Author Topic: New Armstrong Speculation and Discussion  (Read 84506 times)

Offline TripleSeven

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 616
  • Istanbul turkey
  • Liked: 259
  • Likes Given: 1056
Re: New Armstrong Speculation and Discussion
« Reply #400 on: 09/07/2018 05:56 PM »
Coastal Ron
I get them confused there are so many numbers?  but that 22.8 is a fully expendable Falcon9 Block V...

SpaceX advertises very specific numbers - you can see them on their pricing page.

As to whether that is Block 5 or fully expendable, it doesn't matter since I was responding to an estimate that your friend posited. The Falcon 9 is capable of 22.8mT to LEO, though SpaceX doesn't say what the cost is, and it doesn't matter since a reusable Falcon Heavy is likely to be able to put more than 22.8mT to LEO.

Quote
...and space tugs and orbital refueling do not exist

This thread is about New Armstrong, which doesn't yet exist.

BTW, in-space refueling has been done, and it's not like anyone thinks it CAN'T be done, just that there hasn't been a need to make it into a commercial service yet. And if we don't perfect space tugs we are doomed to never leaving Earth in any meaningful numbers, so we better all hope that there aren't laws of nature that prevent space tugs and in-space refueling.

Quote
what is your point?

This thread is about New Armstrong speculation, and as we've both stated in order to understand HOW something will be accomplished, one first needs to know WHAT is to be accomplished.

You relayed speculation from your friend about the WHAT, and I was then translating it into the HOW - which appears to be able to be satisfied by existing (or near-term) transportation systems. That would mean that it's unlikely it would be a job that New Armstrong would be designed to satisfy, unless it was able to do it cheaper/ better/ faster that New Glenn.

I dont know why you are quoting numbers to LEO as I have said "my" market references are to GTO and Moon proximity and lunar surfaces as were my friends speculation...I see some market in LEO but it will be for much larger platforms..there will be upgrades to the space station....but the main market is in GTO and "the moon"

I figured you were going there as to on orbit refueling.  No one that I am aware has done cryo's and that is probably doable :) but has not been done and is a "big deal" .  It will happen one day.  I dont see it happening anytime soon ie in the next ten years

NA will exist long before space tugs and orbital refueling...there is no pressing need for orbital refueling if you are staying in the earth moon system

sorry about the quote things.  working on those :)

« Last Edit: 09/07/2018 05:57 PM by TripleSeven »

Online Wudizzle

  • Member
  • Posts: 8
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: New Armstrong Speculation and Discussion
« Reply #401 on: 09/07/2018 06:48 PM »

NA will exist long before space tugs and orbital refueling...
This is a strong assertion/assumption given that a system is already being architected for orbital refueling (BFS+BFT); and that system is less notional as of today than New Armstrong. That does not preclude your prediction becoming the reality, but it does make your prediction based on a strong dose of selective skepticism rather than the stated direction of one of the strongest drivers of the industry.

If we view Blue Origin as a 'fast-follower' (which is debatable), then IMO they are more likely to assess the success and failures of the BFR system and choose which portions to adopt into their own architecture than they are to proceed with an incremental design iteration which provides increased capability for an as-yet undefined purpose.

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4135
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2813
  • Likes Given: 3571
Re: New Armstrong Speculation and Discussion
« Reply #402 on: 09/07/2018 10:15 PM »
Coastal Ron
I get them confused there are so many numbers?  but that 22.8 is a fully expendable Falcon9 Block V...

SpaceX advertises very specific numbers - you can see them on their pricing page.

As to whether that is Block 5 or fully expendable, it doesn't matter since I was responding to an estimate that your friend posited. The Falcon 9 is capable of 22.8mT to LEO, though SpaceX doesn't say what the cost is, and it doesn't matter since a reusable Falcon Heavy is likely to be able to put more than 22.8mT to LEO.

