Angry Astronaut rants about ULA and mostly BO.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
BE-4 is still having problems:
www.theregister.com
USA's efforts to stop relying on Russian-built rocket engines derailed by issues with Blue Origin's BE-4
Government Accountability Office warns of build-your-own-booster delays
www.theregister.com
And more issues with ULA, correctable, in this case.
spacenews.com
ULA delays further use of enhanced upper-stage engine pending studies
ULA delays further use of enhanced upper-stage engine pending studies
spacenews.com
Tory Bruno says the challenges with BE-4 are real but the engine is moving forward
Tory Bruno says the challenges with BE-4 are real but the engine is moving forward
spacenews.com
Meanwhile, Space is churning out Raptor's 1 every other day, is making plans to ramp that up to 3-4 a day, has enough of them that dumping close to 30 in the ocean for a test seems like a good idea, and is nearing completion for the design for Raptor2.Tory Bruno says the challenges with BE-4 are real but the engine is moving forward
Tory Bruno says the challenges with BE-4 are real but the engine is moving forward
I never quite got why ULE selected BE-4 for Vulcan from a company that had never really built rocket engines before... especially ones of that scale/complexity.
Last edited:
Bruno on why the engines are late: "they allowed themselves, we allowed ourselves as a program, to have fewer test assets to work with than we originally planned,” Which perfectly matches what Eric Berger reported yesterday:
"One of the most persistent problems, sources said, is that the BE-4 engine testing and development program has been relatively "hardware poor" in recent years."
arstechnica.com
"One of the most persistent problems, sources said, is that the BE-4 engine testing and development program has been relatively "hardware poor" in recent years."
Blue Origin’s powerful BE-4 engine is more than four years late—here’s why
"This is a success oriented approach, but it could definitely backfire."
arstechnica.com
Whereas the Starship testing program had Raptors running "engine rich"[1]
[1] The term for when combustion temps cause the engine to start consuming itself[2]
[2] As opposed to "fuel" or "oxygen" rich...
Then and now, BE-4 makes the most sense. Sure, history has been in no short supply of well deserved eye rolls, but it was always a “what’s the least shitty solution here?” scenario.
First, written mandate or not, it was always going to be an American motor, so it’s not like they would be buying some Vulcain variant, which was probably the only foreign option anywhere near plausible
Rocketdyne and Aerojet had at that point merged, creating the only real American incumbent. They—makers of the gazillion dollar 40 year old motors we’re bolting on SLS and the gazillion dollar motors occasionally bolted to a D4, when someone feels like paying for one—of course would have proposed some solution that would have inevitably ended up mad expensive to start, ended way over budget, and the whole show would have inevitably required significant if not 100% gub’ment funding to develop. Collectively, that’s the whole reason Atlas went to Energomash with Atlas 3 (and later 5) in the first place.
SpaceX at that point was reasonably well established and, at least I’d like to think (it’s easy to say in hindsight), showed potential as a direct competitor for Vulcan, so that would have been a bit of a red flag. Add in the ‘two vehicle solution’ for national security interests and SpaceX would have certainly been a suboptimal choice, and then layer in Elon’s “It’s my way or **** all the way off” approach to partnerships and that would pretty much seal the non-deal.
So that leaves Blue, which certainly would have told a pretty compelling story back then (and if we’re really honest, still today). They had their own internal and independent demand for the motor which would have both given some degree of confidence in execution as well as some amount of private funding. Schedule uncertainty would probably have been a wash with Aerojet Rocketdyne, the multiple-lunchers concept would have been maintained, and state funding (save for lobbyists from AJ) would have loved the concept of a new entrant in the space, especially because spaceX wasn’t nearly the juggernaut they are today. BE-3 was well underway by that point as well, at least providing evidence that they could build a pretty complex and high(ish) thrust motor.
All in all, BE-4 was and still is the best motor for Vulcan.
Interesting perspective... but feel like there was a lot of visible risk up-front... perhaps that was acknowledged and accepted, or maybe it was minimized.... dunno.
I do disagree with the two points I emphasized in your quote above however... hard to say is is the best choice that makes the most sense in the present tense when the program is troubled and hasn't actually delivered the first final rocket engine.
IMO the logic hasn't changed relative to the possible choices.
--Still needs to be American
--Still need to get out of the RD-180 ASAP, and preferably yesterday
--Still want to avoid the Aerodyne circus
--None of the startups are anywhere close to a big engine that can serve national security missions
--Still not SpaceX because of The Man's need (whether one agrees its a need) for multiple-launchers
--And still not SpaceX because of the to-date success of SpaceX which fosters an updated, "its my way or **** off even farther" perspective on partnerships
Its also worth differentiating between a troubled engine program and a failing program. Troubled is pretty much par for the course relative to approaching space 'the way its always been done'.
Make no mistake, BE-4 is moving along, and while public domain optics include quite a bit of egg on face (some of which is more spin than reality), the stakeholders in the motor (ULA, NG program, The Man) aren't setting hair on fire or making wild threats and accusations. They're annoyed yes, but not more so than the've been for any previous space program.
I'm pretty sure the reality is that no payload is not going to get to orbit because of the delays with the BE-4. ULA will stick with the Atlas V for as long as it can. There are RD-180's around to be had even with the rules against using them. The rules can be changed, and will be, if it becomes necessary.
However, it remains to be seen if really was the best idea. For instance, not choosing Aerodyne because of the presumption of what their engine development might have been like, and instead choosing Blue Origin who had never developed an engine of this type was pretty subjective.
And given the outcome is not yet known, it's a bit difficult to say how good a choice that was and remains to be. A troubled program is indeed not a failing program ... but it certainly can become one.
adiggs
Well-Known Member
This notion of deciding what the best idea was in hindsight is one that I disagree with. We are all making decisions under conditions of uncertainty, and thus we make the best decision at any point in time using what we know, our knowledge of what matters, and our experience.
The choice made or may not work out - that is different.
It is possible to make a bad decision (given what was known, the constraints, knowledge, experience, etc..) and have it work out well, or even 'best'; you can "get lucky". It's possible to make the best decision and have it fail.
But if you want the best and most consistent results over time, knowing that there many results that represent failure, one makes the best decision using what's known (etc..) at the time.
For this particular decision to not be the best, we need to be able to point to factors that were known at the time, that would indicate important and known information was ignored as the wrong path was chosen. That would make this a bad decision, as well as provide feedback on this sort of decision and what factors to emphasize the next time around when making a similar decision.
Similar threads
- Article
