From: jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com
In article ,
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.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