I dont know why you are quoting numbers to LEO as I have said "my" market references are to GTO and Moon proximity and lunar surfaces as were my friends speculation...

If you spend any time on NSF forums, especially the ones that are comparing two or more transportation systems, you'll find that it's difficult to come up with a universal method of comparison. So many members, including myself, tend to use payload to LEO as a universal constant because all payloads have to get to, or at least pass through LEO.

Lot's of exceptions though, like the SLS is not intended for payloads destined for LEO, but another reason to compare for LEO destinations is because there really is interest in space tugs and in-space refueling. For instance, ULA has been promoting "Distributed Launch" as a way to allow their existing launchers to delivery payloads to destinations beyond LEO that they could not do with a single launch.

Quote
I see some market in LEO but it will be for much larger platforms..there will be upgrades to the space station....but the main market is in GTO and "the moon"

I know you are focused on getting mass to the surface of our Moon, but Jeff Bezos has stated his primary goal is to move humanity (people + industry) out into space, which implies not only our Moon but LEO, GTO and many other destinations. New Armstrong is unlikely to be focused only on a limited use case.

Quote
I figured you were going there as to on orbit refueling.  No one that I am aware has done cryo's and that is probably doable :) but has not been done and is a "big deal" .  It will happen one day.  I dont see it happening anytime soon ie in the next ten years

That's funny because one of the primary reasons lunar advocates identify for going to our Moon is to export propellant from our Moon - including to LEO. Paul Spudis, who just recently passed away, wrote a paper about just that capability, and his was one of the most realistic plans for setting up lunar ISRU.

Quote
NA will exist long before space tugs and orbital refueling...there is no pressing need for orbital refueling if you are staying in the earth moon system

If you look at delta-v calculations, refueling in LEO is much more efficient than carrying all of your fuel up from Earth on one rocket. That is why the BFR/BFS system is planned to be able to land 150mT on our Moon and Mars, which you have to admit is far more than the 13 tons you think New Armstrong should be capable of. I think New Armstrong will likely do well over 100mT of payload to at least LEO, which is more than double what New Glenn can do.

Quote
sorry about the quote things.  working on those :)

HTML tags are your friend, and if you've learned to drive a Boeing 777 you can learn to properly quote...  ;)
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 TripleSeven

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 616
  • Istanbul turkey
  • Liked: 259
  • Likes Given: 1056
Re: New Armstrong Speculation and Discussion
« Reply #403 on: 09/08/2018 04:55 AM »
Coastal Ron
I get them confused there are so many numbers?  but that 22.8 is a fully expendable Falcon9 Block V...

SpaceX advertises very specific numbers - you can see them on their pricing page.

As to whether that is Block 5 or fully expendable, it doesn't matter since I was responding to an estimate that your friend posited. The Falcon 9 is capable of 22.8mT to LEO, though SpaceX doesn't say what the cost is, and it doesn't matter since a reusable Falcon Heavy is likely to be able to put more than 22.8mT to LEO.

I dont know why you are quoting numbers to LEO as I have said "my" market references are to GTO and Moon proximity and lunar surfaces as were my friends speculation...

If you spend any time on NSF forums, especially the ones that are comparing two or more transportation systems, you'll find that it's difficult to come up with a universal method of comparison. So many members, including myself, tend to use payload to LEO as a universal constant because all payloads have to get to, or at least pass through LEO.

Lot's of exceptions though, like the SLS is not intended for payloads destined for LEO, but another reason to compare for LEO destinations is because there really is interest in space tugs and in-space refueling. For instance, ULA has been promoting "Distributed Launch" as a way to allow their existing launchers to delivery payloads to destinations beyond LEO that they could not do with a single launch.

Quote
I see some market in LEO but it will be for much larger platforms..there will be upgrades to the space station....but the main market is in GTO and "the moon"

I know you are focused on getting mass to the surface of our Moon, but Jeff Bezos has stated his primary goal is to move humanity (people + industry) out into space, which implies not only our Moon but LEO, GTO and many other destinations. New Armstrong is unlikely to be focused only on a limited use case.

