Blue Origin Thread (merged)

[Kryten]

21 minutes ago, Steel said:

So the real payload will be that +/- 100% or so

He's assuming the stage timing is comparable to Falcon 9 so it can do RTLS, but we know from the launch site planning docs that RTLS is not on the table and return is to be on a barge waaay downrange. So, more like +/-150%.

[_Augustus_]

58 minutes ago, tater said:

I've seen other speculation putting NG2 at around 40 tons to LEO, so it doesn't seem unreasonable.

I think a bigger issue is the 7m fairing, honestly. It doesn't do much good to be able to lift more if there are not payloads that mass enough that fit in the fairing.

It would be interesting to use the first stage as SLS strapons. According to some rough simulations it should be able to boost 160 mT to LEO.

Oh, and with an EDS it could get up to 200.

Edited September 14, 2016 by _Augustus_

[magnemoe]

5 hours ago, Kryten said:

He's assuming the stage timing is comparable to Falcon 9 so it can do RTLS, but we know from the launch site planning docs that RTLS is not on the table and return is to be on a barge waaay downrange. So, more like +/-150%.

To me the first stage looks large compared with second. Also reacted on the small fairing. 

[mikegarrison]

I think the size of the thing is throwing people off a little. Because it uses CH4 as a fuel, it needs a lot more volume for the same area. Not as much as an H2 rocket would need, but quite a bit more than kerosene.

[A Fuzzy Velociraptor]

3 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

I think the size of the thing is throwing people off a little. Because it uses CH4 as a fuel, it needs a lot more volume for the same area. Not as much as an H2 rocket would need, but quite a bit more than kerosene.

It did throw me off for a moment at the start though I had initially assumed it was hydrolox which turned out to be incorrect.

[Mitchz95]

Still no statement regarding the planned Mars talk at the IAC. I guess they're still hoping they'll find the problem had nothing to do with the rocket, but still, they're cutting it pretty close.

[tater]

Well, the billionaire bodily-liquiding match over who has the largest nonexistent rocket show must go on, right? BFR is bigger than NG2/3  . But wait, New Armstrong!

Edited September 15, 2016 by tater

[Frozen_Heart]

1 hour ago, tater said:

Well, the billionaire bodily-liquiding match over who has the largest nonexistent rocket show must go on, right? BFR is bigger than NG2/3  . But wait, New Armstrong!

I suspect that the Mars talk may happen simply due to the New Glenn being announced...

[Spaceception]

1 minute ago, Frozen_Heart said:

I suspect that the Mars talk may happen simply due to the New Glenn being announced...

I wonder if this will be looked back a the billionaire space race to see who has the better private space program.

[CatastrophicFailure]

8 minutes ago, Frozen_Heart said:

I suspect that the Mars talk may happen simply due to the New Glenn being announced...

I'd say they kinda have to at this point. The conference as at the end of the month, right? So there's a couple weeks yet. Wonder if they'll go for the hype slam-dunk by announcing both the MCT and F9 RTF date. 

 

 

[Mitchz95]

The F9 RTF date probably depends on what caused the Sep 1 failure to begin with. If they still don't know what happened, and can't guarantee they won't lose any more rockets to the same problem, I doubt they're going anywhere.

[Kryten]

6 minutes ago, Mitchz95 said:

The F9 RTF date probably depends on what caused the Sep 1 failure to begin with. If they still don't know what happened, and can't guarantee they won't lose any more rockets to the same problem, I doubt they're going anywhere.

And if they can't convince the NASA or the USAF that they've got the risk down, they aren't likely to get permission to fly from their bases. Same applies to FAA and the launch licence. Sure, this incident didn't end up injuring anybody or damaging non-leased property, but it did require emergency measures to keep OSIRIS-REX safe, and it put a lot of USAF emergency response personnel in great danger.

[Spaceception]

Cool article

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/09/15/jeff-bezos-on-nuclear-reactors-in-space-the-lack-of-bacon-on-mars-and-humanitys-destiny-in-the-solar-system/?tid=pm_business_pop_b

[Northstar1989]

On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 11:10 AM, _Augustus_ said:

So apparently according to a guy that simulated the New Glenn in RSS/RO, the payload capacity of New Glenn is 48 mT to LEO, which is actually LESS than the Vulcan Heavy or Falcon Heavy.

His ISP is too low for the BE-4.  Since he doesn't have any reliable ISP data, he takes a guess of 315/338 sl/vac (based on quote "eyeballing" the expansion ratio and comparing the chamber pressure to known KeroLOX engines- these are both very poor predictors of the performance).  This would be reasonable for a KeroLOX engine, but MethLOX is a lighter propellant and gets better ISP for the same chamber pressure and expansion ratio.

