in grain size and bulk chemistry. This ensures our starting material is as realistic as possible, and not just a mixture of lunar-relevant oxides. We have developed and qualified an efficient, scalable, and contactless process for melting and moving molten regolith that is robust to natural variations in regolith properties on the Moon.

Using regolith simulants, our reactor produces iron, silicon, and aluminum through molten regolith electrolysis, in which an electrical current separates those elements from the oxygen to which they are bound. Oxygen for propulsion and life support is a byproduct.

Our process purifies silicon to more than 99.999%. This level of purity is required to make efficient solar cells. While typical silicon purification methods on Earth use large amounts of toxic and explosive chemicals, our process uses just sunlight and the silicon from our reactor.

For protection from the harsh lunar environment, solar cells need cover glass; without it, they would only last for days. Our technique uses only molten regolith electrolysis byproducts to make cover glass that enables lunar lifetimes exceeding a decade.

Because our technology manufactures solar cells with zero carbon emissions, no water, and no toxic ingredients or other chemicals, it has exciting potential to directly benefit the Earth.

We assembled, in one laboratory, the people and facilities needed to transform regolith into solar cells and wires:

People: Our team encompasses all disciplines needed to solve this unprecedented technical challenge: geologists, geochemists, electrochemists, metallurgists, materials and photovoltaic scientists, fluid dynamicists, mechanical and electrical engineers, roboticists, and instrument, space flight, and systems engineers.

Facilities: Our laboratory is purpose-equipped for every step of the end-to-end process of transforming regolith into solar cells and aluminum wire, including quality and longevity testing.

Although our vision is technically ambitious, our technology is real now. Blue Origin’s goal of producing solar power using only lunar resources is aligned with NASA’s highest priority Moon-to-Mars infrastructure development objective.

Learning to live off the land – on the Moon and on Mars – will require extensive collaboration across the ISRU community. We are ready.

Image captions:

Quote
Blue Origin manufactured this working solar cell prototype from lunar regolith simulants.

Quote
Our proprietary transport subsystem moves and separates molten material at temperatures above 1600 degrees Celsius in a controlled and power-efficient manner while withstanding the high-temperature, corrosive environment.

Quote
Molten regolith electrolysis extracts iron, then silicon, and finally aluminum by passing a current through the molten regolith. The rising oxygen bubbles in one of our reactors show metals and metalloids being separated from oxygen. Our reactor geometry, metal extraction approach, and materials selection will enable sustained lunar operations.

Quote
Our novel process fabricates solar cells, including cover glass, using only products from our reactor. These long-lived cells resist degradation caused by radiation on the Moon. Here we show silicon melting as well as the thin-layer deposition that makes solar cells.

Quote
Our diverse team is equipped to produce solar cells and transmission wire from lunar regolith simulant.

Quote
Once demonstrated and implemented on the Moon, Blue Alchemist will put unlimited solar power wherever we need it.

Offline GWH

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1741
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1924
  • Likes Given: 1276
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #6 on: 02/11/2023 01:24 pm »
This program (which looks fantastic) really correspends with a common theme in Reddit post by Blue employees, namely "we have so many things going on here we wish we could share". Those types of posts are often in response to criticism on Blue's visible progress.

There's another theme that I've seen in a Reddit post stating that Jeff Bezos finally opened up to larger teams so big projects (New Glenn) will really start moving. "Amazon Unbound" has quotes that show a similar theme: Bezos wants/wanted small teams and a forced scarcity of resources. 

To me it all really paints a bigger picture of how, and why, Blue can have so much funding, be moving so slowly on major projects,  and yet have a team that seems pretty unfazed by the pace that a lot of observers feel is too slow. It seems that behind the curtains they have a ton of cool things in progress. The side effect of this I feel is a highly diluted sense of both the workforce and their sense of urgency and an impedence to internal assement of progress. 

Offline DrHeywoodFloyd

Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #7 on: 02/12/2023 12:28 am »
This program (which looks fantastic) really correspends with a common theme in Reddit post by Blue employees, namely "we have so many things going on here we wish we could share". Those types of posts are often in response to criticism on Blue's visible progress.

There's another theme that I've seen in a Reddit post stating that Jeff Bezos finally opened up to larger teams so big projects (New Glenn) will really start moving. "Amazon Unbound" has quotes that show a similar theme: Bezos wants/wanted small teams and a forced scarcity of resources. 

To me it all really paints a bigger picture of how, and why, Blue can have so much funding, be moving so slowly on major projects,  and yet have a team that seems pretty unfazed by the pace that a lot of observers feel is too slow. It seems that behind the curtains they have a ton of cool things in progress. The side effect of this I feel is a highly diluted sense of both the workforce and their sense of urgency and an impedence to internal assement of progress.

Let us be glad that they are willing to invest in advanced development projects that are risky and whose pay-off may not be for 15-20 years + from now, as they are clearly thinking beyond being merely in the "space trucking" business, and thinking how they can mine the resources of the moon, and manufacture it into products that can be used on the moon, between the moon and the earth, and even back on space... so they are not reliant on handout from NASA... I fully suspect that as these projects come into being, Blue is going to need a bigger truck than New Glenn....

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9097
  • Likes Given: 885
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #8 on: 02/12/2023 02:32 am »
Yeah, I saw that attitude a lot on reddit too, and I'm not impressed. Fact is some cool tech demo won't negate the fact that Blue's management and main programs are dysfunctional, just like NASA has a lot of cool tech demo too but it wouldn't negate the fact that SLS/Orion is dysfunctional.

I'm of the school that says leadership matters, a lot. It's a necessary - though not sufficient - condition for a successful company, Blue won't succeed until they have a great leader on the top. So far all evidence indicates this is not happening, see National Team 2.0 for a recent example.

So best case scenario their advanced program department becomes the Xerox PARC of the space industry, and some other company will need to convert their inventions into useful products.

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47313
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 80124
  • Likes Given: 36283
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #9 on: 02/13/2023 02:02 pm »
https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/02/blue-origin-makes-a-big-lunar-announcement-without-any-fanfare/

Quote
Blue Origin makes a big lunar announcement without any fanfare
"Although our vision is technically ambitious, our technology is real now."

ERIC BERGER - 2/13/2023, 2:34 PM

For decades scientists and engineers have talked about using the dusty lunar surface to manufacture solar panels. All of the key ingredients for solar cells are present in this rocky and dusty regolith on the surface of the Moon—silicon, iron, magnesium, aluminum, and more.

Image caption:

Quote
In this depiction Blue Alchemist is shown constructing solar cells on the lunar surface.
Blue Origin

Online TrevorMonty

Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #10 on: 02/14/2023 09:25 am »
Another link Blue webpage on these lunar solar cells.

https://www.blueorigin.com/news/blue-alchemist-powers-our-lunar-future/

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47313
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 80124
  • Likes Given: 36283
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #11 on: 03/08/2023 02:44 pm »
https://twitter.com/breadfrom/status/1633485901937426432

Quote
New: Two separate lawsuits have been filed against Blue Origin alleging discriminatory hiring practices based on age, TechCrunch has learned.

https://techcrunch.com/2023/03/08/two-separate-lawsuits-allege-ageist-hiring-practices-at-blue-origin/

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14107
  • N. California
  • Liked: 13973
  • Likes Given: 1389
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #12 on: 03/08/2023 03:11 pm »
https://twitter.com/breadfrom/status/1633485901937426432

Quote
New: Two separate lawsuits have been filed against Blue Origin alleging discriminatory hiring practices based on age, TechCrunch has learned.

https://techcrunch.com/2023/03/08/two-separate-lawsuits-allege-ageist-hiring-practices-at-blue-origin/
Are they only hiring old space people?!
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #13 on: 03/08/2023 03:37 pm »
Quote
Are they only hiring old space people?!

Actually looks like the opposite is true lol

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47313
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 80124
  • Likes Given: 36283
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #14 on: 04/10/2023 07:11 pm »


Quote
Earth is the best planet. Yet, its resources are limited. In space, there are abundant resources that will help humanity preserve Earth for future generations. We can go to space for what we need, and move the most polluting industries from Earth into the solar system where they can't stress our environment.

Space is the long-term solution for Earth, humanity's blue origin. Join the mission.

Online chopsticks

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1057
  • Québec, Canada
  • Liked: 1075
  • Likes Given: 164
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #15 on: 04/11/2023 12:54 am »
The timing of this is rather suspect.

Offline Rakietwawka2021

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 122
  • Liked: 91
  • Likes Given: 142
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #16 on: 04/11/2023 07:48 am »
The timing of this is rather suspect.
Why do you think so?

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39246
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25173
  • Likes Given: 12102
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #17 on: 04/11/2023 12:50 pm »
SpaceX has been “a month or two” away from Starship launching for a year or two, there’s not like a better time.

I like it. I’m glad we have two well-funded companies with grand space visions. I just wish both were executing at an aggressive pace!
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 woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12080
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18036
  • Likes Given: 12036
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #18 on: 04/11/2023 06:23 pm »
<snipped 8 minutes of talking heads>

Quote
Earth is the best planet. Yet, its resources are limited. In space, there are abundant resources that will help humanity preserve Earth for future generations. We can go to space for what we need, and move the most polluting industries from Earth into the solar system where they can't stress our environment.

Space is the long-term solution for Earth, humanity's blue origin. Join the mission.

Nine minutes of video, of which almost 8 minutes is talking heads. If, as a company, you need that much explanation to sell your mission, then you're doing something wrong.
Less talk, more action!
« Last Edit: 04/11/2023 06:24 pm by woods170 »

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47313
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 80124
  • Likes Given: 36283
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #19 on: 04/14/2023 06:28 am »
https://twitter.com/maxfagin/status/1646360114893565953

Quote
Blue Origin is the first job I've had where I'm asked to solve space problems for next year, next decade, and next century; and all in the same workday. It's a *hard* challenge, but it's one that everyone on Team Blue is up to!

Happy #yurisnight Earth!

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47313
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 80124
  • Likes Given: 36283
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #20 on: 04/14/2023 03:03 pm »
Crosspost:

twitter.com/free_space/status/1646883653413224449

Quote
Space Force plans to award sole-source study contract to on-ramp Blue Origin for National Security Space Launch Phase 3 contract -- Lane 2 (which, if for New Glenn, certainly indicates Lane 2 not just for small satellite launchers ). SLS next?   

https://sam.gov/opp/bc16bbbd24074a7b9d715b341a0aa567/view

https://twitter.com/free_space/status/1646889447839916033

Quote
Oops -- got my lanes mixed up . lane 2 for full-range of NSSL missions , not small sat launchers .

Offline Tywin

Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #21 on: 04/14/2023 03:17 pm »
Boom!!! 8)
The knowledge is power...Everything is connected...
The Turtle continues at a steady pace ...

Offline trimeta

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1659
  • Kansas City, MO
  • Liked: 2121
  • Likes Given: 57
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #22 on: 04/14/2023 07:44 pm »
Boom!!! 8)
Adding New Glenn as a potential competitor for NSSL Phase 3 Lane 2 was always going to happen, it's hardly a "boom." Now, if it actually wins one of the two Lane 2 slots, that would be quite a "boom." But there's no particular reason to think that's likely.

Online TrevorMonty

Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #23 on: 04/14/2023 10:10 pm »
Boom!!! 8)
Adding New Glenn as a potential competitor for NSSL Phase 3 Lane 2 was always going to happen, it's hardly a "boom." Now, if it actually wins one of the two Lane 2 slots, that would be quite a "boom." But there's no particular reason to think that's likely.
https://spacenews.com/the-next-battle-for-u-s-military-launch-contracts-is-about-to-begin/

There is no way Blue is going be in Lane 2, they don't flight heritage to compete with ULA of SpaceX for these high value missions. Blue just have to fight it out with RL Neutron, Firefly/NG MLV and Relativity Terran R for lower cost Lane 1 missions.
ULA and SpaceX can still bid for Lane 1 contracts but DoD would prefer to give these to the new entrants.
« Last Edit: 04/14/2023 10:18 pm by TrevorMonty »

Offline trimeta

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1659
  • Kansas City, MO
  • Liked: 2121
  • Likes Given: 57
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #24 on: 04/14/2023 10:27 pm »
Boom!!! 8)
Adding New Glenn as a potential competitor for NSSL Phase 3 Lane 2 was always going to happen, it's hardly a "boom." Now, if it actually wins one of the two Lane 2 slots, that would be quite a "boom." But there's no particular reason to think that's likely.
https://spacenews.com/the-next-battle-for-u-s-military-launch-contracts-is-about-to-begin/

There is no way Blue is going be in Lane 2, they don't flight heritage to compete with ULA of SpaceX for these high value missions. Blue just have to fight it out with RL Neutron, Firefly/NG MLV and Relativity Terran R for lower cost Lane 1 missions.
ULA and SpaceX can still bid for Lane 1 contracts but DoD would prefer to give these to the new entrants.
I tend to agree, but as this study contract demonstrates, Blue Origin wants to at least pretend like they have a shot at ousting one of ULA or SpaceX from Lane 2.

Offline matthewkantar

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2044
  • Liked: 2490
  • Likes Given: 2176
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #25 on: 04/15/2023 02:19 am »
Boom!!! 8)
Adding New Glenn as a potential competitor for NSSL Phase 3 Lane 2 was always going to happen, it's hardly a "boom." Now, if it actually wins one of the two Lane 2 slots, that would be quite a "boom." But there's no particular reason to think that's likely.
https://spacenews.com/the-next-battle-for-u-s-military-launch-contracts-is-about-to-begin/

There is no way Blue is going be in Lane 2, they don't flight heritage to compete with ULA of SpaceX for these high value missions. Blue just have to fight it out with RL Neutron, Firefly/NG MLV and Relativity Terran R for lower cost Lane 1 missions.
ULA and SpaceX can still bid for Lane 1 contracts but DoD would prefer to give these to the new entrants.

What heritage do you speak of? Most of the rocket has never flown before. First stage propulsion is supplied by a company that has never orbited anything at all ever. Upper stage propulsion and a tank that just kersploded on a test stand? Heritage my butt.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37380
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21315
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #26 on: 04/15/2023 02:35 am »
[
What heritage do you speak of? Most of the rocket has never flown before. First stage propulsion is supplied by a company that has never orbited anything at all ever. Upper stage propulsion and a tank that just kersploded on a test stand? Heritage my butt.

Stop it

Offline deadman1204

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1741
  • USA
  • Liked: 1452
  • Likes Given: 2458
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #27 on: 04/16/2023 05:12 pm »
I don't think Blue (or relativity or electron or anyone else) really has a shot at lane 2 until NSSL 4.

NG or any other new rocket will have VERY little flight heritage (or team experience). Numbers on paper just won't compare to the flight history of the 2 experienced companies. Yes Vulcan is "new", but the first stage is based off of alot existing rockets, and the 2nd stage (arguably more important)  is just the next iteration. Plus ULA has decades of flight and military experience. Also, company/flight team experience is just as valuable as hardware experience. Operating and understanding the rocket is important.

I think Blue will just need more launches and experience to have a shot at dislodging ULA or SpaceX.
« Last Edit: 04/16/2023 05:15 pm by deadman1204 »

Offline trimeta

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1659
  • Kansas City, MO
  • Liked: 2121
  • Likes Given: 57
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #28 on: 04/16/2023 06:19 pm »
I don't think Blue (or relativity or electron or anyone else) really has a shot at lane 2 until NSSL 4.
FWIW, I'm pretty sure Rocket Lab lobbied hard for the creation of Lane 1 explicitly because they knew they've got no shot at participating in Lane 2. At least they're keeping their expectations reasonable...

As for Relativity, their strangely-low GTO performance, along with Tim Ellis' caginess when talking with Eric Berger, suggests they're not seriously going for Lane 2 at this time either. Maybe they'll explore the onramp procedure later, but as you say probably somewhere around NSSL 4.

I believe Firefly and ABL were also mentioned as Lane 1 contenders, but we know what Firefly's entrant will look like, and it's Neutron-sized, thus too small for Lane 2. ABL is the big wildcard, but I wouldn't expect them to have a heavy-lift vehicle until NSSL 4 either.

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5410
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1783
  • Likes Given: 1287
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #29 on: 04/16/2023 11:48 pm »
I don't think Blue (or relativity or electron or anyone else) really has a shot at lane 2 until NSSL 4.
<snip>
Northrop Grumman could always resurrected some version of the "Stick" with some combination of Castor 120 solid motors and a liquid upper stage.

P.S. I will leave now.  :P

Offline BoTheBearSpace

Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #30 on: 04/17/2023 02:21 pm »
When will NS-24 be?

Offline 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

Offline GWH

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1741
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1924
  • Likes Given: 1276
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #32 on: 05/01/2023 04:53 am »
According to this reddit user Blue Origin is now at over 10,000 employees:

https://www.reddit.com/r/BlueOrigin/comments/1344wdb/comment/jie71jn/

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12080
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18036
  • Likes Given: 12036
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #33 on: 05/01/2023 08:56 am »
According to this reddit user Blue Origin is now at over 10,000 employees:

https://www.reddit.com/r/BlueOrigin/comments/1344wdb/comment/jie71jn/

And still NOT launching to orbit.

Offline jdon759

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 115
  • Liked: 105
  • Likes Given: 108
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #34 on: 05/01/2023 11:58 am »
According to this reddit user Blue Origin is now at over 10,000 employees:

https://www.reddit.com/r/BlueOrigin/comments/1344wdb/comment/jie71jn/

And still NOT launching to orbit.

Walmart has 2.3 million employees, and it hasn't even sent anything to space, let alone orbit. Vaastly less successful than Blue.

Offline kevinof

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1594
  • Somewhere on the boat
  • Liked: 1869
  • Likes Given: 1262
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #35 on: 05/01/2023 12:48 pm »
Seriously? What a useless, content-free comment.

Can we please try and do better?


According to this reddit user Blue Origin is now at over 10,000 employees:

https://www.reddit.com/r/BlueOrigin/comments/1344wdb/comment/jie71jn/

And still NOT launching to orbit.