Quote
I figured you were going there as to on orbit refueling.  No one that I am aware has done cryo's and that is probably doable :) but has not been done and is a "big deal" .  It will happen one day.  I dont see it happening anytime soon ie in the next ten years

That's funny because one of the primary reasons lunar advocates identify for going to our Moon is to export propellant from our Moon - including to LEO. Paul Spudis, who just recently passed away, wrote a paper about just that capability, and his was one of the most realistic plans for setting up lunar ISRU.

Quote
NA will exist long before space tugs and orbital refueling...there is no pressing need for orbital refueling if you are staying in the earth moon system

If you look at delta-v calculations, refueling in LEO is much more efficient than carrying all of your fuel up from Earth on one rocket. That is why the BFR/BFS system is planned to be able to land 150mT on our Moon and Mars, which you have to admit is far more than the 13 tons you think New Armstrong should be capable of. I think New Armstrong will likely do well over 100mT of payload to at least LEO, which is more than double what New Glenn can do.

Quote
sorry about the quote things.  working on those :)

HTML tags are your friend, and if you've learned to drive a Boeing 777 you can learn to properly quote...  ;)

No I get the difference.  YOu and MOST people here think, hope whatever we are in revolutionary times in the space industry particularly with humans...and i think we are finally just starting evolutionary times and while we should be happy we are finally there...its just the start of slow steady steps, not giant leaps

(revolutionary equals invention of turbojet, evolutionary invention of high by pass fan)

what evolutionary times mean, is that the industry is finally responsive to market forces in a synergy that works everywhere else in the commercial world.  the launch industry affects markets and markets push the launch industry in a certain direction.  For all I know Bezos wants to go to the Stars but the first place "I" think he is going to go after getting a working launch vehicle ie becoming competitive in the GTO and military launch business, is to the space station and then on to the Moon.  Why?  because I think that is where federal dollars are going.

I suspect the next synergy after a lunar base is going to be lunar propellent first on the Moon and than in lunar proximity.  I dont think tanking from earth to LEO will be competitive in the next oh 10-20 years because I dont think that launch cost are going to, in that period drop low enough to make it competitive.  I know you do...but that is a revolutionary thing and as I said I am more into evolution right now

the good news is that I think we are on the brink (well the next 10-20 years) of a new space age...and I think Blue wants to be a part of that in both a casual and economic market way.  I think its going to be a cut throat (which is good) competition for the launch market soon between Blue and SpaceX.  To me that is a good thing. as Darwin always picks the correct winner.

I have said for decades now that Apollo was about 75 years to early.  My guess is that 60 is now a better number :)

100mts to LEO for NA?  I'll stick to my numbers for now.  20 mt to GTO or lunar insertion at NG or FH prices

first two stages reusable...third expendable.  no on orbit refuel.  at least at the start.  maybe an evolution :)

good morning

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4135
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2813
  • Likes Given: 3571
Re: New Armstrong Speculation and Discussion
« Reply #404 on: 09/10/2018 10:23 PM »
No I get the difference.  YOu and MOST people here think, hope whatever we are in revolutionary times in the space industry particularly with humans...and i think we are finally just starting evolutionary times and while we should be happy we are finally there...its just the start of slow steady steps, not giant leaps

NASA's SLS and ULA's Vulcan are certainly evolutionary, but I would argue that reusable rockets are not evolutionary, but revolutionary. Because if they were evolutionary then everyone would be adding reusability to their rockets, but since it's not an evolutionary feature, but a revolutionary design that is required we see that so far only Blue Origin is following in the footsteps of SpaceX.

