Lorenzo von Matterhorn
- Jan 31, 2009
- Reaction score
Its probably high temp steel alloy, and it may be a type of deposited metal laser sintering 3d printing. I recently saw a video of a part being 3d printed in metal AND the very same machine was doing the milling as part of the process.Anybody seen any detail on nozzle construction? It looks like machined aluminum, which can't possibly be right.
In terms of thrust, it's about 1/3 the size (~500,000 lbf vs ~1,500,000 lbf). Quite a bit physically smaller too. F1s are huge.Looks about the same size as the Saturn V F-1 engine.
Multiple small engines are not cheaper than a single large engine of equivalent thrust. This is simplifying a bit, but a small engine has the same number of parts and requires just as much assembly and testing labor as a big engine - 2 are going to be more expensive than 1. Now there are some practical difficulties in building really big engines (the combustion dynamics get tricky for one), and you do get some "volume production" benefits, but per-unit cost is generally not a driver in going to smaller engines.BE-4 or AR-1, doubtful either is more cost effective than the Space X clustering of smaller, cheaper engines.
Actually SpaceX is already developing an engine slightly bigger than BE-4 (Raptor, which they test fired last fall).The day may be over for giant engines, except for special purpose monster rockets.
Compared to Atlas V and Delta IV, rockets designed in the 90s for maximum reliability on a military budget, sure (which is why Atlas and Delta basically never fly commercial payloads). But not compared to e.g. Ariane 5 (1 liquid and 2 solids), Soyuz (5 engines with 20 combustion chambers), Proton (6 engines), who are currently having no trouble keeping their manifests filled.Space X can orbit payloads for half the cost.
I want to pushback on the sintering method. It worked for the SuperDracos, but those are tiny compared to this thing. You'd need a mAssive powder bed.Its probably high temp steel alloy, and it may be a type of deposited metal laser sintering 3d printing. I recently saw a video of a part being 3d printed in metal AND the very same machine was doing the milling as part of the process.
Its a WAG on my part.
No turbo-pumps, it is pressure fed, by thetanks inside the fuel and oxidizer tanks, which caused both explosions (GET THEM OUT OF THERE).
I'm more of a SpaceX fanboi than Blue Origin, but I'm not sure where you get this. BO sent a capsule past the edge of space and recovered the booster. I'm not saying that SpaceX's job isn't harder, just that they didn't do that one thing first.But I'm really tired of all the BO fans suggesting (not in this thread, but other places on the interweb) that BO was the first to successfully land a rocket after going into space. It wasn't them.
Now I'm envisioning one of those giant turret lathe/mills where the dude rides in a little cab on the perimeter.I'm fortunate enough to have visited that factory, and they do have milling machines that could have milled out that nozzle. I'm not an expert, but laser sintering sounds like a lot more effort than casting a beast and milling it to finish dimensions.
Because what BO did was just a test. SpaceX had successfully launched and landed several tests of their own Grasshopper well before BO did it but they didn't go above an imaginary line, mostly because their tests didn't require them to.I'm more of a SpaceX fanboi than Blue Origin, but I'm not sure where you get this. BO sent a capsule past the edge of space and recovered the booster. I'm not saying that SpaceX's job isn't harder, just that they didn't do that one thing first.
First, keep in mind that the pintle is really just the fuel injector. It's not a magic bullet - you still have to wrap it with a combustion chamber, nozzle, turbomachinery, propellant feeds, ingnition systems, power for hydraulics, valves.... like let's say Hyundai has the world's best fuel injectors (I have no idea who actually does). You would not automatically conclude the at they therefore have the best engines or best cars from that fact alone.Oberon: I was under the impression that pintle valve engines were simpler and more reliable. Because, I saw a vid of an eng. from TRW who worked on the LM motor. He said they spent 10 years simplifying it down to 9 moving parts!
There is a mechanical eng. theorem that says reliability is inversely proportional to the # of moving parts.
