I am sure this is a huge relief to the Blue Origin folks to have these issues if not fixed, at least understood so that they can be fixed and the engine put into production.
Slightly more powerful than the SpaceX Raptor (550 lbf for the BE-4 vs 500 lbf Raptor) both engines are designed for re-use. As the BE-4 gets closer to production, and the Raptor gets some flight tests under its belt, a clearer picture on the thrust to weight and dynamic range of throttling will become better understood.
But the really awesome thing is three orbital class re-usable engines available from US vendors for the first time ever. This bodes well for the US space industry. Not so good for Aerojet/Rocketdyne which, in my opinion, has basically rested on its laurels as the "only game in town" for US built engines for far too long.
Which engine (other than BE-4 and Raptor) is the other 'orbital class re-usable engine' that you speak of? The newly constructed RS-25 that's going to be produced in the SLS program is not reusable (lookup RS-25E).
Ah, yes. I kind of looked over that engine. Oops...
I overlooked it mostly because the Merlin engine uses RP-1, and therefore has limited reuse life due to soot buildup in the engine (unless they've solved that problem). I also suspect that the Merlin engine only has limited time left as (when) SpaceX transitions to Starship.
Anyone that wants to order a reusable RS-25 can have Aerojet Rocketdyne configure and manufacture it that way. See also the AR-22 variant used on the ill-fated DARPA XSP program.
The real issue with that engine isn't its reusability, it's that the industry has learned a lot about rocket engine design, operation, and manufacturing since the RS-25 was developed. That's reflected in the engines available from the likes of Blue Origin and SpaceX. No knock on the RS-25 - it stands as a watershed achievement for humanity in the engineering of thermodynamic systems.
Though calling the SpaceX engines "available" needs the caveat that SpaceX will not make them available outside of SpaceX.
Weren't some of them refurbs? As in, shuttle hardware that was designed to be reusable and was reused is now planned to be unceremoniously dumped in the ocean?
In any case, even if the discardables are all new, it's a shameful step back. I am so glad they have competition now.
Good point! I suspect RocketLab will recover and reuse Electron before Blue Origin recovers and reuses New Glenn. RocketLab plans to test recovery (Ballute and then guided parachute until splashdown, not yet helicopter although they have had successful helicopter recovery tests of mockups) on the 17th Electron launch (3 launches from now), which is planned for this year.
Accordingly to Musk they are aiming for 300 bar chamber pressure and 3MN for the non-throttling version of the raptor, and that will make it more powerful than the 2.4 MN of the BE-4.
Currently the throttling version operates at 2.1MN, so it’s a bit less powerful than BE-4.
Does the rocket design really reuse these? I keep on hearing they are designed for reuse but even though SpaceX is landing lots of boosters I've yet to see another company landed and reuse an orbital booster. Will they be landing be-4 in 2020 or later?
2) The other rocket is ULAs Vulcan, which plans to land the engines without the booster using a parachute and helicopter. However, that plan is on paper only and it won't be implemented yet when Vulcan goes into service. As OPs article states, there isn't even an official timeline. Presumably ULA is waiting for government money to develop the capability.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lftGq6QVFFI&ab_channel=Unite...
I have significant doubts about the launch rate of ULA allowing them to get this working in time. I suspect SpaceX will continue to eat their market share, and when Blue Origin comes along, ULA won't have any whatsoever. Richard Shelby isn't getting younger.
ULA's rocket, Vulcan, is supposed to launch next year. The initial version will not be reusable though a concept for a future version is to detach the engines and have them parachute to be recovered.
Blue Origin's rocket, New Glenn, will use the same engine, be bigger than Vulcan and be reusable by landing like Falcon 9. It is supposed to launch in 2022.
Interesting - inflatable heat shield, parachute, mid air helicopter catch. A few moving parts - be interesting to watch these - they claim 90% first stage cost savings.
I remember blue orgin trying to block SpaceX from pad 39A. They even appealed NASA's decision to GAO I think. They were going to be launching orbital mission in 2018 I think with folks on board. Whatever happened to those launch plans? Elon had a pretty memorable quote I think.
"If they do somehow show up in the next 5 years with a vehicle qualified to NASA's human rating standards that can dock with the Space Station, which is what Pad 39A is meant to do, we will gladly accommodate their needs," Musk wrote. "Frankly, I think we are more likely to discover unicorns dancing in the flame duct."
> Through 2020, ULA has not announced firm plans to fund and build/test this engine-reuse concept, though they stated in late 2019 that they were "still planning to eventually reuse Vulcan’s first-stage engines."
Slightly more powerful than the SpaceX Raptor (550 lbf for the BE-4 vs 500 lbf Raptor) both engines are designed for re-use. As the BE-4 gets closer to production, and the Raptor gets some flight tests under its belt, a clearer picture on the thrust to weight and dynamic range of throttling will become better understood.
But the really awesome thing is three orbital class re-usable engines available from US vendors for the first time ever. This bodes well for the US space industry. Not so good for Aerojet/Rocketdyne which, in my opinion, has basically rested on its laurels as the "only game in town" for US built engines for far too long.