Amazons Jeff Bezo Blue Origins First Successful Launch - No sign of landing though

_Tombstone_

_Tombstone_ wrote: »

Blue Os next rocket sounds fair beast of a yoke but a bit away at 2019, the BE-4, 550,000 pounds of thrust vs 170,000 pounds in a Falcon. 3.2 Falcons so. Both Reusable.

The US Air Force has decided to support them (and their ULA Partner) with many millions - initially 46mil - to get themselves off having to use the Russian RD-180 that they currently use to send up all their spy sh1t.

The BE-4 will go in ULAs next gen Vulcan Rocket.


Not to feel left out SpaceX got $33.6 million for Rocket Development, Orbital ATK - 47 Mil - Orbital ATK believes in satellite servicing, but not rocket reusability

And some other bunch - Aerojet Rocketdyne believes the liquid oxygen/kerosene-fueled AR1 to be the first engine produced in the United States to use an advanced oxidizer-rich staged combustion kerosene engine cycle - $115 Mil.

So they needed at least 2 but are backing 4.


http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/organizations/ula/race-replace-rd-180-goes-full-throttle/

http://www.geekwire.com/2016/blue-origin-ula-and-aerojet-strike-deals-with-pentagon-for-made-in-usa-rocket-engines/

More on this^

ULA intends to lower its costs, and raise its cool, to compete with SpaceX

It still views SpaceX’s Falcon 9 reusability design – returning the full first stage – as “dumb” given the huge amount of fuel needed to bring the stage back. ULA’s plan for its future Vulcan rocket is to separate the Vulcan’s main-stage engines, cover them in a package that deploys a parachute and then scoop them up in midair with a helicopter.

nokia69

It still views SpaceX’s Falcon 9 reusability design – returning the full first stage – as “dumb” given the huge amount of fuel needed to bring the stage back. ULA’s plan for its future Vulcan rocket is to separate the Vulcan’s main-stage engines, cover them in a package that deploys a parachute and then scoop them up in midair with a helicopter

I don't really believe this, IMO ULA can't copy spaceX is because their new Vulcan first stage needs be compatible with their Atlas and Delta upperstages and tooling, so they won't be able to throttle down the engine low enough to get the right trust to weight ratio for a soft landing, like the Falcon 9

If they were starting off with a 100% new rocket I bet they would try to re create their own version of the Falcon 9, it will be very interesting to see how big the rockets Blue will build using the same engine

Its not looking great for ULA

Hmmzis

The main reason for ULA not being able to do propulsive landing of fist stages is that the current Centaur upper stage, while being very efficient, doesn't have sufficient thrust to get meaningful payloads to high energy orbits if the first stage would reserve fuel for a propulsive landing.
The Atlas V and Delta IV rely on their first stages to do the vast majority of the heavy lifting work. Staging happens very late for both vehicles so the upper stage has enough time to use a low thrust high Isp engine to get to its destination. The Mvac in turn is a beast of an engine in comparison to the RL10 and provides loads of thrust for the upper stage therefore the first stage can drop off earlier and have some fuel left for a landing. The trouble with a kerolox upper stage is the woeful Isp it gets so high energy orbits are an issue hence the Raptor upper stage development.

If ULA makes their ACES upper stage with a good bit of higher thrust than the current Centaur they could also go with propulsive landings as the BE-4 is designed to be very deep throttleable (down to 30% or so).

nokia69

Hmmzis wrote: »

If ULA makes their ACES upper stage with a good bit of higher thrust than the current Centaur they could aslo go with propulsive landings as the BE-4 is designed to be very deep throttleable (down to 30% or so).

but is 30% low enough, I think it might easier with more engines, Blue will clearly build a better rocket using the same engine because they don't need to work within the same constraints

Its very strange to see ULA buying an engine from a future competitor, I doubt SpaceX would sell engines to ULA

Hmmzis

nokia69 wrote: »

but is 30% low enough, I think it might easier with more engines, Blue will clearly build a better rocket using the same engine because they don't need to work within the same constraints

Should be enough I think. The estimated thrust for the BE-4 is said to be 2400kN (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BE-4) and at 30% that gives a thrust of 720kN. In comparison the Merlin 1D at full throttle is capable of 730kN at sea level and the last barging attempt was tried with 3 M1Ds firing (didn't work out too well, but there's hope). SpX also do all of the retro burns with 3 engines firing and the single engine landing burn would most likely be at the highest thrust setting they can get out of it as it would reduce gravity losses.
If the first stage of the Vulcan/Atlas is in the same dry mass category as the Falcon 9 then the BE-4 should be grand for propulsive landings.
There is an interesting thread on NSF about pushing the limits of the hoverslam landing - http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39267.0

Its very strange to see ULA buying an engine from a future competitor, I doubt SpaceX would sell engines to ULA

I would think that nobody would really want to buy the M1D as rocket engines are generally not exactly plug&play devices. The rockets have to be built around the engines. If I recall correctly then SpX were selling the Merlin 1C model for a while for 5 million $ a pop but nobody bought a single one so they don't bother anymore.

nokia69

Hmmzis wrote: »

In comparison the Merlin 1D at full throttle is capable of 730kN at sea level and the last barging attempt was tried with 3 M1Ds firing (didn't work out too well, but there's hope)

we know it works, they are just need to iron out the kinks, are you sure they used 3 engines for the landing, I thought it was only 1

Hmmzis wrote: »

SpX also do all of the retro burns with 3 engines firing and the single engine landing burn would most likely be at the highest thrust setting they can get out of it as it would reduce gravity losses.

