darthgently Posted April 30, 2022 Share Posted April 30, 2022 On 4/30/2022 at 2:13 AM, JoeSchmuckatelli said: 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? Expand I'd like to think they are already internally going this direction. Even if what is sketched out in the video isn't the main obstacle, clearly they are pushing some boundary that maybe they can avoid altogether. I think the idea of bespokes for ULA to make near term contracts in parallel with a BE-4.1 design would be a good thing. They need to make mistakes faster! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthgently Posted May 2, 2022 Share Posted May 2, 2022 (edited) Does anyone have a video to back up the story below? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (at this point). Fingers crossed this is for real PQE-602 was the first of Blue Origin’s flight-configuration BE-4 engines that we assembled and tested, achieving consistent and repeated mission duty cycle hotfires for over 2,500 seconds of test https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1521204209516834816 Edited May 2, 2022 by darthgently Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultimate Steve Posted May 2, 2022 Share Posted May 2, 2022 On 5/2/2022 at 7:39 PM, darthgently said: Does anyone have a video to back up the story below? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (at this point). Fingers crossed this is for real PQE-602 was the first of Blue Origin’s flight-configuration BE-4 engines that we assembled and tested, achieving consistent and repeated mission duty cycle hotfires for over 2,500 seconds of test https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1521204209516834816 Expand I mean it's straight from the official Twitter. As slow as they have been I don't think that they would lie to our face like that, so I believe it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthgently Posted May 2, 2022 Share Posted May 2, 2022 On 5/2/2022 at 7:52 PM, Ultimate Steve said: I mean it's straight from the official Twitter. As slow as they have been I don't think that they would lie to our face like that, so I believe it. Expand Given I got the link from Twitter, I am aware of the source. So your answer is "no", you do not have a link to a video. I'm pretty nearly certain video exists as it is very hard to imagine any engineers running tests on rocket engines these days without getting video. Hopefully it is posted somewhere soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted May 2, 2022 Share Posted May 2, 2022 We as space fans can want everyone to be transparent about their dev cycles for our own amusement, but they can do what they like. I have no reason to disbelieve them, it's already late for Be-4, them being good to go X years late doesn't seem unlikely. ULA seems to think they will be getting stuff soon, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthgently Posted May 2, 2022 Share Posted May 2, 2022 On 5/2/2022 at 8:21 PM, tater said: We as space fans can want everyone to be transparent about their dev cycles for our own amusement, but they can do what they like. I have no reason to disbelieve them, it's already late for Be-4, them being good to go X years late doesn't seem unlikely. ULA seems to think they will be getting stuff soon, etc. Expand But I want to see BIG FIRE SHOOTING OUT OF A ROCKET ENGINE for 41 minutes. Is that so much to ask for? I really think you guys are missing the point. And besides, given the tax dollars that have gone into these engines, we are paying customers and deserve a video of big fire shooting out of a rocket engine. Just saying Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeSchmuckatelli Posted May 2, 2022 Share Posted May 2, 2022 On 5/2/2022 at 8:28 PM, darthgently said: tax dollars... And... paying customers Expand . Ummmm. As someone who has both received and spent a LOT of tax-payer money... No. (I get it - seeing rocket stuff is cool... But there is no legal or other onus for them or anyone to share videos for the entertainment value) ... (I know you know... and you know, I get it) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthgently Posted May 2, 2022 Share Posted May 2, 2022 On 5/2/2022 at 8:58 PM, JoeSchmuckatelli said: Ummmm. As someone who has both received and spent a LOT of tax-payer money... No. (I get it - seeing rocket stuff is cool... But there is no legal or other onus for them or anyone to share videos for the entertainment value) (I know you know... and you know, I get it) Expand I completely disagree. Unless there is some security issue involved, all things taxpayers fund should have very public demonstrations, test, etc. That said, I was really just saying I'd really like to see it and think we've earned the right to see it. I just want to compare its mach diamonds and flame color to other engines etc. I want to enjoy the fruit of our funding, lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuessingEveryDay Posted May 2, 