There’s a good report on the Bezos/Bruno announcement over at The Space Review.
10 thoughts on “The Blue Origin Engine”
Off topic a bit .. but it is about engines… is it only me that finds this rather hilarious … refering to shuttle engines by name?
“For that debut flight – known as Exploration Mission-1 (EM-1) – NASA’s Liquid Engine Office selected the first four engines that will loft the monster rocket uphill.
The four engines – ME-2045, ME-2056, ME-2058, and ME-2060 – are all established Shuttle veterans with numerous successful missions under their belts.
These engines are scheduled to be delivered from their current home at the Stennis Space Center to the Michoud Assembly Facility (MAF) in New Orleans at one-month intervals, beginning in September 2015”
guess I should be naming my car engines…. there has been some veterans…
These established veterans will be buried at sea after completion of their suicide mission.
It’s OK. In a few decades, Bezos will go and recover them from the seabed :).
When each individual engine costs more than half as much as a Falcon 9 flight, naming them doesn’t seem so crazy.
The RS-25 (SSME) cost around 60 million each when last produced, so, adjusted for inflation, I think we’re at around one SSME=1 falcon heavy flight. 🙂
I’m also betting that the RS-25E (the engine they’ve yet to develop for SLS), while not reusable, will still cost even more per unit.
SpaceX and the government both optimize for cost, not performance. The government just thinks higher cost is preferable to lower. 🙂
We must always remember that the government in general and politicians in particular have different metrics for success than the real world. They also tend to focus more on inputs instead of outputs and on intentions instead of results.
Well said, Larry.
Amongst other things, that metric explains why they are spending so much on SLS, touting it as the means by which we’ll explore the solar system, while ignoring the fact that it’s useless for that. It’s the intent that matters, not the result.
Hrmmm, I wonder if I could interest them in funding my space launch system? I’ll make it cost the same as SLS, and be every bit as useful…. it’ll even be more environmentally friendly, due to using rubber bands instead of fuel. Sure, it’ll be functionally useless for its stated purpose, but it’s intent that matters, not results.
We’re in the very best of hands…
“Hrmmm, I wonder if I could interest them in funding my space launch system? I’ll make it cost the same as SLS, and be every bit as useful”
To follow the theme, your rocket needs to cost more than the SLS. More pork for more districts right?
Your car engine does have a name, just like the Shuttle engines. And, just like the Shuttle engines, it is a serial number.
IMHO there’s some sloppy points in this report, but I may be prejudiced since I just finished the (hopefully) final draft of my own version for “The Lurio Report.” 😉
Off topic a bit .. but it is about engines… is it only me that finds this rather hilarious … refering to shuttle engines by name?
“For that debut flight – known as Exploration Mission-1 (EM-1) – NASA’s Liquid Engine Office selected the first four engines that will loft the monster rocket uphill.
The four engines – ME-2045, ME-2056, ME-2058, and ME-2060 – are all established Shuttle veterans with numerous successful missions under their belts.
These engines are scheduled to be delivered from their current home at the Stennis Space Center to the Michoud Assembly Facility (MAF) in New Orleans at one-month intervals, beginning in September 2015”
Established veterans? … come on..
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/09/sls-engine-testing-delayed-test-stand-contamination/
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/05/four-shuttle-veterans-drive-sls-uphill-maiden-flight/
guess I should be naming my car engines…. there has been some veterans…
These established veterans will be buried at sea after completion of their suicide mission.
It’s OK. In a few decades, Bezos will go and recover them from the seabed :).
When each individual engine costs more than half as much as a Falcon 9 flight, naming them doesn’t seem so crazy.
The RS-25 (SSME) cost around 60 million each when last produced, so, adjusted for inflation, I think we’re at around one SSME=1 falcon heavy flight. 🙂
I’m also betting that the RS-25E (the engine they’ve yet to develop for SLS), while not reusable, will still cost even more per unit.
SpaceX and the government both optimize for cost, not performance. The government just thinks higher cost is preferable to lower. 🙂
We must always remember that the government in general and politicians in particular have different metrics for success than the real world. They also tend to focus more on inputs instead of outputs and on intentions instead of results.
Well said, Larry.
Amongst other things, that metric explains why they are spending so much on SLS, touting it as the means by which we’ll explore the solar system, while ignoring the fact that it’s useless for that. It’s the intent that matters, not the result.
Hrmmm, I wonder if I could interest them in funding my space launch system? I’ll make it cost the same as SLS, and be every bit as useful…. it’ll even be more environmentally friendly, due to using rubber bands instead of fuel. Sure, it’ll be functionally useless for its stated purpose, but it’s intent that matters, not results.
We’re in the very best of hands…
“Hrmmm, I wonder if I could interest them in funding my space launch system? I’ll make it cost the same as SLS, and be every bit as useful”
To follow the theme, your rocket needs to cost more than the SLS. More pork for more districts right?
Your car engine does have a name, just like the Shuttle engines. And, just like the Shuttle engines, it is a serial number.
IMHO there’s some sloppy points in this report, but I may be prejudiced since I just finished the (hopefully) final draft of my own version for “The Lurio Report.” 😉