Author Topic: New Glenn: Blue Origin Announcement of Orbital Rocket Plan  (Read 249176 times)

Online Eric Hedman

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 912
  • Liked: 268
  • Likes Given: 233
Re: New Glenn: Blue Origin Announcement of Orbital Rocket Plan
« Reply #1020 on: 08/03/2018 07:35 PM »
Various claims about difficulty of New Glenn being ready for 2020:

Quote
BUSINESS NEWS   AUGUST 3, 2018 / 2:08 PM / UPDATED 17 MINUTES AGO
Bezos throws cash, engineers at rocket program as space race accelerates
Eric M. Johnson

SEATTLE (Reuters) - Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos is racing to pull his private space company out of start-up mode and move into production amid signals that his firm’s heavy rocket set for lift-off in 2020 may slip behind schedule, according to people familiar with the project.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-space-blueorigin/bezos-throws-cash-engineers-at-rocket-program-as-space-race-accelerates-idUSKBN1KO0HN

Another interesting tidbit from the article:

Quote
The Kent, Washington-based company is looking to double its current workforce to around 3,000 employees over the next two to three years, a top customer told Reuters.

Offline TripleSeven

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 280
  • Istanbul turkey
  • Liked: 123
  • Likes Given: 504
Re: New Glenn: Blue Origin Announcement of Orbital Rocket Plan
« Reply #1021 on: 08/03/2018 08:00 PM »
they are hiring aggressively.  a lot of people I know have gotten calls, a few have gone to interviews...and they are hiring test pilots :)

Online Llian Rhydderch

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 904
  • Terran Anglosphere
  • Liked: 613
  • Likes Given: 6031
Re: New Glenn: Blue Origin Announcement of Orbital Rocket Plan
« Reply #1022 on: 08/06/2018 02:17 AM »
I just read the upthread since the 12 July New Glenn article in SpaceNews.  Seems like the consensus here was that 13 tonne to GEO was still the view on what Blue said, even though many have questioned if that was possible.

Actually, the SpaceNew article was updated on 13 July 2018, with this statement included:

Quote
Clay Mowry, the former Arianespace North America president who now leads Blue Origin’s launch sales, said July 13 that McFarland misspoke about New Glenn’s direct-to-geosynchronous orbit capability. The rocket, Mowry said, can carry 13 tons to geosynchronous transfer orbit —  an elliptical orbit that serves as the drop-off point for most communications satellites — not harder-to-reach geostationary orbits.

So, the answer is, 13 tonnes to GTO is the current spec, per Blue Origin
Re arguments from authority on NSF:  "no one is exempt from error, and errors of authority are usually the worst kind.  Taking your word for things without question is no different than a bracket design not being tested because the designer was an old hand."
"You would actually save yourself time and effort if you were to use evidence and logic to make your points instead of wrapping yourself in the royal mantle of authority.  The approach only works on sheep, not inquisitive, intelligent people."

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8301
  • N. California
  • Liked: 4508
  • Likes Given: 874
Re: New Glenn: Blue Origin Announcement of Orbital Rocket Plan
« Reply #1023 on: 08/07/2018 06:23 PM »
I just read the upthread since the 12 July New Glenn article in SpaceNews.  Seems like the consensus here was that 13 tonne to GEO was still the view on what Blue said, even though many have questioned if that was possible.

Actually, the SpaceNew article was updated on 13 July 2018, with this statement included:

Quote
Clay Mowry, the former Arianespace North America president who now leads Blue Origin’s launch sales, said July 13 that McFarland misspoke about New Glenn’s direct-to-geosynchronous orbit capability. The rocket, Mowry said, can carry 13 tons to geosynchronous transfer orbit —  an elliptical orbit that serves as the drop-off point for most communications satellites — not harder-to-reach geostationary orbits.

So, the answer is, 13 tonnes to GTO is the current spec, per Blue Origin
I get it of a reporter gets it wrong...  But that's a hell of a slip up from your head of sales...

-----
ABCD: Always Be Counting Down

ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1705
  • Liked: 1534
  • Likes Given: 376
Re: New Glenn: Blue Origin Announcement of Orbital Rocket Plan
« Reply #1024 on: 08/07/2018 11:47 PM »
I just read the upthread since the 12 July New Glenn article in SpaceNews.  Seems like the consensus here was that 13 tonne to GEO was still the view on what Blue said, even though many have questioned if that was possible.