For Falcon 9 the evolutionary next step would be Falcon Heavy, but the revolutionary next step would be the BFR/BFS. One way to tell the difference between evolutionary and revolutionary is that when something is evolutionary people say "makes sense", but when something is revolutionary people say "WTF" or "I'll believe it when I see it"...  ;)

Quote
what evolutionary times mean, is that the industry is finally responsive to market forces in a synergy that works everywhere else in the commercial world.  the launch industry affects markets and markets push the launch industry in a certain direction.

Evolutionary changes to the market include reduced prices, but revolutionary changes inspire new markets to be created. That is something that both Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos seem to be counting on, since otherwise Falcon 9/H and New Glenn could conquer the existing launch market without much trouble. But we know they both have far grander plans that require grander transportation systems.

Quote
For all I know Bezos wants to go to the Stars but the first place "I" think he is going to go after getting a working launch vehicle ie becoming competitive in the GTO and military launch business, is to the space station and then on to the Moon.  Why?  because I think that is where federal dollars are going.

Jeff Bezos has shown that he is willing to compete for U.S. Government funding, but since he can dump $1B (and more) per year into Blue Origin without taking a hit to his total wealth, I don't see that he will pursue government contracts for the sake of money. Bezos has a long-term plan, and what he needs more than money is experience in launching and recovering rockets.

Quote
I suspect the next synergy after a lunar base is going to be lunar propellent first on the Moon and than in lunar proximity.  I dont think tanking from earth to LEO will be competitive in the next oh 10-20 years because I dont think that launch cost are going to, in that period drop low enough to make it competitive.  I know you do...but that is a revolutionary thing and as I said I am more into evolution right now

Bezos has been public about wanting to help whoever wants to land on our Moon, and I see that as part of gaining experience. As to why people want to go to our Moon, there are at least 25 good reasons to go to the Moon, so no need to only focus on propellant - which has no market demand at this point.

Returning to the subject of the thread, New Glenn appears to be the transportation system that Bezos and Blue Origin are using to learn about reusability, and I think they will fly it for a good decade or more - or for however long it meets a market need.

For New Armstrong, I don't see Jeff Bezos being timid about making it significantly more capable than New Glenn. Just as the SpaceX BFR/BFS will be revolutionary when compared to the Falcon 9/H, I think New Armstrong will be revolutionary compared to the New Glenn. And I don't think the market that New Armstrong will satisfy exists yet - nor do I think it will be limited to one market, like the Moon. New Armstrong will likely be what Jeff Bezos feels will start to move humanity out into space, which is his ultimate goal.
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 TripleSeven

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 616
  • Istanbul turkey
  • Liked: 259
  • Likes Given: 1056
Re: New Armstrong Speculation and Discussion
« Reply #405 on: 09/12/2018 05:32 PM »


NASA's SLS and ULA's Vulcan are certainly evolutionary, but I would argue that reusable rockets are not evolutionary, but revolutionary. Because if they were evolutionary then everyone would be adding reusability to their rockets, but since it's not an evolutionary feature, but a revolutionary design that is required we see that so far only Blue Origin is following in the footsteps of SpaceX.

For Falcon 9 the evolutionary next step would be Falcon Heavy, but the revolutionary next step would be the BFR/BFS. One way to tell the difference between evolutionary and revolutionary is that when something is evolutionary people say "makes sense", but when something is revolutionary people say "WTF" or "I'll believe it when I see it"...  ;)

there is nothing evolutionary about SLS. its retroactive if anything




Quote
Evolutionary changes to the market include reduced prices, but revolutionary changes inspire new markets to be created..

I dont agree with that...  to me it doesnt make any sense.  OK Evolultionary changes to the market (I assume you mean launch vehicles) include reducing prices...what does the last part mean

what I would say is that (my words) "reduced cost of operation allow evolutionary changes to the market brought on by current participants in the market. AND that some of these participants can induce change which is revolutionary which supports continued develop of  technologies that reduce cost."

