[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

It's interesting how often Blue Origin seems included in plans related to space activity. Yet they currently have less real, orbital experience than, say, even Astra.

Perhaps it's a reflection of the funds available via their benefactor, but from my view in the peanut gallery, they've yet to earn real credibility - especially with their very late delivery of BE-4s to ULA.

[removed]

[removed]

The fact that they have delivered engines for ULA proves that they should be taken seriously. As they were able to develop a massive rocket engine on a more cost effective and aggressive schedule than Aerojet rocketdyne who was largely building their AR1 engine based off of Soviet designs. That alone is a huge achievement, keep in mind the complexity of a rocket engine drastically increases with scale. What rocket lab, astra, Virgin, and all the others has accomplished is impressive but it’s not nearly as challenging from a propulsion standpoint. Secondly they are included in these discussions and plans because what they are planning can actually contribute to them. Astra, virgin, relatively and all the rest would need to scale launchers by a factor of 10-100 to be able to even contribute to similar plans. Some of these companies are planning such vehicles but their development is even further behind than that of NG.

It's wrong to dismiss them like that. Within a few years their engines will be on multiple orbital class rockets, and they have operational experience with the little rocket.

Their engineers didn't come up with a rocket design that could operate in the dark, and they got upset at NASA for it. PR-wise they have a lot of work to do lol

But they are many years late on BE-4 delivery, and they've yet to reach orbit. Thus, to me, they haven't yet truly proven themselves. Not that BO would care about my opinion, of course. :-)

Did they debrief them on the outer space treaty?

> "Within a few years their engines will be on multiple orbital class rockets, ..."

When that happens is when I think they'll prove their credibility. Not that my thought on this has any sway.

Maybe we don’t let jeff bezos make weapons, like for the good of humanity…

Maybe in the future I could finally buy that phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range from Amazon that I always wanted

Blue Origin is definitely slow. But, I have always believed their tech fundamentally will be more sustainable, if they pull it off.

One of the core issues at Blue Origin is their hydrogen rocketry. But, hydrogen rockets are much better for the environment, better for higher payloads, and is also better for national security (hydrogen tech has a lot of nuance and secrets).

SpaceX uses kerosene. It's cheaper, easier to handle, and easier to engineer a system with... But it's not as scalable and it's worse for the environment if you're doing a lot of launches. Plus, much of it is based in Russian tech.

If hydrogen storage gets better or cheaper (current goal of this government administration) we will see further favorability toward the Blue Origin approach.

[removed]

[removed]

This comment is about a decade out of date.

[removed]

….Have you ever heard of Raptor engine?

Ah yes, Starship apperantly doesn't exist

Hydrogen isn't "better for the environment". You're assuming we get hydrogen for free. At the moment, most hydrogen is created through steam reforming of methane, thus methane, right now, is greener than hydrogen just because you save the energy cost of the reforming process.

Hydrogen is harder to store, has a lower energy density by volume, and is massively more dangerous than methane thanks to its enormous flammibility limits and its high flame front speed leading to larger explosion overpressures. Hydrogen has more energy by mass, but mass is not that relevant thanks to its enormous volume requirements forcing structural masses to be larger (just look at the size of hydrogen rockets versus falcon 9).

You could argue that hydrogen can be made via water electrolysis and renewable energy in the future, but this is also true for methane being made from water and carbon dioxide. What is also interesting is that SpaceX is betting its entire Mars architecture on getting the 2xH2O+CO2->CH4+2xO2 chemistry working via the Sabatier process. It is also a step in carbon capture and reutilisation, a key technology if we're to reduce CO2 emissions.

Overall, hydrogen is not the solution to the energy crisis or the solution to rocketry. The solution to the energy crisis is decarbonisation of energy production (no need for hydrogen at all there, just use batteries, solar, and wind). The solution for rocketry around the solar system seems to be methane, with the only possible exception being the moon which has no carbon source.

Has it landed successfully yet?

Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:

|Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |BE-4|Blue Engine 4 methalox rocket engine, developed by Blue Origin (2018), 2400kN| |BO|Blue Origin (Bezos Rocketry)| |NG|New Glenn, two/three-stage orbital vehicle by Blue Origin| | |Natural Gas (as opposed to pure methane)| | |Northrop Grumman, aerospace manufacturer| |ULA|United Launch Alliance (Lockheed/Boeing joint venture)|

|Jargon|Definition| |-------|---------|---| |Raptor|Methane-fueled rocket engine under development by SpaceX| |Sabatier|Reaction between hydrogen and carbon dioxide at high temperature and pressure, with nickel as catalyst, yielding methane and water| |electrolysis|Application of DC current to separate a solution into its constituents (for example, water to hydrogen and oxygen)| |methalox|Portmanteau: methane fuel, liquid oxygen oxidizer|

^(7 acronyms in this thread; )^(the most compressed thread commented on today)^( has 11 acronyms.)
^([Thread #8189 for this sub, first seen 27th Oct 2022, 08:35]) ^[FAQ] ^([Full list]) ^[Contact] ^([Source code])

[removed]

Starship has multiple times yes

SpaceX rockets are based on Russian tech ? Elaborate please.

[removed]

Yeah, I thought there was a treaty that there would be no weapons or weapon research in space or on other planets?

What happened to that?

Amazon, from A to Z (Including Warfare). It iritates me that most of the world can't just focus on, I don't know, discovery?

To be fair, it took SpaceX roughly the same time to develop the raptor. So while late according to schedule, it’s actually not that bad.

Yes. That's very true. However, as I see it:

• meanwhile, SpaceX also dominates the launch market with a reusable booster

• Raptor development challenges engineering and materials limits in ways BE-4 doesn't.

I'm now in danger of coming across as anti-BO. I'm not. Nothing would be better for all were BO to excel. But I don't seem them there (yet).

Nuclear weapons are banned but conventional weapons are allowed.

Using space-based assets for military reconnaissance, positioning and communication is extremely common.

Raptor is an engine design that has never been used before. BE-4 is a well known design but using new fuel. SpaceX is also has built over 100 V1 engines and has already built multiple V2 engines. Blue likely has yet to build 10 BE-4s

Has Blue launched anything to orbit? They’ve proven basically none of their tech while SpaceX is the worlds leading rocket launch provider.

Developing an engine from scratch is hard, both BE4 and raptor were. And none of those 100 v1 engines will be used to get to orbit. Look, I’m a big fan of SpaceX. But I also think BO deserves credit for developing such a complex and powerful engine. I’ll be rooting for BO and ULA for a successful first flight of Vulcan.

Oh, wow. I had no idea about the conventional weapons part. I have a bad feeling about our future in space, to be honest.

Hydrogen is the worst fuel out there if you really wanna do something reliably in space on a large scale. Simply way too leaky with insane storage/management requirements.

Ol Lex Luther face ass lookin boy rubbin those hands together right now