The closest known engine is the Raptor, which we have reliable ISP stats on that were released in June 2014 (earlier figures were just speculation)- 320/380.  As the BE-4 is Staged Combustion, but not Full-Flow Staged Combustion like the Raptor, an ISP of say 316/355 or 316/360 might be appropriate for the BE-4.  Which means that the YouTuber's payload capacity is too low, even BEFORE you account for RTLS vs. barge-landing...

 

Regards,

Northstar

Edited September 17, 2016 by Northstar1989

[tater]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2016/09/16/blue_origin_plans_to_test_the_capsule_abort_system_during_an_actual_launch.html

BO is planning on a max-Q capsule abort test in October... wish they'd post the date so I could drive down there and watch.

[Spaceception]

5 minutes ago, tater said:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2016/09/16/blue_origin_plans_to_test_the_capsule_abort_system_during_an_actual_launch.html

BO is planning on a max-Q capsule abort test in October... wish they'd post the date so I could drive down there and watch.

Can't wait for the results

Godspeed BO

 

Oh, and I feel this is relevant, there's an announcement at the end, I can't wait another hour and a half

 

Edited September 17, 2016 by Spaceception

[tater]

The question is when will we know about the live webcast of the launch... I need maybe 5 hours to get there... maybe less if I take my wife's car (going super fast in a SUV isn't as fun as it is in the bimmer).

[Spaceception]

Someone typed this on the chat:

The New Armstrong will probably be like the New Glenn but with New Buzz and New Collins boosters on either side.

[Kryten]

Unlikely; Bezos has repeatedly talked about the merits of single-stick designs for reusability, and the plans for the Blue launch complex don't appear set up to support parallel booster stages.

[tater]

They could name any orbital vehicle for "Dr. Rendezvous" (Buzz Aldrin's nickname back in the day).

[Spaceception]

1 minute ago, Kryten said:

Unlikely; Bezos has repeatedly talked about the merits of single-stick designs for reusability, and the plans for the Blue launch complex don't appear set up to support parallel booster stages.

I know, it was just a funny joke

[Spaceception]

I went onto twitter, and this was at the top.

@elonmusk If you make yourself first human on Mars, @JeffBezos will have to name his 4th rocket New Musk. Think about it.

[Northstar1989]

On Monday, September 12, 2016 at 9:54 AM, _Augustus_ said:

Nah, SLS is still a good idea. While it's not reusable, having the capability to put excess of 100 mT into LEO is great for assembling a Mars mission or launching a manned lander. Altair was going to need an entire Ares V, after all, and a Mars lander will be about the same size as Altair. If you wanted to launch a lander that big with smaller rockets, how exactly would you do it?

You would launch the lander "dry" (with empty onboard fuel tanks) and launch its fuel on a separate launch.  In fact there are actually some benefits to not transferring the fuel to the lander at all until right before your Mars landing (from an orbit-to-orbit transfer vessel like the Copernicus- and only just enough to land, as you can refuel with ISRU on the surface) has some major benefits- because then you don't need nearly as much insulation or structural reinforcement on the lander tanks (pressure vessels experience stresses over time, so the linger they have to remain full, the stronger/heavier they have to be).

You can also launch the fuel in small increments on smaller, more cost-effective launchers this way.

And, if you already have to work on improving technology for orbital fuel transfer (the tech exists, but has only thus far been used in tests transferring small amounts of hypergolics between specially-designed satellites.  Cryogenic fuel transfer is much more difficult...) then you might even have motive to go ahead and develop something like a Propulsive Fluid Accumulator or a small, low-cost low-reliability launcher specialized for economies of scale and launching disposable payloads like food and fuel that you can easily replace in a launch-failure (something a la the Aquarius rocket...) to get your propellant in orbit even more cheaply...

Also, if you are running your Mars lander on MethLOX, you can design its engines to run very O2-rich, or even cut in small amounts of an inert dense gas like CO2.  This will reduce your ISP, but increase both Thrust and fuel-density (because O2 and CO2 are both denser than CH4), which will actually allow you to return to orbit with a smaller lander, by giving you a better mass-fraction of fuel...

 

Regards,

Northstar

 

Edited September 17, 2016 by Northstar1989

[StrandedonEarth]

Almost three weeks now and still no word about a suspected cause for the 'anomaly.' I can only guess that by now they're sorting through the pieces for the most interesting ones to try to put back together.

How's this for a theory: A piece or fitting on the GSE became embrittled after repeated exposure to super-chilled LOX, or embrittled faster than expected.

[Mitchz95]

I'm wondering if Elon's waiting to announce the cause of the failure (and how they plan to prevent it in the future) for the IAC presentation.