Boeing builds airplanes.  it has dabbled in the airline market once in its lifetime (Boeing Air Transport which became United) BUT quickly got out.  It can build plane but it learned fairly quickly that was "its market" and it left how to "use" those planes up to the folks who were business of developing markets that use..the airplanes...ie the airlines

Truly revolutionary change in the aviation world came from the folks who operate the planes.  My three favorites are Juan Trippe and bob Crandall and Herb the super K.  Only really one of these was technology driven (Juan pushed for the Dash 80 to become a passenger plane).  the other two were 1) taking advantage of changes in federal policy and 2) simply reinventing how airline ops worked.

what you seem to be arguing is that "cost alone" brings revolution...ie the lower the cost the more revolution than evolution it is...and I dont see any historical reference for that. FedEx was not a cost issue.


Quote
Jeff Bezos has shown that he is willing to compete for U.S. Government funding, but since he can dump $1B (and more) per year into Blue Origin without taking a hit to his total wealth, I don't see that he will pursue government contracts for the sake of money. Bezos has a long-term plan, and what he needs more than money is experience in launching and recovering rockets.

of the three above, I would argue that Bezos is more like Crandall than anything else.  he has a touch of Trippe in that he is doing some technology pushing...but so far at least nothing in the technology is all that game changing (now it might well go that way) but what is game changing is how the technology is used

Bezos in my view recognizes the importance of federal policy and funding. 

Quote
Returning to the subject of the thread, New Glenn appears to be the transportation system that Bezos and Blue Origin are using to learn about reusability, and I think they will fly it for a good decade or more - or for however long it meets a market need.

no doubt on the last part...that is why he makes a lot of money.  he meets markets :)

mastered the quote thing, very happy :)

« Last Edit: 09/12/2018 05:35 PM by TripleSeven »

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28359
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 8210
  • Likes Given: 5435
Re: New Armstrong Speculation and Discussion
« Reply #406 on: 09/15/2018 05:59 PM »


NA will exist long before space tugs and orbital refueling...
...LOL, that’d be pretty tough to pull off since ISS is already refueled in orbit.
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 meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8470
  • N. California
  • Liked: 4663
  • Likes Given: 884
Re: New Armstrong Speculation and Discussion
« Reply #407 on: 09/15/2018 10:17 PM »


NA will exist long before space tugs and orbital refueling...
...LOL, that’d be pretty tough to pull off since ISS is already refueled in orbit.

The leap from NS to NA is larger than from F1 to BFR.

TS - you're a self-described "skeptic", yet you're making predictions on NA...  How does that compute?


ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline TripleSeven

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 616
  • Istanbul turkey
  • Liked: 259
  • Likes Given: 1056
Re: New Armstrong Speculation and Discussion
« Reply #408 on: 09/15/2018 10:18 PM »


NA will exist long before space tugs and orbital refueling...
...LOL, that’d be pretty tough to pull off since ISS is already refueled in orbit.

not with cryos and cryos are well several steps harder to do than what is being done on ISS.

Offline TripleSeven

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 616
  • Istanbul turkey
  • Liked: 259
  • Likes Given: 1056
Re: New Armstrong Speculation and Discussion
« Reply #409 on: 09/15/2018 10:18 PM »


NA will exist long before space tugs and orbital refueling...
...LOL, that’d be pretty tough to pull off since ISS is already refueled in orbit.

The leap from NS to NA is larger than from F1 to BFR.

TS - you're a self-described "skeptic", yet you're making predictions on NA...  How does that compute?

that is why they have NG :) it makes the leap smaller...

Online meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8470
  • N. California
  • Liked: 4663
  • Likes Given: 884
Re: New Armstrong Speculation and Discussion
« Reply #410 on: 09/15/2018 10:32 PM »


NA will exist long before space tugs and orbital refueling...
...LOL, that’d be pretty tough to pull off since ISS is already refueled in orbit.

The leap from NS to NA is larger than from F1 to BFR.

TS - you're a self-described "skeptic", yet you're making predictions on NA...  How does that compute?

that is why they have NG :) it makes the leap smaller...