Actually, the SpaceNew article was updated on 13 July 2018, with this statement included:

Quote
Clay Mowry, the former Arianespace North America president who now leads Blue Origin’s launch sales, said July 13 that McFarland misspoke about New Glenn’s direct-to-geosynchronous orbit capability. The rocket, Mowry said, can carry 13 tons to geosynchronous transfer orbit —  an elliptical orbit that serves as the drop-off point for most communications satellites — not harder-to-reach geostationary orbits.

So, the answer is, 13 tonnes to GTO is the current spec, per Blue Origin
I get it of a reporter gets it wrong...  But that's a hell of a slip up from your head of sales...

-----
ABCD: Always Be Counting Down
The head of sales did not get anything wrong. The statement says that the head of sales is the one that corrected someone else who said it wrong.

The person who got it wrong was "Ted McFarland, Blue Origin’s commercial director of Asia-Pacific business."

Not that a business director at a launch company shouldn't know the difference between these orbits, but there is enough confusion about this without adding in misattribution.

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8301
  • N. California
  • Liked: 4508
  • Likes Given: 874
Re: New Glenn: Blue Origin Announcement of Orbital Rocket Plan
« Reply #1025 on: 08/08/2018 02:08 AM »
I just read the upthread since the 12 July New Glenn article in SpaceNews.  Seems like the consensus here was that 13 tonne to GEO was still the view on what Blue said, even though many have questioned if that was possible.

Actually, the SpaceNew article was updated on 13 July 2018, with this statement included:

Quote
Clay Mowry, the former Arianespace North America president who now leads Blue Origin’s launch sales, said July 13 that McFarland misspoke about New Glenn’s direct-to-geosynchronous orbit capability. The rocket, Mowry said, can carry 13 tons to geosynchronous transfer orbit —  an elliptical orbit that serves as the drop-off point for most communications satellites — not harder-to-reach geostationary orbits.

So, the answer is, 13 tonnes to GTO is the current spec, per Blue Origin
I get it of a reporter gets it wrong...  But that's a hell of a slip up from your head of sales...

-----
ABCD: Always Be Counting Down
The head of sales did not get anything wrong. The statement says that the head of sales is the one that corrected someone else who said it wrong.

The person who got it wrong was "Ted McFarland, Blue Origin’s commercial director of Asia-Pacific business."

Not that a business director at a launch company shouldn't know the difference between these orbits, but there is enough confusion about this without adding in misattribution.
I stand corrected.

-----
ABCD: Always Be Counting Down

ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline Navier–Stokes

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 230
  • Liked: 218
  • Likes Given: 1832
Re: New Glenn: Blue Origin Announcement of Orbital Rocket Plan
« Reply #1026 on: 08/10/2018 08:38 PM »
Recent footage of BE-3U demonstration engine hot fire. Two BE-3Us will power upper stage of #NewGlenn & deliver our customers to orbit. We’ve completed over 700 seconds of test time & confirmed performance assumptions used for final BE-3U expander cycle design #GradatimFerociter

Offline daveklingler

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 504
  • Liked: 153
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: New Glenn: Blue Origin Announcement of Orbital Rocket Plan
« Reply #1027 on: 08/10/2018 09:14 PM »
Recent footage of BE-3U demonstration engine hot fire. Two BE-3Us will power upper stage of #NewGlenn & deliver our customers to orbit. We’ve completed over 700 seconds of test time & confirmed performance assumptions used for final BE-3U expander cycle design #GradatimFerociter

Thus leading a lot of people to exclaim, "Wait...what? Expander cycle?"

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 872
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 195
  • Likes Given: 87
Re: New Glenn: Blue Origin Announcement of Orbital Rocket Plan
« Reply #1028 on: 08/10/2018 10:43 PM »
Isn't the tap-off cycle a special variant of the expander cycle; capable of higher flow rates!?

