Blue Origin

Author
Discussion

Einion Yrth

19,575 posts

243 months

Saturday 22nd June 2019
quotequote all
Beati Dogu said:
Footage of a 35 second test fire of their BE-7 lunar lander engine:

https://twitter.com/JeffBezos/status/1141520394022...

It starts off green due to the ignition fluids and then burns clear.

Below it is just a water jet.
Hydrolox for moon landing? I see storage problems getting it there.

MartG

20,622 posts

203 months

Saturday 22nd June 2019
quotequote all
Einion Yrth said:
Beati Dogu said:
Footage of a 35 second test fire of their BE-7 lunar lander engine:

https://twitter.com/JeffBezos/status/1141520394022...

It starts off green due to the ignition fluids and then burns clear.

Below it is just a water jet.
Hydrolox for moon landing? I see storage problems getting it there.
Yes - odd considering their Methane/Lox experience in the BE-4

Talksteer

4,843 posts

232 months

Saturday 22nd June 2019
quotequote all
Einion Yrth said:
Beati Dogu said:
Footage of a 35 second test fire of their BE-7 lunar lander engine:

https://twitter.com/JeffBezos/status/1141520394022...

It starts off green due to the ignition fluids and then burns clear.

Below it is just a water jet.
Hydrolox for moon landing? I see storage problems getting it there.
Storing any cryogenic in space will come with some difficulties. However:

1: Once you get rid of the air your tank is now basically a thermos flask, boil off is slow.

2: You can run the boil off gasses through a fuel cell to generate electricity.

3: You can compress boil off gasses by burning some of them in a heat engine, these compressed gasses can be used in control thrusters.

4: If you have solar panels you can potentially re cool the boil off gas.

Beati Dogu

8,862 posts

138 months

Saturday 22nd June 2019
quotequote all
They plan to share the hydrogen with the fuel cell power system it seem.

And it potentially means they can source fuel on the Moon, from water ice.

It's only about a 3 day journey to the moon, plus whatever time they spend on the surface.

Beati Dogu

8,862 posts

138 months

Wednesday 18th September 2019
quotequote all
Blue Origin's construction work at their factory and Pad LC-36 in Florida continues apace:

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/09/blue-origi...

Chester35

505 posts

54 months

Friday 27th September 2019
quotequote all
Beati Dogu said:
Blue Origin's construction work at their factory and Pad LC-36 in Florida continues apace:

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/09/blue-origi...
It's rather amazing how one billionaires space hobby compares to another. The Jeff space program is so under the radar compared to Elon's. Check out the updates to either thread on here. Space X leading by far.

They have so many successful flights with the New Shephard and yet still no test pilot has been up in it. Both teams seem to be the tortoise and the hare. One too much hare and the other too much tortoise.

I guess there is more than one way to milk a cow.


Beati Dogu

8,862 posts

138 months

Friday 27th September 2019
quotequote all
Yes, SpaceX is much more visible right now. Blue Origin was actually founded a few years before them too.

I doubt most people have ever heard of them. They will when the New Glenn starts rolling out.

RobDickinson

31,343 posts

253 months

Saturday 28th September 2019
quotequote all
Bo dont need publicity anywhere near as much as SpaceX I guess

Flooble

5,565 posts

99 months

Saturday 28th September 2019
quotequote all
Bezos is more of a "cash" billionaire who can afford to spend money on Blue Origin that might otherwise go on Supercars/SuperYachts/Whatever.

Musk is more of a "paper" billionaire whose wealth is largely in the form of equity in multiple business interests, so doesn't have the same latitude to spend money as he wishes.

Chester35

505 posts

54 months

Saturday 28th September 2019
quotequote all
Beati Dogu said:
Yes, SpaceX is much more visible right now. Blue Origin was actually founded a few years before them too.

I doubt most people have ever heard of them. They will when the New Glenn starts rolling out.
Interesting for the USA rocket wise in the near future with these and SLS. Guessing which of Starship, Blue Origin and SLS first gets a man into orbit I think SLS will. The re-using of the Shuttle boosters and RS-25 engines gives them an edge in a proven design. The RS-25 is a fantastic engine now fine tuned, it goes under the radar compared to Merlin / Raptor etc.

Exciting times.


Beati Dogu

8,862 posts

138 months

Saturday 28th September 2019
quotequote all
The RS-25 is wasted on the SLS. Literally. Four of them gone each flight.