They don't have NG... The biggest thing they've flown is NS.  We haven't seen anything of NG except a video.

When NG is flying, then yes - the leap will become smaller.

But you are currently making bold predictions for NA - hence my observation.
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Online Lemurion

Re: New Armstrong Speculation and Discussion
« Reply #411 on: 09/15/2018 10:35 PM »


NA will exist long before space tugs and orbital refueling...
...LOL, that’d be pretty tough to pull off since ISS is already refueled in orbit.

The leap from NS to NA is larger than from F1 to BFR.

TS - you're a self-described "skeptic", yet you're making predictions on NA...  How does that compute?

that is why they have NG :) it makes the leap smaller...

Fair enough, but they don't have New Glenn yet--

SpaceX is going for BFR having already produced three orbital vehicles (F1/F9/FH), while Blue is still working on the engine for their first and New Shepard to New Glenn is a massive jump in its own right. I want Blue to succeed and I believe they have the capability, but I have minimal faith in their ability to catch up with even "Elon Time."

I'm not expecting New Armstrong before about 2030-- and I think BFR will be flying (and refuelling) long before that.

Offline douglas100

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2177
  • Liked: 226
  • Likes Given: 104
Re: New Armstrong Speculation and Discussion
« Reply #412 on: 09/15/2018 10:42 PM »

not with cryos and cryos are well several steps harder to do than what is being done on ISS.

The only new thing that needs to be developed for cryo transfer in orbit is the coupler interface. The transfer of cryogenic propellant from a tank under zero G- conditions is a solved problem. Centaur has been doing it for fifty years.
Douglas Clark

Offline TripleSeven

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 616
  • Istanbul turkey
  • Liked: 259
  • Likes Given: 1056
Re: New Armstrong Speculation and Discussion
« Reply #413 on: 09/16/2018 09:34 AM »


NA will exist long before space tugs and orbital refueling...
...LOL, that’d be pretty tough to pull off since ISS is already refueled in orbit.

The leap from NS to NA is larger than from F1 to BFR.

TS - you're a self-described "skeptic", yet you're making predictions on NA...  How does that compute?

that is why they have NG :) it makes the leap smaller...

Fair enough, but they don't have New Glenn yet--

SpaceX is going for BFR having already produced three orbital vehicles (F1/F9/FH), while Blue is still working on the engine for their first and New Shepard to New Glenn is a massive jump in its own right. I want Blue to succeed and I believe they have the capability, but I have minimal faith in their ability to catch up with even "Elon Time."

I'm not expecting New Armstrong before about 2030-- and I think BFR will be flying (and refuelling) long before that.

we will see.  new Shepard to NG is no bigger than Falcon 1 to 9 and we will see how timing works

my comments and views on BFR timelines are well known here.  I dont expect much until the late 2020's well after 2026 or so.. but we will see

Offline TripleSeven

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 616
  • Istanbul turkey
  • Liked: 259
  • Likes Given: 1056
Re: New Armstrong Speculation and Discussion
« Reply #414 on: 09/16/2018 09:35 AM »

not with cryos and cryos are well several steps harder to do than what is being done on ISS.

The only new thing that needs to be developed for cryo transfer in orbit is the coupler interface. The transfer of cryogenic propellant from a tank under zero G- conditions is a solved problem. Centaur has been doing it for fifty years.

I am eager to see it work. 

Online Lemurion

Re: New Armstrong Speculation and Discussion
« Reply #415 on: 09/16/2018 05:59 PM »


NA will exist long before space tugs and orbital refueling...
...LOL, that’d be pretty tough to pull off since ISS is already refueled in orbit.

The leap from NS to NA is larger than from F1 to BFR.

TS - you're a self-described "skeptic", yet you're making predictions on NA...  How does that compute?

that is why they have NG :) it makes the leap smaller...