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4053
  • California
  • Liked: 3356
  • Likes Given: 2111
Re: New Glenn: Blue Origin Announcement of Orbital Rocket Plan
« Reply #1029 on: 08/10/2018 10:47 PM »
Recent footage of BE-3U demonstration engine hot fire. Two BE-3Us will power upper stage of #NewGlenn & deliver our customers to orbit. We’ve completed over 700 seconds of test time & confirmed performance assumptions used for final BE-3U expander cycle design #GradatimFerociter

Thus leading a lot of people to exclaim, "Wait...what? Expander cycle?"

Can someone clarify the difference? More or less complex? More or less efficient?

Offline butters

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1754
  • Liked: 379
  • Likes Given: 128
Re: New Glenn: Blue Origin Announcement of Orbital Rocket Plan
« Reply #1030 on: 08/10/2018 11:23 PM »
Recent footage of BE-3U demonstration engine hot fire. Two BE-3Us will power upper stage of #NewGlenn & deliver our customers to orbit. We’ve completed over 700 seconds of test time & confirmed performance assumptions used for final BE-3U expander cycle design #GradatimFerociter

Thus leading a lot of people to exclaim, "Wait...what? Expander cycle?"

Can someone clarify the difference? More or less complex? More or less efficient?

Expander cycle uses heat recovered from regenerative cooling of the main combustion chamber and nozzle to drive the turbopump using fuel as the working fluid. Tap-off cycle uses exhaust gas diverted from the main combustion chamber to drive the turbine. Expander cycle generally yields higher specific impulse, but the thrust is limited by the amount of heat that can recovered from the walls of the chamber and nozzle. Since heat recovery scales with throat circumference while thrust scales with throat area, it's increasingly difficult to scale thrust.

Online Gliderflyer

Recent footage of BE-3U demonstration engine hot fire. Two BE-3Us will power upper stage of #NewGlenn & deliver our customers to orbit. We’ve completed over 700 seconds of test time & confirmed performance assumptions used for final BE-3U expander cycle design #GradatimFerociter

Thus leading a lot of people to exclaim, "Wait...what? Expander cycle?"

Can someone clarify the difference? More or less complex? More or less efficient?

Tap-off is similar to a gas generator except it uses the main combustion chamber instead of a separate gas generator. Expander "boils" one of the propellants in the chamber cooling channels and uses the gas to drive the turbines. In a closed-expander cycle, the turbine exhaust gas is dumped into the injector of the main combustion chamber. In an open-expander cycle, the turbine exhaust is dumped overboard. In terms of efficiency, GG and tap-offs are the least efficient, followed by open-expander and closed-expander (generally).

They all have their pros and cons for complexity, but in my personal view expanders are less complex. That being said, I've never worked with either tap-off or expander cycles.
« Last Edit: 08/10/2018 11:28 PM by Gliderflyer »
I tried it at home

Offline e of pi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 669
  • Pittsburgh, PA
  • Liked: 245
  • Likes Given: 328
Re: New Glenn: Blue Origin Announcement of Orbital Rocket Plan
« Reply #1032 on: 08/10/2018 11:24 PM »
Can someone clarify the difference? More or less complex? More or less efficient?
The difference is where you get the gas to drive the turbopump, and the temperature of that gas. A tap-off cycle is a very hot cycle, using combustion gasses tapped from the main chamber to run the turbopump. You can have higher energy in the exhaust, getting much of the power of a full on gas generator without a separate gas generator. (The trade is a more interconnected startup procedure.)

An expander cycle is a completely different thing. Instead of using combustion gas, you use the expanded fuel from the regenerative cooling loop to drive the pump, resulting in lower temperatures and less intense environments for the pump. Indeed, the temperature at the turbine inlet may be below room temperature! This means they tend to have lower power available for pumping, and that expander engines have a maximum thrust capability and chamber pressure which is much lower than hot gas cycles--there's only so much heat the regenerative cooling gas can absorb and that you can harness from the pump. However, they are potentially less of a materials challenge and may even be more reusable provided you're in space and lower chamber pressures are acceptable.

Given all information to date was that BE-3 was tap off, a switch to expander would be something of a shock. It'd be like a Ford engineer knocking on your door and saying, "We took the weekend, and converted your car to run on diesel." Many of the same components are in that type of engine, and the concept is somewhat similar, but the operating conditions are so different you'd be surprised it was feasible, much less quick, and you'd be very curious about why.

