Posted on 09/20/2014 7:48:46 AM PDT by WhiskeyX
In a surprise turn of events, U.S. space industry behemoth United Launch Alliance, or ULA, and Blue Origin — a secretive space startup owned by Amazon-founder Jeff Bezos — have unveiled an American rocket engine that may end Russia's supremacy in the field.
[....]
The development of the engine, known as the Blue Engine 4, or BE-4, will certainly strike NPO Energomash, Russia's premier rocket engine design firm, analysts say.
(Excerpt) Read more at sptimes.ru ...
The engine next to him is TOO SMALL to power rockets of the size they’re talking about.
SpaceX is already ahead of them with their Raptor engine component testing.
SpaceX Ready for Raptor Engine Components Testing at Stennis
24APR2014
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2014/04/spacex-ready-fo.html
Now take a look at performance numbers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raptor_%28rocket_engine%29
Raptor is being designed to produce
8,200 kN (1,800,000 lbf) of vacuum thrust
—6,900 kN (1,600,000 lbf) thrust at lift-off
Compare that to the Russian RD-180
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RD-180
Thrust (vac.) 933,400 lbf (4.15 MN)
Thrust (SL) 860,568 lbf (3.83 MN)
And compare those to the Blue Origin BE-4.
http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/41901ula-to-invest-in-blue-origin-engine-as-rd-180-replacement
Bezos said during the press conference that the BE-4, which will generate about 550,000 pounds of thrust, is based on the BE-3 that powers Blue Origin’s New Shepard, an experimental suborbital rocket that takes off and lands vertically. In addition to the Atlas 5 successor, the new engine would be used for a future reusable orbital launcher Blue Origin plans to develop, he said.
Two BE-4 engines generating a combined 1.1 million pounds of thrust at sea level would power the new rocket’s first stage, Bruno said. The current Atlas 5 first stage is powered by a single RD-180 generating close to 1 million pounds of thrust.
This is no plug and play rocket engine. Going from earth-storable RP-1 to cryogenic LNG is going to be a big step for the Atlas V. Whoever sold this as a replacement for the RD-180 could sell ice to Eskimos.
What am I missing here? There’s not a whole lot to a rocket motor. Couple turbo-pumps to supply the fuel and oxidizer at the phenomenal rates at which they’re consumed, powered by the same fuel source from which they’re pumping, and a reaction chamber, and an exhaust bell with a heat exchanger. (And ignition if not hypergolic) I mean look at that unit on his table there. Not a lot of moving parts. Most of the trick to building a rocket motor is doing it to withstand the extreme environmental conditions and to do so while no one is available to service it.
Not being a rocket engineer, I’m trying to figure out what there is to improve to the extent you’re going to call it a new engine, or be distressed when someone will no longer sell you theirs? Improve long term reliability with more modern materials?
Basically a press release. Blah blah blah.
You two seem qualified to clear up my befuddlement. Any takers?
The significance is the effect of sanctions on the already faltering Russian missile industry. The Ukrainians contributed a considerable amount of expertise to the design and manufacture of Russia’s missile systems. The loss of that expertise and the deterioration of the Russian aerospace industry has resulted in some recent glaring launch failures with their latest Russian designed rockets.
“The engine next to him is TOO SMALL to power rockets of the size they’re talking about.”
Is there some reason a prototype has to be full size?
In 1961 the US launched its first man, Alan Shepherd into space. Six years later (1967) the US had mastered orbital docking (Gemini) and despite the tragedy of the Apollo 1 fire in 1967 would in 1968 successfully conduct a 3 man orbital mission of the moon.
Under the current administration we’ve had the NASA mission redefined as “Muslim outreach”, we’ve seen the Space shuttles retired, and the US is incapable of launching human being into space. Once the leader in space exploration we are dependent on Russia for rocket engines and for carrying our people to the space station built with US tax dollars.
Six years from first manned flight to almost ready to go to the moon in the 1960’s. In the 21st century six years to no where. What’s the difference?
“Any takers?”
The payload is tiny in comparison to the over all mass of the rocket, therefore, a tiny improvement in rocket efficiency can be economically important.
It’s a mockup.
“Is there some reason a prototype has to be full size?”
Because a Matchbox car is not necessarily the best approach for testing something you plan to sell in dealerships.
My question was about opportunities in a fundamentally simple tech rather than about the model per se.
OK, that makes sense. Thanks!
In your world, you would build a bridge so you could show it to your prospective clients?
No response needed, our conversation is over.
‘opportunities in a fundamentally simple tech’
None that I know of. SpaceX tried this route at the beginning but they realized that liquid rocket motors are complicated beasts.
The devil is in the details. There is a failure mode so common in rocketry it has it's own acronym: CATO, meaning Catastrophe At Take Off. Basically there is a fine line between blowing up and sitting there uselessly. It's trivial in design to hit that line. In practice though, various parts of the rocket motor must successfully dissipate or scavenge a tremendous amount of energy. Any failure means, usually, lots of heat or lots of vibration (same thing really) gets put into parts not intended to handle it.
Some people think solid fuel motors are really simple because they have no moving parts. This is wrong. The exhaust is moving, the combustion front is moving, the heat is moving, the rocket is moving, everything is moving. Liquid fueled designs attempt to simplify things by precisely controlling what happens in the combustion chamber. Unfortunately for turbopump enthusiasts the engineering of real materials to withstand the forces involved in moving the fuel is a black art. Extending a design tends to require almost as much work as the developing the original one. Incremental improvements thus tend to be cost multipliers, not added cost.
That's why when someone shows up with a design that works in practice, the industry just keeps using it. As is.
I have seen a pump design with far more benign failure modes than pressure fed or turbo pump modes. The downside is you need to expend a major quantity of helium to launch a space-x sized payload.
“In your world, you would build a bridge so you could show it to your prospective clients? No response needed, our conversation is over.”
Suck mine too. If you want to sell a Tesla, it helps to have one larger than a matchbox.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.