Walmart has 2.3 million employees, and it hasn't even sent anything to space, let alone orbit. Vaastly less successful than Blue.

Offline Greg Hullender

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 600
  • Seattle
    • Rocket Stack Rank
  • Liked: 440
  • Likes Given: 332
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #36 on: 05/01/2023 01:02 pm »
Looking at it optimistically, I'd say it implies that Space Force has information that suggests New Glenn is likely to launch soon. That would be nice. It's been way too long.

Offline GWH

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1741
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1924
  • Likes Given: 1276
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #37 on: 05/01/2023 03:12 pm »
As a comparison, that other big Space company with an X in their name was reportedly 9500 people in 2021.

At that time they had:
- 3 active launch sites, on 2 coasts, plus a 3rd test launch site
- 30 Falcon 9 flights
- 0 Falcon Heavy flights
- Crew Dragon with 3 flights that year
- Cargo Dragon 2 with 3 flights that year
- Starship SN 15 test flight
- Starbase construction ramping up
- Starlink in full build up, entered commercial service that year

The number of employees Blue has and the comparison here kind of makes my head spin. Mostly because of what this says of their expenses vs what we currently know of their revenue.

On the one hand, Blue is obviously doing a ramp up to completing New Glenn, so its a fair expectation that this is resource intensive. They are also in full production of BE-4 now, as well as hopefully BE-3U, requiring a decent sized workforce. BE-4 is paid work for Vulcan at least.

Blue Moon I could see being a cargo dragon 1 equivalent cost program, if Blue is truly invested. No major outside funding for that.

Orbital Reef is probably equivalent to Crew Dragon if not larger, but currently in its infancy and receiving a relatively small amount of NASA funding.

New Shepard with an operational cadence of about 12 per year ideally.

Blue ring and other programs like Blue Alchemist.

As for resources to get New Glenn up and running... yes... but they've been working on it forever. This isn't a new program. If they need to dump so much now into getting it "moving along" that says a lot of negative things (in my mind) about their resource utilization to date.

Of course there is always they alternative theory that Blue has "countless big things" going on behind closed doors that they don't want to share. I'm skeptical there.
« Last Edit: 05/01/2023 03:22 pm by GWH »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39246
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25173
  • Likes Given: 12102
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #38 on: 05/01/2023 03:34 pm »
Falcon Heavy first flew in 2018…
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 Robert_the_Doll

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 764
  • Florida
  • Liked: 1215
  • Likes Given: 435

Offline GWH

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1741
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1924
  • Likes Given: 1276
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #40 on: 05/01/2023 04:05 pm »
Falcon Heavy first flew in 2018…

I wrote Falcon Heavy in there as it was at the time a completed, fully operational rocket, just not one that flew in that particular year.
« Last Edit: 05/01/2023 04:11 pm by GWH »

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14107
  • N. California
  • Liked: 13973
  • Likes Given: 1389
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #41 on: 05/01/2023 09:06 pm »
According to this reddit user Blue Origin is now at over 10,000 employees:

https://www.reddit.com/r/BlueOrigin/comments/1344wdb/comment/jie71jn/

And still NOT launching to orbit.

Walmart has 2.3 million employees, and it hasn't even sent anything to space, let alone orbit. Vaastly less successful than Blue.
Assuming you're not just joking..

Walmart's goal is to sell, retail.  It's doing rather well, with an average revenue per employee of about $0.25M.

Very similar to Amazon (0.33).

Google, in comparison, is at 1.5. Microsoft at 1.1

Tesla at 0.60.

SpaceX, interestingly, at 0.21.

BO is at 0.012 based on 3500 employees. 0.004 if 10,000.

Better than I thought actually.



ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline deadman1204

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1741
  • USA
  • Liked: 1452
  • Likes Given: 2458
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #42 on: 05/02/2023 03:16 pm »
According to this reddit user Blue Origin is now at over 10,000 employees:

https://www.reddit.com/r/BlueOrigin/comments/1344wdb/comment/jie71jn/

And still NOT launching to orbit.

Walmart has 2.3 million employees, and it hasn't even sent anything to space, let alone orbit. Vaastly less successful than Blue.
Assuming you're not just joking..

Walmart's goal is to sell, retail.  It's doing rather well, with an average revenue per employee of about $0.25M.

Very similar to Amazon (0.33).

Google, in comparison, is at 1.5. Microsoft at 1.1

Tesla at 0.60.

SpaceX, interestingly, at 0.21.

BO is at 0.012 based on 3500 employees. 0.004 if 10,000.

Better than I thought actually.
The point was that do not judge a company based on its headcount. The post was very well done I thought.

SpaceX is a launch company. Most of its employees are involved in rockets. Even HLS is just a rocket with a different name.
Blue is obviously chasing alot of non-rocket related contracts. LEO stations, landers, ect. So many of its employees have nothing to do with building/launching rockets.

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14107
  • N. California
  • Liked: 13973
  • Likes Given: 1389
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #43 on: 05/02/2023 03:20 pm »
According to this reddit user Blue Origin is now at over 10,000 employees:

https://www.reddit.com/r/BlueOrigin/comments/1344wdb/comment/jie71jn/

And still NOT launching to orbit.

Walmart has 2.3 million employees, and it hasn't even sent anything to space, let alone orbit. Vaastly less successful than Blue.
Assuming you're not just joking..

Walmart's goal is to sell, retail.  It's doing rather well, with an average revenue per employee of about $0.25M.

Very similar to Amazon (0.33).

Google, in comparison, is at 1.5. Microsoft at 1.1

Tesla at 0.60.

SpaceX, interestingly, at 0.21.

BO is at 0.012 based on 3500 employees. 0.004 if 10,000.

Better than I thought actually.
The point was that do not judge a company based on its headcount. The post was very well done I thought.

SpaceX is a launch company. Most of its employees are involved in rockets. Even HLS is just a rocket with a different name.
Blue is obviously chasing alot of non-rocket related contracts. LEO stations, landers, ect. So many of its employees have nothing to do with building/launching rockets.
Headcount vs revenue or even achievements.  10,000 employees is insane for the results we're seeing.

All of NASA is 18000, says the internet.
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline trimeta

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1659
  • Kansas City, MO
  • Liked: 2121
  • Likes Given: 57
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #44 on: 05/02/2023 03:36 pm »
According to this reddit user Blue Origin is now at over 10,000 employees:

https://www.reddit.com/r/BlueOrigin/comments/1344wdb/comment/jie71jn/

And still NOT launching to orbit.

Walmart has 2.3 million employees, and it hasn't even sent anything to space, let alone orbit. Vaastly less successful than Blue.
Assuming you're not just joking..

Walmart's goal is to sell, retail.  It's doing rather well, with an average revenue per employee of about $0.25M.

Very similar to Amazon (0.33).

Google, in comparison, is at 1.5. Microsoft at 1.1

Tesla at 0.60.

SpaceX, interestingly, at 0.21.

BO is at 0.012 based on 3500 employees. 0.004 if 10,000.

Better than I thought actually.
The point was that do not judge a company based on its headcount. The post was very well done I thought.

SpaceX is a launch company. Most of its employees are involved in rockets. Even HLS is just a rocket with a different name.
Blue is obviously chasing alot of non-rocket related contracts. LEO stations, landers, ect. So many of its employees have nothing to do with building/launching rockets.
I don't think "they don't have a single functional project, they have a half-dozen projects which are all pre-revenue" is necessarily the winning argument you present it as. Most companies pick a core focus, get good at it, and once that's successful branch out. Blue Origin, by contrast, has decided to start everything simultaneously and see which gets to the finish line first.

And yes, I know, the counterargument is "most companies need revenue to survive, thus they need to actually succeed at something before they try doing everything; Blue Origin has Bezos' pocketbook, so they can skip past that first step." I think that overreliance on this has led to a company culture where "starting projects without finishing them" is what Blue Origin is good at. And changing company culture is extremely challenging.

Online ThatOldJanxSpirit

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 920
  • Liked: 1424
  • Likes Given: 3403
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #45 on: 05/02/2023 04:07 pm »
Blue can be frustrating to follow, but hey, it’s just Bezos dollars being used to fund good aerospace jobs, right? What could be wrong with that.

But I have to counterpoint 10,000 workers sucked into an apparent productivity black hole with persistent reports from other aerospace companies and within NASA of key staff (and sometimes large parts of entire departments) leaving for Blue.

Blue has become a major skew in a relatively small market; that is rarely good news.


Offline deadman1204

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1741
  • USA
  • Liked: 1452
  • Likes Given: 2458
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #46 on: 05/02/2023 04:26 pm »
Blue can be frustrating to follow, but hey, it’s just Bezos dollars being used to fund good aerospace jobs, right? What could be wrong with that.

But I have to counterpoint 10,000 workers sucked into an apparent productivity black hole with persistent reports from other aerospace companies and within NASA of key staff (and sometimes large parts of entire departments) leaving for Blue.

Blue has become a major skew in a relatively small market; that is rarely good news.
Rarely pointed out issue. Blue sucks up ALOT of talent. NASA has serious recruitment/retention issues because they simply cannot afford to pay what blue/spacex/whatever other company pays.

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14107
  • N. California
  • Liked: 13973
  • Likes Given: 1389
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #47 on: 05/02/2023 04:54 pm »
Blue can be frustrating to follow, but hey, it’s just Bezos dollars being used to fund good aerospace jobs, right? What could be wrong with that.

But I have to counterpoint 10,000 workers sucked into an apparent productivity black hole with persistent reports from other aerospace companies and within NASA of key staff (and sometimes large parts of entire departments) leaving for Blue.

Blue has become a major skew in a relatively small market; that is rarely good news.
Rarely pointed out issue. Blue sucks up ALOT of talent. NASA has serious recruitment/retention issues because they simply cannot afford to pay what blue/spacex/whatever other company pays.
I think it's self filtering in that respect.

But a similar concern is that because of the insane level of funding it's more difficult to start and you aerospace company, or to raise funds for an existing one.

Imagine the effect on the market if blue origin were to suddenly disappear
« Last Edit: 05/02/2023 09:27 pm by meekGee »
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline matthewkantar

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2044
  • Liked: 2490
  • Likes Given: 2176
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #48 on: 05/02/2023 05:42 pm »

The point was that do not judge a company based on its headcount. The post was very well done I thought.

SpaceX is a launch company. Most of its employees are involved in rockets. Even HLS is just a rocket with a different name.
Blue is obviously chasing alot of non-rocket related contracts. LEO stations, landers, ect. So many of its employees have nothing to do with building/launching rockets.

SpaceX manufactures more satellites than the rest of the world combined, manufactures millions of ground stations and provides customer service for Earth’s largest space borne internet service.

Offline deadman1204

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1741
  • USA
  • Liked: 1452
  • Likes Given: 2458
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #49 on: 05/02/2023 06:45 pm »
Blue can be frustrating to follow, but hey, it’s just Bezos dollars being used to fund good aerospace jobs, right? What could be wrong with that.

But I have to counterpoint 10,000 workers sucked into an apparent productivity black hole with persistent reports from other aerospace companies and within NASA of key staff (and sometimes large parts of entire departments) leaving for Blue.

Blue has become a major skew in a relatively small market; that is rarely good news.
Rarely pointed out issue. Blue sucks up ALOT of talent. NASA has serious recruitment/retention issues because they simply cannot afford to pay what blue/spacex/whatever other company pays.
Think it's self filtering in that respect.
I don't know what you mean?

The number of people for this field is no where near unlimited. These companies and NASA would consider a shortage. Plus, new grads are not whats wanted. What people want is experience - which people get from NASA and then leave with for 2x the pay. Not great for NASA to put the effort into people and then lose them all the time.

Offline deadman1204

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1741
  • USA
  • Liked: 1452
  • Likes Given: 2458
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #50 on: 05/02/2023 06:47 pm »

The point was that do not judge a company based on its headcount. The post was very well done I thought.

SpaceX is a launch company. Most of its employees are involved in rockets. Even HLS is just a rocket with a different name.
Blue is obviously chasing alot of non-rocket related contracts. LEO stations, landers, ect. So many of its employees have nothing to do with building/launching rockets.

SpaceX manufactures more satellites than the rest of the world combined, manufactures millions of ground stations and provides customer service for Earth’s largest space borne internet service.
Yes spaceX does some other stuff, but they are mostly a launch company. They aspire to the largest internet service eventually (they are not right now).

Offline trimeta

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1659
  • Kansas City, MO
  • Liked: 2121
  • Likes Given: 57
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #51 on: 05/02/2023 07:04 pm »

The point was that do not judge a company based on its headcount. The post was very well done I thought.

SpaceX is a launch company. Most of its employees are involved in rockets. Even HLS is just a rocket with a different name.
Blue is obviously chasing alot of non-rocket related contracts. LEO stations, landers, ect. So many of its employees have nothing to do with building/launching rockets.

SpaceX manufactures more satellites than the rest of the world combined, manufactures millions of ground stations and provides customer service for Earth’s largest space borne internet service.
Yes spaceX does some other stuff, but they are mostly a launch company. They aspire to the largest internet service eventually (they are not right now).
All of Blue Origin's projects (rocket and non-rocket!) would also fall under "aspirations." So if it counts for Blue, it should count for SpaceX.

Offline whitelancer64

Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #52 on: 05/02/2023 07:58 pm »

The point was that do not judge a company based on its headcount. The post was very well done I thought.

SpaceX is a launch company. Most of its employees are involved in rockets. Even HLS is just a rocket with a different name.
Blue is obviously chasing alot of non-rocket related contracts. LEO stations, landers, ect. So many of its employees have nothing to do with building/launching rockets.

SpaceX manufactures more satellites than the rest of the world combined, manufactures millions of ground stations and provides customer service for Earth’s largest space borne internet service.
Yes spaceX does some other stuff, but they are mostly a launch company. They aspire to the largest internet service eventually (they are not right now).
All of Blue Origin's projects (rocket and non-rocket!) would also fall under "aspirations." So if it counts for Blue, it should count for SpaceX.

New Shepard:

ConfusedTravolta.gif
"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

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39246
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25173
  • Likes Given: 12102
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #53 on: 05/02/2023 08:17 pm »
Pretty sure SPaceX’s Starlink constellation is a heck of a lot closer to profitability than New Shepard.

Starlink has at least a million subscribers. That’s a good billion dollars in annual revenue, at a minimum. Probably already comparable to their spacelaunch revenue, and they’ve already spooled up production for a constellation about 10 to 100 times more capable.

Deadman is wrong, anyway. I think SpaceX may have more people associated with spacecraft development (including HLS and Dragon) and operations than with launch. Folks just don’t see the insane satellite production capability of SpaceX, which is actually more valuable than their spacelaunch capability.

“I don’t see 24/7 video feeds of it, so it’s not happening! And I only apply this rule to SpaceX.” —some of y’all.
« Last Edit: 05/02/2023 08:20 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 trimeta

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1659
  • Kansas City, MO
  • Liked: 2121
  • Likes Given: 57
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #54 on: 05/02/2023 08:53 pm »
“I don’t see 24/7 video feeds of it, so it’s not happening! And I only apply this rule to SpaceX.” —some of y’all.
To be fair, "I don't see 24/7 video feeds of it, so it's not happening!" does get applied to Blue Origin quite a lot too.

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14107
  • N. California
  • Liked: 13973
  • Likes Given: 1389
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #55 on: 05/02/2023 09:23 pm »
“I don’t see 24/7 video feeds of it, so it’s not happening! And I only apply this rule to SpaceX.” —some of y’all.
To be fair, "I don't see 24/7 video feeds of it, so it's not happening!" does get applied to Blue Origin quite a lot too.
But we see the results of those efforts.  Those million Starlink terminals exist.  As do the satellites.

(As does Dragon, which is not under "mostly rocketry")

24/7 view is nice for R&D, but for production, you can also judge by results.

 
« Last Edit: 05/02/2023 09:25 pm by meekGee »
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47313
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 80124
  • Likes Given: 36283
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #56 on: 05/03/2023 05:32 pm »

Offline DrHeywoodFloyd

Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #57 on: 05/28/2023 10:54 pm »
Do you think Blue will submit a proposal for the moon buggy in conjunction with contractor with expertise, such as General Motors [who I understand built the first moon buggy]....

"Moon: NASA Asks Industry To Build New Buggies For $90 Billion Landings
Jamie Carter Senior Contributor,
May 27, 2023,07:15pm EDT

NASA has put out a call for private industry to help it build a next-generation moon buggy as part of its $90 billion-plus program to put U.S. astronauts back on the lunar surface in the late-2020s.

The space agency is building towards crewed landings on the moon, but so far it lacks the hardware to do anything but reach lunar orbit. A next-generation LTV (Lunar Terrain Vehicle) would allow its astronauts to explore the moon’s South Pole—the intended destination for its Artemis missions because of the possible presence of water—and conduct more science, according to NASA.....
"

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamiecartereurope/2023/05/27/we-need-a-new-self-driving-moon-buggy-to-explore-the-lunar-south-pole-says-nasa/?sh=3e6f2f053b9c

My reasons for suggesting that blue origin would be the prime contractor
1. Transporting the Moon buggy down to the moon surface.
2. Interfaces between their blue moon lander, and the moon buggy.
3. I hypothesise that Blue Will want to develop their capabilities for mining [apart from things that have been deliberately buried!], and so having transport capabilities would be very much part of the overall Mission Objective to establish an eco-System of 1 million people living and working in space...
4. Servicing and maintaining the lunar transport vehicle, moon buggy...
« Last Edit: 05/28/2023 11:03 pm by DrHeywoodFloyd »

Offline Hug

  • Member
  • Posts: 76
  • Australia
  • Liked: 155
  • Likes Given: 95
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #58 on: 05/30/2023 08:18 am »
Maybe? Judging from this job description it sounds like they have a robotic lunar rover program, so bidding for the LTV is within the realms of possibility.

Offline DrHeywoodFloyd

Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #59 on: 05/30/2023 11:43 am »
Maybe? Judging from this job description it sounds like they have a robotic lunar rover program, so bidding for the LTV is within the realms of possibility.

