Blue Origin thread.

[Beccab]

12 minutes ago, tater said:

Kuiper as a competitor is now waiting on the existence of their ride to space. Perhaps this is the point, and they are not really ready to fly anyway—though they have a time limit to get 50% of the sats up from the point they got permission (6 years?), so timing is a concern.

I believe it's four years now, 2026

[tater]

Looks like FCC auth was done summer 2020.

https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-authorizes-kuiper-satellite-constellation

I remember when Starlink was authorized there was concern about SpaceX being able to launch thousands of them in the limited time available. This is from memory, but I thought it was 50% within 5-6 years otherwise they would have to stop with however many where up at that time.

So Amazon needs half on orbit by 2026.

[CatastrophicFailure]

2 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

Does Ford buy Chevy engines for their cars or do they put their own engines in their cars?

I can say emphatically that Ford (and others) absolutely does buy engines from “competitors” to put in their vehicles. 
 

*laughs in Ford 6.0 diesel*

*cries in Ford 6.0 diesel*

*changes head gasket in Ford 6.0 diesel*

*trades in Ford 6.0 diesel*

[tater]

My Rover has a Ford engine—that Land Rover/Jaguar ruined in an attempt to improve it.

[tater]

Of course Amazon can say that they are in competition with SpaceX (Starlink), so don't want to support that launch provider.

[darthgently]

I thought this video was as good a black box analysis of the challenges with the BE-4 as any (the title is over the top, but the vid is good)

 

Edited April 6, 2022 by darthgently
clarify

[RyanRising]

On 4/6/2022 at 8:05 AM, tater said:

Absolutely, but the other 2 constellations (Starlink and OneWeb) are in fact launching already on rockets that exist (Soyuz/F9).

Kuiper as a competitor is now waiting on the existence of their ride to space. Perhaps this is the point, and they are not really ready to fly anyway—though they have a time limit to get 50% of the sats up from the point they got permission (6 years?), so timing is a concern.

I figured that’s why Kuiper bought nine flights on a rocket that does exist, Atlas V. That should buy them time enough for at least one of the in-dev options to come online.

[sevenperforce]

I was discussing this in my antitrust law class on Tuesday. Would the DOJ and FTC accept a merger between BO and ULA on the theory that they could compete against SpaceX more effectively? What about a Rocketlab/SpaceX joint venture, using the Photon bus with Starlink tech? And if Amazon actually did seek launch services from SpaceX and SpaceX refused, would that be actionable as failure to deal?

[StrandedonEarth]

54 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

I was discussing this in my antitrust law class on Tuesday. Would the DOJ and FTC accept a merger between BO and ULA on the theory that they could compete against SpaceX more effectively? What about a Rocketlab/SpaceX joint venture, using the Photon bus with Starlink tech? And if Amazon actually did seek launch services from SpaceX and SpaceX refused, would that be actionable as failure to deal?

I’m wondering when TPTB will decide to treat space flight like air travel and forbid airframe makers from building engines or running flight services  

E: I suppose I shouldn’t be giving them ideas

Edited April 9, 2022 by StrandedonEarth

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

2 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

actionable as failure to deal?

Under what theory?

They'd have to have a contract first, right?

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

2 hours ago, StrandedonEarth said:

ould the DOJ and FTC accept a merger between BO and ULA on the theory that they could compete against SpaceX more effectively?

The restriction against some of the really large mergers is that they form an unreasonable restraint on trade or promote uncompetitive practices.  BO so far doesn't really have a product in competition with anyone.  They are a tourism launch service provider, at best, with hopes of competing (in the future) in the commercial launch space.  Should BO and ULA merge - the DOJ / FTC would likely only object if in doing so they effectively block other potential providers from access or effectively 'corner the market'.   

The odd thing is that this is an exceptionally 'rarified' economic space: there's already not a lot of competition and the government hasn't seen fit to block what was previously (effectively) a monopoly or protect their traditional suppliers from competition (SX).

It would be stupid to try to shut down SX at the moment, because they're both successful and have reduced costs for the government; in other words they're making this industry competitive... so to worry that they're being anti-competitive is unreasonable (no indication of 'dumping' for example).

Now, if SX were to try to buy ULA and, perhaps, RocketLab - that WOULD look like SX was taking steps toward being uncompetitive... and that would likely be blocked.

Edited April 9, 2022 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[sevenperforce]

2 hours ago, StrandedonEarth said:

I’m wondering when TPTB will decide to treat space flight like air travel and forbid airframe makers from building engines or running flight services  

E: I suppose I shouldn’t be giving them ideas

I’m pretty sure Elon has enough skin in the game to nip THAT in the bud.

13 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Under what theory?

They'd have to have a contract first, right?

