There is increasing concern within NASA that China could beat us back to the Moon. A big component of this concern derives from increasing delay in the development of the SpaceX Starship, tabbed to be the lunar lander for the Artemis lunar program.
Surprisingly, it may turn out that Blue Origin’s New Glenn with some relatively small upgrades can operate as its own independent Moon rocket.
One estimate of the Blue Origins first stage propellant mass has been in the range of 1,150 tons:
First Stage: Fuel load: 1150 tonnes How? BE-4 with 2,440kN of thrust, and an ISP ~310 should have a mass flow rate of ~803kg/s. We know from the payload users guide that the engines burn for 200 seconds. 200s x 7eng x ~803kg = 1,124,200kg. This number should have a pretty high fidelity, being off on ISP by 3 only changes the final number by ~10 tonnes. Subtract out some for a likely throttle down during Max-Q and during the end of the burn to limit Gs under 4 then add back in the landing fuel and you likely arrive at ~1,150 tonnes.
Empty mass: ~100 tonnes How? Falcon 9's first stage weighs about 27 tonnes vs. ~409 tonnes of fuel. Falcon 9 also has fuel that is 30% more dense, doesn't have large strakes, and the TWR for Merlin is probably about twice as high as BE-4.
This seems pretty robust, based on propellant burn rates and published length of the first stage burn time as indicated there. However, it could be this doesn’t take into account the propellant that needs to be kept on reserve for the reentry and landing burns.
On the other hand, this estimates it as smaller by a factor of 2.6 than that of the SpaceX Superheavy booster:
Apparently taken from this graphic available in the New Glenn Users Guide:
The SuperHeavy has a capacity of 3,600 tons, this would put the New Glenn propellant capacity at 1,380 tons.
Estimate its’s dry mass as in that forum.NasaSpaceflight.com post as ca. 100 tons. For the hydrolox upper stage, based on it’s size estimate propellant load as ca. 200 tons, and assume a Centaur-like 10 to 1 mass ratio, giving it a dry mass of ca. 20 tons.
Then estimate the payload to LEO using the rocket equation:
But the point of the matter is 100 tons to LEO has long been seen as the needed payload capacity for a rocket to serve as a single launch manned rocket to the Moon.
However, this will need greater thrust than the 1,750 tons cited by Blue Origin to lift off with adequate thrust/weight ratio(TWR). Indeed, the gross mass in this estimate is already above the 1,750 ton sea level thrust quoted by New Glenn.
During the first test launch of New Glenn it was much commented on how slow was the acceleration at lift-off. Even at that lower estimated first stage propellant load of 1,150 tons the lift-off TWR would still be quite low. It seems likely this low TWR is the cause of the payload being initially only 25 tons rather than the previously announced 45 tons.
Given the low liftoff TWR and the reduced payload, Blue Origin probably intended from the beginning to upgrade the New Glenn thrust.
This graphic shows a thrust level of 4.51 million pounds for a three stage New Glenn, or 2,050 tons compared to the current 1,750 tons, a 17% upgrade.
SpaceX has upgraded the thrust of the Raptor more than once at higher than this level of increase so this is a feasible upgrade.
Additionally, Blue Origin in an employment announcement has mentioned an increase in the number of engines from 7 to 9:
SpaceX has also shown increasing or decreasing number of engines on a stage is a relatively straightforward modification. Actually, given the competitiveness between New Glenn and SpaceX it may be that Blue Origin originally decided to go with 7 engines rather than 9 just so as not to be seen as copying SpaceX. It does seem mysterious why Blue Origin would field a rocket with such a low TWR from the beginning.
So we’ll assume an upgrade of thrust level of the BE-4 by 17% to bring the 7 engine thrust to 2,050 tons and also an increase in the number of engines to 9, to bring the total thrust now to 2,635 tons. This results in a quite healthy liftoff TWR of 2,635/1,800 = 1.46.
After their success in their first launch of reaching orbit with New Glenn, Blue Origin plans to top that with a launch of a lunar cargo lander in March with the Blue Moon Mk 1. This would be quite remarkable to advance so rapidly from an initial orbital launch to follow that in the next launch to a landing with a rather sizable 21 ton lander on the Moon. This larger than the Apollo lunar lander.
Note, a 100 ton LEO capacity of the upgraded New Glenn will allow a ca. 50 payload to trans-lunar injection(TLI). This is comparable to that of the Saturn V.
In a follow-up post we’ll show this New Glenn with an additional third stage and lander comparable to the Blue Moon Mk 1 can form a manned rocket to the Moon.
The explosion of the upper stage Starship during the IFT-7 test flight came as a surprise since SpaceX has promoted the idea the Starship is close to being operational to carry passengers.
