Blue Origin thread.

[CatastrophicFailure]

Nice curtains… 

[Spaceception]

I actually really like the look of the new lander. And they're adding some interesting elements to it. Also still working on hydrolox, and a way to get long term propellent storage to work?  Wonder if there will be any work with ULA on that considering the parent companies are a part of the team, we could see an ACES revival. Or New Glenn's own second stage/JARVIS could employ it as well for LEO to Lunar payloads. It seems losing the last bid really led them to improving on the original design. And it has a respectable payload mass to the surface. I don't think anything's going to really touch Starship for a while, so just seeing it well in the double digits is cool to see. What was it last time? About the same? Iirc Blue Moon is like 5-ish tonnes or so.

[darthgently]

What are the airbrake/curtain looking parts hanging from the top corners?  Sunshades? PVs? Radiators? Sorry if I missed an explanation up-thread

[tater]

A better version would continue the stacked ring design (around the tanks) such that the crew pod was inside a ring that supported the gear.

7 minutes ago, darthgently said:

What are the airbrake/curtain looking parts hanging from the top corners?  Sunshades? PVs? Radiators? Sorry if I missed an explanation up-thread

radiators. Maybe the upper tank is H2? Also a sunscreen.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

13 hours ago, tater said:

 

Interesting. Toroidal tanks with a pass through for crew?

 

I'm guessing this lander still has the engines on the bottom?

Why do we not see designs with (*) some kind of landing engine up higher on the rocket and pointed down at an angle to allow some offset between the rocket and the regolith?

 

 

*there has to be a name for what I'm describing... I just don't know it.  The SS/SH launch plume makes me now think that landing anything with some tonnage to it would need to have the landing rockets elevated - and maybe angled away from the craft itself.

[tater]

19 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

I'm guessing this lander still has the engines on the bottom?

Why do we not see designs with (*) some kind of landing engine up higher on the rocket and pointed down at an angle to allow some offset between the rocket and the regolith?

 

 

*there has to be a name for what I'm describing... I just don't know it.  The SS/SH launch plume makes me now think that landing anything with some tonnage to it would need to have the landing rockets elevated - and maybe angled away from the craft itself.

SpaceX has that currently (high landing engines, canted). This seems to have bottom mounted engines. Higher would allow for what is the crew compartment to be a "pod" and left as cargo. That would be what I would do.

[FleshJeb]

1 hour ago, tater said:

That would be what I would do.

I've been thinking about starting a thread about how we all would design a set of lunar missions and the long term infrastructure. I'm just not well-versed enough in the specifics of current tech to feel like I could do a good job with a starting post. Perhaps you or someone else would like to take that on? I bet it would be really interesting.

[kerbiloid]

10 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

I'm guessing this lander still has the engines on the bottom?

No need.
It has the retracted airbrakes on top, and every educated person knows that the lunar gravity is 6 times weaker.  

23 hours ago, tater said:

Toroidal tanks with a pass through for crew?

No need.
They have a welcome mat outside, and slippers inside.

Also they have a lampshade sticking out from the habitat ceiling. The engine nozzles are usually polished.

***

Spoiler

One way ticket, one way ticket to the 

 

[tater]

Looking at the image they posted closer, there are latches visible at the top of the vehicle. Presumably for the tug to attach.

[sevenperforce]

13 hours ago, FleshJeb said:

I've been thinking about starting a thread about how we all would design a set of lunar missions and the long term infrastructure. I'm just not well-versed enough in the specifics of current tech to feel like I could do a good job with a starting post. Perhaps you or someone else would like to take that on? I bet it would be really interesting.

I think we’ve had similar discussions…in fact I think I made such a thread once 

[tater]

I found this image a few years ago and posted it in the SSTU thread at some point I think:

 

 

 

This could totally be done with the BO lander.

The BO, BM lander... their naming chops are... poor.

An expended lander they say can land 30t. A couple ~6m dia modules is less than that.

Kibo was delivered to ISS by Shuttle and was 15.9t. ~4.4m dia, ~11.2m length.

[tater]

North American Rockwell was bought by Boeing, right? Part of the National Team.

[Barzon]

On 5/20/2023 at 1:01 AM, tater said:

A better version would continue the stacked ring design (around the tanks) such that the crew pod was inside a ring that supported the gear.

radiators. Maybe the upper tank is H2? Also a sunscreen.

as stated in the conference the Upper tank is LH2 yes.

[tater]

Adding side rails for mounting cargo pods as the above diagrams from the 70s show would be ideal for their CONOPS. They could deliver containerized cargo—where in some/all cases the container IS the cargo (or part of it) with their tug, or via another cargo delivery service to Gateway. Use arm on Gateway to attach cargo to Lander. Fly.

[tater]

Pretty much the BO lander, except 15 feet dia instead of ~20 ft.

[tater]

The deck height is really low in that old design. Based on pixel counting using the 216 inches on the right, I estimate the deck height at 6.25 feet (1.9m). The BO lander looks to have ~4.8m of vertical space available (maybe less). They could loft 4 bunks—sorta like Japanese pod hotel "rooms" above the main deck, so the floor space is 100% available for airlock, piloting, gear, toilet, etc.

 

[Barzon]

15 hours ago, tater said:

The deck height is really low in that old design. Based on pixel counting using the 216 inches on the right, I estimate the deck height at 6.25 feet (1.9m). The BO lander looks to have ~4.8m of vertical space available (maybe less). They could loft 4 bunks—sorta like Japanese pod hotel "rooms" above the main deck, so the floor space is 100% available for airlock, piloting, gear, toilet, etc.

 

How are you calculating that 4.8m? My rough workings give a max of ~4.4m.