No, refusal to deal can be a violation of the Clayton Act. If a company with a natural monopoly (like SpaceX) refuses to extend the same contracts to a potential competitor (like Amazon’s Kuiper) that it extends to otherwise-identical customers, that can be viewed as an unlawful expansion of monopolization in restraint of trade. I think SpaceX would be in the clear here, for numerous reasons, but it is still a potential refusal-to-deal claim.

8 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

The odd thing is that this is an exceptionally 'rarified' economic space: there's already not a lot of competition and the government hasn't seen fit to block what was previously (effectively) a monopoly or protect their traditional suppliers from competition (SX).

It would be stupid to try to shut down SX at the moment, because they're both successful and have reduced costs for the government; in other words they're making this industry competitive... so to worry that they're being anti-competitive is unreasonable (no indication of 'dumping' for example).

That’s what we were discussing. This is such a unique market that it’s hard to know how it should be structured or regulated. And the fact that the upstart is now the monopoly is a huge wrench as well.

Monopolization by dint of natural prowess/ability is not precluded by the Clayton Act. You can absolutely monopolize a market by being the best as long as you don’t do anything fishy to get there. 

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

16 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

Monopolization by dint of natural prowess/ability is not precluded by the Clayton Act. You can absolutely monopolize a market by being the best as long as you don’t do anything fishy to get there. 

That is the clencher.

If you go through the history of the Boeing  shenanigans - they kinda asked for it:

Quote

 

Some government authorities started to grow suspicious of Boeing growing into a monopoly for fear they could later become a thorn in the flesh of the government. They could possibly blackmail governments and customers. So the government would not permit private businesses to grow too much to avoid political and economic imbalance.

Furthermore, conspiracies between airlines in the “Air Mail Scandal“ of 1934 led the US Government to establish an anti-trust regulation forbidding aircraft or engine makers from operating airline service and aircraft manufacturers from manufacturing engines. This forced UATC to split into what later became United Aircraft Corporation and today known as the United Technologies, Boeing, and the United Airlines Company used for commercial air transport.

 

Thus far, SX is providing the government with more affordable services than it enjoyed previously... but should it change its tune?  (i.e. drive others out of the market then jack prices back up)

Then something might be done

[sevenperforce]

9 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Thus far, SX is providing the government with more affordable services than it enjoyed previously... but should it change its tune?  (i.e. drive others out of the market then jack prices back up)

Then something might be done

There would have to be a history of bad acts, like price-fixing conspiracies, before the government would have a basis to break up SpaceX in any way.

One bad act is predatory pricing. If a large market player with significant capital drops its prices very low in order to drive other competitors out of business, planning to increase those prices dramatically in order to recoup, then that can be actionable under the Clayton Act. However, that only happens if (a) the business is actually pricing below cost, and (b) the business has a substantial likelihood of being able to recoup. The launch services market is unique in this regard. Even though SpaceX can offer substantially lower-cost launch services than any competitor, without pricing below cost, the launch customer base still selects other companies. Even if SpaceX did lower its prices below cost, there’s no evidence that this would actually hurt other launch providers any more than they are already being hurt. Which is probably one reason why SpaceX doesn’t lower its launch prices any more than where they currently are.

If Starship, etc. DOES drive every other launch provider out of business, and THEN SpaceX jacks Starship launch costs up…that’s still not actionable because SpaceX acquired this monopoly simply by being the best. A natural monopolist can charge a monopoly price (the monopoly price being the price which maximizes both the number of sales and profit per sale). Amusingly, though, the Starship monopoly price is probably fairly low because SpaceX will make more money in the long run by maximizing the number of launches than by maximizing the profit per launch.

[tater]

Yeah, in the context of this thread (BO) and adding in SpaceX, we have companies run by the 2 richest men on Earth. Both have businesses that make the launch business look like what it in fact is—a good way to LOSE money.

There is no situation in the foreseeable future (IMHO) where launch services becomes a way for these 2 men to make meaningful amounts of money, monopoly or not, whatever the prices might be. Meaningful to them.

I've said it a few times in different threads, but the total available launch market for a US provider is single digit billions annually. Chump change. Risking the hassles of legal action for what is in effect rounding error amounts of money would be really stupid.

[darthgently]

What do people think of the "overly large pump" theory in the following vid?

BE 4 Failure! - Terran Space Academy

https://youtu.be/6zjdAQef3oY

 

Edited April 30, 2022 by darthgently

[Gargamel]

@darthgently Your thread has been merged into the Blue Origin megathread. 

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

6 hours ago, darthgently said:

What do people think of the "overly large pump" theory in the following vid?

BE 4 Failure! - Terran Space Academy

https://youtu.be/6zjdAQef3oY

 

I don't know enough about the issue - but I understand a heck of a lot more now!  That was one of the more informative vids I've seen. 

