Watching a Scott Manley video on the end of the Atlas and Delta IV rockets.
Apparently, Blue Origin is having some delays delivering first BE-4
engines that ULE needs for the Vulcan rockets that is to replace the
older ones.
Out of curiosity, from a development project point of view, would
comparing SpaceX Raptor to Blue Origin BE-4 be fair or is BE-4 in sucn
a different lcass that it is normal it would take much longer to develop?
Asking my buddy Mr Google, apparently BE-4 is only 10% more powerful
than Raptor. So woudln't that be considered to be in same class?
SpaceX seems to have gotten Raptor off the ground (litterally) very fast compared to Blue Origin.
Is the Blue Origin much more complex and taking longer to develop, or is
this a case of working out all the bugs before delivering to Boeing/ULA whereas SpaceX started to launch before engine was finished and worked
out the bugs with its iterative testing? (some of those busg were
related to tanks/pressure for relighting during landing, so not quite
engine related).
Or is this a case of SPaceX having much mroe experience building engines
with Merlin vs Blue Origin starting from scratch? SpaceX is just about
to unveil its version 2 of Raptor with a lot of design optimizations.
In article <f9bWI.12720$F26.1159@fx44.iad>,
jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca says...
Watching a Scott Manley video on the end of the Atlas and Delta IV rockets. >>
Apparently, Blue Origin is having some delays delivering first BE-4
engines that ULE needs for the Vulcan rockets that is to replace the
older ones.
Out of curiosity, from a development project point of view, would
comparing SpaceX Raptor to Blue Origin BE-4 be fair or is BE-4 in sucn
a different lcass that it is normal it would take much longer to develop?
BE-4 isn't a full flow staged combustion engine. BE-4 is an oxygen-
rich staged combustion engine cycle. So, bragging rights to Raptor.
Asking my buddy Mr Google, apparently BE-4 is only 10% more powerful
than Raptor. So woudln't that be considered to be in same class?
If all other things were equal. They're not.
SpaceX seems to have gotten Raptor off the ground (litterally) very fast
compared to Blue Origin.
Is the Blue Origin much more complex and taking longer to develop, or is
this a case of working out all the bugs before delivering to Boeing/ULA
whereas SpaceX started to launch before engine was finished and worked
out the bugs with its iterative testing? (some of those busg were
related to tanks/pressure for relighting during landing, so not quite
engine related).
BE-4 development was never hardware rich. They are still reportedly
fighting turbopump issues.
Or is this a case of SPaceX having much mroe experience building engines
with Merlin vs Blue Origin starting from scratch? SpaceX is just about
to unveil its version 2 of Raptor with a lot of design optimizations.
You seem to have answered your own question.
Watching a Scott Manley video on the end of the Atlas and Delta IV rockets.
Apparently, Blue Origin is having some delays delivering first BE-4
engines that ULE needs for the Vulcan rockets that is to replace the
older ones.
Out of curiosity, from a development project point of view, would
comparing SpaceX Raptor to Blue Origin BE-4 be fair or is BE-4 in sucn
a different lcass that it is normal it would take much longer to develop?
Asking my buddy Mr Google, apparently BE-4 is only 10% more powerful
than Raptor. So woudln't that be considered to be in same class?
SpaceX seems to have gotten Raptor off the ground (litterally) very fast compared to Blue Origin.
Is the Blue Origin much more complex and taking longer to develop, or is
this a case of working out all the bugs before delivering to Boeing/ULA whereas SpaceX started to launch before engine was finished and worked
out the bugs with its iterative testing? (some of those busg were
related to tanks/pressure for relighting during landing, so not quite
engine related).
Or is this a case of SPaceX having much mroe experience building engines
with Merlin vs Blue Origin starting from scratch? SpaceX is just about
to unveil its version 2 of Raptor with a lot of design optimizations.
On 08/27/2021 09:36 PM, JF Mezei wrote:
Watching a Scott Manley video on the end of the Atlas and Delta IV rockets. >>Have they(BE-4) ever even specified an Isp.
Apparently, Blue Origin is having some delays delivering first BE-4
engines that ULE needs for the Vulcan rockets that is to replace the
older ones.
Out of curiosity, from a development project point of view, would
comparing SpaceX Raptor to Blue Origin BE-4 be fair or is BE-4 in sucn
a different lcass that it is normal it would take much longer to develop?
Asking my buddy Mr Google, apparently BE-4 is only 10% more powerful
than Raptor. So woudln't that be considered to be in same class?
SpaceX seems to have gotten Raptor off the ground (litterally) very fast
compared to Blue Origin.
Is the Blue Origin much more complex and taking longer to develop, or is
this a case of working out all the bugs before delivering to Boeing/ULA
whereas SpaceX started to launch before engine was finished and worked
out the bugs with its iterative testing? (some of those busg were
related to tanks/pressure for relighting during landing, so not quite
engine related).
Or is this a case of SPaceX having much mroe experience building engines
with Merlin vs Blue Origin starting from scratch? SpaceX is just about
to unveil its version 2 of Raptor with a lot of design optimizations.
Last time I looked I couldn't find anything.
From that alone it doesn't really look like a serious operation.
On Friday, Jeff Findley queried:
In article <f9bWI.12720$F26.1159@fx44.iad>, jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca
says...
BE-4 isn't a full flow staged combustion engine. BE-4 is an oxygen-
Watching a Scott Manley video on the end of the Atlas and Delta IV
rockets.
Apparently, Blue Origin is having some delays delivering first BE-4
engines that ULE needs for the Vulcan rockets that is to replace the
older ones.
Out of curiosity, from a development project point of view, would
comparing SpaceX Raptor to Blue Origin BE-4 be fair or is BE-4 in sucn
a different lcass that it is normal it would take much longer to develop? >>
rich staged combustion engine cycle. So, bragging rights to Raptor.
Asking my buddy Mr Google, apparently BE-4 is only 10% more powerful
than Raptor. So woudln't that be considered to be in same class?
If all other things were equal. They're not.
SpaceX seems to have gotten Raptor off the ground (litterally) very fast >>> compared to Blue Origin.
Is the Blue Origin much more complex and taking longer to develop, or is >>> this a case of working out all the bugs before delivering to Boeing/ULA
whereas SpaceX started to launch before engine was finished and worked
out the bugs with its iterative testing? (some of those busg were
related to tanks/pressure for relighting during landing, so not quite
engine related).
BE-4 development was never hardware rich. They are still reportedly
fighting turbopump issues.
Or is this a case of SPaceX having much mroe experience building engines >>> with Merlin vs Blue Origin starting from scratch? SpaceX is just about
to unveil its version 2 of Raptor with a lot of design optimizations.
You seem to have answered your own question.
Count the Raptors (even if you limit yourself to ones not scattered across the beach).
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 296 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 63:22:10 |
| Calls: | 6,654 |
| Files: | 12,200 |
| Messages: | 5,331,697 |