Fair enough, but they don't have New Glenn yet--

SpaceX is going for BFR having already produced three orbital vehicles (F1/F9/FH), while Blue is still working on the engine for their first and New Shepard to New Glenn is a massive jump in its own right. I want Blue to succeed and I believe they have the capability, but I have minimal faith in their ability to catch up with even "Elon Time."

I'm not expecting New Armstrong before about 2030-- and I think BFR will be flying (and refuelling) long before that.

we will see.  new Shepard to NG is no bigger than Falcon 1 to 9 and we will see how timing works

my comments and views on BFR timelines are well known here.  I dont expect much until the late 2020's well after 2026 or so.. but we will see

I disagree: New Shepard to New Glenn is a much larger jump than Falcon 1 to Falcon 9. Remember, SpaceX only "jumped" to the Merlin-1C-engined fully expendable Block 1 launcher, not the Merlin-1D-engined reusable first stage Block 5 launcher that is a much closer match to New Glenn.

New Shepard to New Glenn is going from a single-stage hydrolox suborbital launcher to a two-stage methalox/hydrolox orbital launcher. It requires the development of a wholly new engine and fuel cycle and a completely new flight regime. Blue has not yet flown to orbit, flown BE-4, or successfully launched a two-stage rocket.

The initial jump from Falcon 1 to Falcon 9 was a progression from a Merlin-engined two-stage kerolox orbital launcher to a larger Merlin-engined kerolox orbital launcher. At the time of the first Falcon 9 launch, SpaceX had already flown to orbit, flown the Merlin engine, and successfully launched a two-stage rocket.

Now, I expect New Glenn to New Armstrong may be a smaller leap than F9 to BFR, but that's a different story. Right now, Blue is aiming to progress from a suborbital craft to one that leapfrogs Falcon 9 Block 5. That's a massive leap. It's not impossible but that doesn't mean anyone should underestimate the scope of the project.

Online meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8470
  • N. California
  • Liked: 4663
  • Likes Given: 884
Re: New Armstrong Speculation and Discussion
« Reply #416 on: 09/16/2018 06:29 PM »

we will see.  new Shepard to NG is no bigger than Falcon 1 to 9 and we will see how timing works

my comments and views on BFR timelines are well known here.  I dont expect much until the late 2020's well after 2026 or so.. but we will see

You must be kidding.

F1 and F9 where both two staged orbital vehicles.  F1S1 used a Merlin 1C.  F9 clustered 9 M1Ds.

NS is smaller than F1.  NG is larger than F9.

NG uses a completely new main engine, using a new propellant combo.

How on Earth do you claim that F1 -> F9 is a larger leap than NS -> NG ?

It is this kind of mis-reasoning that erases any credibility from your other claims...

-----
ABCD: Always Be Counting Down

ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Online Lemurion

Re: New Armstrong Speculation and Discussion
« Reply #417 on: 09/16/2018 06:39 PM »

we will see.  new Shepard to NG is no bigger than Falcon 1 to 9 and we will see how timing works

my comments and views on BFR timelines are well known here.  I dont expect much until the late 2020's well after 2026 or so.. but we will see

You must be kidding.

F1 and F9 where both two staged orbital vehicles.  F1S1 used a Merlin 1C.  F9 clustered 9 M1Ds.

NS is smaller than F1.  NG is larger than F9.

NG uses a completely new main engine, using a new propellant combo.

How on Earth do you claim that F1 -> F9 is a larger leap than NS -> NG ?

It is this kind of mis-reasoning that erases any credibility from your other claims...

-----
ABCD: Always Be Counting Down



Actually, it's even less of a jump. The first 5 Block 1 F9s used Merlin 1C.

Offline TripleSeven

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 616
  • Istanbul turkey
  • Liked: 259
  • Likes Given: 1056
Re: New Armstrong Speculation and Discussion
« Reply #418 on: 09/16/2018 09:06 PM »

we will see.  new Shepard to NG is no bigger than Falcon 1 to 9 and we will see how timing works

my comments and views on BFR timelines are well known here.  I dont expect much until the late 2020's well after 2026 or so.. but we will see

You must be kidding.