Combining that with what I gleaned from the excellent vid someone showed recently about the Soviet engines I'd say that the theory may have merit.  (That vid went into the problems and solutions for different sizes / numbers of combustion chambers and pumps). 

 

 

... 

Aside from the number commercials - enjoyed the vid! 

[darthgently]

1 minute ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

I don't know enough about the issue - but I understand a heck of a lot more now!  That was one of the more informative vids I've seen

Yeah, the channel can be a bit grindy at times, but I find myself in the mood for that often after watching a few "space" channels that are way too superficial.   He has a few interesting vids; some very hard science oriented, others a bit more fanciful.

I think we are at a unique point as space fans in that there are  2 "state of the art" larger Methalox engines in the works and the opportunity to compare why one is working so far and the other is hitting speedbumps is a great opportunity to pry out some more understanding. 

It kind of looks like BO just took an RP1 oriented approach and tried to scale it for methane without taking that challenge as seriously as maybe they should have; the methane being a lot less dense so not as "slingable" by the centrifugal pump without spinning the pump at sketchier rpms.   Anyway, I found it interesting and wondered what others might think.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

3 minutes ago, darthgently said:

the methane being a lot less dense so not as "slingable" by the centrifugal pump without spinning the pump at sketchier rpms

That and the chemistry section were the parts where I realized that he was talking to Neanderthals like me, without talking down to us. 

A lot of the other videos either assume the audience knows way more than I do or talks to my 12 year old.  I'll have to check his channel for more. 

[darthgently]

2 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

That and the chemistry section were the parts where I realized that he was talking to Neanderthals like me, without talking down to us. 

I think you nailed it.  I've had gasoline "octane" explained to me several times, and think I "got" it ok, but no one put it together like he did in plain words and linked to daily at the pump experience like he did.  Though he didn't mention engine knock which I kept expecting, but was glad he didn't as that would have too off topic for rockets.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

25 minutes ago, darthgently said:

I think you nailed it.  I've had gasoline "octane" explained to me several times, and think I "got" it ok, but no one put it together like he did in plain words and linked to daily at the pump experience like he did.  Though he didn't mention engine knock which I kept expecting, but was glad he didn't as that would have too off topic for rockets.

Frankly until that video I really had no idea what could be behind the delay of the BE-4.  I'll read some of our fellow Forumites trading theories and feel kinda like the kid at Sears moving his head back and forth trying to understand what the grown-ups are talking about... 

Seeing the weight comparison was telling, too. 

Thing is - if he's right about the fuel (soot and polymerization) and BE-4 ends up not being a reusable or efficiently reusable rocket... Is BO 'pot committed' to building /producing these? 

Can they bespoke a few to ULA to close out the contracts and take the lessons learned and iterate a new version that will be efficiently reusable as the New Glenn engine? 

 

... 

 

 

(The part I just don't know enough about is whether the problems he identified are actually the issues, and if so, whether they can be fixed... Or whether (if correct) they'd be better served by a new design) 

Edited April 30, 2022 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[mikegarrison]

30 minutes ago, darthgently said:

I think you nailed it.  I've had gasoline "octane" explained to me several times, and think I "got" it ok, but no one put it together like he did in plain words and linked to daily at the pump experience like he did.  Though he didn't mention engine knock which I kept expecting, but was glad he didn't as that would have too off topic for rockets.

Just keep in mind that the octane numbers on the pump are not actually % octane. They are the equivalent % octane with respect to auto-ignition, which is why fuel for high pressure racing engines can have octane numbers over 100. 

[darthgently]

8 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Frankly until that video I really had no idea what could be behind the delay of the BE-4.  I'll read some of our fellow Forumites trading theories and feel kinda like the kid at Sears moving his head back and forth trying to understand what the grown-ups are talking about... 

Seeing the weight comparison was telling, too. 

Thing is - if he's right about the fuel (soot and polymerization) and BE-4 ends up not being a reusable or efficiently reusable rocket... Is BO 'pot committed' to building /producing these? 

Can they bespoke a few to ULA to close out the contracts and take the lessons learned and iterate a new version that will be efficiently reusable as the New Glenn engine?

(The part I just don't know enough about is whether the problems he identified are actually the issues, and if so, whether they can be fixed... Or whether (if correct) they'd be better served by a new design) 

Yeah, a lot of questions.  I don't think he is saying that it won't work, but thinks it will be hard to make them reusable because of the high stresses on the pump.  Of course people are saying analogous things about Raptor 2 chamber pressures cutting into reusability.   It will be interesting to see how it shakes out

[Gargamel]

52 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

That and the chemistry section were the parts where I realized that he was talking to Neanderthals like me, without talking down to us. 

A lot of the other videos either assume the audience knows way more than I do or talks to my 12 year old.  I'll have to check his channel for more. 

Well, now I'll have to take a gander at this channel.   Thanks Joe and @darthgently.