One of the selling points of SLS was that it would save money (LOL) by reusing the engines from the Shuttle project. I doubt they've saved much at all in reality as they only got 16 of them (i.e 4 flights worth) before the Shuttles went off to museums. They also paid Rocketdyne $1.16 billion to reopen the RS-25 production line and make 6 more engines.


As an alternative, they could have used the RS-68A engine from the Delta 4. It's a simpler (80% fewer parts) and cheaper version of the RS-25. SLS' predecessor, the Ares V rocket was supposed to use 5 or 6 of the proposed RS-68B engines at $20 million a pop, but Ares got cancelled.

Talksteer

4,843 posts

232 months

Sunday 29th September 2019
quotequote all
Beati Dogu said:
The RS-25 is wasted on the SLS. Literally. Four of them gone each flight.

One of the selling points of SLS was that it would save money (LOL) by reusing the engines from the Shuttle project. I doubt they've saved much at all in reality as they only got 16 of them (i.e 4 flights worth) before the Shuttles went off to museums. They also paid Rocketdyne $1.16 billion to reopen the RS-25 production line and make 6 more engines.


As an alternative, they could have used the RS-68A engine from the Delta 4. It's a simpler (80% fewer parts) and cheaper version of the RS-25. SLS' predecessor, the Ares V rocket was supposed to use 5 or 6 of the proposed RS-68B engines at $20 million a pop, but Ares got cancelled.
The SSME is also being used on DARPAs XS-1 and as part of that programme has demonstrated rapid reusability with simulated runs on the test stand.





Beati Dogu

8,862 posts

138 months

Monday 30th September 2019
quotequote all
That would be a infinitely better use of the engine than SLS.

Chester35

505 posts

54 months

Tuesday 1st October 2019
quotequote all
Beati Dogu said:
The RS-25 is wasted on the SLS. Literally. Four of them gone each flight.

One of the selling points of SLS was that it would save money (LOL) by reusing the engines from the Shuttle project. I doubt they've saved much at all in reality as they only got 16 of them (i.e 4 flights worth) before the Shuttles went off to museums. They also paid Rocketdyne $1.16 billion to reopen the RS-25 production line and make 6 more engines.


As an alternative, they could have used the RS-68A engine from the Delta 4. It's a simpler (80% fewer parts) and cheaper version of the RS-25. SLS' predecessor, the Ares V rocket was supposed to use 5 or 6 of the proposed RS-68B engines at $20 million a pop, but Ares got cancelled.
Good point, though the RS-68B was not rated for human flight so I am not sure what extra costs that would entail.

MartG

20,622 posts

203 months

Tuesday 1st October 2019
quotequote all
Chester35 said:
Beati Dogu said:
The RS-25 is wasted on the SLS. Literally. Four of them gone each flight.

One of the selling points of SLS was that it would save money (LOL) by reusing the engines from the Shuttle project. I doubt they've saved much at all in reality as they only got 16 of them (i.e 4 flights worth) before the Shuttles went off to museums. They also paid Rocketdyne $1.16 billion to reopen the RS-25 production line and make 6 more engines.


As an alternative, they could have used the RS-68A engine from the Delta 4. It's a simpler (80% fewer parts) and cheaper version of the RS-25. SLS' predecessor, the Ares V rocket was supposed to use 5 or 6 of the proposed RS-68B engines at $20 million a pop, but Ares got cancelled.
Good point, though the RS-68B was not rated for human flight so I am not sure what extra costs that would entail.
Probably not much more than they've spent modifying, recertifying, and test firing the RS-25s over the last 8 years

MartG

20,622 posts

203 months

Tuesday 22nd October 2019
quotequote all
Update e-mail from Blue Origin:

Today, Blue Origin is proud to announce a national team to offer a Human Landing System for NASA’s Artemis program to return Americans to the lunar surface by 2024.

Blue Origin has signed teaming agreements with Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Draper. These partners have decades of experience supporting NASA with human space flight systems, launch vehicles, orbital logistics, deep-space missions, interplanetary navigation and planetary landings.

Our combined experience is uniquely positioned to meet NASA’s needs for the Artemis program. Each partner will bring their industry leading solutions to the following roles:
Blue Origin, as prime contractor, leads program management, systems engineering, safety and mission assurance, and mission engineering while providing the Descent Element that is based on the multi-year development of the Blue Moon lunar lander and its BE-7 engine.

