Author Topic: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine (Read 1187332 times)

mnelson · « **Reply #460 on:** 10/19/2017 10:41 pm »

Quote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/19/2017 08:03 pm

Eric Berger’s write-up:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/10/blue-origin-has-successfully-tested-its-powerful-be-4-rocket-engine/

I sure love the fact that you can't write an article about the BE-4 without mentioning the Raptor nor about the Raptor and not mention the BE-4. A little friendly competition is a beautiful thing. It helps prevent lethargy.

Of course, I don't think there is any real competition here. They are different engines being built for different uses. But still, most people run faster if there is someone running beside them. I know I do.

sanman · « **Reply #461 on:** 10/19/2017 10:58 pm »

How long before it's tested at full thrust?

TrevorMonty · « **Reply #462 on:** 10/19/2017 11:01 pm »

Congratulations.Excellent start, a first firing that doesn't involve RUD.

Space Ghost 1962 · « **Reply #463 on:** 10/20/2017 12:27 am »

Looks like a good, stable burn. Few artifacts, and more than enough to begin a considerable test program. Impressive even at 50% power. It wouldn't surprise if this engine surpasses RD-191 before the end of this year, and reaches 3MN before the next year is out.

Congratulations to the Blue engine team! You look like you are on the way to orbit with a fine engine that can get you there.

Tory Bruno, your hunch and going out on a limb looks like it will pay off after all. Now you have to work with Blue to get to a proven engine for Vulcan. Perhaps a nice Christmas gift is in the offing?

Rik ISS-fan · « **Reply #464 on:** 10/20/2017 11:22 am »

Congratz Blue Origin and ULA, keep the good work going.
Very good base for both expendable and reusable launchers.

LouScheffer · « **Reply #465 on:** 10/20/2017 12:39 pm »

This is a very good sign overall. Although Russia for years has treated OSRC as a technology, elsewhere it's been regarded as a black art that requires some special secret sauce. Now two additional independent groups are taking it seriously and bring it to production. So soon there will be designers who understand the cycle, materials that are up to the job, and in general an ecosystem of all that is needed to make such a cycle work. That's good for others who might want to improve their rockets as well (ESA? Japan? India?). I'm sure ITAR will slow this down, but the more people who know how it's done, the faster the knowledge will spread, and everyone's rockets will get better.

AncientU · « **Reply #466 on:** 10/20/2017 12:44 pm »

Congrats Blue Team!

Competition is a wonderful thing.

abaddon · « **Reply #467 on:** 10/20/2017 02:25 pm »

Quote from: edkyle99 on 10/20/2017 01:48 pm

A good reminder that this is only the beginning. AR-1 will only hang around as long as the US Air Force wants it to hang around, but it seems to me a good idea to wait to shelve it until BE-4 has not only hit that full thrust mark, but racked up some serious firing time. RS-68A demonstrated 4,800 cumulative seconds on one test engine, for example. Its predecessor RS-68 took three years from first hot fire to flight certification.

- Ed Kyle

That's all true; however, ULA has indicated it intends to down-select by the end of the year, and it seems a foregone conclusion that they will select the BE-4 at this point. Once that happens they will move forward with vehicle design decisions that would not suit a rocket designed around the AR-1. So the cost (and delay) to switch to an AR-1 will go up progressively from then. This makes the benefit of keeping the development of AR-1 going much further seem to be rather low, barring some unanticipated new rocket that chooses to use the engine.

PahTo · « **Reply #468 on:** 10/20/2017 02:52 pm »

Fantastic! I was at the Kent facility the day after the first fully integrated BE-4 shipped, and the excitement was (still) palpable. Congrats to the teams--keep up the good work!

FutureSpaceTourist · « **Reply #469 on:** 10/20/2017 02:55 pm »

Tweeted yesterday, I think stills from the video:

Quote

Blue Origin just shared some photos of the BE-4 hot fire test. 🔥 🔥

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/921136925024583680

wolfpack · « **Reply #470 on:** 10/20/2017 03:16 pm »

Nice to see BE-4 sing after that little hiccup back in May!

I'm beginning to think the first real "victim" of New Space is likely to be Aerojet.

ZachF · « **Reply #471 on:** 10/20/2017 04:23 pm »

Congrats to the Blue Origin team!

gongora · « **Reply #472 on:** 10/20/2017 05:21 pm »

This is a Blue Origin thread, please stay on topic.

envy887 · « **Reply #473 on:** 10/20/2017 06:05 pm »

Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 10/20/2017 12:27 am

Looks like a good, stable burn. Few artifacts, and more than enough to begin a considerable test program. Impressive even at 50% power. It wouldn't surprise if this engine surpasses RD-191 before the end of this year, and reaches 3MN before the next year is out.

Congratulations to the Blue engine team! You look like you are on the way to orbit with a fine engine that can get you there.

Tory Bruno, your hunch and going out on a limb looks like it will pay off after all. Now you have to work with Blue to get to a proven engine for Vulcan. Perhaps a nice Christmas gift is in the offing?

I though they were targeting 2.45 MN as operational thrust. Is 122% a standard margin? Will they try to take it higher?

RDMM2081 · « **Reply #474 on:** 10/20/2017 07:23 pm »

Very exciting to see and hear about the first test of this engine! I have a second repository of excitement waiting to hear more about the success of this test (which is not immediately apparent to me from 3 seconds of video) or in place of that another longer test get soon!

sanman · « **Reply #475 on:** 10/20/2017 11:13 pm »

Just embedding the video here for easier viewing:

LouScheffer · « **Reply #476 on:** 10/20/2017 11:53 pm »

Quote from: edkyle99 on 10/20/2017 01:48 pm

[...] it seems to me a good idea to wait to shelve it [the AR-1] until BE-4 has not only hit that full thrust mark, but racked up some serious firing time.

I'm not a rocket designer, but if I was ULA I'd find 10 seconds at full thrust pretty convincing, much more so than full duration at any lesser power setting. Of course you need both, but at these power levels the engine should reach equilibrium pretty quickly. Running at less than full power is no guarantee the engine will survive higher, more stressful, settings. But if it runs for 10 seconds at full power, it should be more or less straightforward to make it run for 10 minutes.

So if I was ULA, I'd ask BO to step power first, to find any design weaknesses, so I could make a quick decision. Then they can optimize for duration.

Patchouli · « **Reply #477 on:** 10/21/2017 01:57 am »

I wonder how close this is to a flight engine?
Is it still using a heat sink nozzle or is it something close to the flight engine?

SmallKing · « **Reply #478 on:** 10/21/2017 06:05 am »

Quote from: Patchouli on 10/21/2017 01:57 am

I wonder how close this is to a flight engine?
Is it still using a heat sink nozzle or is it something close to the flight engine?

It can be a flight engine if they want it

Step55 · « **Reply #479 on:** 10/21/2017 07:22 am »

Quote from: Patchouli on 10/21/2017 01:57 am

I wonder how close this is to a flight engine?
Is it still using a heat sink nozzle or is it something close to the flight engine?

Is a heat-sink nozzle and a regenerative cooled nozzle not the same think?