If the vision of Blue ring is...
"Blue Origin was founded with a vision of millions of people living and working in space for the benefit of Earth. Blue Origin envisions a time when people can tap into the limitless resources of space and enable the movement of damaging industries into space to preserve Earth, humanity’s blue origin. "
[ https://www.blueorigin.com/about-blue/ ]

Let us hypothesise, and discuss how will Blue Origin achieve this: in the short term [10-25 years], middle term [25-50 years], and the long term [50+ years]? Blue origin I'm not doing this out of the kindness of the heart, but for the same reasons as the railway barons in 19th Century developed the railway network in the United States.. They are do this to make a buck, make a profit... 

... As a result, for them to tap into the limitless resources, on the moon... that means mining in the next 10-25 years... but what materials would they mine to make it a profitable going concern?

Later perhaps manufacturing on the moon what can then be shipped to low earth obit?

What other use cases would space provide a company like Blue Origin a profit from the resources and opportunity of space?







Offline JCRM

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 518
  • Great Britain
  • Liked: 316
  • Likes Given: 444
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #60 on: 05/31/2023 09:15 am »
Do you think Blue will submit a proposal for the moon buggy in conjunction with contractor with expertise, such as General Motors [who I understand built the first moon buggy]....
I thought it was Boeing
« Last Edit: 05/31/2023 11:05 am by zubenelgenubi »

Offline DrHeywoodFloyd

Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #61 on: 05/31/2023 11:17 pm »
Do you think Blue will submit a proposal for the moon buggy in conjunction with contractor with expertise, such as General Motors [who I understand built the first moon buggy]....
I thought it was Boeing

t was General Motors and Boeing...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Roving_Vehicle

Online ThatOldJanxSpirit

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 920
  • Liked: 1424
  • Likes Given: 3403
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #62 on: 06/20/2023 03:37 pm »
Blue Origin Reddit thread regarding a sudden shift away from remote working.

https://www.reddit.com/r/BlueOrigin/comments/14dyio4/employee_perspective_quality_of_life_destruction/

Some very unhappy people, and claims this could negatively impact program delivery.

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14107
  • N. California
  • Liked: 13973
  • Likes Given: 1389
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #63 on: 06/20/2023 06:23 pm »
Millions of people living and working from home?
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline GWH

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1741
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1924
  • Likes Given: 1276
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #64 on: 06/20/2023 11:16 pm »
Quote
Many of you may be thinking "oh look at this privileged laptop person can't drive to work blah blah". And if this were a company where your team and program are centrally located in most cases, like SpaceX, I would be 100% in agreement. But they did this to themselves, they distributed all of their programs around the country because they wanted to get quick access to personnel instead of asking them to move. A significant number of personnel are planning to leave, and they're the smart people with options and recruiters in their DMs every week.

So they spread everyone and their programs out and then suddenly realized it wasn't the most efficient thing to do? *shocked Pikachu face*

From some brand new Reddit account:
Quote
This is all Bob Smith.

The story I heard is that they opened the Phoenix offices and the first day they had a big party, packed house, free food, all that. Bob was there to kick things off (what a treat!). The second day was a ghost town, as everyone had already gotten used to working from home. This really frakked off Bob, so now he’s getting retribution against ALL employees.

The thing is, in the Phoenix area they recruited pretty heavily from Northrup-Grumman in Chandler and Boeing in Mesa, but the new Blue office is more in the central Phoenix area. Most employees live in the Chandler/Gilbert/Mesa area and it like a 45+ minute commute to the office only to sit on Teams all day with people dispersed around the country. There are plenty of nice offices in Chandler that would’ve houses everyone just fine and saved the commute.

Turns out Bob Smith has a house that you can actually see from the Phoenix office, and that was one of the main factors in choosing that office (Paul Ebertz has a house nearby as well apparently). So this all comes down to one feckless man’s petty revenge to protect his real estate decisions.

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47313
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 80124
  • Likes Given: 36283
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #65 on: 07/03/2023 02:10 pm »
https://www.ft.com/content/886d8638-8f38-404f-882c-50e358c5509c

Quote
Blue Origin looks to expand beyond US with international launch site

Bezos-backed rocket group eyes new partnerships and acquisitions as it competes with SpaceX

Blue Origin, the rocket company owned by Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, is searching for a site to build an international launch facility as it looks to compete with Elon Musk’s SpaceX.

The company is also on the hunt for new partnerships and acquisitions in Europe and beyond to accelerate the scaling up of its space services, such as the launch and engine businesses, said Blue Origin’s chief executive, Bob Smith, in an interview with the Financial Times.

Offline greybeardengineer

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 160
  • Liked: 424
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #66 on: 07/03/2023 03:48 pm »
https://www.ft.com/content/886d8638-8f38-404f-882c-50e358c5509c

Quote
Blue Origin looks to expand beyond US with international launch site

Nice to see they still have their priorities right.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39246
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25173
  • Likes Given: 12102
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #67 on: 07/03/2023 03:55 pm »
https://www.ft.com/content/886d8638-8f38-404f-882c-50e358c5509c

Quote
Blue Origin looks to expand beyond US with international launch site

Nice to see they still have their priorities right.
Right?? Billions and billions of dollars and over 2 decades... (18 years after their first test prototype flight...). Just. Get. To. Orbit. First.
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 niwax

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1421
  • Germany
    • SpaceX Booster List
  • Liked: 2033
  • Likes Given: 166
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #68 on: 07/03/2023 09:19 pm »
https://www.ft.com/content/886d8638-8f38-404f-882c-50e358c5509c

Quote
Blue Origin looks to expand beyond US with international launch site

Nice to see they still have their priorities right.
Right?? Billions and billions of dollars and over 2 decades... (18 years after their first test prototype flight...). Just. Get. To. Orbit. First.

Yeah, but it's much easier to find a site if you don't bother with all that rocketry business, just look at all the environmental reviews SpaceX had to do. In fact, I think I might have a few viable sites as long as they don't plan any flights from there.
Which booster has the most soot? SpaceX booster launch history! (discussion)

Offline Asteroza

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2797
  • Liked: 1062
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #69 on: 07/03/2023 11:01 pm »
https://www.ft.com/content/886d8638-8f38-404f-882c-50e358c5509c

Quote
Blue Origin looks to expand beyond US with international launch site

Bezos-backed rocket group eyes new partnerships and acquisitions as it competes with SpaceX

Blue Origin, the rocket company owned by Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, is searching for a site to build an international launch facility as it looks to compete with Elon Musk’s SpaceX.

The company is also on the hunt for new partnerships and acquisitions in Europe and beyond to accelerate the scaling up of its space services, such as the launch and engine businesses, said Blue Origin’s chief executive, Bob Smith, in an interview with the Financial Times.

The probable international choice would be Al Cantara. All the non-polar azimuths you want, technology security agreement to get over ITAR, government friendly to international investment and improving existing facilities. More opportunities to launch towards the moon, and Orbital Reef located in an equatorial VLEO orbit could reduce radiation requirements (though that cuts out other providers unless they set up launch facilities there too).

Drawback is improvements necessary to the site on top of the launchpad itself, lengthening the airfield a bit, and improvements to the harbor to allow tanker delivery of LNG and any other gases/lqiuids.

Offline DrHeywoodFloyd

Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #70 on: 07/03/2023 11:07 pm »
https://www.ft.com/content/886d8638-8f38-404f-882c-50e358c5509c

Quote
Blue Origin looks to expand beyond US with international launch site

Bezos-backed rocket group eyes new partnerships and acquisitions as it competes with SpaceX

Blue Origin, the rocket company owned by Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, is searching for a site to build an international launch facility as it looks to compete with Elon Musk’s SpaceX.

The company is also on the hunt for new partnerships and acquisitions in Europe and beyond to accelerate the scaling up of its space services, such as the launch and engine businesses, said Blue Origin’s chief executive, Bob Smith, in an interview with the Financial Times.

This is a pay wall, here is the archive link: https://archive.vn/qbVtk

With the press indicating that blue origin wants to work closely with the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO), and encouraging ISRO to use their LVM3 rocket for the Orbital Reef...

https://idrw.org/blue-origin-wants-isros-lvm3-rocket-for-space-launches/

The logical place for Blue Origin to build another launch site would be at the Indian Satish Dhawan Space Centre...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satish_Dhawan_Space_Centre#:~:text=Satish%20Dhawan%20Space%20Centre%20%2D%20SDSC,Space%20Research%20Organisation%20(ISRO).

Why:
1. Moving beyond the "Buck Rogers" of operating in space, in the end it is about moving cargo from one place to another place, in this case from the Earth surface low Earth orbit. Very soon it comes down to moving the maximum amount of cargo at the lowest cost.

2. The Indians have a very capable work force, and their space launch capabilities are developing rapidly. Soon they will a manned launch capability.

3. In the end it comes down to labour costs, and in a business where you want to convince companies to put a business development park on the Orbital Reef, you have to drive down the transport costs down to zippo, and the labour cost is a very significant cost. Highly qualified engineers and scientists, but at significant lower cost are available in India, and I posit this is going to be a significant consideration for Blue Origin, when competing against another re-usable launch provider. 

4. The Indian economy is rapidly developing, and the country is highly regarded on the world stage as a stable country invest.


Anyway, this is my 10 rupee on this.... !

Online TrevorMonty

Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #71 on: 07/03/2023 11:17 pm »


https://www.ft.com/content/886d8638-8f38-404f-882c-50e358c5509c

Quote
Blue Origin looks to expand beyond US with international launch site

Nice to see they still have their priorities right.

Like their current launch sites are running at max capacity.

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14107
  • N. California
  • Liked: 13973
  • Likes Given: 1389
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #72 on: 07/04/2023 04:54 am »


https://www.ft.com/content/886d8638-8f38-404f-882c-50e358c5509c

Quote
Blue Origin looks to expand beyond US with international launch site

Nice to see they still have their priorities right.

Like their current launch sites are running at max capacity.

They're just following the Virgin Galactic operating principles.

Also, the real money is in Moichundizing!
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline trimeta

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1659
  • Kansas City, MO
  • Liked: 2121
  • Likes Given: 57
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #73 on: 07/04/2023 05:11 am »


https://www.ft.com/content/886d8638-8f38-404f-882c-50e358c5509c

Quote
Blue Origin looks to expand beyond US with international launch site

Nice to see they still have their priorities right.

Like their current launch sites are running at max capacity.

They're just following the Virgin Galactic operating principles.

Also, the real money is in Moichundizing!

Or perhaps more directly, Virgin Orbit and their push to expand to international launch sites before ramping up cadence for launches from the US.

Offline Eric Hedman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2294
  • The birthplace of the solid body electric guitar
  • Liked: 1943
  • Likes Given: 1126
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #74 on: 07/04/2023 05:15 am »


https://www.ft.com/content/886d8638-8f38-404f-882c-50e358c5509c

Quote
Blue Origin looks to expand beyond US with international launch site

Nice to see they still have their priorities right.

Like their current launch sites are running at max capacity.
Maybe they quickly expect to max out their launch capacity with Kuiper flights.  If they are, it is a smart move to start planning now.

Offline GWH

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1741
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1924
  • Likes Given: 1276
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #75 on: 07/04/2023 05:56 am »
They're just looking to embed themselves with other governments. Spreading themselves out too thin and making efficient use of resources is the least of their concerns, as demonstrated already in the states.

Offline trimeta

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1659
  • Kansas City, MO
  • Liked: 2121
  • Likes Given: 57
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #76 on: 07/04/2023 06:03 am »
Maybe they quickly expect to max out their launch capacity with Kuiper flights.  If they are, it is a smart move to start planning now.
I'd be a lot more receptive to "New Glenn will hit the ground running" arguments if Blue Origin had a history of, let's say, ever doing that. It was over four years from the first flight of New Shepard to the eleventh (that is, it flew ten times in its first four years). Which is actually pretty standard: within the first four years of operations, Electron flew twenty times, Falcon 9 flew nine times, Atlas V flew eight times, Delta IV flew seven times (including one Delta IV Heavy), H-IIA flew seven times, Antares flew six times (including one Antares 230, after the last Antares 100-series failed), Ariane 5 flew five times, and LVM3 flew five times (not counting the suborbital test launch...if I did, then there would be three launches in the four-year window). Electron is the obvious outlier, although perhaps its small size explains its abnormally fast ramp-up. Anyway, I find it extraordinarily unlikely that Blue Origin will be able to significantly exceed ten launches within the first four years of New Glenn operations, given their...organizational history, and the history of spaceflight organizations in general.

If ten flights within four years is too many for LC-36 at CCSFS to handle, then it makes sense to look into another launch site. But experimentally, the Eastern Range can handle quite a few more launches than that, so unless pad refurbishment takes extremely long (or SpaceX basically crowds out all other users of that spaceport, which I guess is a real possibility), LC-36 should suffice.

Offline JCRM

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 518
  • Great Britain
  • Liked: 316
  • Likes Given: 444
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #77 on: 07/04/2023 10:42 am »
Maybe they quickly expect to max out their launch capacity with Kuiper flights.  If they are, it is a smart move to start planning now.
I'd be a lot more receptive to "New Glenn will hit the ground running" arguments if Blue Origin had a history of, let's say, ever doing that.

Surely your "Blue Origin are so slow" complaint supports the thesis they should start sooner?

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14107
  • N. California
  • Liked: 13973
  • Likes Given: 1389
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #78 on: 07/04/2023 03:43 pm »
Maybe they quickly expect to max out their launch capacity with Kuiper flights.  If they are, it is a smart move to start planning now.
I'd be a lot more receptive to "New Glenn will hit the ground running" arguments if Blue Origin had a history of, let's say, ever doing that.

Surely your "Blue Origin are so slow" complaint supports the thesis they should start sooner?
It doesn't work that way.  Management focus is a real thing, and starting too many things too soon hasn't helped BO move fast so far.

ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline Kiwi53

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 141
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 151
  • Likes Given: 203
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #79 on: 07/04/2023 09:14 pm »

Quote
Blue Origin looks to expand beyond US with international launch site

Bezos-backed rocket group eyes new partnerships and acquisitions as it competes with SpaceX

Blue Origin, the rocket company owned by Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, is searching for a site to build an international launch facility as it looks to compete with Elon Musk’s SpaceX.

The probable international choice would be Al Cantara.


The logical place for Blue Origin to build another launch site would be at the Indian Satish Dhawan Space Centre...

IMO both Satish Dhawan and Alcantara are between extremely difficult and impossible for any USA rocket launch provider, if only from the ITAR problems they would present. ITAR problems are political, not technical, so not amenable to rational or engineering solutions.

If BO are looking at an international launch site for the New Glenn heavy launcher, then the easiest place would be Kourou, but I somehow doubt that New Glenn would be welcome there.

Otherwise, it would be a greenfield development, so maybe northern Australia?

Offline hektor

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2695
  • Liked: 1192
  • Likes Given: 54
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #80 on: 07/04/2023 09:22 pm »
Why not Woomera.

Some of the accommodations built or refurbished for the Kistler guys are still there. I remember they even had US standard power sockets in the villas.
« Last Edit: 07/04/2023 09:24 pm by hektor »

Online TrevorMonty

Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #81 on: 07/04/2023 10:41 pm »
Why not Woomera.

Some of the accommodations built or refurbished for the Kistler guys are still there. I remember they even had US standard power sockets in the villas.
Blue may operate the NS out of Australia. Has empty space and clear skies. NG needs lot more infrastructure as it consumes huge quantities of liquid O, H, CH4. The launch site is likely to be 100s if not 1000s kms from any production facilities assuming they have capacity.

RL are in same boat with Neutron there just isn't production facilities in NZ to supply quantities of fuel it would consume on regular basis. Not that they could operate it from Mahia given roading infrastructure.


Offline Asteroza

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2797
  • Liked: 1062
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #82 on: 07/04/2023 11:26 pm »
IMO both Satish Dhawan and Alcantara are between extremely difficult and impossible for any USA rocket launch provider, if only from the ITAR problems they would present. ITAR problems are political, not technical, so not amenable to rational or engineering solutions.

Brazil specifically has a technology safeguard agreement with the US to effectively bypass ITAR  for Alcantara though

https://www.ibanet.org/article/6C35F58B-8F94-488A-A5CE-464E5DFFF954

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 38550
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 31731
  • Likes Given: 7720
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #83 on: 07/05/2023 06:43 am »
Why not Woomera.

Woomera is now run by the RAAF, who have shown little support for space launch from there. That is why NASA had to launch their sounding rockets from the Northern Territory. More likely would be one of the commercial sites currently being started.

Whalers Way Orbital Launch Complex - Southern Launch - South Australia
https://www.southernlaunch.space/

Arnhem Space Centre - Equatorial Launch Australia - Northern Territory
https://ela.space/

Bowen Orbital Spaceport - Gilmour Space Technologies - Abbot Point, Queensland
https://www.zdnet.com/article/queensland-to-build-small-rocket-launch-site-at-abbot-point/
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5410
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1783
  • Likes Given: 1287
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #84 on: 07/05/2023 12:21 pm »
Why not Woomera.
.....
Blue may operate the NS out of Australia. Has empty space and clear skies. NG needs lot more infrastructure as it consumes huge quantities of liquid O, H, CH4. The launch site is likely to be 100s if not 1000s kms from any production facilities assuming they have capacity.

RL are in same boat with Neutron there just isn't production facilities in NZ to supply quantities of fuel it would consume on regular basis. Not that they could operate it from Mahia given roading infrastructure.
In addition to the launch facilities. If Blue wants to launch the New Glenn out of Woomera. Then they have to to set up the facilities for producing LOX and LH along with a LNG terminal near Port Augusta, which is about 200 km by road  from the town of Woomera. Plus the logistics infrastructure to move the commodities from Port Augusta to the launch site. In theory Blue could gather enough resources (including local political support) to carry it out. However the ground tracks for a launch out of Woomera seems restricted to polar orbits and SSO. Plus there are the issues of payload processing and servicing the New Glenn. Doubtful that there is enough local personnel for all the facilities in the near future.