Offline Oli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2193
  • Liked: 407
  • Likes Given: 57
Re: New Glenn: Blue Origin Announcement of Orbital Rocket Plan
« Reply #1033 on: 08/11/2018 10:38 AM »
Recent footage of BE-3U demonstration engine hot fire. Two BE-3Us will power upper stage of #NewGlenn & deliver our customers to orbit. We’ve completed over 700 seconds of test time & confirmed performance assumptions used for final BE-3U expander cycle design #GradatimFerociter

Thus leading a lot of people to exclaim, "Wait...what? Expander cycle?"

Indeed. How do they get enough thrust out of 2 expanders? Unless they're open cycle, but then the switch from tap off makes little sense to me.

Edit: It does look like an open expander in the video. Maybe the reusability benefits are large enough to justifiy the switch?
« Last Edit: 08/11/2018 11:26 AM by Oli »

Offline titusou

  • Member
  • Posts: 53
  • Taiwan
  • Liked: 67
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: New Glenn: Blue Origin Announcement of Orbital Rocket Plan
« Reply #1034 on: 08/11/2018 02:24 PM »
JAXA LE-9 is the highest trust expander cycle engine? 1471 kN vacuum thrust.

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4505
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 1071
  • Likes Given: 583
Re: New Glenn: Blue Origin Announcement of Orbital Rocket Plan
« Reply #1035 on: 08/11/2018 08:11 PM »
JAXA LE-9 is the highest trust expander cycle engine? 1471 kN vacuum thrust.
AR's RL10B-2 is 110 kN and RL10C-1 is 101.8 kN so seems way to high and probably is meant to read 471 kN or 1471N, but all of the engines being compared are in different thrust classes.
« Last Edit: 08/12/2018 12:07 AM by russianhalo117 »

Offline butters

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1754
  • Liked: 379
  • Likes Given: 128
Re: New Glenn: Blue Origin Announcement of Orbital Rocket Plan
« Reply #1036 on: 08/11/2018 08:51 PM »
Indeed. How do they get enough thrust out of 2 expanders? Unless they're open cycle, but then the switch from tap off makes little sense to me.

Edit: It does look like an open expander in the video. Maybe the reusability benefits are large enough to justifiy the switch?

B-3U is a vacuum engine, and not much is known about Blue's upper stage reusability roadmap. The other thing that comes to mind is that if you need rapid throttle response for propulsive landing, expander doesn't seem like an ideal power cycle. Seems like there'd be quite a bit of throttle lag because heat transfer is a function of time.

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6372
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 5947
  • Likes Given: 1713
Re: New Glenn: Blue Origin Announcement of Orbital Rocket Plan
« Reply #1037 on: 08/12/2018 01:14 AM »
Recent footage of BE-3U demonstration engine hot fire. Two BE-3Us will power upper stage of #NewGlenn & deliver our customers to orbit. We’ve completed over 700 seconds of test time & confirmed performance assumptions used for final BE-3U expander cycle design #GradatimFerociter

Video attached.

Offline Ultrafamicom

  • Member
  • Posts: 28
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: New Glenn: Blue Origin Announcement of Orbital Rocket Plan
« Reply #1038 on: 08/12/2018 08:25 AM »
JAXA LE-9 is the highest trust expander cycle engine? 1471 kN vacuum thrust.
AR's RL10B-2 is 110 kN and RL10C-1 is 101.8 kN so seems way to high and probably is meant to read 471 kN or 1471N, but all of the engines being compared are in different thrust classes.
1500kN-class indeed, the core stage of H-3, a bit larger than CBC, will be powered by 2 to 3 such engine

Open expander cycle does not have thrust limit

Offline TrevorMonty

Indeed. How do they get enough thrust out of 2 expanders? Unless they're open cycle, but then the switch from tap off makes little sense to me.

Edit: It does look like an open expander in the video. Maybe the reusability benefits are large enough to justifiy the switch?

B-3U is a vacuum engine, and not much is known about Blue's upper stage reusability roadmap. The other thing that comes to mind is that if you need rapid throttle response for propulsive landing, expander doesn't seem like an ideal power cycle. Seems like there'd be quite a bit of throttle lag because heat transfer is a function of time.
For propulsive landing they may use smaller landing engines.

Tags: