Blue Origin thread.

[tater]

So assuming the prop mass of the NS is ~30 tonnes, that means the cost of a prop load around $100,000 (something under $4/kg for LH2, and under $0.20/kg for LOX, and I'm assuming the solids are maybe 10k$). That means consumable costs are ~$17,000 a seat per flight.

If NS is really designed to be reused like an aircraft, at least hundreds of times...

Bezos could charge far, far less than Virgin. I think they can make money well under 100k a ride. Heck, closer to 50k. It all depends on how many flights.

 

 

 

Edited April 30, 2018 by tater

[Ultimate Steve]

16 minutes ago, tater said:

So assuming the prop mass of the NS is ~30 tonnes, that means the cost of a prop load around $100,000 (something under $4/kg for LH2, and under $0.20/kg for LOX, and I'm assuming the solids are maybe 10k$). That means consumable costs are ~$17,000 a seat per flight.

If NS is really designed to be reused like an aircraft, at least hundreds of times...

Bezos could charge far, far less than Virgin. I think they can make money well under 100k a ride. Heck, closer to 50k. It all depends on how many flights.

 

 

 

I'm pretty sure the retrorockets are pressurized gas and not solids, but I'm not 100% sure.

EDIT: 2000th post!

Edited April 30, 2018 by Ultimate Steve

[tater]

8 minutes ago, Ultimate Steve said:

I'm pretty sure the retrorockets are pressurized gas and not solids, but I'm not 100% sure.

EDIT: 2000th post!

Then they are even cheaper to turn around.

Virgin has charged $250,000.

How much could NG possibly cost to make?

Falcon 1 was 6.6 M$ retail, to orbit. I think the small launchers like Electron are similar.

One engine, same number of tanks, even if NS is larger in total mass. Let's assume NS costs maybe 6 M$ to make. At 100 launches, that's $60,000 per launch in vehicle cost. That's 10k a seat per flight. 17k in props. 3k for labor (slop). $30,000/seat cost. 60k is a great markup on that.

If they can get 1000 flights, then the vehicle only costs 1k/seat, and the total cost is 18k. Seems like 50k would be an entirely achievable goal for pricing.

[Ultimate Steve]

2 minutes ago, tater said:

Then they are even cheaper to turn around.

Virgin has charged $250,000.

How much could NG possibly cost to make?

Falcon 1 was 6.6 M$ retail, to orbit. I think the small launchers like Electron are similar.

One engine, same number of tanks, even if NS is larger in total mass. Let's assume NS costs maybe 6 M$ to make. At 100 launches, that's $60,000 per launch in vehicle cost. That's 10k a seat per flight. 17k in props. 3k for labor (slop). $30,000/seat cost. 60k is a great markup on that.

If they can get 1000 flights, then the vehicle only costs 1k/seat, and the total cost is 18k. Seems like 50k would be an entirely achievable goal for pricing. 

I really hope they decide to undersell like this and not recoup investment costs. They could, given their financial record, but businesses don't usually work like that. If the price is somehow below 15k, I'd seriously try to save up for a ticket. I know it's foolish, seeing as I need to pay for college, a car, and other medium-term future stuff...

The question is, would they accept non-adult passengers?

[tater]

When I say cost, I mean their costs. So it would be marked up. It won't be as cheap as that, but I think it will be far cheaper than Virgin.

[VaPaL]

9 hours ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

Will NG be hover-capable tho? 

 

By this video, yes. But how much of this actually becomes reallity is to be seen

 

Edited April 30, 2018 by VaPaL

[kerbiloid]

Spoiler

Expendable shroud? How archaic.

 

[sevenperforce]

In the webcast for Sunday's NS launch, they showed an updated NG model with the BE-3 upper stage and 5m fairing. BO also took a shot at SpaceX by explaining that a moving ship (as opposed to a "barge") can match wind and weather conditions and thus can allow New Glenn to be recovered in much higher sea states, ensuring higher launch cadence and launch opportunity use.

[wumpus]

10 hours ago, tater said:

Then they are even cheaper to turn around.

Virgin has charged $250,000.

How much could NG possibly cost to make?

Falcon 1 was 6.6 M$ retail, to orbit. I think the small launchers like Electron are similar.

One engine, same number of tanks, even if NS is larger in total mass. Let's assume NS costs maybe 6 M$ to make. At 100 launches, that's $60,000 per launch in vehicle cost. That's 10k a seat per flight. 17k in props. 3k for labor (slop). $30,000/seat cost. 60k is a great markup on that.

If they can get 1000 flights, then the vehicle only costs 1k/seat, and the total cost is 18k. Seems like 50k would be an entirely achievable goal for pricing.

Pegasus claimed a "base price" of $6M (in 1990s dollars), but I think that was missing critical support options and NASA has paid 10 times that price.

18 hours ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

I would think a bigger rocket would be more susceptible to wind. Bigger surface area to mass ratio, since it has proportionately far less fuel left. Same reason high winds can knock a loaded semi over but barely rustle a small car. 

Will NG be hover-capable tho?

 

8 hours ago, VaPaL said:

By this video, yes. But how much of this actually becomes reallity is to be seen

Falcon (and Merlin) were originally designed to land via parachutes, and had to be tweaked to hoverslam (no idea if the early Merlins could throttle).  If you are designing from a nearly clean sheet of paper, I'd expect you would make the engines capable of hovering.  From a controls perspective, I suspect that a hoverslam is easier on land (thanks to your control fins never stalling) but harder at sea (thanks to the issues of a moving boat/barge).

[Bill Phil]

Hovering takes a lot more delta-v and would reduce reusable mode performance drastically.

[_Augustus_]

8 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

a moving ship (as opposed to a "barge") can match wind and weather conditions and thus can allow New Glenn to be recovered in much higher sea states, ensuring higher launch cadence and launch opportunity use.

Who cares? Most of the heavier F9 payloads are going to be moved to FH, and thus both will probably have enough margins on most flights to RTLS anyway.

Glenn can't RTLS.

[sevenperforce]

3 minutes ago, _Augustus_ said:

Who cares? Most of the heavier F9 payloads are going to be moved to FH, and thus both will probably have enough margins on most flights to RTLS anyway.

Glenn can't RTLS.

Falcon Heavy will never perform three-core RTLS.

Glenn could RTLS if it wanted to; its upper stage blows F9's away.

Schedule slip due to recovery issues is an entirely valid criticism. What remains to be seen is whether there's any actual difference in recovery success (and seafaring ability) between an ASDS and whatever BO is building. If BO's ocean landing platform can self-ferry, well, that's impressive.

[tater]

Just now, _Augustus_ said:

Who cares? Most of the heavier F9 payloads are going to be moved to FH, and thus both will probably have enough margins on most flights to RTLS anyway.

Glenn can't RTLS.

FWIW, SpaceX likes ASDS landings because they are actually less stressful on the booster. Why, I don't know, lol.

Honestly, though, I don't think the moving platform is really that much of a difference. Assuming the same sink rate, it's not hard to leave a horizontal component to the booster equal to the speed of the ship, it's crossing downrange anyway, and that is motion that otherwise gets killed. I would assume that the ship would move at the minimum speed to ensure a stable platform, as well.

 

[MaverickSawyer]

That's just it, though... the advantage is the increased stability, allowing them to recover in rougher seas, and that help reduce weather-induced delays.

[sevenperforce]

14 hours ago, tater said:

FWIW, SpaceX likes ASDS landings because they are actually less stressful on the booster. Why, I don't know, lol.

Best guess is that for any given mission, an ASDS landing means greater propellant reserves, meaning a longer entry burn and a longer landing burn. Longer entry burn means lower peak heating; longer landing burn means lower peak gees.

I doubt there is anything inherent in the ASDS landing itself which reduces stresses. It's not like OCISLY appreciably cushions the touchdown or anything.

6 hours ago, MaverickSawyer said:

14 hours ago, tater said:

I don't think the moving platform is really that much of a difference. Assuming the same sink rate, it's not hard to leave a horizontal component to the booster equal to the speed of the ship, it's crossing downrange anyway, and that is motion that otherwise gets killed. I would assume that the ship would move at the minimum speed to ensure a stable platform, as well.

That's just it, though... the advantage is the increased stability, allowing them to recover in rougher seas, and that help reduce weather-induced delays.

I think the idea is that if you have big swells due to a high sea state, then steaming downwind allows the platform to move with the waves, preventing pitch and roll that would off-level the platform. The ASDS has propulsors which can damp pitch and roll, but it still must move up and down as waves pass under it, which is not something that plays well with a hoverslam landing.

I can certainly see a situation where a moderately high sea state (e.g., following a storm) means that the ASDS has vertical displacement variance on the order of a couple of meters, too much for Falcon 9 to compensate for, but a fully-powered platform can simply match the local wave speed and drop vertical displacement to under a meter, enough for NG to touch down smoothly.

[kerbiloid]

SpaceX tries to land a rocket on a slowly moving barge calling it still. Tetris.

Blue Origin tries to catch the rocket with the ship. Arkanoid.

Somebody should try Pacman: catch the rockets with an airship.

Edited May 1, 2018 by kerbiloid

[tater]

Yeah, I generally agree on the propellant reserve, though they also use ASDS for the hottest landings because they lack reserve... so it likely depends. Wonder if there are any stresses associated with the flip maneuvers? RTLS is 2 flips (flip, boostback, flip, entry and landing), ASDS is one (flip, entry and landing).

[sevenperforce]

33 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

SpaceX tries to land a rocket on a slowly moving barge calling it still. Tetris.

Blue Origin tries to catch the rocket with the ship. Arkanoid.

Somebody should try Pacman: catch the rockets with an airship.

That's ULA and Vulcan.

24 minutes ago, tater said:

Yeah, I generally agree on the propellant reserve, though they also use ASDS for the hottest landings because they lack reserve... so it likely depends. Wonder if there are any stresses associated with the flip maneuvers? RTLS is 2 flips (flip, boostback, flip, entry and landing), ASDS is one (flip, entry and landing).

Doubt it. Flipping with cold gas thrusters in zero gees seems tame to me.

[kerbiloid]

Spoiler

If they were making two side engines 180° convertible, they would even not have to flip.
Just rotate two engines prograde, burn them to stop the rocket and move her back, then rotate the engines back.
Or have two bidirectional engines between others, with one nozzle up, one nozzle down. Switch between nozzles instead of flipping the rocket.

 

Edited May 1, 2018 by kerbiloid

[sevenperforce]

8 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

  Hide contents

If they were making two side engines 180° convertible, they would even not have to flip.
Just rotate two engines prograde, burn them to stop the rocket and move her back, then rotate the engines back.
Or have two bidirectional engines between others, with one nozzle up, one nozzle down. Switch between nozzles instead of flipping the rocket.

 

That....would be unnecessarily complicated. Also impossible.

[kerbiloid]

3 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

That....would be unnecessarily complicated. Also impossible.

Spoiler

 

[sevenperforce]

14 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

  Hide contents

 

Osprey has the dry mass budget to do that. A Falcon 9 does not.

[ment18]

Osprey was also massively over budget and behind schedule.

[tater]

51 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

Doubt it. Flipping with cold gas thrusters in zero gees seems tame to me.

This was my first thought as well, but there is are still bending forces on the booster, and some (small) air resistance as well. I'm not thinking in terms of immediately troublesome forces, but small stresses that could lead to fractures/weakness at a microscopic level that might impact the number of reuses.

Another possibility might be related to the maneuvering just before landing. This is where aero forces are large. The vehicle at sea is aimed just to one side of the ASDS, then barely maneuvers to center on the ASDS. The distance it has to correct on RTLS would be greater, assuming it is ballistically heading off the beach, then corrects to the pad. Again, I'm talking in terms of lateral forces that would tend to torque the tank structure and perhaps create metal fatigue issues.

If the ASDS landings were not so often described as "hot" (complete with melted grid fins in some cases) I'd be completely on-board with the extra landing propellant mitigating heating.

[sevenperforce]

5 minutes ago, tater said:

If the ASDS landings were not so often described as "hot" (complete with melted grid fins in some cases) I'd be completely on-board with the extra landing propellant mitigating heating.

Al grid fins used to get melty during ultra-high-velocity heavy-payload GTO missions with no boostback burn, where ASDS was maximally downrange. RTLS wouldn't have been possible under those circumstances.