Presuming the Australian and the South Australian governments were offered enough infrastructure investment by Blue/Amazon to override the RAAF reluctance/objection to Woomera being developed as a space launch facility.

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10128
  • US
  • Liked: 13696
  • Likes Given: 5870
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #85 on: 07/06/2023 02:10 am »
trimmed

Offline DrHeywoodFloyd

Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #86 on: 07/06/2023 03:12 am »
Why not Woomera.
.....
Blue may operate the NS out of Australia. Has empty space and clear skies. NG needs lot more infrastructure as it consumes huge quantities of liquid O, H, CH4. The launch site is likely to be 100s if not 1000s kms from any production facilities assuming they have capacity.

RL are in same boat with Neutron there just isn't production facilities in NZ to supply quantities of fuel it would consume on regular basis. Not that they could operate it from Mahia given roading infrastructure.
In addition to the launch facilities. If Blue wants to launch the New Glenn out of Woomera. Then they have to to set up the facilities for producing LOX and LH along with a LNG terminal near Port Augusta, which is about 200 km by road  from the town of Woomera. Plus the logistics infrastructure to move the commodities from Port Augusta to the launch site. In theory Blue could gather enough resources (including local political support) to carry it out. However the ground tracks for a launch out of Woomera seems restricted to polar orbits and SSO. Plus there are the issues of payload processing and servicing the New Glenn. Doubtful that there is enough local personnel for all the facilities in the near future.

Presuming the Australian and the South Australian governments were offered enough infrastructure investment by Blue/Amazon to override the RAAF reluctance/objection to Woomera being developed as a space launch facility.

As an Australian, I would love to see Woomera one more be used for space launches. I was rooting to Kistler in the '90s.  Right now it's just not going to happen. Might have been possible in the days of ELDO, but all the launch facilities have been let to rot. That is the fault of both political parties, Labour and the LNP have not to have the long term vision of Asian and European countries, in the same way
My bet is on India, why:

1. My arguments against building a New Glenn launch facility at Woomera for an Indian Launch site:

a. After launch it is most likely the booster will land in the Ocean, and so it would need to return back via sea to the refurbishment factory, then to the integration facility, and then to the launch pad. Woomera is too far inland, and that distance adds delays, and costs, especially if it has to travel through populated areas of South Australia.

b. We Australians are a highly technical and capable people, but so is India, and when you refurbish a booster for launch, integrate the payload and launch the vehicle, labour costs become a very important cost in the total launch price, and an engineer in engineer is just as capable as an Australian Engineer [I am am an Australian electrical engineer], but at a considerably cheaper price, and for Blue Origin to attain the mission of having "One Million People living and working in Space", then launching to LEO simply becomes a trucking business moving the most cargo at the lowest price.

c. India has launch facilities that are compatible to that of ESA, and Japan that are close to a port, and with their labour costs for construction it would be cheaper to build the new Glen refurbishment factory, integration building and launchpad.

d. India is not a prescribed country for ITAR...

https://oiir.hq.nasa.gov/nasaecp/Webbrfg/tsld029.htm


Anyway we will see, and it is good to speculate and see how things develop over the next 10 years or more... I could be totally wrong... But as Ned Kelly said... Such is life!







Offline Asteroza

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2797
  • Liked: 1062
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #87 on: 07/06/2023 05:12 am »
d. India is not a prescribed country for ITAR...

https://oiir.hq.nasa.gov/nasaecp/Webbrfg/tsld029.htm

Yes, in the sense that it wouldn't be an immediate no as far as ITAR is concerned. Still need to do the legwork for sending ITAR controlled items to India. I believe in the past they had signed an agreement for non-commercial sats and parts, but only that far. I am not that knowledgeable, but as far as I know, a technology safeguard agreement equivalent to the one for Alcantara has not been signed by India yet. I don't get the impression there are even attempts to start talks for one.

Offline DrHeywoodFloyd

Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #88 on: 07/06/2023 12:11 pm »
Blue Origin to bring thousands of space exploration jobs to Western Washington

By Ranji Sinha, KIRO 7 News
July 05, 2023 at 1:47 pm PDT

https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/blue-origin-bring-thousands-space-exploration-jobs-western-washington/LBJHB3DFJNDOJIEUMHVHHUXV5I/

©2023 Cox Media Group

Online ThatOldJanxSpirit

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 920
  • Liked: 1424
  • Likes Given: 3403
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #89 on: 07/06/2023 02:41 pm »
Blue Origin to bring thousands of space exploration jobs to Western Washington

By Ranji Sinha, KIRO 7 News
July 05, 2023 at 1:47 pm PDT

https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/blue-origin-bring-thousands-space-exploration-jobs-western-washington/LBJHB3DFJNDOJIEUMHVHHUXV5I/

©2023 Cox Media Group

Emphasis on the word ‘could’, so nothing actually planned beyond the current 5000 jobs quoted.

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14107
  • N. California
  • Liked: 13973
  • Likes Given: 1389
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #90 on: 07/06/2023 03:28 pm »
Blue Origin to bring thousands of space exploration jobs to Western Washington

By Ranji Sinha, KIRO 7 News
July 05, 2023 at 1:47 pm PDT

https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/blue-origin-bring-thousands-space-exploration-jobs-western-washington/LBJHB3DFJNDOJIEUMHVHHUXV5I/

2023 Cox Media Group

Emphasis on the word ‘could’, so nothing actually planned beyond the current 5000 jobs quoted.
Back in the days of the solar tech race when companies lacked real metrics to boast about, the old fallback was how many green jobs they'd be creating, even though more jobs generally meant more cost and thus more expensive electricity.

This is exactly the same thing, but without the sun part.
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17172
  • Liked: 7027
  • Likes Given: 3020

Offline catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10597
  • Enthusiast since the Redstones
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 7868
  • Likes Given: 7340
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #92 on: 07/06/2023 09:09 pm »
https://twitter.com/SenBillNelson/status/1676978470780383239

I think I see a core being manufactured on the left side of one of the second picture?
« Last Edit: 07/06/2023 09:12 pm by catdlr »
Tony De La Rosa, ...I'm no Feline Dealer!! I move mountains.  but I'm better known for "I think it's highly sexual." Japanese to English Translation.

Offline DrHeywoodFloyd

Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #93 on: 07/06/2023 11:19 pm »
I have just joined Threads, and I see that "Blue Origin", "Jeff Bezos", and the "Commonsense skeptic' are on it already, even the Australian Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese is on it as well... looks like the migration has begun ... I wonder who will be the first to post a message from it on this group.....?!

Offline DrHeywoodFloyd

Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #94 on: 07/07/2023 12:00 am »
d. India is not a prescribed country for ITAR...

https://oiir.hq.nasa.gov/nasaecp/Webbrfg/tsld029.htm

Yes, in the sense that it wouldn't be an immediate no as far as ITAR is concerned. Still need to do the legwork for sending ITAR controlled items to India. I believe in the past they had signed an agreement for non-commercial sats and parts, but only that far. I am not that knowledgeable, but as far as I know, a technology safeguard agreement equivalent to the one for Alcantara has not been signed by India yet. I don't get the impression there are even attempts to start talks for one.

I think that is happening as India is now forging closer times with NASA, having signed the Artemis Accords on Hybw 21.....
https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/07/india-a-growing-space-power-is-forging-closer-ties-with-nasa/




Offline DrHeywoodFloyd

Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #95 on: 07/07/2023 02:04 am »
https://twitter.com/SenBillNelson/status/1676978470780383239

I think I see a core being manufactured on the left side of one of the second picture?

I think in the second picture we are actually looking at a New Glenn booster landing leg... anyone concur?

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17172
  • Liked: 7027
  • Likes Given: 3020
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #96 on: 07/07/2023 03:22 am »
https://twitter.com/SenBillNelson/status/1676978470780383239

I think I see a core being manufactured on the left side of one of the second picture?

I think in the second picture we are actually looking at a New Glenn booster landing leg... anyone concur?

Yes but he meant the bottom picture on the right.

Offline Robert_the_Doll

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 764
  • Florida
  • Liked: 1215
  • Likes Given: 435
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #97 on: 07/07/2023 05:08 am »
All of this appears to be up at Kent, therefore there cannot be large-scale New Glenn hardware being built there, but there does appear to be some of the New Shepard hardware underway, but there is better views of it available in the New Shepard UPDATES Thread.

Here is a comparison with the earlier view of the New Glenn landing gear with the most recent one taken of NASA administrator Nelson's visit:


Offline catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10597
  • Enthusiast since the Redstones
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 7868
  • Likes Given: 7340
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #98 on: 07/07/2023 05:18 am »
All of this appears to be up at Kent, therefore there cannot be large-scale New Glenn hardware being built there, but there does appear to be some of the New Shepard hardware underway, but there is better views of it available in the New Shepard UPDATES Thread.

Here is a comparison with the earlier view of the New Glenn landing gear with the most recent one taken of NASA administrator Nelson's visit:



Any stab at what these may be these two objects could be?  (the two rectangles in red on the left background)
« Last Edit: 07/07/2023 05:18 am by catdlr »
Tony De La Rosa, ...I'm no Feline Dealer!! I move mountains.  but I'm better known for "I think it's highly sexual." Japanese to English Translation.

Offline Asteroza

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2797
  • Liked: 1062
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #99 on: 07/07/2023 06:03 am »
Any stab at what these may be these two objects could be?  (the two rectangles in red on the left background)

Right might be a paint booth with roof vents?

Left looks like a mandrel to support building a large cylinder?

Offline Robert_the_Doll

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 764
  • Florida
  • Liked: 1215
  • Likes Given: 435
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #100 on: 07/07/2023 03:18 pm »
Any stab at what these may be these two objects could be?  (the two rectangles in red on the left background)

Right might be a paint booth with roof vents?

Left looks like a mandrel to support building a large cylinder?

No, those are rigs and a clean area for New Shepard Propulsion Module work. If people would go look at the update thread I linked to, they would see it in the Tobicia Brother's video:



Offline deadman1204

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1741
  • USA
  • Liked: 1452
  • Likes Given: 2458
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #101 on: 07/07/2023 03:22 pm »
I think a good question about a foriegn launch site for NG would be - what country would pay enough for Blue to go there? The reason they are public about looking is that they are looking for subsidies - a host country to give them lots of money. Its gonna cost ALOT of money for blue to setup everything like fuel manufacturing, all the employees in the area, infrastructure, ect. So Blue would only do this if they are getting something out of it to make it worth their time and money.

The other option is a country that would commit to using Blue for lots of launches.
That second option is more limiting, because all the countries that launch alot already have domestic launch capabilities (counting Europe as one group here).

Offline catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10597
  • Enthusiast since the Redstones
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 7868
  • Likes Given: 7340
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #102 on: 07/07/2023 09:32 pm »

 If people would go look at the update thread I linked to, they would see it in the Tobicia Brother's video:




Sorry Robert, I didn't hover my cursor over that link and wasn't aware it was one.  The link text is not very visible unless I do so.

The video provides great views.  Thank you.
« Last Edit: 07/07/2023 09:33 pm by catdlr »
Tony De La Rosa, ...I'm no Feline Dealer!! I move mountains.  but I'm better known for "I think it's highly sexual." Japanese to English Translation.

Offline Starshipdown

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 237
  • Space
  • Liked: 337
  • Likes Given: 349
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #103 on: 07/08/2023 08:33 pm »
Check your background settings. I can easily see the link. Also, it looks like that hardware has moved since the Tobacia brother video was filmed. Hopefully, that's a good sign that the vehicle is close to being finished or is finished and will be shipped to Texas.

Offline catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10597
  • Enthusiast since the Redstones
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 7868
  • Likes Given: 7340
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #104 on: 07/08/2023 11:06 pm »
Check your background settings. I can easily see the link. Also, it looks like that hardware has moved since the Tobacia brother video was filmed. Hopefully, that's a good sign that the vehicle is close to being finished or is finished and will be shipped to Texas.

Thanks Starshipdown, I had a third-party darkscreen mode active while NSF dark mode was also on.  I can see them now. 
Tony De La Rosa, ...I'm no Feline Dealer!! I move mountains.  but I'm better known for "I think it's highly sexual." Japanese to English Translation.

Offline DrHeywoodFloyd

Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #105 on: 07/09/2023 12:15 pm »

Washington State Space Summit puts Kent front and center | Photos
Kent-based Blue Origin hosts NASA Administrator Bill Nelson, U.S. Sen. Cantwell and industry leaders

By Steve Hunter
Saturday, July 8, 2023 9:47am

Kent just might be Space City, USA.

It certainly was on July 5 at the Washington State Space Summit at Blue Origin headquarters in Kent along 76th Avenue South near South 212th Street. The guests included NASA Administrator Bill Nelson; U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Washington; Blue Origin CEO Bob Smith; Kent-based Stoke Space CEO Andy Lapsa; and several other regional aerospace industry leaders, STEM education leaders and college students.

Cantwell organized the summit trade show and panel discussion about the economic opportunities opening up in the next decade as America grows its space industry and returns to the Moon.

“It really speaks to the fact that we are the hub for space technology in the state of Washington,” Kent Mayor Dana Ralph said as she attended the summit. “We know that there are more space jobs here than anyplace else in the state......

https://www.kentreporter.com/business/washington-state-space-summit-puts-kent-front-and-center-photos/

© 2023, Kent Reporter + Sound Publishing, Inc. + Black Press Media


Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5180
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #106 on: 07/09/2023 01:21 pm »
I'm hoping with all the "on earth" building and construction, it all comes together quickly for a New Glenn launch soon.  This will be a Falcon heavy class reusable rocket.  While others such as Stoke and Rocketlab can compete on a Falcon 9 scale.  I love what SpaceX has done, but Space needs to open up with an explosion of cheap to use reusable rockets of all sizes. 

Maybe as soon as New Glenn gets operational, Blue will size up to 100-150 ton LEO scale New Armstrong.  They could use a cluster of BE-4 engines like Starship boosters, and 12m or more wide. 

Offline DrHeywoodFloyd

Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #107 on: 07/09/2023 02:07 pm »
I'm hoping with all the "on earth" building and construction, it all comes together quickly for a New Glenn launch soon.  This will be a Falcon heavy class reusable rocket.  While others such as Stoke and Rocketlab can compete on a Falcon 9 scale.  I love what SpaceX has done, but Space needs to open up with an explosion of cheap to use reusable rockets of all sizes. 

Maybe as soon as New Glenn gets operational, Blue will size up to 100-150 ton LEO scale New Armstrong.  They could use a cluster of BE-4 engines like Starship boosters, and 12m or more wide.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that the chamber pressure of the BE-4 is fairly Conservative when compared to the Raptor 2..  And so for follow-on boosters larger than the soon to be available New Glen[n], they will more likely evolve and up-rate the BE-4 engine, as it was proposed to up-rate the F1 to the M1 for the Nova rocket…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerojet_M-1

https://www.thespacereview.com/article/4506/1

https://gandalfddi.z19.web.core.windows.net/Shuttle/Misc_Space_Non-Shuttle/Misc_Space_Propulsion/M-1_Rocket_Engine_Project.pdf

This is just speculation at this stage, but clustering a lot of small engines ala starship brings a lot of complexity in terms of plumbing. in addition it will add a lot of costs terms of maintenance as well as the parts backlog needed for the engines, which increases the labour cost to return those engines back to service, as well as the number of spare engines that would need to be maintained in stock. This increases the overall operating cost  to a space “trucking” business like Blue Origin, that would wand to keep the labour costs low, as well as the keep the capital cost of the spare parts to a low as practical.

I hypothesise that they would go in the direction of a small number of very large rocket engines [ ~ Areojet M-1 class etc] rather than having a large number of moderately sized rocket engines, as used by the Soviet N1 rocket…

Anything larger than that… then we are getting into the territory of the sea dragon…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Dragon_(rocket)

As for new Armstrong, we can speculate away.... My thoughts it could be a very large vehicle designed to ship mining resources from the moon surface... We're probably 20 or 30 years away on that.... Let's hope we all live long left to see it!
« Last Edit: 07/09/2023 11:55 pm by zubenelgenubi »

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5310
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 4148
  • Likes Given: 1671
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #108 on: 07/09/2023 02:24 pm »
I love what SpaceX has done, but Space needs to open up with an explosion of cheap to use reusable rockets of all sizes. 
Why? If Starship succeeds, it will be dramatically cheaper per launch than all existing LVs of any size. Blue Origin and everybody else will need to compete with Starship, not with F9 and FH.

Apparently everybody in the entire space industry always misses their projected dates by huge margins (counterexamples welcome), so comparisons are difficult. However, Starship appears to be far ahead of NG. If Starship is even one year ahead, NG may not be able to overcome the lead.

In the longer term, Smaller LVs with lower launch costs might compete on price with Starship, but probably not in the next ten years. LVs larger than Starship may have a place, but there is no such market now, and SpaceX has an easy growth path for larger Starship derivatives

Offline DrHeywoodFloyd

Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #109 on: 07/09/2023 02:32 pm »
I love what SpaceX has done, but Space needs to open up with an explosion of cheap to use reusable rockets of all sizes. 
Why? If Starship succeeds, it will be dramatically cheaper per launch than all existing LVs of any size. Blue Origin and everybody else will need to compete with Starship, not with F9 and FH.

Apparently everybody in the entire space industry always misses their projected dates by huge margins (counterexamples welcome), so comparisons are difficult. However, Starship appears to be far ahead of NG. If Starship is even one year ahead, NG may not be able to overcome the lead.

In the longer term, Smaller LVs with lower launch costs might compete on price with Starship, but probably not in the next ten years. LVs larger than Starship may have a place, but there is no such market now, and SpaceX has an easy growth path for larger Starship derivatives

"If Starship succeeds...." that is a Big "IF".! ... we shall see... !

