Blue Origin - Booster Reuse - New Shepard

[Genshi]

ULA / Lobbying definitely seems more likely. Or Russia deciding not to supply engines anymore, and leaving SpaceX as the only option. From there, I'm not sure how much they could do to SpaceX directly, but I'm sure they could get creative if they really wanted to...

 

[Grendal]

I should probably have made a new thread for this:

Blue Origins future rocket, the New Glenn, was revealed in an e-mail:

It is an orbital rocket using a Methane/LNG-LOX fuel that the Raptor engine will use. It will have 3/4 the lift capacity of the Falcon Heavy.

 

[bxr140]

I like it. Good for them. The more reusable rockets, the better.

 

[HVM]

Wow, lot bigger than I thought. I was waiting Atlas V/F9 size for 'big brother'; New Glenn.

 

[HVM]

BO's steps can be slow, but not small. That thing is a monster!

 

[Electroman]

On paper I can make a bigger rocket than this. I just need a pencil and large enough paper. On a powerpoint slide it is even easier.

 

[HVM]

Yep, you just miss a reusable suborbital rocket and contract to ULA, and world largest web-store to back you up. Other ways, both are just paper rockets.

 

[rolosrevenge]

Blue Orgins has yet to have a single commercial flight, just tests. It's a little premature to show off the huge rocket they'll totally build later.

 

[palmer_md]

What confuses me is the comment it will carry 3/4 the load of a falcon heavy. Why is it so big if it cant carry more payload than the heavy? Is it something to do with mission distance rather than payload weight?

 

[GoTslaGo]

What confuses me is the comment it will carry 3/4 the load of a falcon heavy. Why is it so big if it cant carry more payload than the heavy? Is it something to do with mission distance rather than payload weight?

Not a rocket scientist here, but I wonder if it's because it's reusable. Since it's much bigger it has to keep a larger store of fuel for returning and landing. That's my guess. Maybe that's the benefit of using 3 rockets for Falcon heavy vs. one giant rocket.

 

[bxr140]

What confuses me is the comment it will carry 3/4 the load of a falcon heavy. Why is it so big if it cant carry more payload than the heavy? Is it something to do with mission distance rather than payload weight?

I don't think BO actually stated the capacity, only the thrust (which is one of the variables that affect capacity).

Usually capacity is in standard measurements like 'payload to LEO' and 'payload to GTO' so it's pretty apples to apples from launcher to launcher.

What's most interesting is the ~7m diameter. That's pretty forward thinking (like the spacex bfr concepts) but I dont think it will have a home for quite some time. Especially with a non-legacy manufacturer, government and commercial missions alike will shy away from sizing their hardware to only fit in that big ass fairing. It could be that BO is playing the long game and the foresee the heritage 4 and 5 meter fairings become obsolete?

 

[JohnSnowNW]

So, my 4 year old will be driving before these rockets ever make it past the development stage?

I wish them luck and all, but seems about a decade premature.

 

[bxr140]

So, my 4 year old will be driving before these rockets ever make it past the development stage?.

Your four year old will be driving at 8?

Certainly the end of this decade is a bit optimistic, but...we cant exactly fault a megalomaniac billionaire for being optimistic with the timelines of his companies.

 

[ggnykk]

Nice to see Jeff and Elon trying to outgun each other with bigger and bigger "rockets". I guess that's a guy thing. Just kidding...

On a serious note, Jeff did say there will be an even bigger rocket called New Armstrong. And we already know there will be a bigger rocket than the Falon Heavy coming. It will be interesting to see the specs between the Super Falon Heavy (or the Mars transporter) vs New Armstrong.

 

[miimura]

I believe the next larger rocket from SpaceX after Falcon Heavy is referred to as BFR. As in Big F-ing Rocket.

 

[Yggdrasill]

As an aerospace engineer, I have my doubts it's possible. I won't rule out the possibility completely, but they have *a lot* of work to do, and *extremely little* time. If they do get something to the launch pad by the end of the decade, expect a big explosion, with something like 90% probability.

But I will be rooting for them. Rockets are awesome.

 

[Grendal]

New Glenn does not use grid fins but apparently just fins. SpaceX engineers have talked about how grid fins are useful for this application of landing orbital boosters since they work in lots of environments. I have not been personally involved but it seems that plain fins would be useful for some stabilization but would be weak for all environments. On a larger scale, the fins give an implication that BO will need to learn a lot of same lessons that SpaceX has already learned.

That said, just like EVs, the more the merrier. I want to see as much happening in orbit and beyond as possible.

 

[RDoc]

My understanding is that a very big advantage of grid fins is that they work all the way from hypersonic down to subsonic whereas normal fins have problems in different sonic regimes.

I don't believe Blue Origin has any experience with hypersonic reentry so far. Their existing rockets are just straight up, stop, straight down.

 

[Grendal]

My understanding is that a very big advantage of grid fins is that they work all the way from hypersonic down to subsonic whereas normal fins have problems in different sonic regimes.

I don't believe Blue Origin has any experience with hypersonic reentry so far. Their existing rockets are just straight up, stop, straight down.

Exactly my point. BO will need to learn a lot of the same lessons that SX has already learned. The traditional fins are a perfect example of that. Traditional fins work very well within the regime that BO has been using. They would be a lot less useful than grid fins at hypersonic speeds. BO may need to crash a few boosters to learn this lesson.

Learning lessons and making improvements is an important part of growth though.

 

[Brovane]

What confuses me is the comment it will carry 3/4 the load of a falcon heavy. Why is it so big if it cant carry more payload than the heavy? Is it something to do with mission distance rather than payload weight?

Density of Propellant.

LH 70.8 kg/m^3
CH-4 423 kg/m^3
RP-1 820 kg/m^3
LOX 1140 kg/m^3

So basically the methane engines on the New Glenn use fuel(Methane CH-4) that is about 50% less dense than the RP1 that F9 uses.

It gets even worse with LH (Liquid Hydrogen), the Delta-IV Heavy is all LH and the boosters are 5.1 meters in diameter. The Falcon 9 boosters are 3.66 Meters so it can be road transportable.

The advantage of Methane and LH over RP1 is that it allows engines with higher ISP which makes it more efficient especially for orbits that are beyond LEO. Look at the Saturn-V, both the 2nd stage and 3rd stage was powered by LH and LOX but the 1st stage was RP1/LOX. Total mass of the Saturn-V was about 3,000 tons but 2200+ tons was just the 1st stage.