I had previously written in 2023 the Raptor engine was insufficiently reliable at least in regards to an engine intended for manned rockets:
SpaceX should withdraw its application for the Starship as an Artemis lunar lander, Page 2: The Raptor is an unreliable engine.
That conclusion has to be said still holds. Multiple lines of evidence lead to the conclusion SpaceX has not been completely forthright in regards to the Raptor reliability.
SpaceX has been disingenuous in regards to the Raptor reliability from the beginning of the Starship testing. In describing static fires of the Raptor, SpaceX referred to short 5 to 7 second burns as “full duration”. But in the industry the term “full duration” is understood to be short for “full mission duration.” It refers to static fires that last for the full length and full power level of an actual mission. They are meant to give confidence to the rocket company, and importantly also to potential customers, the engine can indeed fulfill the mission requirements needed during flight.
Defenders of this use of the terminology have argued SpaceX is using it to mean “full planned duration”. But in the industry, if a rocket engine manufacturer wants to do a test for a shorter length they just call them tests of that shorter length. There is no logical reason for using a term well accepted in the industry with the meaning changed. The only reason that comes to mind is that SpaceX wanted to provide an unwarranted assessment to the Raptor reliability.
The unreliability of the Raptor engine was seen in prior tests of the Starship landing procedures:
As this video shows, the leaks and fires are seen quite commonly during restarts, though they do occur during the initial burns also. This points out another area where SpaceX has not been fully forthright about the Raptor reliability. For the SpaceX plan using multiple refuelings for their Moon and Mars flights it is absolutely essential the Raptor be reliable for 3-burns during a single flight, the initial burn, the boostback or reentry burn, and finally the landing burns.
But astonishingly SpaceX has not done a single static test of the Raptor able to do all 3 burns for the full mission lengths, full mission wait times between burns, and full mission power levels.
SpaceX has done a static test showing a quite large number of restarts in succession:
This was offered as evidence of the Raptor able to do the needed burns for reusability. But actually it does the reverse. The Raptor will never have to do this number of burns in quick succession for a real flight. In contrast, the Raptor will have to do the cited 3-burns for both stages for every single flight. Why test an engine usage that will never happen in place of one that will always happen?
The only apparent answer is SpaceX has no confidence in the Raptor to do the necessary burns for the needed burn times, wait times, and power levels.
Several Raptors also exploded or otherwise failed on the first Superheavy/Starship test flight IFT-1. SpaceX has argued the Raptor reliability has improved with the Raptor 2. But a key failure shows the Raptor 2 still is lacking in reliability. Indeed this failure provides further support for the contention SpaceX has not been completely forthright on the Raptor reliability. This was the failure on IFT-4 during the booster landing burn.
During this booster landing burn a Raptor 2 actually exploded. SpaceX still has not “come clean” on this fact. By not acknowledging this explosive failure they are giving an inaccurate assessment of the Raptor reliability.
There are other important implications of this failure however. SpaceX had previously told the FAA the Superheavy booster was expected after ocean touchdown to tip over and float.
Starship/Super Heavy Vehicle Ocean Landings and Launch Pad Detonation Suppression System, p.5
It should have floated like the Falcon 9 did after a soft ocean landing:
But in point of fact the Superheavy booster actually exploded. It appears likely the Raptor explosion during the landing burn compromised the vehicle integrity causing it to explode after ocean touchdown.
But this has important consequences for the other booster landings over ocean and land. In IFT-6 the booster was waved off from the booster catch and did an ocean touchdown. Elon said it was likely that it would explode after ocean touchdown, which it did. But what about the SpaceX claim to the FAA that after soft ocean touchdown and tip over the booster would survive and float?
Note that in this landing burn of the booster in IFT-6, flames were also seen shooting out the side of the booster. Even though there was no apparent engine explosion during this landing burn, as happened in IFT-4, that it also exploded after ocean touchdown suggests in this case also the booster was damaged. Then rather than the flames shooting up the side of the booster being an intentional venting it may be indicative of fires occurring in the engine bay as had been seen previously, thus compromising the vehicle integrity.
In IFT-5 however, the booster was able to successfully complete the tower catch, despite the flames shooting up the side. In IFT-7 as well the tower catch was successful despite the flames also seen shooting up the side:
We may hypothesize that it is the forces of the booster toppling over and impacting the ocean that cause the explosions that do not obtain during the tower catch, even though fires inside the engine bay occur in both scenarios.
There is further evidence to suggest that fires occurring inside the engine bay are the underlying cause of the flames seen shooting up the sides of the booster during the landing burns.
After the Starship explosion in IFT-7 Elon suggested the flames inside the Starship may have caused pressure build up that released flames, in this case small near the rear flap hinge:
Elon suggested the position of the fire based on the position of this hinge:
Preliminary indication is that we had an oxygen/fuel leak in the cavity above the ship engine firewall that was large enough to build pressure in excess of the vent capacity.