Edited May 22, 2023 by Barzon

[tater]

4 hours ago, Barzon said:

How are you calculating that 4.8m? My rough workings give a max of ~4.4m.

I get 4.1m if I stick to the white, if I include the gold foil on the bottom it's 4.8m (not knowing how far down the pressure vessel goes.

Regardless, plenty of headroom to loft some bunks, have under deck storage, etc.

Also depends on how accurate the 6m dia is, where they measure for that, etc.

[sevenperforce]

I'm really liking this design. Keeping that lightweight hydrogen up top will (among other things) help keep the whole thing much more bottom-heavy, which is an advantage over prior designs and over Starship.

[tater]

Does anyone know how big Be-7 is?

1 minute ago, sevenperforce said:

I'm really liking this design. Keeping that lightweight hydrogen up top will (among other things) help keep the whole thing much more bottom-heavy, which is an advantage over prior designs and over Starship.

I think if this had been the first design, they would have won.

It is funny that with all the refilling ops required it is also "immensely complex, and high risk."

[darthgently]

1 hour ago, tater said:

Does anyone know how big Be-7 is?

I think if this had been the first design, they would have won.

It is funny that with all the refilling ops required it is also "immensely complex, and high risk."

As for refueling vehicles, Starship tanker is still the closest to viability.  Maybe BM will be refueling from SpaceX.  Acceptable.  More cooperation with just enough competition is good

[tater]

24 minutes ago, darthgently said:

As for refueling vehicles, Starship tanker is still the closest to viability.  Maybe BM will be refueling from SpaceX.  Acceptable.  More cooperation with just enough competition is good

Setting up a propellant depot is a good idea, but SpaceX is not using hydrolox. The trouble would be that the pad would need plumbing for that assuming a hydrolox payload was carried as cargo.

BO is using hydrolox under the assumption that water ice might someday lead to lunar propellants.

[tater]

I'd really like to see them embrace the... "outrigger cargo" concept from the 70s. The largest issue I see with this vehicle is the small crew volume.

6m dia means ~28m² of floor area to start with. Now, subtract the space for the engines. My best guess on the engines is ~1.2m-1.3m dia (there's a tweet with engines next to a cinder block wall). Slop it up to 1.3.

They say "engines," so >1. If 2 engines, no gimbal (not needed for a vac vehicle, that's what RCS is for) then they can fit 2 in a 2.6m circle. Smallest is 2.81m for 3 engines

So the internal volume lost is 5.3m², or 6.2m². That means our floor area is 22.7m2, or 21.8m2. Luckily they only need controls, airlock, and a bathroom in that space, they can loft the sleeping quarters.

[sevenperforce]

2 hours ago, tater said:

Does anyone know how big Be-7 is?

I haven't seen it depicted with any decent scale other than in some of the Blue Moon mockups which were inflatable and thus likely not to be trusted.

I believe it's an dual expander bleed cycle, so I'm expecting it to have slightly better thrust/area and thrust/weight characteristics than an RL10, but slightly worse specific impulse. It pushes 44.5 kN. Pixel counting from this image suggests an expansion ratio of around 88:1 which makes sense and is comparable to the RL10-A-4 line's expansion ratio of 84:1. The RL10-A-4 has a thrust/area ratio of 53.9 kPa and a thrust/weight of 60.3, so plugging in these numbers for the BE-7's lower thrust would suggest a nozzle diameter of around 1.03 m, an overall length of 1.25 m, and a weight of 274 kg. Given the expected improvements in thrust from the dual expander cycle, we can expect these numbers to be overestimates (although the length will likely remain about the same, especially given that the BE-7 uses an aggressively cylindrical thrust chamber).

If it's not a bleed cycle, the numbers may only be slightly improved over the RL10.

One thing that's been discussed with the BE-7 is that the O/F ratio is a carefully guarded secret. It's possible, then, that they are going with some unique architecture that deviates heavily from typical O/F, like a partial bleed cycle. For example, they could have a closed full-flow hydrogen expander cycle on the hydrogen side, but an open split expander cycle on the LOX turbopump in order to squeeze out higher chamber pressures at the expense of an O/F ratio that is closer to stoichiometric. That would help with reducing the bulk and mass of the hydrogen tanks. On the other hand, they could be doing a closed split expander on the LOX side but an open split expander on the hydrogen side, dumping the hydrogen turbine exhaust downstream. This would both help with film cooling (note that Tom Mueller specifically thought the BE-7 was running with too much film cooling) and increase the efficiency a little over a normal expander bleed without sacrificing improved chamber pressures; it would require a much lower O/F ratio.

47 minutes ago, tater said:

Setting up a propellant depot is a good idea, but SpaceX is not using hydrolox. The trouble would be that the pad would need plumbing for that assuming a hydrolox payload was carried as cargo.

Maybe it's got a very high O/F ratio and they're only expecting to take on LOX from SpaceX and will launch extra LH2 with New Glenn.

16 minutes ago, tater said:

They say "engines," so >1. If 2 engines, no gimbal (not needed for a vac vehicle, that's what RCS is for) then they can fit 2 in a 2.6m circle. Smallest is 2.81m for 3 engines

I would be very surprised if there was no gimbal at all.

[tater]

6 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

I would be very surprised if there was no gimbal at all.

The LM didn't gimbal.

One thing I did forget is that the actual floor is well above the boom of the gold foil area.

So even with room for some gimbal, they could likely have a smaller loss since they won't need the largest dia of the engine bell to be the cut out. Only the part actually inside the crew area. Maybe they can only have a 1m pillar? Maybe smaller, and tapered.

10 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

Maybe it's got a very high O/F ratio and they're only expecting to take on LOX from SpaceX and will launch extra LH2 with New Glenn.

Yeah, true. A large prop depot would be awesome.

Some day a stoke lander as well