Lockheed Martin develops the reusable Ascent Element vehicle and leads crewed flight operations and training.

Northrop Grumman provides the Transfer Element vehicle that brings the landing system down towards the Moon.

Draper leads descent guidance and provides flight avionics.
“National challenges call for a national response. We are humbled and inspired to lead this deeply committed team that will land NASA astronauts on the Moon,” said Bob Smith, CEO, Blue Origin. “Combining our partners’ heritage with our advance work on the Blue Moon lunar lander and its BE-7 engine, our team is looking forward to working with NASA in support of the Artemis program.”

“Lockheed Martin has been honored to help NASA explore space for more than 50 years, providing deep space robotic missions, planetary landers, space shuttle heritage and the Orion exploration spacecraft,” said Rick Ambrose, executive vice president, Lockheed Martin Space. “We value Blue Origin’s thoughtful approach to developing human-rated flight systems, and are thrilled to be part of a national team with this mix of innovation and experience. We look forward to safely and sustainably returning our nation to the surface of the Moon by 2024.”

“Northrop Grumman’s commitment to put Americans back on the moon dates back over 50 years ago with the delivery of the first lunar lander for the historic Apollo Program,” said Blake Larson, corporate vice president and president of Innovation Systems, Northrop Grumman. “Along with our ongoing work on the Space Launch System boosters, astronaut escape system, and the Gateway habitat, we are proud to be a part of the Blue Origin national team to support NASA’s Artemis program and the ambitious goal to return to the moon by 2024.”

“When the nation needs precision guidance, it calls on Draper,” said Kaigham J. Gabriel, President and CEO, Draper. “We guided Apollo to the moon and back nearly 50 years ago. We’re ready to do it again with the Blue Origin team for Artemis.”

It’s time to go back to the Moon, this time to stay.

-Gradatim Ferociter

22/10/19

Eric Mc

Original Poster:

121,779 posts

264 months

Tuesday 22nd October 2019
quotequote all
I presume this is the large lander that Bezos introduced us to a few months ago?

Beati Dogu

8,862 posts

138 months

Tuesday 22nd October 2019
quotequote all
They're really playing the political game now.



Bezos also showed this video of a huge New Glenn fairing half being moved into the oven:

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1186635...

Beati Dogu

8,862 posts

138 months

Tuesday 26th November 2019
quotequote all
It's not just SpaceX that is building water towers, Blue Origin is currently constructing a huge one at their Launch Complex 36 facility in Florida.




Only this actually is a water tower, for the sound suppression deluge system. On the left, their Horizontal Integration Building is also taking shape.

This launchpad is quite a bit further south than the NASA, SpaceX and ULA pads. The Port Canaveral area will be a really great place to view launches from, especially for something as large as New Glenn.


Meanwhile, their new 400,000 square feet engine factory in Huntsville, Alabama is getting closer to completion.




The photo was taken a couple of weeks ago.

Beati Dogu

8,862 posts

138 months

Friday 6th March 2020
quotequote all
The engine factory in Huntsville, Alabama was opened last month.

Their Horizontal Integration Facility / Zeppelin Shed is also taking shape at Pad LC-36 in Florida.



The water tower in the background is part of the pad's water deluge system and is some 350 ft tall. eek

A lot of work is being done in the area to move telegraph poles, clear trees etc so that they'll be able to transport the New Glenn from the factory to the assembly and launch area. They can't go the direct route as the causeway bridge can't handle the weight, so they'll have to do a detour north past NASA's VAB and SpaceX's facility at Pad 39A to get there. Since returning rockets will be brought back to Port Canaveral, to the south, the total work covers about 30 miles of roads they need to make ready. This should be complete by the end of the year apparently.


They've recently been showing off some New Glenn tank & giant fairing production in their Florida factory.

Tank:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avg0XZU2OBo

Fairing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaEYpzSu8Ck

Also the New Glenn seem to be getting bigger over time. As that last video shows, it's gone up from the original 82 meters (269 feet) to 98m (321 ft) tall. They're going to assemble this giant rocket horizontally, then jack it upright at the pad. That has to be the largest rocket since the N1 Soviet moon rocket to do done that way. That thing had dual rail tracks and locomotives to move it around.




Edited by Beati Dogu on Friday 6th March 00:05