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5310
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 4148
  • Likes Given: 1671
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #110 on: 07/09/2023 02:36 pm »
I love what SpaceX has done, but Space needs to open up with an explosion of cheap to use reusable rockets of all sizes. 
Why? If Starship succeeds, it will be dramatically cheaper per launch than all existing LVs of any size. Blue Origin and everybody else will need to compete with Starship, not with F9 and FH.

Apparently everybody in the entire space industry always misses their projected dates by huge margins (counterexamples welcome), so comparisons are difficult. However, Starship appears to be far ahead of NG. If Starship is even one year ahead, NG may not be able to overcome the lead.

In the longer term, Smaller LVs with lower launch costs might compete on price with Starship, but probably not in the next ten years. LVs larger than Starship may have a place, but there is no such market now, and SpaceX has an easy growth path for larger Starship derivatives

"If Starship succeeds...." that is a Big "IF".! ... we shall see... !
Agreed. That's why I stated it. However, the same can be said for just about everything in the industry, specifically including NG. Do you have a reason to believe that NG is more likely to succeed than Starship?

Online Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8818
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10162
  • Likes Given: 11890
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #111 on: 07/09/2023 02:46 pm »
"If Starship succeeds...." that is a Big "IF".! ... we shall see... !

The same can be said about New Glenn. Blue Origin has no history at designing, operating, and profiting from an orbital rocket.

And I think a rocket the size and type as New Glenn has the possibility of being successful, but there are still plenty of ways Blue Origin as a company can fail with New Glenn. We shall see...  ;)
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14107
  • N. California
  • Liked: 13973
  • Likes Given: 1389
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #112 on: 07/09/2023 02:53 pm »
"If Starship succeeds...." that is a Big "IF".! ... we shall see... !
It's a much smaller "IF" than IF NG succeeds, and that's for a vehicle that is much larger, much cheaper to operate and much more ambitious.

So far, relying on SpaceX failing has proven to be a losing proposition. BO should stop doing that and start acting like its livelihood depended on fast success.

Those countless enthused newspaper articles about space jobs is not what success looks like.
« Last Edit: 07/09/2023 03:49 pm by meekGee »
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Online Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8818
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10162
  • Likes Given: 11890
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #113 on: 07/09/2023 03:55 pm »
Correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that the chamber pressure of the BE-4 is fairly Conservative when compared to the Raptor 2..  And so for follow-on boosters larger than the soon to be available New Glen...

1. It is pretty standard that you start out your design on the conservative side, with lots of margin, and then iterate to a more efficient design as you better understand the final product. That may not happen until you build a few, or it may not happen until you build hundreds. But it is pretty much the pathway every product takes, so I would not be surprised if BE-4 has lots of potential upside.

2. I think SpaceX has validated the design philosophy of not needing bigger engines to build bigger rockets. Certainly Falcon Heavy has validated that design philosophy, and we have seen nothing inherently wrong with using lots of individual engines on the Starship tests so far. In other words, Blue Origin would not need to go thru another decades-long development program for a new engine in order to create a new larger launcher, they could just use their existing BE-4 in a larger cluster (and likely iterated to have higher power by then).

3. New Glenn is spelled with two "n", not one.

Quote
This is just speculation at this stage, but clustering a lot of small engines ala starship brings a lot of complexity in terms of plumbing.

We haven't seen any evidence of this with Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, or with the limited testing we've seen with Starship.

Also, "complexity" is different for expendable rockets vs reusable rockets. If you need more complexity to make something reusable, then it lowers your overall cost per launch, not increases it.

Quote
...in addition it will add a lot of costs terms of maintenance as well as the parts backlog needed for the engines, which increases the labour cost to return those engines back to service, as well as the number of spare engines that would need to be maintained in stock.

As someone that has been certified in Production and Inventory Control, and I've been a factory scheduling manager that had to take into account not only customer demand, but demand for repairs and spares, I'm not making much sense of what you wrote. No matter what the design of the engine is, there will be more than one of them on a reusable Blue Origin rocket, right? So if anything having just one engine design is the key, not how many of them there are.

Plus, with a reusable rocket, you are just swapping out engines and returning the rocket to service, just like with aircraft, and that model works fine with the aircraft industry. I'm not seeing where the downside is.

Quote
This increases the overall operating cost  to a space “trucking” business like Blue Origin, that would wand to keep the labour costs low, as well as the keep the capital cost of the spare parts to a low as practical.

EVERYONE wants to keep labor costs low. EVERYONE. This is a given. Same with spare parts inventory. But bigger engines don't necessarily reduce the cost of your inventory, and in fact they may increase your inventory and labor costs - because they are bigger and more complex.

Quote
I hypothesise that they would go in the direction of a small number of very large rocket engines [ ~ Areojet M-1 class etc] rather than having a large number of moderately sized rocket engines, as used by the Soviet N1 rocket…

Anything larger than that… then we are getting into the territory of the sea dragon…

We don't have to struggle to find modern references for rockets with multiple engines, we can just look at the history of the Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, and Starship (so far). Those rockets don't seen to have any issues related to have clusters of commodity engines, and there are now boosters have flown 15 times in a row without failures.

If anything the smaller Merlin engine has proven to be A) relatively inexpensive, B) very efficient for T/W, and C) very reliable. And the Raptor family seems to be accomplishing the same goals.

Bigger engines also have size related issues that must be solved, so they are not inherently better, just a different way to solve a problem based on whatever your initial limitations are. And for the beginning of the Space Age it was thought that bigger engines were the way to go, but 60 years later the same limitations don't seem to apply.

I expect that Blue Origin will follow in the footsteps of SpaceX for the simple reason that SpaceX has validated the use of smaller commodity engines, whereas everyone that has used larger and more complex engines has failed at reducing the cost of launch. So if money matters...  ;)
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14107
  • N. California
  • Liked: 13973
  • Likes Given: 1389
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #114 on: 07/09/2023 08:30 pm »
Correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that the chamber pressure of the BE-4 is fairly Conservative when compared to the Raptor 2..  And so for follow-on boosters larger than the soon to be available New Glen...

1. It is pretty standard that you start out your design on the conservative side, with lots of margin, and then iterate to a more efficient design as you better understand the final product. That may not happen until you build a few, or it may not happen until you build hundreds. But it is pretty much the pathway every product takes, so I would not be surprised if BE-4 has lots of potential upside.

2. I think SpaceX has validated the design philosophy of not needing bigger engines to build bigger rockets. Certainly Falcon Heavy has validated that design philosophy, and we have seen nothing inherently wrong with using lots of individual engines on the Starship tests so far. In other words, Blue Origin would not need to go thru another decades-long development program for a new engine in order to create a new larger launcher, they could just use their existing BE-4 in a larger cluster (and likely iterated to have higher power by then).

3. New Glenn is spelled with two "n", not one.

Quote
This is just speculation at this stage, but clustering a lot of small engines ala starship brings a lot of complexity in terms of plumbing.

We haven't seen any evidence of this with Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, or with the limited testing we've seen with Starship.

Also, "complexity" is different for expendable rockets vs reusable rockets. If you need more complexity to make something reusable, then it lowers your overall cost per launch, not increases it.

Quote
...in addition it will add a lot of costs terms of maintenance as well as the parts backlog needed for the engines, which increases the labour cost to return those engines back to service, as well as the number of spare engines that would need to be maintained in stock.

As someone that has been certified in Production and Inventory Control, and I've been a factory scheduling manager that had to take into account not only customer demand, but demand for repairs and spares, I'm not making much sense of what you wrote. No matter what the design of the engine is, there will be more than one of them on a reusable Blue Origin rocket, right? So if anything having just one engine design is the key, not how many of them there are.

Plus, with a reusable rocket, you are just swapping out engines and returning the rocket to service, just like with aircraft, and that model works fine with the aircraft industry. I'm not seeing where the downside is.

Quote
This increases the overall operating cost  to a space “trucking” business like Blue Origin, that would wand to keep the labour costs low, as well as the keep the capital cost of the spare parts to a low as practical.

EVERYONE wants to keep labor costs low. EVERYONE. This is a given. Same with spare parts inventory. But bigger engines don't necessarily reduce the cost of your inventory, and in fact they may increase your inventory and labor costs - because they are bigger and more complex.

Quote
I hypothesise that they would go in the direction of a small number of very large rocket engines [ ~ Areojet M-1 class etc] rather than having a large number of moderately sized rocket engines, as used by the Soviet N1 rocket…

Anything larger than that… then we are getting into the territory of the sea dragon…

We don't have to struggle to find modern references for rockets with multiple engines, we can just look at the history of the Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, and Starship (so far). Those rockets don't seen to have any issues related to have clusters of commodity engines, and there are now boosters have flown 15 times in a row without failures.

If anything the smaller Merlin engine has proven to be A) relatively inexpensive, B) very efficient for T/W, and C) very reliable. And the Raptor family seems to be accomplishing the same goals.

Bigger engines also have size related issues that must be solved, so they are not inherently better, just a different way to solve a problem based on whatever your initial limitations are. And for the beginning of the Space Age it was thought that bigger engines were the way to go, but 60 years later the same limitations don't seem to apply.

I expect that Blue Origin will follow in the footsteps of SpaceX for the simple reason that SpaceX has validated the use of smaller commodity engines, whereas everyone that has used larger and more complex engines has failed at reducing the cost of launch. So if money matters...  ;)
The only caveat here is that BE-4 is large and doesn't pack well, in comparison to Raptor.

I don't know if that's inherent to the design or just in the details (e.g. how Raptor's LOx pump is coaxial to the inlet) but as it stands now I don't think BO can create a SH-like booster with BE-4's.

I agree that they also can't wait a decade for a brand new engine design, and also that while NG might be able to survive in the market, it certainly won't be competitive with the Starship system.

What BO chooses to do from that starting position, that's the next interesting question.
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5410
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1783
  • Likes Given: 1287
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #115 on: 07/09/2023 08:52 pm »
<snip>
The only caveat here is that BE-4 is large and doesn't pack well, in comparison to Raptor.

I don't know if that's inherent to the design or just in the details (e.g. how Raptor's LOx pump is coaxial to the inlet) but as it stands now I don't think BO can create a SH-like booster with BE-4's.

I agree that they also can't wait a decade for a brand new engine design, and also that while NG might be able to survive in the market, it certainly won't be competitive with the Starship system.

What BO chooses to do from that starting position, that's the next interesting question.
Blue Origin don't need a Mars Colonial Transport. Which the Starship stack is. Think they could field a high launch frequency launcher with a payload capacity of about 80 tonnes IMLEO to fulfilled most non-colonial missions. Something with about 14 improved BE-4 for the booster. Arranged with an outer ring of 12 plus 2 centerline BE-4s.

Offline Nomadd

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8827
  • Solomon Islands
  • Liked: 60365
  • Likes Given: 1293
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #116 on: 07/09/2023 09:24 pm »
 Is there anything but wild pooma guesses at what the actual cost will be to produce BE4s?
« Last Edit: 07/09/2023 09:25 pm by Nomadd »
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who couldn't hear the music.

Offline zubenelgenubi

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11002
  • Arc to Arcturus, then Spike to Spica
  • Sometimes it feels like Trantor in the time of Hari Seldon
  • Liked: 7293
  • Likes Given: 70076
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #117 on: 07/09/2023 11:51 pm »
Moderator:
I reported, then deleted a completely unacceptable post by "DrHeywoodFloyd" and locked thread while I further examine the thread.  I also see another moderator performed a thread trim four days ago.

Post better or lose your posts and/or achieve thread lock. 🔐

Edit: Minor thread trim; thread unlocked.
« Last Edit: 07/10/2023 12:13 am by zubenelgenubi »
Support your local planetarium! (COVID-panic and forward: Now more than ever.) My current avatar is saying "i wants to go uppies!" Yes, there are God-given rights. Do you wish to gainsay the Declaration of Independence?

Offline whitelancer64

Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #118 on: 07/10/2023 05:18 am »
Is there anything but wild pooma guesses at what the actual cost will be to produce BE4s?

I don't think there have been any public statements about how much ULA is paying, but speculation is about $7 million for each BE-4, I believe that's derived from old statements about how the BE-4 was supposed to sell for much less than the RD-180. IIRC at some point Blue Origin wanted to go up from the contracted price but ULA said no.

According to Tim Dodd's 2019 article comparing the Raptor to other engines, BE-4 is ~$8 million.
https://everydayastronaut.com/raptor-engine/

Caveat, this is supposed to be price to buy one, not the cost to produce one internally.
« Last Edit: 07/10/2023 02:59 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

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14107
  • N. California
  • Liked: 13973
  • Likes Given: 1389
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #119 on: 07/10/2023 07:17 am »
<snip>
The only caveat here is that BE-4 is large and doesn't pack well, in comparison to Raptor.

I don't know if that's inherent to the design or just in the details (e.g. how Raptor's LOx pump is coaxial to the inlet) but as it stands now I don't think BO can create a SH-like booster with BE-4's.

I agree that they also can't wait a decade for a brand new engine design, and also that while NG might be able to survive in the market, it certainly won't be competitive with the Starship system.

What BO chooses to do from that starting position, that's the next interesting question.
Blue Origin don't need a Mars Colonial Transport. Which the Starship stack is. Think they could field a high launch frequency launcher with a payload capacity of about 80 tonnes IMLEO to fulfilled most non-colonial missions. Something with about 14 improved BE-4 for the booster. Arranged with an outer ring of 12 plus 2 centerline BE-4s.
I'll buy that. A Newer Glenn.

It might be just large enough to support a fully reusable launch system with an acceptable payload.
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline Robert_the_Doll

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 764
  • Florida
  • Liked: 1215
  • Likes Given: 435
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #120 on: 07/10/2023 10:06 am »
Is there anything but wild pooma guesses at what the actual cost will be to produce BE4s?

I don't think there have been any public statements about how much ULA is paying, but speculation is about $7 million for each BE-4, I believe that's derived from old statements about how the BE-4 was supposed to sell for much less than the RD-180. IIRC at some point Blue Origin wanted to go up from the contracted price but ULA said no.

According to Tim Dodd's 2019 article comparing the Raptor to other engines, BE-4 is ~$8 million.

The $8 million price, was as I recall, quoted from Tory Bruno who stated that a pair of BE-4s was equivalent to that of a single RD-180.
https://everydayastronaut.com/raptor-engine/

Caveat, this is supposed to be cost to buy one, not the cost to produce one internally.

Much of the information in that graphic is very out of date for both BE-4 and Raptor alike, and you hit on a very important point that is not made in that graphic: that the price quoted for BE-4 is what it is being sold to ULA for, not the "at cost" price for Blue Origin, which is what we are seeing with the Merlin and Raptor prices, hence it is a very misleading one to those not deeply familiar with the situation.

We also do not know if the unit price for BE-4 will come down with the surge in production to meet the Kuiper launch cadence for Vulcan and New Glenn.

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14107
  • N. California
  • Liked: 13973
  • Likes Given: 1389
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #121 on: 07/11/2023 08:03 pm »
Is there anything but wild pooma guesses at what the actual cost will be to produce BE4s?

I don't think there have been any public statements about how much ULA is paying, but speculation is about $7 million for each BE-4, I believe that's derived from old statements about how the BE-4 was supposed to sell for much less than the RD-180. IIRC at some point Blue Origin wanted to go up from the contracted price but ULA said no.

According to Tim Dodd's 2019 article comparing the Raptor to other engines, BE-4 is ~$8 million.

The $8 million price, was as I recall, quoted from Tory Bruno who stated that a pair of BE-4s was equivalent to that of a single RD-180.
https://everydayastronaut.com/raptor-engine/

Caveat, this is supposed to be cost to buy one, not the cost to produce one internally.

Much of the information in that graphic is very out of date for both BE-4 and Raptor alike, and you hit on a very important point that is not made in that graphic: that the price quoted for BE-4 is what it is being sold to ULA for, not the "at cost" price for Blue Origin, which is what we are seeing with the Merlin and Raptor prices, hence it is a very misleading one to those not deeply familiar with the situation.

We also do not know if the unit price for BE-4 will come down with the surge in production to meet the Kuiper launch cadence for Vulcan and New Glenn.
That surge is not so large, since it's only 2 engines per rocket, and in the long term they'll shift to NG which is only 7 per, but for a reusable rocket.

Peak engine usage will occur when Vulcan is still flying the majority of missions, and NG is doing expendable development flights.

But since that's a temporary state of affairs, peak production may not match it.  Instead they'll try to build inventory during the  early days to get them over that peak.
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4847
  • Liked: 2773
  • Likes Given: 1090
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #122 on: 07/11/2023 08:42 pm »
I don't think there have been any public statements about how much ULA is paying, but speculation is about $7 million for each BE-4
...

Hmmm... While we lack details, seems if we go by ULA's SMART (Bruno's) statement that break-even is three flights. Not to go off on a tangent (but I will), that was one of the issues with the original (Sowers) model: the more expensive the engines (vs the rest of the first stage), the easier it is to justify SMART. Which is a canard if the cost model is very different.

edit: Which is a long way of saying think BE-4's, or at least what ULA is paying for them, is on the high side.
« Last Edit: 07/11/2023 09:00 pm by joek »

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5310
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 4148
  • Likes Given: 1671
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #123 on: 07/11/2023 08:58 pm »
That surge is not so large, since it's only 2 engines per rocket, and in the long term they'll shift to NG which is only 7 per, but for a reusable rocket.

Peak engine usage will occur when Vulcan is still flying the majority of missions, and NG is doing expendable development flights.

But since that's a temporary state of affairs, peak production may not match it.  Instead they'll try to build inventory during the  early days to get them over that peak.
New medium and large LVs have historically not flown more than ten times in their first four years. Vulcan Centaur and/or New Glenn may break this record, or not.  BO at one point said their new factory will be able to produce about 40 BE-4 per year.  So, ULA will need 20 BE-4 by 2028, and NG will need 70 by 2029, assuming no reuse in the first ten flights. This will not put much strain on the factory. This assumes that only a few engines will be scrapped due to being superseded by improved versions.

ULA's highest launch rate was 16 launches in 2009. Assuming they eventually this rate with Vulcan Centaur, they will need 32 BE-4/yr.

