Anyone know how the specific impulse compares to other engines? I guess the fuel is similar to spacex--better than anything other then hydrogen.
Blue Origin has hot fired its BE-4 rocket engine for the first time
51–59 of 59 posts
Re: Blue Origin has hot fired its BE-4 rocket engine for the first time
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can say that about any pair of companies where one has a shipping product and the other does not.
> You can say that about any pair of companies where one has a shipping product and the other does not Not necessarily. Rabbits move fast and break things; tortoises plod along deliberately and slowly. This applies to Blue Origin because they’re being deliberately slow and thoughtful, versus lazy or incompetent. Theranos or Magic Leap, for instance, are not tortoises.
How is it possible for BO to spend most of their time producing and selling when they don't have a shipping product? How is it possible for SpaceX to spend most of their time designing and testing when they have a shipping product with a lot of market share?
To put it another way, there's nothing in the "most of their time" comparison that you can use to classify either company as a tortoise or a hare: they're just companies at different stages of the company lifecycle.
Re: Blue Origin has hot fired its BE-4 rocket engine for the first time
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You can say that about any pair of companies where one has a shipping product and the other does not Not necessarily. Rabbits move fast and break things; tortoises plod along deliberately and slowly. This applies to Blue Origin because they’re being deliberately slow and thoughtful, versus lazy or incompetent. Theranos or Magic Leap, for instance, are not tortoises.
How is it possible for BO to spend most of their time producing and selling when they don't have a shipping product? How is it possible for SpaceX to spend most of their time designing and testing when they have a shipping product with a lot of market share? To put it another way, there's nothing in the "most of their time" comparison that you can use to classify either company as a tortoise or a hare: they're just c…
> they're just companies at different stages of the company lifecycle
Blue Origin is older than SpaceX. It chose to get a lot of basic engineering right before bothering with a product roadmap. They’ve spent years on a big first stage with big engines, all of which were known from the beginning to take longer to develop. Those intermediate goals, none of which are products, were pursued in the hope that they will result in a better end result.
SpaceX, instead, prioritised shortest paths to marketable products. Its intermediate goals are products. SpaceX flew (and collected orders for) its Falcon 1 a few years after being founded; Blue Origin took much longer. SpaceX tries putting paying customers everywhere it reasonably can; Blue Origin avoids the distraction.
These are distinct, deliberarely-chosen strategies. They’re not just similar companies at different points in their respective life cycles.
Re: Blue Origin has hot fired its BE-4 rocket engine for the first time
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is it possible for BO to spend most of their time producing and selling when they don't have a shipping product? How is it possible for SpaceX to spend most of their time designing and testing when they have a shipping product with a lot of market share? To put it another way, there's nothing in the "most of their time" comparison that you can use to classify either company as a tortoise or a hare: they're just c…
> they're just companies at different stages of the company lifecycle Blue Origin is older than SpaceX. It chose to get a lot of basic engineering right before bothering with a product roadmap. They’ve spent years on a big first stage with big engines, all of which were known from the beginning to take longer to develop. Those intermediate goals, none of which are products, were pursued in the hope that they will res…
Oh, I totally agree with this different argument, it's a pretty common opinion about the two companies.
Re: Blue Origin has hot fired its BE-4 rocket engine for the first time
#55I'm curious which one will launch first, BFR or New Glenn. My money is on the BFR, so far with 1200 s Raptor engine fire and full size cryo tank they seem to be making progress. It's good to have Blue Origin breathing down SpaceX's neck though, hopefully it will provide them with sustained motivation.
The Raptor has fired more but it is also not finalised in terms of design. The BE-4 is full sized and they don't seem to intend any more changes in the design. Really the New Glenn competes more with Falcon Heavy then BFR. They are designing a New Armstrong rocket that will be more in the BFR class. It will be very interesting, in 2020 we have planned New Glenn, Ariane 6, Vulcan and BFR. Falcon Heavy of course will h…
Raptor test fires have been at ~1,000kN, with a planned thrust of 1700kN, and for 100s burns. I don't think it's fair to say that BE-4 is further along in the development/testing process just from the fact that it has fired at half thrust, since it sure looks like Raptor has too.
Re: Blue Origin has hot fired its BE-4 rocket engine for the first time
#56Anybody knows what's special about this engine besides it being able produces more thrust than SpaceX's Raptor engine?
It's a new commercially viable rocket engine (not a pork-barrel jobs program) of a size suitable for serious heavy-lift applications, designed and built in America. Obviously SpaceX is doing similar things, but Merlin, Raptor, and the BE-4 are all part of a pretty exclusive club. I don't know why SpaceX chose to go with a greater number of smaller engines for their planned heavy lifter; I imagine it might be somethin…
That, and it's a lot easier to shut off 90% of your engines and land at 50% thrust than it is to design an engine that will run at 5% thrust.
Oh, and if your engine is small enough, you can also use the same design on your upper stages - otherwise you need to design two engines.
Also, it may be worth pointing out that the current planned thrust for the Raptor is ~1,700kN at sea level, while the BE-4 is ~2,450 kN. They aren't actually that different - it's just BFR is massive.
Re: Blue Origin has hot fired its BE-4 rocket engine for the first time
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
A 3% profit margin isn’t modest, it’s catastrophic. With a their heavy capital requirements and massive technology lead they should be banking 30%. 3% says please shut us down first time we have a bad year.
What lead? They are a cockroach compared to boeing/lockheed/northrop. 3% is not just modest, it is a healthy sign they are in the game.
There isn't a space launch company on the planet who can launch anywhere near the cost of SpaceX and make a profit. That's without counting re-usablity, mind you. With re-usablity SpaceX should be able to slash prices by at least 50%, though they shouldn't until the market forces them to. Instead they should be re-investing those profits into Raptor and the BFR.
Re: Blue Origin has hot fired its BE-4 rocket engine for the first time
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
A 3% profit margin isn’t modest, it’s catastrophic. With a their heavy capital requirements and massive technology lead they should be banking 30%. 3% says please shut us down first time we have a bad year.
However spacex could easily survive off 3% profit for now, as long as they still keep collecting all their used rockets. I only remember them launching one used rocket so far which was successful, and presumably they'll work out any remaining glitches and start using the others.
SpaceX has launched 3 boosters a second time. However, they don't expect to start launching them many times until another revision in the hardware.
Re: Blue Origin has hot fired its BE-4 rocket engine for the first time
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good point, but to be fair. Intel cpus are better.
But what would have happened if AMD had juicy Dell and other OEM partnerships in the desktop era? Desktops in 2000 are smartphones in 2015. Billions of dollars.
Sure. But in the 2000 era, the AMD cpu's were crap in comparison to Intel. I know I know, it's unfair, and now they are much better. But I will forever hold a grudge.
Ryzen looks great btw. I remember this classic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRn8ri9tKf8