2022 Share Posted May 2, 2022 On 5/2/2022 at 9:05 PM, darthgently said: I completely disagree. Unless there is some security issue involved, all things taxpayers fund should have very public demonstrations, test, etc. That said, I was really just saying I'd really like to see it and think we've earned the right to see it. I just want to compare its mach diamonds and flame color to other engines etc. I want to enjoy the fruit of our funding, lol. Expand SpaceX has spoiled us when it comes to public testing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeSchmuckatelli Posted May 2, 2022 Share Posted May 2, 2022 On 5/2/2022 at 9:41 PM, GuessingEveryDay said: SpaceX has spoiled us when it comes to public testing. Expand Truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted May 2, 2022 Share Posted May 2, 2022 (edited) On 5/2/2022 at 9:41 PM, GuessingEveryDay said: SpaceX has spoiled us when it comes to public testing. Expand Some is them hosting real livestreams of texts (Starship hops), some is just the fact that randos have set up cameras right outside the TINY facility at Boca Chica. We think of it as a huge rocket factory, but Bezos's ranch in W TX is what, half the size of Rhode Island? Harder for the neighbors to snoop. Edited May 2, 2022 by tater Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted May 2, 2022 Share Posted May 2, 2022 On 5/2/2022 at 9:05 PM, darthgently said: I completely disagree. Unless there is some security issue involved, all things taxpayers fund should have very public demonstrations, test, etc. That said, I was really just saying I'd really like to see it and think we've earned the right to see it. I just want to compare its mach diamonds and flame color to other engines etc. I want to enjoy the fruit of our funding, lol. Expand Well, you’re getting the updates and status reports, which is all the taxpayers really merit. Videos are just entertainment, and presumably have proprietary info which the taxpayers are not entitled to. On 5/2/2022 at 8:28 PM, darthgently said: But I want to see BIG FIRE SHOOTING OUT OF A ROCKET ENGINE for 41 minutes. Expand I really doubt any engine ran for 41 minutes continuously. I doubt they have that much tankage available, and they would presumably want to stop for inspections. That very public demo will be when Vulcan launches, and with flight engines in the final building stages, Mr Bruno seems optimistic it will be this year, and he would be the one to know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthgently Posted May 2, 2022 Share Posted May 2, 2022 On 5/2/2022 at 11:52 PM, StrandedonEarth said: I really doubt any engine ran for 41 minutes continuously. Expand I was just going by their claim that they ran it for 2500 seconds; they wouldn't lie, right? Just kidding; surely was not continuous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted May 3, 2022 Share Posted May 3, 2022 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotius Posted May 3, 2022 Share Posted May 3, 2022 Bodes well for landing attempts! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted May 3, 2022 Share Posted May 3, 2022 On 5/3/2022 at 3:20 PM, tater said: Expand I'm always curious -- with an engine in this thrust class, how close could you physically be, sustained, without dying? What about without injury? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kerwood Floyd Posted May 3, 2022 Share Posted May 3, 2022 On 5/3/2022 at 6:44 PM, sevenperforce said: I'm always curious -- with an engine in this thrust class, how close could you physically be, sustained, without dying? What about without injury? Expand I have absolutely no physics or math to back this up, but I suspect that you will suffer permanent hearing damage before you are close enough to incur other injury. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted May 3, 2022 Share Posted May 3, 2022 On 5/3/2022 at 6:55 PM, Kerwood Floyd said: On 5/3/2022 at 6:44 PM, sevenperforce said: I'm always curious -- with an engine in this thrust class, how close could you physically be, sustained, without dying? What about without injury? Expand I have absolutely no physics or math to back this up, but I suspect that you will suffer permanent hearing damage before you are close enough to incur other injury. Expand Oh, I think you're absolutely right. I'm assuming it goes: Loud zone Pain zone Eventually deaf zone Instantly deaf zone Physical injury zone Eventually dead zone Instantly dead zone Vaporization zone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kerwood Floyd Posted May 3, 2022 Share Posted May 3, 2022 None of which, of course, answers your original question, which boils down to, what are the radiuses of those zones? A very interesting question, that I certainly can't answer. But I'll bet someone, somewhere, somewhen has done the calcs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted May 3, 2022 Share Posted May 3, 2022 On 5/3/2022 at 6:44 PM, sevenperforce said: I'm always curious -- with an engine in this thrust class, how close could you physically be, sustained, without dying? What about without injury? Expand I would say deafness counts as injury… Definitely not this close… That would probably blast you right off the tower but it doesn’t appear to be actually flame-broiling. Probably roasty-toasty from radiated heat nonetheless… Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted May 3, 2022 Share Posted May 3, 2022 On 5/3/2022 at 8:14 PM, Kerwood Floyd said: None of which, of course, answers your original question, which boils down to, what are the radiuses of those zones? A very interesting question, that I certainly can't answer. But I'll bet someone, somewhere, somewhen has done the calcs. Expand When Apollo 4 launched, the sound pressure caused ceiling tiles to drop at a distance of three miles. Once they upgraded the deluge system it wasn't so bad, though. On 5/3/2022 at 8:17 PM, StrandedonEarth said: I would say deafness counts as injury… Definitely not this close… That would probably blast you right off the tower but it doesn’t appear to be actually flame-broiling. Probably roasty-toasty from radiated heat nonetheless… Expand I suspect your organs would start to liquefy somewhere around the three-second mark. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codraroll Posted May 3, 2022 Share Posted May 3, 2022 On 5/3/2022 at 6:44 PM, sevenperforce said: I'm always curious -- with an engine in this thrust class, how close could you physically be, sustained, without dying? What about without injury? Expand In addition to what has previously been mentioned, it's also a matter of exposure time. If you just flew fast enough by the rocket plume (although not necessarily through it, as it would involve a rather painful collision with the ejected matter), you might survive to go much closer than you would if you approached it at walking pace. Then the question partially becomes a matter of how fast you can survive gliding through the air at atmospheric pressure, before the addition of exposure to a rocket plume makes things unsurvivable. I'm pretty sure this can be calculated somehow, but it is probably the kind of calculation that would involve your WolframAlpha account being soft banned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuessingEveryDay Posted May 3, 2022 Share Posted May 3, 2022 On 5/3/2022 at 7:52 PM, sevenperforce said: I'm assuming it goes: Loud zone Pain zone Eventually deaf zone Instantly deaf zone Physical injury zone Eventually dead zone Instantly dead zone Vaporization zone Expand So you're saying I can get closer to a rocket launch than anyone else... Sounds like a fun plan for Friday when Starlink gets launched, again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeSchmuckatelli Posted May 5, 2022 Share Posted May 5, 2022 On 5/3/2022 at 11:16 PM, GuessingEveryDay said: So you're saying I can get closer to a rocket launch than anyone else... Sounds like a fun plan for Friday when Starlink gets launched, again. Expand I wouldn't bet on that - while I have never stood close to any rocket not measured in hundreds of millimeters (diameter)... Those I have and the 120mm and 155mm cannons I've been immediately adjacent to when firing leave an impression whether you can hear them or not. ...or perhaps I should use the word compression. These things (my stuff) are already such a physical experience distinct from the sound (which is daunting enough) that I think even a deaf from birth person would be affected virtually identically as a hearing person just from the sheer physical impact Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted May 5, 2022 Share Posted May 5, 2022 On 5/5/2022 at 1:59 AM, JoeSchmuckatelli said: I wouldn't bet on that - while I have never stood close to any rocket not measured in hundreds of millimeters (diameter)... Those I have and the 120mm and 155mm cannons I've been immediately adjacent to when firing leave an impression whether you can hear them or not. ...or perhaps I should use the word compression. These things (my stuff) are already such a physical experience distinct from the sound (which is daunting enough) that I think even a deaf from birth person would be affected virtually identically as a hearing person just from the sheer physical impact Expand I would tend to agree. For instance, riding a ferry, passengers feel the engine more than they hear it. I imagine a deaf person would be more attuned to the vibrations of the world around them, and should definitely be able to feel a rocket launch if close enough, without being too close. I must admit, @GuessingEveryDay, that now I'm curious as to just what level/frequencies of infrasound you can detect, like a loud subwoofer. But that's a question for another thread. Perhaps you wouldn't mind posting about it in the Fun Facts! thread, or creating a thread in The Lounge? If not, I understand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.