BA-2

[just-nick]

While a debate about the failure of Beal and the BA-2 could probably fill several forums, I've always just been interested in the launcher.

The Big Dumb Booster didn't seem to be born out in reality, but I admired the willingness to pursue a different path.

Anyhow, are there (does anyone have...e.g. Jim's attic) any documents, design details, etc. on the BA-2?  Brochures, presentations, detailed drawings so that if I buy a tow winding machine I can build my own, etc?

The most that's out there seems to be here: http://www.b14643.de/Spacerockets_2/United_States_1/BA-2/Description/Frame.htm

But even that is thin on the more specific elements of engine design (the mega pressure fed motor), trajectory, systems, etc.

I googled around and didn't see anything, and even though I could swear I'd asked here before, in my role of Sole Surviving BA-2 Fan, it appears I hadn't.

Cheers,

--Nick

[simonbp]

IIRC, the engines (and basic concept) are based Truax's Sea Dragon concept...

[Patchouli]

Beal supposedly shut down operations because NASA said they would be developing competing LVs though SLI.
Of course the Bush Administration in it's infinite wisdom canned SLI for Constellation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beal_Aerospace

There were some technical issues but I don't know the details but I suspect the ablative composite engine was the problem.
Boeing had enough trouble with an ablative nozzle on the RS-68 and Spacex decided to drop it.

Andrew Beal may regret his decision now as he could be in Elon Musk's position.

[Jorge]

Beal supposedly shut down operations because NASA said they would be developing competing LVs though SLI.
Of course the Bush Administration in it's infinite wisdom canned SLI for Constellation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beal_Aerospace

There were some technical issues but I don't know the details but I suspect the ablative composite engine was the problem.
Boeing had enough trouble with an ablative nozzle on the RS-68 and Spacex decided to drop it.

Andrew Beal may regret his decision now as he could be in Elon Musk's position.

SLI was just a pretense for Beal to quit. It was a technology project, not intended to result in a commercially competitive booster, and anyone who took SLI seriously as a competitor was a fool. And Beal was no fool. I think he was more concerned about EELV than SLI, and the collapse of launch demand, but wanted to make a political statement.

[HMXHMX]

Beal supposedly shut down operations because NASA said they would be developing competing LVs though SLI.
Of course the Bush Administration in it's infinite wisdom canned SLI for Constellation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beal_Aerospace

There were some technical issues but I don't know the details but I suspect the ablative composite engine was the problem.
Boeing had enough trouble with an ablative nozzle on the RS-68 and Spacex decided to drop it.

Andrew Beal may regret his decision now as he could be in Elon Musk's position.

SLI was just a pretense for Beal to quit. It was a technology project, not intended to result in a commercially competitive booster, and anyone who took SLI seriously as a competitor was a fool. And Beal was no fool. I think he was more concerned about EELV than SLI, and the collapse of launch demand, but wanted to make a political statement.

I can guarantee Andy wasn't trying to make any sort of political statement with BA-2.  If he had been, there were better ways to spend $200M.  He was very serious about the business.

[Jorge]

Beal supposedly shut down operations because NASA said they would be developing competing LVs though SLI.
Of course the Bush Administration in it's infinite wisdom canned SLI for Constellation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beal_Aerospace

There were some technical issues but I don't know the details but I suspect the ablative composite engine was the problem.
Boeing had enough trouble with an ablative nozzle on the RS-68 and Spacex decided to drop it.

Andrew Beal may regret his decision now as he could be in Elon Musk's position.

SLI was just a pretense for Beal to quit. It was a technology project, not intended to result in a commercially competitive booster, and anyone who took SLI seriously as a competitor was a fool. And Beal was no fool. I think he was more concerned about EELV than SLI, and the collapse of launch demand, but wanted to make a political statement.

I can guarantee Andy wasn't trying to make any sort of political statement with BA-2.  If he had been, there were better ways to spend $200M.  He was very serious about the business.

I don't doubt he was serious, and I'm not saying he didn't quit the business for rational reasons - there were plenty of rational reasons for him to quit when he did. Just that the one he used publicly (SLI) was not a rational reason, and I can't think of a reason other than politics for him to claim that it was.

[kch]

Nick, you're not alone in being a BA-2 fan!  I followed their progress (as well as I could) at the time.  Things seemed to be coming along well before the shutdown.  They'd test-fired the 3rd and 2nd stage engines (not sure how far they got with the big 1st stage engine).  Always thought the BA-2 first stage might've had Shuttle LRB potential.