I suspect Elon's crew has done that with the whole bird, it could actually be better engineered than the old Altas, Delta, etc. Time will tell.
I feel the same way Mushtang. The part that is amazing to me isn't so much the claims that BO may be making about their achievements (and they are fantastic achievements, no one is denying that!), but the way the "normal" media (As opposed to the aerospace/science guys) run with the BO story wile they only seem to be interested in Spacex's failures.Because what BO did was just a test. SpaceX had successfully launched and landed several tests of their own Grasshopper well before BO did it but they didn't go above an imaginary line, mostly because their tests didn't require them to.
SpaceX was flying actual missions when they landed the first booster that returned from "space", and it's apparently much harder to land on a tiny barge after lofting something towards orbit than it is going straight up and down. BO's success going up and down in a test doesn't mean they'll be successful when they add a LOT of sideways into the mix as well as a second stage (cargo) during a mission.
It's like the difference between hitting a ball over the fence in batting practice, and hitting a home run in an actual game. One is much less significant than the other. SpaceX hit a lot of balls into the outfield in their batting practice, BO hit a few over the fence in their practice. SpaceX hit several home runs during a game, BO is still at batting practice but claiming they hit the first home run.
I'll add an opinion on this, having been a former employee and having several friends who are current employees. It seemed to me that salaries, while definitely pretty good, are on par with (or even less than) an equivalent role at one of your more traditional contractors or agencies (Boeing, Lockheed, NASA). The outlook becomes a bit more grim when you consider that said wages are, for the most part, not adjusted for cost of living in Los Angeles and the long hours employees tend to work. (Or maybe things have changed.)Sorry to hear he drives people hard, but I doubt that key people are underpaid. He advertised looking for space eng. in the top 5%. That ain't cheap.
This might be the solution to the lithium battery problem:Wow, thanks for comments, Jmatt too. I could tell that you were probably involved in the industry. Yes, calif is expensive, I have heard of programmers living in their cars!
Engineers at many co. are exploited, if salary you are wide open to the overtime scam, but it gives you ammo during yearly review, if get one, to "suggest" increase. Many co make it up with bonuses and/or stock.
So, would you fly on a Soyuz? And, isn't it time to retire that Model-T Korolev concoction?
I like SpaceX and Blue Origin the same amount, as are a refreshing change from the big buck gov controlled launching biz.
I think the future is bright, not just in space, but with drones, self driving cars, and electric propulsion of everything.
If they can just stop those lithium batts from blowing up!
I agree with all of this. I give full marks to BO for being able to land their rockets and reuse them. That's an amazingly difficult thing to do and they are doing it well. Couldn't be happier about their existence or their inevitable competition to SpaceX. Free Enterprise works so much better when there's plenty of competition. I didn't mean to sound like I was trashing their accomplishments, only their claims that they were first.Now. It bugs me to no end how SpaceX fanboys will default to trashing what Blue Origin has done. While SpaceX does have to bleed off more energy to land Falcon than Blue does to land New Shepard does not make what Blue does any less impressive. The difficult part here is achieving a controlled landing. (Well, technically launch is difficult, too, but who's keeping score?)
This is where I disagree with you. What you call a mission I call a test. What was their mission? Did they deliver any satellites, cargo, carry passengers, perform any scientific tests in the low gravity (other than their booster), or do anything other than simply test to see if their booster could go up and come back down for a safe landing?SpaceX definitely got close several times, but Blue was the first to achieve vertical landing of a booster on a mission to space. Oh, and Blue has reflown the same booster and landed it four more times, which SpaceX has not done yet. I for one hope they succeed, but it's a milestone they still have to prove.
[video=youtube;dugpPEp2y78]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dugpPEp2y78[/video]Did they deliver any satellites, cargo, carry passengers, perform any scientific tests in the low gravity (other than their booster), or do anything other than simply test to see if their booster could go up and come back down for a safe landing?