I'm not sure what past data can be used to predict NG launch rates after 4 years. If we use F9 for 2019-2022, we see that SpaceX added 14 new boosters in four years. If NG does this they will need about 25 BE4-yr and with the same reusability will reach about 60 launches/yr.

No, I do not believe Vulcan Centaur will get to 16 launches/yr and I do not believe NG will get to 60 launches/yr. I am merely making simple-minded projections from real data. If both rockets are this successful after 2029, BO will have ample time to expand the BE-4 factory.

Offline whitelancer64

Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #124 on: 07/12/2023 02:08 pm »
*snip*
If both rockets are this successful after 2029, BO will have ample time to expand the BE-4 factory.

Blue Origin is currently in process of doubling the size of its Huntsville factory, and planning for a third expansion is in the works.
"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 DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5310
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 4148
  • Likes Given: 1671
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #125 on: 07/12/2023 03:12 pm »
*snip*
If both rockets are this successful after 2029, BO will have ample time to expand the BE-4 factory.

Blue Origin is currently in process of doubling the size of its Huntsville factory, and planning for a third expansion is in the works.
Have you found any projections for the production capacities (initial, after first expansion, after second expansion)? I cannot remember where I got the 43/yr number.

Offline Starshipdown

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 237
  • Space
  • Liked: 337
  • Likes Given: 349
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #126 on: 07/12/2023 04:08 pm »
*snip*
If both rockets are this successful after 2029, BO will have ample time to expand the BE-4 factory.

Blue Origin is currently in process of doubling the size of its Huntsville factory, and planning for a third expansion is in the works.
Have you found any projections for the production capacities (initial, after first expansion, after second expansion)? I cannot remember where I got the 43/yr number.

The initial production rate for Huntsville was 42 engines a year and that could be throttled between BE-3U and BE-4 as needed:
https://spacenews.com/blue-origin-opens-rocket-engine-factory/

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5310
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 4148
  • Likes Given: 1671
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #127 on: 07/12/2023 04:45 pm »
*snip*
If both rockets are this successful after 2029, BO will have ample time to expand the BE-4 factory.

Blue Origin is currently in process of doubling the size of its Huntsville factory, and planning for a third expansion is in the works.
Have you found any projections for the production capacities (initial, after first expansion, after second expansion)? I cannot remember where I got the 43/yr number.

The initial production rate for Huntsville was 42 engines a year and that could be throttled between BE-3U and BE-4 as needed:
https://spacenews.com/blue-origin-opens-rocket-engine-factory/
Thanks. Because of the 2 BE-3 for the US, NG will need 9 engines, and they can produce engines for 4.66 NG/yr fully expended. They would need 90 engines for ten NG in the first four years after the first NG flight, and 20 engines for Vulcan Centaur: 110 engines before the year 2029 or less than 3 years of production.  If either NG or Vulcan can achieve more than 10 flights in the first four years, the number goes up. If NG begins successful reuse earlier, the number goes down.

It's not clear that they will ever need the factory expansion. As a point of reference, SpaceX sized Hawthorne to build up to 30 F9 boosters per year, but because of reuse they are now using four or five new boosters per year.


Offline Starshipdown

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 237
  • Space
  • Liked: 337
  • Likes Given: 349
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #128 on: 07/12/2023 04:50 pm »
Is there anything but wild pooma guesses at what the actual cost will be to produce BE4s?

I don't think there have been any public statements about how much ULA is paying, but speculation is about $7 million for each BE-4, I believe that's derived from old statements about how the BE-4 was supposed to sell for much less than the RD-180. IIRC at some point Blue Origin wanted to go up from the contracted price but ULA said no.

According to Tim Dodd's 2019 article comparing the Raptor to other engines, BE-4 is ~$8 million.

The $8 million price, was as I recall, quoted from Tory Bruno who stated that a pair of BE-4s was equivalent to that of a single RD-180.
https://everydayastronaut.com/raptor-engine/

Caveat, this is supposed to be cost to buy one, not the cost to produce one internally.

Much of the information in that graphic is very out of date for both BE-4 and Raptor alike, and you hit on a very important point that is not made in that graphic: that the price quoted for BE-4 is what it is being sold to ULA for, not the "at cost" price for Blue Origin, which is what we are seeing with the Merlin and Raptor prices, hence it is a very misleading one to those not deeply familiar with the situation.

We also do not know if the unit price for BE-4 will come down with the surge in production to meet the Kuiper launch cadence for Vulcan and New Glenn.
That surge is not so large, since it's only 2 engines per rocket, and in the long term they'll shift to NG which is only 7 per, but for a reusable rocket.

Peak engine usage will occur when Vulcan is still flying the majority of missions, and NG is doing expendable development flights.

But since that's a temporary state of affairs, peak production may not match it.  Instead they'll try to build inventory during the  early days to get them over that peak.

Honestly, it's not just the number of engines that will slot right into specific rockets for a specific flight, but also ready to go spare engines, individual parts inventory to replace something on a complete engine that fails, not just simply replace those expended on Vulcan or those lost during a launch or landing accident with NG, and they'll still be building development engines specifically to test upgrades.

And Blue will be attempting 1st stage recovery on the first try for NG, just as they did with NS. People keep forgetting that Falcon 9 was originally built as expendable, with attempts at first stage recovery at sea via parachutes ala the Shuttle SRBs, it had to be kludged into a vertical landing system and that took a lot of iteration and failed attempts since it wasn't originally designed for it.


Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39246
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25173
  • Likes Given: 12102
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #129 on: 07/12/2023 05:04 pm »

And Blue will be attempting 1st stage recovery on the first try for NG
Citation badly needed. From what I hear, the first missions will be expended
Quote
People keep forgetting that Falcon 9 was originally built as expendable
Because it’s false. It was designed for parachute recovery from the beginning, not expendable.
Quote
it had to be kludged into a vertical landing system and that took a lot of iteration and failed attempts since it wasn't originally designed for it.
It was virtually cleansheet redesigned for v1.1, not a kludge. And if Blue thinks they won’t need much iteration, they’re fooling themselves. New Shepard (which, let’s be clear, is the result of iteration of previous vehicles) uses a ton of delta-v to do a landing, and that’s with a mere 100km suborbital ride. And it’s STILL not mature.

Again, Falcon 9 v1.1 was a complete redesign.

Let’s not count Blue Origin’s chickens before they hatch. This is new ground for Blue Origin, they haven’t even achieved orbit yet. They’ve only flown to around 100km, same altitude as student built high power rockets now get to.
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 meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14107
  • N. California
  • Liked: 13973
  • Likes Given: 1389
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #130 on: 07/12/2023 05:05 pm »
Is there anything but wild pooma guesses at what the actual cost will be to produce BE4s?

I don't think there have been any public statements about how much ULA is paying, but speculation is about $7 million for each BE-4, I believe that's derived from old statements about how the BE-4 was supposed to sell for much less than the RD-180. IIRC at some point Blue Origin wanted to go up from the contracted price but ULA said no.

According to Tim Dodd's 2019 article comparing the Raptor to other engines, BE-4 is ~$8 million.

The $8 million price, was as I recall, quoted from Tory Bruno who stated that a pair of BE-4s was equivalent to that of a single RD-180.
https://everydayastronaut.com/raptor-engine/

Caveat, this is supposed to be cost to buy one, not the cost to produce one internally.

Much of the information in that graphic is very out of date for both BE-4 and Raptor alike, and you hit on a very important point that is not made in that graphic: that the price quoted for BE-4 is what it is being sold to ULA for, not the "at cost" price for Blue Origin, which is what we are seeing with the Merlin and Raptor prices, hence it is a very misleading one to those not deeply familiar with the situation.

We also do not know if the unit price for BE-4 will come down with the surge in production to meet the Kuiper launch cadence for Vulcan and New Glenn.
That surge is not so large, since it's only 2 engines per rocket, and in the long term they'll shift to NG which is only 7 per, but for a reusable rocket.

Peak engine usage will occur when Vulcan is still flying the majority of missions, and NG is doing expendable development flights.

But since that's a temporary state of affairs, peak production may not match it.  Instead they'll try to build inventory during the  early days to get them over that peak.

Honestly, it's not just the number of engines that will slot right into specific rockets for a specific flight, but also ready to go spare engines, individual parts inventory to replace something on a complete engine that fails, not just simply replace those expended on Vulcan or those lost during a launch or landing accident with NG, and they'll still be building development engines specifically to test upgrades.

And Blue will be attempting 1st stage recovery on the first try for NG, just as they did with NS. People keep forgetting that Falcon 9 was originally built as expendable, with attempts at first stage recovery at sea via parachutes ala the Shuttle SRBs, it had to be kludged into a vertical landing system and that took a lot of iteration and failed attempts since it wasn't originally designed for it.
Did they say they'll try to recover on flight #1?

"Just as they did with NS" is weak rationale. At this point there's nothing in common between the two.

Where are they going to land at? The original ship is long gone. There was some talk of a SpaceX-style drone barge, but that was a long time ago. And some speculative talk of RTLS but nothing concrete. Am I missing something?

It would be cool to be sure, but did BO say that's the intent?
« Last Edit: 07/12/2023 05:07 pm by meekGee »
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39246
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25173
  • Likes Given: 12102
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #131 on: 07/12/2023 05:16 pm »
*snip*
If both rockets are this successful after 2029, BO will have ample time to expand the BE-4 factory.

Blue Origin is currently in process of doubling the size of its Huntsville factory, and planning for a third expansion is in the works.
Have you found any projections for the production capacities (initial, after first expansion, after second expansion)? I cannot remember where I got the 43/yr number.

The initial production rate for Huntsville was 42 engines a year and that could be throttled between BE-3U and BE-4 as needed:
https://spacenews.com/blue-origin-opens-rocket-engine-factory/
Thanks. Because of the 2 BE-3 for the US, NG will need 9 engines, and they can produce engines for 4.66 NG/yr fully expended. They would need 90 engines for ten NG in the first four years after the first NG flight, and 20 engines for Vulcan Centaur: 110 engines before the year 2029 or less than 3 years of production.  If either NG or Vulcan can achieve more than 10 flights in the first four years, the number goes up. If NG begins successful reuse earlier, the number goes down.

It's not clear that they will ever need the factory expansion. As a point of reference, SpaceX sized Hawthorne to build up to 30 F9 boosters per year, but because of reuse they are now using four or five new boosters per year.
Every Falcon Heavy mission expends the center core, and they’re doing around 5-10 of those per year, so your number is under-counting I think by about a factor of 2. 5 new F9 boosters and 5+ new Falcon Heavy center cores. Even more if you’re doing fully expended like with Viasat. Let’s call it 10-15 per year.

And the only reason they’re not doing even more is they’re using a lot of that production for upper stages, and they think (hope) Starship will come online to ease the burden on Falcon. Without Starship, they’d need around 500-600 Falcon core flights per year, or around 30 new boosters and 20 flights per booster on average
« Last Edit: 07/12/2023 05:18 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

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5310
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 4148
  • Likes Given: 1671
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #132 on: 07/12/2023 05:48 pm »

It's not clear that they will ever need the factory expansion. As a point of reference, SpaceX sized Hawthorne to build up to 30 F9 boosters per year, but because of reuse they are now using four or five new boosters per year.
Every Falcon Heavy mission expends the center core, and they’re doing around 5-10 of those per year, so your number is under-counting I think by about a factor of 2. 5 new F9 boosters and 5+ new Falcon Heavy center cores. Even more if you’re doing fully expended like with Viasat. Let’s call it 10-15 per year.

And the only reason they’re not doing even more is they’re using a lot of that production for upper stages, and they think (hope) Starship will come online to ease the burden on Falcon. Without Starship, they’d need around 500-600 Falcon core flights per year, or around 30 new boosters and 20 flights per booster on average
Falcon Heavy has flown exactly six times from its first flight in 2018, so I'm not sure where you get 10 per year. The rate for 2023 is about 4/yr. Two have flown this year and at most 3 more will fly. Boosters are not currently production-limited: they are making as many as they need. The limit appears to be based on demand. However, the ONLY reason to discuss F9 production on this thread is to provide an example of how reuse affects required production in the real world.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39246
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25173
  • Likes Given: 12102
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #133 on: 07/12/2023 06:13 pm »
They’ve expended 4 cores on Falcon Heavy so far this year, and the year is just halfway over.

The point is that unforeseen stuff happens. SpaceX is quickly trying to go to Starship, otherwise they’d need to build out to 500 flights per year capability. If Blue wants similar capacity, they’ll need to do the same. So I think they’ll need whatever production capacity they can get.
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 Starshipdown

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 237
  • Space
  • Liked: 337
  • Likes Given: 349
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #134 on: 07/12/2023 06:43 pm »

And Blue will be attempting 1st stage recovery on the first try for NG
Citation badly needed. From what I hear, the first missions will be expended
Quote
People keep forgetting that Falcon 9 was originally built as expendable
Because it’s false. It was designed for parachute recovery from the beginning, not expendable.
Quote
it had to be kludged into a vertical landing system and that took a lot of iteration and failed attempts since it wasn't originally designed for it.
It was virtually cleansheet redesigned for v1.1, not a kludge. And if Blue thinks they won’t need much iteration, they’re fooling themselves. New Shepard (which, let’s be clear, is the result of iteration of previous vehicles) uses a ton of delta-v to do a landing, and that’s with a mere 100km suborbital ride. And it’s STILL not mature.

Again, Falcon 9 v1.1 was a complete redesign.

Let’s not count Blue Origin’s chickens before they hatch. This is new ground for Blue Origin, they haven’t even achieved orbit yet. They’ve only flown to around 100km, same altitude as student built high power rockets now get to.

I'd like to see some citations from you that it will be. And I see you're trying to do the knee-jerk attack response rather than give something substantial, and you snipped my reference to the parachute recovery. Yes, elements of F9 was designed around reuse, but the parachute recovery never worked out so early launches were straight away expended and after 2010, no recoveries were attempted:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches_(2010%E2%80%932019)

It's not until 2014 that the early controlled ocean landings are done, but the booster is still destroyed and the design continually iterated until as late as January that an attempt to land on barge is attempted, but failed. It took a while to shift from expendable with a couple recovery experiments via parachute mode to a completely nearly completely different recovery methodology. And no, it's not a from-scratch clean sheet, it still has a lot in common with the original V.1, including tanks (stretched), engines, thrust structure, interstage, payload adapters, fairings, etc. as they worked through adding landing legs which were exterior-mounted, rather than internalized for aerodynamics as is the case with NG.

If New Glenn was intended to be expendable from the beginning and the worked to reuse, they'd go with a very different development and hardware construction path than we're seeing with the qual and flight hardware for things like the aft engine or the interstage forward modules. Note the robust structure and the landing gear wells. Things like grid fins, landing gear, strakes, etc. would not be there.






Offline GWH

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1741
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1924
  • Likes Given: 1276
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #135 on: 07/12/2023 07:29 pm »
Just because it has all the hardware for reuse doesn't mean they are going to try and land it the first time out.

Offline trimeta

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1659
  • Kansas City, MO
  • Liked: 2121
  • Likes Given: 57
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #136 on: 07/12/2023 07:44 pm »
Just because it has all the hardware for reuse doesn't mean they are going to try and land it the first time out.
And it certainly doesn't mean they'll succeed the first time, either. I genuinely worry that all their internal projections expect success, however, and that a failure would set them back significantly.

Offline Robert_the_Doll

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 764
  • Florida
  • Liked: 1215
  • Likes Given: 435
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #137 on: 07/12/2023 08:29 pm »
Just because it has all the hardware for reuse doesn't mean they are going to try and land it the first time out.

They may be expecting to lose it while attempting a landing on the maiden flight and have planned accordingly.
Is there anything other than speculation that they will not attempt landing, even one in water?

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5310
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 4148
  • Likes Given: 1671
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #138 on: 07/12/2023 08:43 pm »
They’ve expended 4 cores on Falcon Heavy so far this year, and the year is just halfway over.

The point is that unforeseen stuff happens. SpaceX is quickly trying to go to Starship, otherwise they’d need to build out to 500 flights per year capability. If Blue wants similar capacity, they’ll need to do the same. So I think they’ll need whatever production capacity they can get.
I'm projecting ten Vulcan Centaur flights, total, in the years 2024-2027, and ten NG flights, total, in the years 2025-2028. My guesstimates are based on the ramp rate for all medium or heavy LVs starting in 1990. Are you using a different estimate? I have no particular reason to believe my guesstimate is valid. With this guesstimate, I don't see them needing a bigger factory for a long time.

Prediction past 2028 is even more problematic. I just don't see Vulcan exceeding 16/year or NG exceeding 60/yr, and for NG my uneducated gut feeling is they will simply fade away due to competition from Starship.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39246
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25173
  • Likes Given: 12102
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #139 on: 07/12/2023 08:49 pm »
Just because it has all the hardware for reuse doesn't mean they are going to try and land it the first time out.
And it certainly doesn't mean they'll succeed the first time, either. I genuinely worry that all their internal projections expect success, however, and that a failure would set them back significantly.
I don’t think they do. I think they are fully expecting to expand the first few and they aren’t expecting otherwise. I’m pretty sure the plan is to splash them.
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 Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39246
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25173
  • Likes Given: 12102
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #140 on: 07/12/2023 08:55 pm »

And Blue will be attempting 1st stage recovery on the first try for NG
Citation badly needed. From what I hear, the first missions will be expended
Quote
People keep forgetting that Falcon 9 was originally built as expendable
Because it’s false. It was designed for parachute recovery from the beginning, not expendable.
Quote
it had to be kludged into a vertical landing system and that took a lot of iteration and failed attempts since it wasn't originally designed for it.
It was virtually cleansheet redesigned for v1.1, not a kludge. And if Blue thinks they won’t need much iteration, they’re fooling themselves. New Shepard (which, let’s be clear, is the result of iteration of previous vehicles) uses a ton of delta-v to do a landing, and that’s with a mere 100km suborbital ride. And it’s STILL not mature.

Again, Falcon 9 v1.1 was a complete redesign.