My point is that with more engines you have greater control over the throttle, one engine out of nine at full trust gives a lower % throttle than one engine out of two at 30%, I doubt 9 merlins is the best number of engines for reuse, SpaceX just got lucky that it works in this case, in the early days it was going to be a Falcon 5, which may not have worked, who knows

Hmmzis wrote: »

If the first stage of the Vulcan/Atlas is in the same dry mass category as the Falcon 9 then the BE-4 should be grand for propulsive landings.
There is an interesting thread on NSF about pushing the limits of the hoverslam landing - http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39267.0

but if thats the case then why not try it from the start, I see what you mean about needing a better upper stage, but the Vulcan FS is more powerful than the Atlas and they also have the option of strap on solids, so IMO the only logical reason is its not possible with only two BE-4s

I suppose we will know more when Blue give more details of the rockets they intend to build with the BE-4, I suspect they won't be using a helicopter to catch engines

Hmmzis

nokia69 wrote: »

we know it works, they are just need to iron out the kinks, are you sure they used 3 engines for the landing, I thought it was only 1

We know it works with one engine and it should work also with 3 or even with all 9 firing for the landing (given the stage can survive the insane T/W ratio). Normally they would do a landing burn with only the centre engine. The landing burn for SES-9 was with 3 engines and that punched a hole in the barge due to one engine running on too low thrust (running on fumes literally).

My point is that with more engines you have greater control over the throttle, one engine out of nine at full trust gives a lower % throttle than one engine out of two at 30%, I doubt 9 merlins is the best number of engines for reuse, SpaceX just got lucky that it works in this case, in the early days it was going to be a Falcon 5, which may not have worked, who knows

That's true but would it really matter if the landing burn has to start 20 seconds before touchdown as currently for the F9 with one engine firing or 15 seconds or even 10 seconds for the BE-4 at 40% of max thrust? For a guidance computer those sort of time frames would still leave enough wiggle room for any thrust and course corrections needed. In any case there is no escaping of the hoverslam for a propulsive landing of an almost empty stage.
I think the 9 engine arrangement on the F9 is a good compromise between engine out capability, reuse and geometric arrangement. The F5 was just a study and they found that it would be better to just have the one F9 rocket that can do more and is still cheaper than anything else out there.

but if thats the case then why not try it from the start, I see what you mean about needing a better upper stage, but the Vulcan FS is more powerful than the Atlas and they also have the option of strap on solids, so IMO the only logical reason is its not possible with only two BE-4s

I suppose we will know more when Blue give more details of the rockets they intend to build with the BE-4, I suspect they won't be using a helicopter to catch engines

That is the question here I think. From the back of the envelope calculations that I've seen so far the Vulcan/Atlas could do propulsive landings with the BE-4 engine (3-4 of them on S1). Personally I think it's more of engineering thinking inertia at ULA. For decades the engineers there have been drilled with trying to squeeze out the last bit of performance margins from flight hardware and the available fuel to get the most mass up they possibly can. While BO and SpX thinking is very different to that. They are happy to sacrifice upmass capacity to get a shot at reuse and just build a bigger rocket and add upgrades to compensate. The advertised payload capacity to LEO for an F9 is 13.1 metric tons but realistically it could lift way more than that if it would fly in fully expendable mode (closer to 20t to LEO). For GTO the advertised capacity for F9 is 4.8t but SES-9 was 5.3t and it went to a slightly super synch orbit while still having some margin for a DPL attempt.

_Tombstone_

3rd time landing for this Rocket now. Vid later on sometime.

http://www.engadget.com/2016/04/01/jeff-bezos-blue-origin-will-launch-its-rocket-a-third-time/
http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/04/jeff-bezos-is-live-tweeting-todays-blue-origin-launch/

nokia69

_Tombstone_

Manned flight next year, passengers in 2018, somewhere in the Tens of Thousands to get ready for a relauch with each Rocket expected to be able for at least 100 launches. The odd experiment. New Rocket coming next year developed for the useless lazy ULA whose fat Government paychecks are no longer a certainty and who can no longer rely on Russian Rockets to do their lifting.

Pretty much sums them up. Whats the point except for a plaything for the rich?

