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.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

On Friday, Jeff Findley queried:
> 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.

Count the Raptors (even if you limit yourself to ones not scattered
across the beach).

/dps

--
Killing a mouse was hardly a Nobel Prize-worthy exercise, and Lawrence
went apopleptic when he learned a lousy rodent had peed away all his
precious heavy water.
_The Disappearing Spoon_, Sam Kean

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.
>
> 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.
>
Have they(BE-4) ever even specified an Isp.
Last time I looked I couldn't find anything.
From that alone it doesn't really look like a serious operation.

On Aug/28/2021 at 02:55, Johann Klammer wrote :
> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
> Have they(BE-4) ever even specified an Isp.
> Last time I looked I couldn't find anything.
> From that alone it doesn't really look like a serious operation.

Secretive operations can be very serious.

Alain Fournier

Friday, Snidely quipped:
> On Friday, Jeff Findley queried:
>> 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.
>
> Count the Raptors (even if you limit yourself to ones not scattered across
> the beach).

Have there been 29 BE-4s made yet? This may require leaked
information.

I have seen video shot at Blue Origin's Florida facility, likely as a
NASA TV item, and included in that was a test firing of a BE-3, which
is needed for the Blue Team's moon lander.

/dps

--
Rule #0: Don't be on fire.
In case of fire, exit the building before tweeting about it.
(Sighting reported by Adam F)