Let’s not count Blue Origin’s chickens before they hatch. This is new ground for Blue Origin, they haven’t even achieved orbit yet. They’ve only flown to around 100km, same altitude as student built high power rockets now get to.

I'd like to see some citations from you that it will be. And I see you're trying to do the knee-jerk attack response rather than give something substantial, and you snipped my reference to the parachute recovery. Yes, elements of F9 was designed around reuse, but the parachute recovery never worked out so early launches were straight away expended and after 2010, no recoveries were attempted:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches_(2010%E2%80%932019)

It's not until 2014 that the early controlled ocean landings are done, but the booster is still destroyed and the design continually iterated until as late as January that an attempt to land on barge is attempted, but failed. It took a while to shift from expendable with a couple recovery experiments via parachute mode to a completely nearly completely different recovery methodology. And no, it's not a from-scratch clean sheet, it still has a lot in common with the original V.1, including tanks (stretched), engines, thrust structure, interstage, payload adapters, fairings, etc. as they worked through adding landing legs which were exterior-mounted, rather than internalized for aerodynamics as is the case with NG.

If New Glenn was intended to be expendable from the beginning and the worked to reuse, they'd go with a very different development and hardware construction path than we're seeing with the qual and flight hardware for things like the aft engine or the interstage forward modules. Note the robust structure and the landing gear wells. Things like grid fins, landing gear, strakes, etc. would not be there.
v1.0 to v1.1 was essentially a clean sheet redesign. The engines were the Throttleable Merlin1D with SpaceX built turbopumps instead of Barber-Nichols turbopumps. The stage was stretched. It gained spots for legs and grid fins. The engine arrangement and thrust structure was totally different. It gained a fairing (v1.0 Falcon 9 never flew with the fairing, only Dragon.)

They were substantial changes after version 1.1 including to the thrust structure (and subcooling etc etc) but I would say those are more iterative in nature. (I think we agree there?) but this version 1.1 of falcon nine was designed basically from scratch to do vertical landing reuse. They did a bunch of tests with Grasshopper, then F9Rdev1 in Texas showing that the basic concept was sound. It took them a lot longer than they expected but this was not a kludge, but a very intentionally designed vehicle to enable vertical landing reuse.

At no point in time was Falcon 9 envisioned to just be expendable, ever. And the v1.0 to v1.1 transition was essentially a total redesign. With that complete, they were finally able to get the stage intact until it hit the ocean (all previous Falcon stages disintegrated much higher up… except for early Falcon 1 failures…).

New Glenn, like Falcon 9, is not intended to be expendable. But they do intend to expend the first few stages as far as I can tell. Doubtless they will be attempting to simulate a landing just like SpaceX did with the first v1.1 flight (and just like v1.0 attempted to be parachute recovered on its first flight or two).
« Last Edit: 07/12/2023 09:05 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 Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39246
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25173
  • Likes Given: 12102
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #141 on: 07/12/2023 09:03 pm »
They’ve expended 4 cores on Falcon Heavy so far this year, and the year is just halfway over.

The point is that unforeseen stuff happens. SpaceX is quickly trying to go to Starship, otherwise they’d need to build out to 500 flights per year capability. If Blue wants similar capacity, they’ll need to do the same. So I think they’ll need whatever production capacity they can get.
I'm projecting ten Vulcan Centaur flights, total, in the years 2024-2027, and ten NG flights, total, in the years 2025-2028. My guesstimates are based on the ramp rate for all medium or heavy LVs starting in 1990. Are you using a different estimate? I have no particular reason to believe my guesstimate is valid. With this guesstimate, I don't see them needing a bigger factory for a long time.

Prediction past 2028 is even more problematic. I just don't see Vulcan exceeding 16/year or NG exceeding 60/yr, and for NG my uneducated gut feeling is they will simply fade away due to competition from Starship.
both will need to exceed those flight rates in order to launch Kuiper.
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 Purona

  • Member
  • Posts: 96
  • Liked: 81
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #142 on: 07/12/2023 09:07 pm »
The only way their current plans work is with landing the first stage of New Glenn. They cant do both 1. launch Blue Moon. 2. launch Escapade missions in 2024. And expend New Glenn in the process without having a second New Glenn first stage in production as we speak.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39246
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25173
  • Likes Given: 12102
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #143 on: 07/12/2023 09:09 pm »
They are very secretive but I suspect they have several first stages in work as we speak.  I would bet money that they do not expect to recover the first flight.
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 Robert_the_Doll

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 764
  • Florida
  • Liked: 1215
  • Likes Given: 435
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #144 on: 07/12/2023 09:18 pm »
New Glenn, like Falcon 9, is not intended to be expendable. But they do intend to expend the first few stages as far as I can tell. Doubtless they will be attempting to simulate a landing just like SpaceX did with the first v1.1 flight (and just like v1.0 attempted to be parachute recovered on its first flight or two).

I have seen no source that indicates this approach. It is clear that Blue Origin is going more in a different "success-oriented" direction than SpaceX. If they assume that some engines will be lost due to failure, then they clearly need a high production rate of BE-4s to cover either a loss during launch or at landing. But the indications are they will gladly accept landing the first stage on the first flight.
« Last Edit: 07/13/2023 10:04 pm by zubenelgenubi »

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4847
  • Liked: 2773
  • Likes Given: 1090
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #145 on: 07/12/2023 10:22 pm »
...
But the indications are they will gladly accept landing the first stage hope they will land land the first stage.
FTFY. Do you (anyone?) expect Blue to nail it on the first attempt? Extremely doubtful IMO. If that is not you meant, please clarify.

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5310
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 4148
  • Likes Given: 1671
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #146 on: 07/12/2023 10:41 pm »
They’ve expended 4 cores on Falcon Heavy so far this year, and the year is just halfway over.

The point is that unforeseen stuff happens. SpaceX is quickly trying to go to Starship, otherwise they’d need to build out to 500 flights per year capability. If Blue wants similar capacity, they’ll need to do the same. So I think they’ll need whatever production capacity they can get.
I'm projecting ten Vulcan Centaur flights, total, in the years 2024-2027, and ten NG flights, total, in the years 2025-2028. My guesstimates are based on the ramp rate for all medium or heavy LVs starting in 1990. Are you using a different estimate? I have no particular reason to believe my guesstimate is valid. With this guesstimate, I don't see them needing a bigger factory for a long time.

Prediction past 2028 is even more problematic. I just don't see Vulcan exceeding 16/year or NG exceeding 60/yr, and for NG my uneducated gut feeling is they will simply fade away due to competition from Starship.
both will need to exceed those flight rates in order to launch Kuiper.
That's not a prediction. Do you think either of them will launch more than ten times total in their first four years? Do you think Vulcan Centaur will ever launch more that 16 times in any one year after 2029? Will NG ever reach 60 launches in one year?

I would like for both LVs to be successful, but I do not think it will happen unless SpaceX fails to get Starship to work.

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14107
  • N. California
  • Liked: 13973
  • Likes Given: 1389
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #147 on: 07/12/2023 11:09 pm »



...

It's not until 2014 that the early controlled ocean landings are done, but the booster is still destroyed and the design continually iterated until as late as January that an attempt to land on barge is attempted, but failed. ...


If New Glenn was intended to be expendable ...


Ok.  So this is for you, and Dr. Floyd, and the other folks expecting NG to pop out of the hanger all but ready to go..

When did BO, ever, present a finished product on day one?

There's all this talk about how BO develops everything in secret and then just drops it on us when it's "really done", but..  when?

The two large projects BO has kinda finished are NS and BE-4, and with both they jumped on the PR horn plenty times before the moment of release, and when the moment came, the result was slow to ramp and unreliable to boot.

Why do you think NG would be any different?



ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline ulm_atms

  • Rocket Junky
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 916
  • To boldly go where no government has gone before.
  • Liked: 1540
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #148 on: 07/12/2023 11:47 pm »
Just because it has all the hardware for reuse doesn't mean they are going to try and land it the first time out.
And it certainly doesn't mean they'll succeed the first time, either. I genuinely worry that all their internal projections expect success, however, and that a failure would set them back significantly.
I don’t think they do. I think they are fully expecting to expand the first few and they aren’t expecting otherwise. I’m pretty sure the plan is to splash them.
Well, if they roll NG to the pad for launch with the landing hardware attached, there would be zero reason not to try an ocean landing bare minimum.  I mean...what would be the point of not doing that if all the hardware is there?

Besides...I assume they will have to show they can control the returning stage before they are allowed to land on land.  So it's either ocean or boat/barge anyways for the first few.

Offline Gliderflyer

Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #149 on: 07/12/2023 11:51 pm »



...

It's not until 2014 that the early controlled ocean landings are done, but the booster is still destroyed and the design continually iterated until as late as January that an attempt to land on barge is attempted, but failed. ...


If New Glenn was intended to be expendable ...


Ok.  So this is for you, and Dr. Floyd, and the other folks expecting NG to pop out of the hanger all but ready to go..

When did BO, ever, present a finished product on day one?

There's all this talk about how BO develops everything in secret and then just drops it on us when it's "really done", but..  when?

The two large projects BO has kinda finished are NS and BE-4, and with both they jumped on the PR horn plenty times before the moment of release, and when the moment came, the result was slow to ramp and unreliable to boot.

Why do you think NG would be any different?

Nobody even *knew* what New Shepard looked like until they released a video of it flying. Not even a render, just a "oh, by the way, we flew this the other day". The last anyone had seen was the PM2 peroxide/kerosene thing.

It wasn't "done", but is was certainly done enough to fly.
« Last Edit: 07/12/2023 11:52 pm by Gliderflyer »
I tried it at home

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39246
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25173
  • Likes Given: 12102
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #150 on: 07/13/2023 12:13 am »
It’s kind of an interesting case of being memory-holed, but the initial variant of New Shepard had a different propellant combination and flew two flights in 2011 and the second one failed on the way up. What we NOW call New Shepard had its first flight have a failed booster landing on the way down.

SpaceX’s Grasshopper program had 5 flights without failure and F9RDev1 had some flights before failure.
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 meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14107
  • N. California
  • Liked: 13973
  • Likes Given: 1389
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #151 on: 07/13/2023 12:52 am »



...

It's not until 2014 that the early controlled ocean landings are done, but the booster is still destroyed and the design continually iterated until as late as January that an attempt to land on barge is attempted, but failed. ...


If New Glenn was intended to be expendable ...


Ok.  So this is for you, and Dr. Floyd, and the other folks expecting NG to pop out of the hanger all but ready to go..

When did BO, ever, present a finished product on day one?

There's all this talk about how BO develops everything in secret and then just drops it on us when it's "really done", but..  when?

The two large projects BO has kinda finished are NS and BE-4, and with both they jumped on the PR horn plenty times before the moment of release, and when the moment came, the result was slow to ramp and unreliable to boot.

Why do you think NG would be any different?

Nobody even *knew* what New Shepard looked like until they released a video of it flying. Not even a render, just a "oh, by the way, we flew this the other day". The last anyone had seen was the PM2 peroxide/kerosene thing.

It wasn't "done", but is was certainly done enough to fly.
What RB said.

Everyone was following NS, it certainly didn't show up out of the blue, and most certainly it wasn't finished - it still isn't.

It's currently performing at a reliability level that matches SpaceX's early protypes, only without the associated speed of development.

Same with BE-4.

ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39246
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25173
  • Likes Given: 12102
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #152 on: 07/13/2023 01:10 am »



...

It's not until 2014 that the early controlled ocean landings are done, but the booster is still destroyed and the design continually iterated until as late as January that an attempt to land on barge is attempted, but failed. ...


If New Glenn was intended to be expendable ...


Ok.  So this is for you, and Dr. Floyd, and the other folks expecting NG to pop out of the hanger all but ready to go..

When did BO, ever, present a finished product on day one?

There's all this talk about how BO develops everything in secret and then just drops it on us when it's "really done", but..  when?

The two large projects BO has kinda finished are NS and BE-4, and with both they jumped on the PR horn plenty times before the moment of release, and when the moment came, the result was slow to ramp and unreliable to boot.

Why do you think NG would be any different?

Nobody even *knew* what New Shepard looked like until they released a video of it flying. Not even a render, just a "oh, by the way, we flew this the other day". The last anyone had seen was the PM2 peroxide/kerosene thing.

It wasn't "done", but is was certainly done enough to fly.
PM2 actually WAS New Shepard (maybe with a mock-up instead of the capsule). PM means propulsion module and it was the “New Shepard Propulsion Module.”

It was literally called the New Shepard Propulsion Module, and it used kerosene and peroxide. In the first Blue Origin general thread (this is the 5th…).
« Last Edit: 07/13/2023 01:10 am 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 Robert_the_Doll

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 764
  • Florida
  • Liked: 1215
  • Likes Given: 435
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #153 on: 07/13/2023 01:33 am »



...

It's not until 2014 that the early controlled ocean landings are done, but the booster is still destroyed and the design continually iterated until as late as January that an attempt to land on barge is attempted, but failed. ...


If New Glenn was intended to be expendable ...


Ok.  So this is for you, and Dr. Floyd, and the other folks expecting NG to pop out of the hanger all but ready to go..

When did BO, ever, present a finished product on day one?

There's all this talk about how BO develops everything in secret and then just drops it on us when it's "really done", but..  when?

The two large projects BO has kinda finished are NS and BE-4, and with both they jumped on the PR horn plenty times before the moment of release, and when the moment came, the result was slow to ramp and unreliable to boot.

Why do you think NG would be any different?

Nobody even *knew* what New Shepard looked like until they released a video of it flying. Not even a render, just a "oh, by the way, we flew this the other day". The last anyone had seen was the PM2 peroxide/kerosene thing.

It wasn't "done", but is was certainly done enough to fly.
What RB said.

Everyone was following NS, it certainly didn't show up out of the blue, and most certainly it wasn't finished - it still isn't.

It's currently performing at a reliability level that matches SpaceX's early protypes, only without the associated speed of development.

Same with BE-4.

Not entirely true. The PM2 test vehicle and the few pieces of early reference New Shepard artwork looked almost nothing like what actually flew in 2015. In fact, nothing of that second configuration was released until NS1 flew to the edge of space. The only hint of what it could look like was the capsule flown for the pad abort motor test in 19 October 2012. The only reason any art was released was due to the fact that Blue Origin was getting a little bit of funding from NASA for Commercial Crew Development phase 1 (CCDev 1) and 2.

Externally, New Shepard changed very little, and only a few features distinguishes each one from the other. The lost NS3 only having the experiments mounted up near the ring fin and  more utilitarian capsule interior than NS4.

BE-4 only entered the spotlight due to the press conference announcing the deal between ULA and Blue Origin in 2014. The model on display was all that anyone had for over a year and the development engine configuration was not shown until about 2015, which was very substantially different from the desktop model, and was not seen in full scale until 2016.

But in configuration, BE-4 has largely stayed the same with a few modest changes here and there.

New Glenn seems largely to have done the same thing, not even shown at all until September 2016 and not changed until 2018. Since January 2019 there has been almost no real changes and the photos of test and flight hardware construction seem to confirm this fact. There is no indication that New Glenn will be flown as an expendable. If anything, it seems to be the opposite, especially in light of Blue Origin now doing fairing recovery drop tests.

The one major difference for New Glenn versus New Shepard is that New Glenn stage testing will be a very visible affair when they go to the pad as we have seen time and again with the massive transporters. They cannot hide it the way it can be at Corn Ranch, it is too out in the open in a major spaceport facility and right next to others as well as right along a route for tourists. Blue certainly could not do anything about the giant GS1 stage simulator when it made its trip to LC-36.

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14107
  • N. California
  • Liked: 13973
  • Likes Given: 1389
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #154 on: 07/13/2023 01:46 am »



...

It's not until 2014 that the early controlled ocean landings are done, but the booster is still destroyed and the design continually iterated until as late as January that an attempt to land on barge is attempted, but failed. ...


If New Glenn was intended to be expendable ...


Ok.  So this is for you, and Dr. Floyd, and the other folks expecting NG to pop out of the hanger all but ready to go..

When did BO, ever, present a finished product on day one?

There's all this talk about how BO develops everything in secret and then just drops it on us when it's "really done", but..  when?

The two large projects BO has kinda finished are NS and BE-4, and with both they jumped on the PR horn plenty times before the moment of release, and when the moment came, the result was slow to ramp and unreliable to boot.

Why do you think NG would be any different?

Nobody even *knew* what New Shepard looked like until they released a video of it flying. Not even a render, just a "oh, by the way, we flew this the other day". The last anyone had seen was the PM2 peroxide/kerosene thing.

It wasn't "done", but is was certainly done enough to fly.
What RB said.

Everyone was following NS, it certainly didn't show up out of the blue, and most certainly it wasn't finished - it still isn't.

It's currently performing at a reliability level that matches SpaceX's early protypes, only without the associated speed of development.

Same with BE-4.

Not entirely true. The PM2 test vehicle and the few pieces of early reference New Shepard artwork looked almost nothing like what actually flew in 2015. In fact, nothing of that second configuration was released until NS1 flew to the edge of space. The only hint of what it could look like was the capsule flown for the pad abort motor test in 19 October 2012. The only reason any art was released was due to the fact that Blue Origin was getting a little bit of funding from NASA for Commercial Crew Development phase 1 (CCDev 1) and 2.

Externally, New Shepard changed very little, and only a few features distinguishes each one from the other. The lost NS3 only having the experiments mounted up near the ring fin and  more utilitarian capsule interior than NS4.

BE-4 only entered the spotlight due to the press conference announcing the deal between ULA and Blue Origin in 2014. The model on display was all that anyone had for over a year and the development engine configuration was not shown until about 2015, which was very substantially different from the desktop model, and was not seen in full scale until 2016.

But in configuration, BE-4 has largely stayed the same with a few modest changes here and there.

New Glenn seems largely to have done the same thing, not even shown at all until September 2016 and not changed until 2018. Since January 2019 there has been almost no real changes and the photos of test and flight hardware construction seem to confirm this fact. There is no indication that New Glenn will be flown as an expendable. If anything, it seems to be the opposite, especially in light of Blue Origin now doing fairing recovery drop tests.