According to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX

The company purchased the McGregor, Texas, testing facilities of defunct Beal Aerospace, where it refitted the largest test stand at the facilities for Falcon 9 testing.  On November 22, 2008, the stand tested the nine Merlin 1C engines of the Falcon 9, which deliver 350 metric-tons-force (3.4-meganewtons) of thrust, well under the stand's capacity of 1,500 metric-tons-force (15 meganewtons).

Sounds like that test stand was built for the BA-2 first stage.  I've often wondered how much of the other equipment and such SpaceX may have acquired from Beal.

[HMXHMX]

Beal supposedly shut down operations because NASA said they would be developing competing LVs though SLI.
Of course the Bush Administration in it's infinite wisdom canned SLI for Constellation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beal_Aerospace

There were some technical issues but I don't know the details but I suspect the ablative composite engine was the problem.
Boeing had enough trouble with an ablative nozzle on the RS-68 and Spacex decided to drop it.

Andrew Beal may regret his decision now as he could be in Elon Musk's position.

SLI was just a pretense for Beal to quit. It was a technology project, not intended to result in a commercially competitive booster, and anyone who took SLI seriously as a competitor was a fool. And Beal was no fool. I think he was more concerned about EELV than SLI, and the collapse of launch demand, but wanted to make a political statement.

I can guarantee Andy wasn't trying to make any sort of political statement with BA-2.  If he had been, there were better ways to spend $200M.  He was very serious about the business.

I don't doubt he was serious, and I'm not saying he didn't quit the business for rational reasons - there were plenty of rational reasons for him to quit when he did. Just that the one he used publicly (SLI) was not a rational reason, and I can't think of a reason other than politics for him to claim that it was.

Well, I sat on Dan Goldin's right hand side while Andy sat on his left during a private dinner in D.C., where Dan said he was starting SLI and it was intended to produce a Shuttle replacement, and that he (Goldin) was sorry that might make it difficult for entrepreneurs to raise money for their projects and to compete in the launch business, but that's how things were and to suck it up.

Obviously, I'm paraphrasing.  It was over ten years ago and memory is dim.  But Andy had perfectly good reasons to believe NASA was going to run roughshod over anybody offering a commercial launch system.

[just-nick]

Yes, there certainly is more than a little bit of Sea Dragon in the BA-2...though nowhere near the crazy scale!

Did they ever put out any details about how such a massive pressure fed engine would be made to work?  I know Antoine has had some negative comments about the workability of sea-level pressure fed motors, but Beal's engineers obviously felt differently.

What was the pressurizing agent?  Helium?  Or if you've got all that H2O2, could you just pass some over a catalyst bed and use the decomposition products to pressurize your oxidizer tank?

  --N

[Jorge]

Beal supposedly shut down operations because NASA said they would be developing competing LVs though SLI.
Of course the Bush Administration in it's infinite wisdom canned SLI for Constellation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beal_Aerospace

There were some technical issues but I don't know the details but I suspect the ablative composite engine was the problem.
Boeing had enough trouble with an ablative nozzle on the RS-68 and Spacex decided to drop it.

Andrew Beal may regret his decision now as he could be in Elon Musk's position.

SLI was just a pretense for Beal to quit. It was a technology project, not intended to result in a commercially competitive booster, and anyone who took SLI seriously as a competitor was a fool. And Beal was no fool. I think he was more concerned about EELV than SLI, and the collapse of launch demand, but wanted to make a political statement.

I can guarantee Andy wasn't trying to make any sort of political statement with BA-2.  If he had been, there were better ways to spend $200M.  He was very serious about the business.

I don't doubt he was serious, and I'm not saying he didn't quit the business for rational reasons - there were plenty of rational reasons for him to quit when he did. Just that the one he used publicly (SLI) was not a rational reason, and I can't think of a reason other than politics for him to claim that it was.

Well, I sat on Dan Goldin's right hand side while Andy sat on his left during a private dinner in D.C., where Dan said he was starting SLI and it was intended to produce a Shuttle replacement, and that he (Goldin) was sorry that might make it difficult for entrepreneurs to raise money for their projects and to compete in the launch business, but that's how things were and to suck it up.

Obviously, I'm paraphrasing.  It was over ten years ago and memory is dim.  But Andy had perfectly good reasons to believe NASA was going to run roughshod over anybody offering a commercial launch system.

All I can say to that is that no one I knew "in the know" took SLI seriously as anything other than a technology development program, certainly not as an operational booster program. If Goldin really said that, he's an even bigger fool than I previously believed. If Beal based his business decision on that, rather than all the real-world evidence around him that launch demand was shrinking and EELV was the real threat to his business model, then he was a fool too. Sorry, gotta call it the way I see it.