-
#20
by
kch
on 12 Sep, 2016 14:24
-
What I don't quite get is the planning doc said the LC-36/11 complex was for 'medium and heavy-lift class orbital launch vehicles'. I doubt anyone would characterise this thing as 'medium-lift'.
Bezos might -- we'll have to wait and see how it compares with New Armstrong.
-
#21
by
Galactic Penguin SST
on 12 Sep, 2016 14:26
-
The picture they tweeted suggest to me that they will focus on HSF related missions, no?
That would put their spacecraft at roughly Shuttle orbiter (minus wings) sized, is that correct?
-
#22
by
GreenShrike
on 12 Sep, 2016 14:28
-
I can't wait to see this fly. Any mention of trying to recover the second stage?
I believe in the past they've said that only the first stage would be recovered, but considering the size of New Glenn and its likely excess lift capacity with respect to common payloads, I'd think they have to be at least looking at it, if not outright planning on it once they nail booster returns.
The economics required for "millions of people living and working in space" virtually demands it.
-
#23
by
Galactic Penguin SST
on 12 Sep, 2016 14:31
-
Also I think the size of their transportation system makes me doubt that they can really fly by 2020.
2023-ish might be closer to the truth, IMHO.....
-
#24
by
Chris Bergin
on 12 Sep, 2016 14:37
-
-
#25
by
PerW
on 12 Sep, 2016 14:40
-
"We plan to fly New Glenn for the first time before the end of this decade from historic Launch Complex 36 at Cape Canaveral, Florida. "
Dose he mean launch an orbital mission or fly "Grasshopper" style?
-
#26
by
Beittil
on 12 Sep, 2016 14:48
-
Well, without landing infrastructure in place (barring landing on SpaceX's LZ-1) there is only two places where this launch can go! Up in flames or up into space!
Flying Grasshopper style is what they are currently doing already with New Shepard, albeit... Grasshopper+++ style
-
#27
by
Jim
on 12 Sep, 2016 14:52
-
Well, without landing infrastructure in place (barring landing on SpaceX's LZ-1) there is only two places where this launch can go! Up in flames or up into space!
Flying Grasshopper style is what they are currently doing already with New Shepard, albeit... Grasshopper+++ style
LZ-1 may not be just Spacex's
-
#28
by
Beittil
on 12 Sep, 2016 14:55
-
Imho it would only make sense for the two companies to share that slab of concrete btw, SpaceX would not be landing on in that often anyway with the bulk of their CC flights going towards GTO and thus the first stage towards the ASDS. I suppose there is plenty room for BO to aim it's rockets that way also.
For for all intends and purposes it does appear to the outside world as if SpaceX leases and controls the LZ-1 area.
-
#29
by
yokem55
on 12 Sep, 2016 14:58
-
What I don't quite get is the planning doc said the LC-36/11 complex was for 'medium and heavy-lift class orbital launch vehicles'. I doubt anyone would characterise this thing as 'medium-lift'.
The medium vs. heavy classification has been inflating a bit lately as SLS is setting a defacto/political bar for 'heavy lift' of ~70-90 MT.
-
#30
by
wxmeddler
on 12 Sep, 2016 15:00
-
My main question is why the big tankage? Does the stoichiometry of LCH4 + LOX demand such a large tank? Seems like it would be slow to get off the pad even if it did have a higher MECO dV.
-
#31
by
RonM
on 12 Sep, 2016 15:09
-
So, in the early 2020s America will have three super heavy launch vehicles (>50 ton LEO); SLS, BFR, and New Glenn. Make that four if you count FH. I'm impressed.
Wonder what New Glenn will be rated in tons to LEO.
-
#32
by
Lar
on 12 Sep, 2016 15:10
-
Well, without landing infrastructure in place (barring landing on SpaceX's LZ-1) there is only two places where this launch can go! Up in flames or up into space!
Flying Grasshopper style is what they are currently doing already with New Shepard, albeit... Grasshopper+++ style
LZ-1 may not be just Spacex's
apparently a big payload hit though, more than SpaceX's, percentage wise if they RTLS, due to speculated higher staging velocity/altitude....
-
#33
by
Chris Bergin
on 12 Sep, 2016 15:11
-
New Armstrong is believed to be a BFR deep into the future. Not confirmed, but I'm "told" that the answer to the question is they are only naming rockets after astronauts.
-
#34
by
yokem55
on 12 Sep, 2016 15:12
-
My main question is why the big tankage? Does the stoichiometry of LCH4 + LOX demand such a large tank? Seems like it would be slow to get off the pad even if it did have a higher MECO dV.
I'm thinking the relatively low density of LCH4 means that to reach your desired mass fraction targets you have to go wide. That's the trend anyway with Vulcan and BFR.
-
#35
by
envy887
on 12 Sep, 2016 15:18
-
My main question is why the big tankage? Does the stoichiometry of LCH4 + LOX demand such a large tank? Seems like it would be slow to get off the pad even if it did have a higher MECO dV.
I'm thinking the relatively low density of LCH4 means that to reach your desired mass fraction targets you have to go wide. That's the trend anyway with Vulcan and BFR.
Looks like a ~48m booster. Figure 10m for interstage, thrust structure, and S1 engines gives 38m for tanks. With full domes and a common bulkhead that's 1375 m
3 or about 1350 tonnes of methalox.
7 BE-4 are estimated to give 1700 tonnes thrust, so that's about the right ballpark. The dry mass needs to be low, and the upper stages relatively small though.
-
#36
by
Darkseraph
on 12 Sep, 2016 15:21
-
The business end of the first stage looks a bit strange, you can't see the engines.
Also, that announcement was unexpected, I assumed VBB was going to be something closer to Soyuz in scale, not a BFR rival.
-
#37
by
GWH
on 12 Sep, 2016 15:26
-
Regarding the older comment that their first orbital LV would be their smallest I'm wondering if they changed plans between that comment and now?
At some point I believe Tory Bruno hinted that the Blue Origin LV would only have a single BE-4 1st stage and BE-3 Upper stage. The original write up was for a 2-stage system and the relationship between stage diameters and lengths on the Blue Origin website was a lot more indicative of this: they wrote out that both engines would be used in their 2-stage system. There was no mention whatsoever of a 3rd stage previously - and this is to be the only BE-3 powered stage of New Glenn as we learned today.
The change makes sense to go straight to HLV class in my opinion, not a lot of room in the market for a Delta II or EELV class vehicle especially if Orbital ATK enters the ring with a BE3U powered upper stage..
For reference the current vs older website:
https://www.blueorigin.com/technology https://web.archive.org/web/20160128133419/https://www.blueorigin.com/technology
-
#38
by
edkyle99
on 12 Sep, 2016 15:34
-
I'm going to guesstimate 40 tonnes LEO using two stages, 25 tonnes GTO (slightly less to escape) using three stages. Very much plus or minus. The real numbers may be less given the mass needed for recovery.
If true, darn big rocket for such performance. It would weigh about the same as Falcon Heavy, but would straddle Heavy's performance by lifting less to LEO (2 stages), but more to GTO (3 stages). Note, however, that a three-stage version would likely out-lift Falcon Heavy to LEO.
- Ed Kyle
-
#39
by
Kryten
on 12 Sep, 2016 15:36
-
To put in perspective how big a leap this is, I've added New Shepard to that size comparison chart.
(EDIT: Fixed a small scaling error)