The one major difference for New Glenn versus New Shepard is that New Glenn stage testing will be a very visible affair when they go to the pad as we have seen time and again with the massive transporters. They cannot hide it the way it can be at Corn Ranch, it is too out in the open in a major spaceport facility and right next to others as well as right along a route for tourists. Blue certainly could not do anything about the giant GS1 stage simulator when it made its trip to LC-36.
Even to your method (wrong as it is), NS didn't show up mature and reliable.  In its current last iteration, it already failed twice.

And BE-4 is not some super reliable lean machine to contrast with Raptor. On its supposedly mature "flight" iteration, it failed 1/5, before even flying.

Same childhood pains, but none of the growth spurts.

ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline Robert_the_Doll

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 764
  • Florida
  • Liked: 1215
  • Likes Given: 435
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #155 on: 07/13/2023 02:22 am »



...

It's not until 2014 that the early controlled ocean landings are done, but the booster is still destroyed and the design continually iterated until as late as January that an attempt to land on barge is attempted, but failed. ...


If New Glenn was intended to be expendable ...


Ok.  So this is for you, and Dr. Floyd, and the other folks expecting NG to pop out of the hanger all but ready to go..

When did BO, ever, present a finished product on day one?

There's all this talk about how BO develops everything in secret and then just drops it on us when it's "really done", but..  when?

The two large projects BO has kinda finished are NS and BE-4, and with both they jumped on the PR horn plenty times before the moment of release, and when the moment came, the result was slow to ramp and unreliable to boot.

Why do you think NG would be any different?

Nobody even *knew* what New Shepard looked like until they released a video of it flying. Not even a render, just a "oh, by the way, we flew this the other day". The last anyone had seen was the PM2 peroxide/kerosene thing.

It wasn't "done", but is was certainly done enough to fly.
What RB said.

Everyone was following NS, it certainly didn't show up out of the blue, and most certainly it wasn't finished - it still isn't.

It's currently performing at a reliability level that matches SpaceX's early protypes, only without the associated speed of development.

Same with BE-4.

Not entirely true. The PM2 test vehicle and the few pieces of early reference New Shepard artwork looked almost nothing like what actually flew in 2015. In fact, nothing of that second configuration was released until NS1 flew to the edge of space. The only hint of what it could look like was the capsule flown for the pad abort motor test in 19 October 2012. The only reason any art was released was due to the fact that Blue Origin was getting a little bit of funding from NASA for Commercial Crew Development phase 1 (CCDev 1) and 2.

Externally, New Shepard changed very little, and only a few features distinguishes each one from the other. The lost NS3 only having the experiments mounted up near the ring fin and  more utilitarian capsule interior than NS4.

BE-4 only entered the spotlight due to the press conference announcing the deal between ULA and Blue Origin in 2014. The model on display was all that anyone had for over a year and the development engine configuration was not shown until about 2015, which was very substantially different from the desktop model, and was not seen in full scale until 2016.

But in configuration, BE-4 has largely stayed the same with a few modest changes here and there.

New Glenn seems largely to have done the same thing, not even shown at all until September 2016 and not changed until 2018. Since January 2019 there has been almost no real changes and the photos of test and flight hardware construction seem to confirm this fact. There is no indication that New Glenn will be flown as an expendable. If anything, it seems to be the opposite, especially in light of Blue Origin now doing fairing recovery drop tests.

The one major difference for New Glenn versus New Shepard is that New Glenn stage testing will be a very visible affair when they go to the pad as we have seen time and again with the massive transporters. They cannot hide it the way it can be at Corn Ranch, it is too out in the open in a major spaceport facility and right next to others as well as right along a route for tourists. Blue certainly could not do anything about the giant GS1 stage simulator when it made its trip to LC-36.
Even to your method (wrong as it is), NS didn't show up mature and reliable.  In its current last iteration, it already failed twice.

And BE-4 is not some super reliable lean machine to contrast with Raptor. On its supposedly mature "flight" iteration, it failed 1/5, before even flying.

Same childhood pains, but none of the growth spurts.

Strawman and does not address my arguments.

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14107
  • N. California
  • Liked: 13973
  • Likes Given: 1389
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #156 on: 07/13/2023 05:37 am »
Strawman and does not address my arguments.

Because your arguments were tangential.

BO is advancing the narrative that they are not woefully behind SpaceX because they (supposedly unlike SpaceX) develop in the shadows and then spring it on us in final (reliable) form.

It's most obvious in the BE-4 vs. Raptor race, since these are comparable deliverables.  It is argued that Raptor is just this pre-maturely released engine, that V1 and V2 are already trash and were never really final iterations, and OTOH BE-4 is a final-form engine, equivalent maybe to whichever Raptor will power the production Starships.

And yet, when BE-4 achieved milestones, we sure heard about them (so there goes the secrecy) and when a flight version was announced, it immediately failed, before even reaching flight. In fact qualification didn't go smoothly either, but if we discount that, then acceptance of flight engines failed 1/3, with the failure resulting in an outright explosion. (So there goes reliability)

So nothing is left of that narrative.

And this takes us back to NG. If BE-4 and NS are not very reliable in their flight configurations, why would you thing that NG would come out of the hangar in fully reusable form?!   It'll be nice if it does, but there's no precedence in BO's history for that.
« Last Edit: 07/13/2023 06:04 am by meekGee »
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline Robert_the_Doll

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 764
  • Florida
  • Liked: 1215
  • Likes Given: 435
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #157 on: 07/13/2023 06:47 am »
Strawman and does not address my arguments.

Because your arguments were tangential.

BO is advancing the narrative that they are not woefully behind SpaceX because they (supposedly unlike SpaceX) develop in the shadows and then spring it on us in final (reliable) form.

It's most obvious in the BE-4 vs. Raptor race, since these are comparable deliverables.  It is argued that Raptor is just this pre-maturely released engine, that V1 and V2 are already trash and were never really final iterations, and OTOH BE-4 is a final-form engine, equivalent maybe to whichever Raptor will power the production Starships.

And yet, when BE-4 achieved milestones, we sure heard about them (so there goes the secrecy) and when a flight version was announced, it immediately failed, before even reaching flight. In fact qualification didn't go smoothly either, but if we discount that, then acceptance of flight engines failed 1/3, with the failure resulting in an outright explosion. (So there goes reliability)

So nothing is left of that narrative.

And this takes us back to NG. If BE-4 and NS are not very reliable in their flight configurations, why would you thing that NG would come out of the hangar in fully reusable form?!   It'll be nice if it does, but there's no precedence in BO's history for that.

This is a false narrative that you have created about what others have said. This in response to what you misperceive as an attack on SpaceX, which is not the case.

The fact is that most of what Blue Origin is done "in the shadows", this is a fact. This leads to the incorrect assumption that Blue Origin is not doing any iterative development when they are. While they occasionally put out a few press releases or graphics, there is very little otherwise. So New Shepard's actual flight configuration was not known until it flew in 2015. This was largely possible because work at Kent and Corn Ranch were out of the public eye.

This is fact.

This is changing some because of the partnerships and customers who are more open. It is also changing as the scale of projects like massive New Glenn are much harder to hide at relatively crowded Cape Canaveral and Kennedy Space Center.

Even still, Blue Origin does not release information about major milestones, such as the lack of even fanfare for the completion of BE-4 qualification testing back in April. If not for Tory Bruno's tweet, we would not have known that had happened. That is something you cannot ignore. And speaking of the qualification testing, we never had any press release about the completion, delivery, and ATP of the qualification engines themselves.

If as you say every time Blue Origin meets a major milestone is true, they have fanfare, then why not those two critical milestones? Or the fact that qualification was started until Tory Bruno was asked several months ago. Otherwise, the only way to know it was likely happening was thanks to Harry Stranger and other folks sussing it out via satellite imagery or examining documents, like NOTAMS, or resume profiles, etc.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39246
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25173
  • Likes Given: 12102
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #158 on: 07/13/2023 04:18 pm »



...

It's not until 2014 that the early controlled ocean landings are done, but the booster is still destroyed and the design continually iterated until as late as January that an attempt to land on barge is attempted, but failed. ...


If New Glenn was intended to be expendable ...


Ok.  So this is for you, and Dr. Floyd, and the other folks expecting NG to pop out of the hanger all but ready to go..

When did BO, ever, present a finished product on day one?

There's all this talk about how BO develops everything in secret and then just drops it on us when it's "really done", but..  when?

The two large projects BO has kinda finished are NS and BE-4, and with both they jumped on the PR horn plenty times before the moment of release, and when the moment came, the result was slow to ramp and unreliable to boot.

Why do you think NG would be any different?

Nobody even *knew* what New Shepard looked like until they released a video of it flying. Not even a render, just a "oh, by the way, we flew this the other day". The last anyone had seen was the PM2 peroxide/kerosene thing.

It wasn't "done", but is was certainly done enough to fly.
What RB said.

Everyone was following NS, it certainly didn't show up out of the blue, and most certainly it wasn't finished - it still isn't.

It's currently performing at a reliability level that matches SpaceX's early protypes, only without the associated speed of development.

Same with BE-4.

Not entirely true. The PM2 test vehicle and the few pieces of early reference New Shepard artwork looked almost nothing like what actually flew in 2015. In fact, nothing of that second configuration was released until NS1 flew to the edge of space. The only hint of what it could look like was the capsule flown for the pad abort motor test in 19 October 2012. The only reason any art was released was due to the fact that Blue Origin was getting a little bit of funding from NASA for Commercial Crew Development phase 1 (CCDev 1) and 2.

Externally, New Shepard changed very little, and only a few features distinguishes each one from the other. The lost NS3 only having the experiments mounted up near the ring fin and  more utilitarian capsule interior than NS4.

BE-4 only entered the spotlight due to the press conference announcing the deal between ULA and Blue Origin in 2014. The model on display was all that anyone had for over a year and the development engine configuration was not shown until about 2015, which was very substantially different from the desktop model, and was not seen in full scale until 2016.

But in configuration, BE-4 has largely stayed the same with a few modest changes here and there.

New Glenn seems largely to have done the same thing, not even shown at all until September 2016 and not changed until 2018. Since January 2019 there has been almost no real changes and the photos of test and flight hardware construction seem to confirm this fact. There is no indication that New Glenn will be flown as an expendable. If anything, it seems to be the opposite, especially in light of Blue Origin now doing fairing recovery drop tests.

The one major difference for New Glenn versus New Shepard is that New Glenn stage testing will be a very visible affair when they go to the pad as we have seen time and again with the massive transporters. They cannot hide it the way it can be at Corn Ranch, it is too out in the open in a major spaceport facility and right next to others as well as right along a route for tourists. Blue certainly could not do anything about the giant GS1 stage simulator when it made its trip to LC-36.
Oh, Blue Origin definitely tried to control the narrative after the failure of New Shepard Propulsion Module in 2011 by wiping all references to “New Shepard” in connection to PM2, but LOL I remember at the time and you can look on the Blue Origin Thread 1 that that’s definitely what it was called.

But the overall body plan is the same. Different propulsion. and New Shepard PM2 was flown with just a mock-up where the crew capsule would be.

They redesigned New Shepard to be stable under supersonic conditions and to switch to hydrolox, which required the vehicle to be much longer.

But again, it failed on its first supersonic flight. And the first hydrolox New Shepard flight went well but the landing failed.
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 Starshipdown

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 237
  • Space
  • Liked: 337
  • Likes Given: 349
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #159 on: 07/13/2023 04:46 pm »



...

It's not until 2014 that the early controlled ocean landings are done, but the booster is still destroyed and the design continually iterated until as late as January that an attempt to land on barge is attempted, but failed. ...


If New Glenn was intended to be expendable ...


Ok.  So this is for you, and Dr. Floyd, and the other folks expecting NG to pop out of the hanger all but ready to go..

When did BO, ever, present a finished product on day one?

There's all this talk about how BO develops everything in secret and then just drops it on us when it's "really done", but..  when?

The two large projects BO has kinda finished are NS and BE-4, and with both they jumped on the PR horn plenty times before the moment of release, and when the moment came, the result was slow to ramp and unreliable to boot.

Why do you think NG would be any different?

Nobody even *knew* what New Shepard looked like until they released a video of it flying. Not even a render, just a "oh, by the way, we flew this the other day". The last anyone had seen was the PM2 peroxide/kerosene thing.

It wasn't "done", but is was certainly done enough to fly.
What RB said.

Everyone was following NS, it certainly didn't show up out of the blue, and most certainly it wasn't finished - it still isn't.

It's currently performing at a reliability level that matches SpaceX's early protypes, only without the associated speed of development.

Same with BE-4.

Not entirely true. The PM2 test vehicle and the few pieces of early reference New Shepard artwork looked almost nothing like what actually flew in 2015. In fact, nothing of that second configuration was released until NS1 flew to the edge of space. The only hint of what it could look like was the capsule flown for the pad abort motor test in 19 October 2012. The only reason any art was released was due to the fact that Blue Origin was getting a little bit of funding from NASA for Commercial Crew Development phase 1 (CCDev 1) and 2.

Externally, New Shepard changed very little, and only a few features distinguishes each one from the other. The lost NS3 only having the experiments mounted up near the ring fin and  more utilitarian capsule interior than NS4.

BE-4 only entered the spotlight due to the press conference announcing the deal between ULA and Blue Origin in 2014. The model on display was all that anyone had for over a year and the development engine configuration was not shown until about 2015, which was very substantially different from the desktop model, and was not seen in full scale until 2016.

But in configuration, BE-4 has largely stayed the same with a few modest changes here and there.

New Glenn seems largely to have done the same thing, not even shown at all until September 2016 and not changed until 2018. Since January 2019 there has been almost no real changes and the photos of test and flight hardware construction seem to confirm this fact. There is no indication that New Glenn will be flown as an expendable. If anything, it seems to be the opposite, especially in light of Blue Origin now doing fairing recovery drop tests.

The one major difference for New Glenn versus New Shepard is that New Glenn stage testing will be a very visible affair when they go to the pad as we have seen time and again with the massive transporters. They cannot hide it the way it can be at Corn Ranch, it is too out in the open in a major spaceport facility and right next to others as well as right along a route for tourists. Blue certainly could not do anything about the giant GS1 stage simulator when it made its trip to LC-36.
Oh, Blue Origin definitely tried to control the narrative after the failure of New Shepard Propulsion Module in 2011 by wiping all references to “New Shepard” in connection to PM2, but LOL I remember at the time and you can look on the Blue Origin Thread 1 that that’s definitely what it was called.

But the overall body plan is the same. Different propulsion. and New Shepard PM2 was flown with just a mock-up where the crew capsule would be.

They redesigned New Shepard to be stable under supersonic conditions and to switch to hydrolox, which required the vehicle to be much longer.

But again, it failed on its first supersonic flight. And the first hydrolox New Shepard flight went well but the landing failed.


You're just proving his point, dude. The configuration is so different and the propulsion design is as well that, with the exception of the capsule, it's a totally different vehicle that flew in 2015 vs 2012. And Blue Origin kept the rework largely under wraps for three years. Do you deny that? BE-3 was originally for the Orbital Transport Vehicle, the partially reusable VTVL rocket that was supposed to launch their biconic capsule into orbit as part of Commercial Crew, so we knew about that and it was quietly noted that it had passed qualification as part of CC in 2013-2014.

But you missed a pattern that Robert rightly notes (in bold above): Blue keeps to itself by and large, with a few press releases, and they usually only trumpet things when they are part of a major government program, where they are held accountable; a partnership, such as the HLS NASA-funded program with Sierra Nevada, Boeing, etc.; or partnered up with a major customer ULA and providing them with a product. Most of the rest are fluff pieces or sizzle reel videos, like they do during the New Shepard webcasts, which occasionally give us tantalizing glimpses of NG hardware or Blue Moon, etc.

A lot of us are hoping that Blue will continue the trend of becoming more open as they've done recently.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39246
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25173
  • Likes Given: 12102
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #160 on: 07/13/2023 04:54 pm »
The original discussion is about expectations of New Glenn working right out of the box not just for launch but for landing.

There’s no reason to think it will, and there’s rumors that Blue themselves aren’t even going to try to land the first flight or two but instead splash them. Which is good. Blue’s problem has long been hubris and perfectionism. Expecting to expend early flights is a change for the better. As long as they can iterate beyond that.
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 Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39246
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25173
  • Likes Given: 12102
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #161 on: 07/13/2023 04:57 pm »
Actually, New Glenn has had a bunch of renderings and hardware spotted. Because it’s too big to hide, and much of the work is being done in Florida where it’s easy to spot stuff, unlike New Shepard which was done at an enormous private ranch in the more remote part of Texas.
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 zubenelgenubi

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11002
  • Arc to Arcturus, then Spike to Spica
  • Sometimes it feels like Trantor in the time of Hari Seldon
  • Liked: 7293
  • Likes Given: 70076
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #162 on: 07/13/2023 08:39 pm »
Moderator:
Thread locked, for now, given several reports to moderators posted in less than 24 hours.

I'm busy elsewhere at the moment, but will return to examine posts made since the previous thread lock.

Other moderators are free to examine this thread in the meantime.

Edit:  I read every single post. 🙄 🤮 Thread trim ✨️ and choosing to keep the thread locked.  🔒

I also suggest NOT creating a thread 6 for several days.

<sarcasm>
Congratulations 🎊 👏 💐 🥳
</sarcasm>

I am also ticked off at the same usual suspects posting the same 🤡 💩 over and over and over, by those both vehemently pro and anti "My Favorite Talosian" and his merry band.

I don't administrate this forum.  I certainly would suggest "time outs" for for several of you, if I were asked.
« Last Edit: 07/13/2023 11:12 pm by zubenelgenubi »
Support your local planetarium! (COVID-panic and forward: Now more than ever.) My current avatar is saying "i wants to go uppies!" Yes, there are God-given rights. Do you wish to gainsay the Declaration of Independence?

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0