Another vid of launch, since he announced it this time some people were waiting. Nice sound of it.

nokia69

_Tombstone_ wrote: »

Manned flight next year, passengers in 2018

Thats a bit conservative IMO, their system looks safe enough to me, a few more tests and plenty of people would be willing to take a trip this year

Ghost Train

nokia69 wrote: »

Thats a bit conservative IMO, their system looks safe enough to me, a few more tests and plenty of people would be willing to take a trip this year

They've only had three or four flights and it's less than a year since the first, so still early days
Good interview here about what it takes to get something human rated for nasa
http://www.airspacemag.com/ist/?next=/space-exploration/Certified-Safe.html

nokia69

I know its NASA or maybe FAA holding them back, but by the end of the year at this rate they could have more than 10 successful flights

_Tombstone_

_Tombstone_ wrote: »

Whats the point except for a plaything for the rich?

http://www.geekwire.com/2016/interview-jeff-bezos/

nokia69

_Tombstone_

Blue Origin will risk blowing up one of its rockets to test the crew escape system, and stream it live

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5i-f-D_A-M

josip

Everything worked ok it seems.

http://newatlas.com/new-shepard-survives-escape-test/45771/

Maximus Alexander

It's not much of a rocket though really is it.

josip

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

It's not much of a rocket though really is it.

The source of that article is obvious when you read "continued on into space" without mentioning the final altitude it reached.

Still, every successful launch/test by Blue Origin helps to maintain the competitive aspect of the private space market.
Not sure whether they'll end up competing with SpaceX or Virgin Galactic in the end though. Not sure they know either.

Capt'n Midnight

josip wrote: »

The source of that article is obvious when you read "continued on into space" without mentioning the final altitude it reached.

Still, every successful launch/test by Blue Origin helps to maintain the competitive aspect of the private space market.
Not sure whether they'll end up competing with SpaceX or Virgin Galactic in the end though. Not sure they know either.

Altitude means almost nothing.

V2's got that high, and they used 20% water in the fuel which was low energy to begin with, and they didn't save weight with integrated tanks.

And didn't the capsule gyrate wildly and didn't it have a hard landing too ?
Still a long way to go.

Maximus Alexander

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Altitude means almost nothing.

V2's got that high, and they used 20% water in the fuel which was low energy to begin with, and they didn't save weight with integrated tanks.

And didn't the capsule gyrate wildly and didn't it have a hard landing too ?
Still a long way to go.

Is that not the point he was making? The articles reads 'continued on to space' which just means that its peak altitude was somewhere above 100km, which is meaningless. The implication being that the article is sourced from a Blue Origin press release or something.

Capt'n Midnight

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Is that not the point he was making? The articles reads 'continued on to space' which just means that its peak altitude was somewhere above 100km, which is meaningless. The implication being that the article is sourced from a Blue Origin press release or something.

Getting to 100Km as you point out is meaningless. Staying at 100Km is what matters.

An air breathing Mig 25 got to 35.230 Km back in 1977 , carrying a one tonne payload. And they're built out of stainless steel instead of aluminium. Proof that with enough power almost anything can fly.

100Km is considered the boundary of space because the air is so non existent that an aircraft would need to travel at orbital velocity to get enough lift to stay aloft so the distinction between rocket/plane/rocketplane disappears.


Getting to 100Km without being able to stay has as much to do with getting to orbit as me saying I've done the equivalent of climbing Mount Everest because I've been on an airliner.



Still no figures on specific impulse on the Be-4
http://aviationweek.com/awin/blue-origin-tests-new-engine

The BE-3 was assembled at the Kent facility, largely from parts manufactured there. The design is based on the combustion “tap-off” engine cycle, sometimes known as the “topping cycle” or chamber-bleed cycle, in which the combustion gases from around the walls of the main chamber are bled-off, partially cooled and used to power the engine's turbopumps.

Blue Origin says the cycle, which produces a relatively high specific impulse, is simpler than options such as pre-burning staged-combustion, and is well suited to human spaceflight because of its single combustion chamber and “graceful” shutdown mode. Despite the challenges of the cycle—including potentially complex start-up systems and high-temperature turbine-drive gases—Meyerson explains, “It is different because it only uses the one combustor, so it has a tendency to shut down rather than feed the combustion process.”

OCEANIC FIZZY POP NINE

Is Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin the Future of Space Exploration?

Blue Origin's huge rocket plant starts to take shape on Space Coast

Capt'n Midnight

OCEANIC FIZZY POP NINE wrote: »

Is Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin the Future of Space Exploration?

Is Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin the Future of Space Exploration?
No one had ever launched, landed and relaunched a rocket into space until the company's historic achievement

DC-X was doing controlled up and downs 20 years ago.
It didn't go as high as Blue Origin's. But neither got anywhere near orbital velocit

mickmackey1

oh sweet jaysus, it looks like Tombstone is back from the dead :eek::P

Capt'n Midnight

107Km up and down.

Mannequin Skywalker takes high ground on Bezos-backed rocket