Apart from obviously double-checking for leaks, we will add fire suppression to that volume and probably increase vent area. Nothing so far suggests pushing next launch past next month.
However, it should be noted because of their large size the Raptor Vacuum engines powerheads are also close to this area, so the leak could still have originated from them. You see in the image below the middle sea level engines’ powerheads are surrounded by fire shielding, and are below an apparent firewall. But the longer vacuum engines powerheads extend above this firewall.
In that statement by Elon, it is also notable that Elons says the oxygen/fuel leak and resulting fire was in excess of the vent to handle. Applying that logic also to the Superheavy booster, the flames seen shooting out the side during the booster landing burns may have been due to propellant leaks and fires that were within the capacity of the larger vents on the booster to handle.
The second part of Elon’s statement also suggests this. Elon makes SpaceX sound sanguine about the leaks and flames within the rocket as long as they can be controlled.
But whether they are controlled or not does not contradict the fact the flames seen shooting up the side of the booster during the landing burns are due to leaks and fires within the rocket.
An earlier statement by Elon also suggests SpaceX had accepted the leaks, and resulting fires, by the Raptors and just sought to contain them:
We could build a lot more, but the next version of Raptor is really the one to scale up production. We begin testing it in McGregor within a week or so.
Regenerative cooling and secondary flow paths have been made integral to the whole engine, thus no heat shield is required. Nothing quite like this has ever been done before.
Taking away the engine heat shields also removes the need for 10+ tons of fire suppression behind the engine heat shield, as any gas leaks simply enter the already super-heated plasma surrounding the engines, rendering the leaks irrelevant.
SpaceX managed to convince the FAA not to require mishap investigations when an engine didn’t start or or fire the expected length of time, as long as the public was not endangered. This was a mistake because it allowed even IFT-4 not to require a mishap investigation. But this meant SpaceX didn’t have to admit an Raptor exploded during the booster landing burn on this flight. This had the effect of giving a misleading understanding of the reliability of the Raptor.
However, with Starship exploding in IFT-7 with a chance conceivably of the public having been endangered, it must be noted the possibility it was an engine explosion can not be ruled out, along with the possibility it was a plumbing explosion. Then the Raptors tendency to leak and catch fire must be given more serious review.
For these reasons, the FAA should require SpaceX to release any and all videos of the engine bays of both stages while the engines are firing, most specifically during restarts.
Several fire fighting equipment manufactures have mobile, high power water pumps:
Such pumps can send water kilometer distances:
23 Jul 2018
New firefighting water cannon said to produce up to 81000 liters/minute.
“Extremely long hose lines.
With some pressure stabilization along the way, the pumps should have the capacity to enable crews to reach fires up to 3 kilometers / 1,7 miles away from the water source.”
Then the idea be would be to transport the high power mobile pumps to a water source, ocean, lake, pond, river, stream, and then use multiple fire hoses connected end-to-end to transport the water to the site of the fire.
Placing multiple fire trucks along the path from the water source to the fire you can extend the distance even longer than the 3 km mentioned in that article. Fire trucks typically carry fire hoses of lengths totaling 2,000 feet or more and their onboard pumps can further extend the distance which the high water pressure can be presented.
Note that many people have questioned why the nearby ocean water is not being used to fight the wildfires. An issue is that saltwater can be damaging to forest land. That is why I want to consider also other, freshwater sources. In looking up other wildfires I noticed it is common that water sources do exist within kilometers of wildfires. For the Pacific Palisades wildfire the Topanga Creek and the Santa Ynez Reservoir lie within kilometers of the wildfire, as can be confirmed by Google Maps.
Unfortunately, in the last few days it’s been reported that the Santa Ynez Reservoir has been out of operation and empty for nearly a year. This has raised quite a bit of consternation since it should have had quite a large amount of water and could have helped resupply the empty fire hydrants in the region.
Still, there is the Topanga Creek. But as its name implies it is rather shallow. A large, high volume pump may not be able to draw from it. However, actually it may be using smaller pumps would be of necessity anyway.
The Topanga Creek and the Palisades wildfire are in forested areas. They would not be accessible to fire trucks or large trucks to transport high volume pumps. You would need smaller pumps for the purpose. For transporting them and the needed fire hoses, there are ATV’s specialized for firefighting:
Using several of these could accomplish the same thing as one large, high volume pump:
You might also be able use small “Bobcat”-style bulldozers for clearing a paths for the ATV’s and fire hoses.
Because of the regulations and red-tape that hinder new government projects taking place in a timely fashion I would advise the companies that offer these mobile pumps to offer to implement the proposal gratis, just asking to get the go ahead. If the project succeeds they would get world-wide acclaim and contract offers to implement it to fight other wildfires.