F1 and F9 where both two staged orbital vehicles.  F1S1 used a Merlin 1C.  F9 clustered 9 M1Ds.

NS is smaller than F1.  NG is larger than F9.

NG uses a completely new main engine, using a new propellant combo.

How on Earth do you claim that F1 -> F9 is a larger leap than NS -> NG ?

It is this kind of mis-reasoning that erases any credibility from your other claims...

-----
ABCD: Always Be Counting Down

you are misquoting me.  I did not say "larger leap"  read my post again.

Offline TripleSeven

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 616
  • Istanbul turkey
  • Liked: 259
  • Likes Given: 1056
Re: New Armstrong Speculation and Discussion
« Reply #419 on: 09/16/2018 09:15 PM »


I disagree: New Shepard to New Glenn is a much larger jump than Falcon 1 to Falcon 9. Remember, SpaceX only "jumped" to the Merlin-1C-engined fully expendable Block 1 launcher, not the Merlin-1D-engined reusable first stage Block 5 launcher that is a much closer match to New Glenn.

New Shepard to New Glenn is going from a single-stage hydrolox suborbital launcher to a two-stage methalox/hydrolox orbital launcher. It requires the development of a wholly new engine and fuel cycle and a completely new flight regime. Blue has not yet flown to orbit, flown BE-4, or successfully launched a two-stage rocket.

The initial jump from Falcon 1 to Falcon 9 was a progression from a Merlin-engined two-stage kerolox orbital launcher to a larger Merlin-engined kerolox orbital launcher. At the time of the first Falcon 9 launch, SpaceX had already flown to orbit, flown the Merlin engine, and successfully launched a two-stage rocket.

Now, I expect New Glenn to New Armstrong may be a smaller leap than F9 to BFR, but that's a different story. Right now, Blue is aiming to progress from a suborbital craft to one that leapfrogs Falcon 9 Block 5. That's a massive leap. It's not impossible but that doesn't mean anyone should underestimate the scope of the project.

in my view Blue is doing the same thing with New Shepard on a slightly less costly scale that SpaceX wisely did with Falcon1 which his to develop the "team, methods and organization" ie the technological effort that can build a vehicle.  once you have that in hand.  the technology "leaps" are relative to the technology involved, not the entire effort

in the process of this Blue is doing something SpaceX did not, and that is gaining experience with both reuseability and Vertical landing

but the key is for both companies is to put together the technological team with the systems base that can workin this environment AND then it is just a matter of digesting the technology

this is why there was a pretty good chance that even though most of the Falcon 1 flights were failures the first Falcon 9 would not be.  the team had mastered the technology.  if you watch SpaceX launch operations you can see the maturity that has been gained with that team.  they are now almost point and shoot...it will take Blue sometime to get to this even with their NS experience when they get a new vehicle.

it is a much much much much different scale...but for people who rebuild airplanes, cars, boats etc...the first one is always the toughest (and the thing that kills most peoples desire to do it in the first place) ...the learning curve is so so steep that they never put the skills together "in them" nor find the technological support base.

on much more "equal scale" this is why the B787 has so many "issues" in its construction.  Boeing bit off a chunk of technology (not only in the systems but in the composite parts of the airplane itself) and the learning curve was staggering.

now they have the expertise in hand so the 77X is going quite smoothly

this is the same reason that the Germans of WW2 and the NK of today are really paper tigers when it comes to say rockets.  they simply did not have the technology base, nor could build it...to do what they need to do...

both SpaceX and Blue did or are doing the same thing with their "first one".  Branson did the same thing with their first Spaceship...it cost them a life to find out that they didnt have it in hand. 
« Last Edit: 09/16/2018 09:17 PM by TripleSeven »

Tags: