Rocket Science: The Archimedes vs BE 4 Rocket Engines

[@jameswilson5165]

The answer to the above question: Bezos, 'Has People for That.) Rocket Lab ARE the People. I'm not much of an Obama supporter but one of his speech writers wrote these words: "We are the ones we have been waiting for." That's exactly how a rocket company has to think if they are going to make it to orbit and beyond.

[@gamerfortynine]

That's a statement of maintaining power. That's why so many ARE failing. They didn't clear the table and restructure.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Interesting point James.

[@BushidoBrownSama]

That's very fair

[@garyflo2885]

Totally agree with you. Leadership determines success. I used to work for Hughes Aircraft Space and Communications group long after Howard Hughes died. It was the best company I ever worked for as it was a total meritocracy and respect shown for the engineers and we were well treated. If you see the movie "The Aviator", you can get an idea of the respect Hughes showed for his engineers. This culture continued. By contrast when GM bought the company it went to shit in a week and I left.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Very sad Gary... Hughes was incredible in its day. Same thing with Boeing. They were at one time the gold standard. That's why when people say "we should give them the contract because they helped us get to the Moon!", I say, "not this group, not these people, they haven't done anything but crash planes by putting a single critical sensor on them... that's not the old Boeing.

[@allangibson8494]

@@terranspaceacademy McDonnell Douglas used Boeing’s money to stage a hostile takeover…

[@terranspaceacademy]

@@allangibson8494 That makes sense...

[@branwellmcclory3459]

Rocketlab vs BO. Def Rocketlab. BO feels like old aerospace where Rocketlab, Spacex, etc are on a whole different level.

[@terranspaceacademy]

We agree completely Branwell.

[@chadjensenster]

Rocket Lab stock is dirt cheap right now. If you believe in space exploration and want to support the company while owning a piece of it, now is a great time to buy as it is on sale. Plus they are already launching to orbit, so they have a proven record of delivering.

[@terranspaceacademy]

We think so too! But we also bought a little Astra soooo.... maybe don't listen to us.

[@BushidoBrownSama]

But that's not financial advice, you just like the stock (TM)

[@scottthomas3792]

Touring that factory would be a great way to spend a day....I hope they succeed! The more people trying to get into space, with their own ideas and methods, the better. A great video!

[@terranspaceacademy]

Thank you so much Scott!!

[@dukenukem001]

as usual , very well presented ... thanks again !!

[@terranspaceacademy]

You are most welcome Duke!

[@rstomahawkty]

Great video. Really made me once again fall in love with Peter Beck and Rocket Lab as a whole

[@terranspaceacademy]

Thank you! He is indeed and would get a lot more recognition if Musk had not come first... and been so outspoken... Sometimes I wish they would impair his twitter thumbs. I know its a part of who he is but he has no filter. You don't place bets on your friends outcome after a cancer diagnosis and you don't take a poll on Ukraine's assumed partitioning while they are still dying on the battlefield to defend it. A tad flippant but his Asperger's will make him unaware of the inappropriateness until he sees everyone's reaction. Unfortunate.

[@menotyou1234]

Hello, can you do a follow up on the Capstone mission, what's going on with it. ???

[@terranspaceacademy]

Sure. They've lost orientation and the panels are turned too far away from the sun to power back up and regain control so far. They are trying to get it to maneuver to a better position but without enough power to fully startup the bus they can't get guidance, navigation and control all online.

[@4n2earth22]

Very informative and well presented! Great job, thank you. I agree; Rocket Lab has traction and runway.

[@terranspaceacademy]

You are most welcome and thank you for watching!

[@sdebeaubien]

BO is running out of time to get a launch this year with one of their engines. It just ain't gonna happen. And unless they can seriously ramp up production, rather than testing an engine here and there and calling it "Dramatic" progress, they'll be launching 1 or 2 rockets a year at the pace they're going. But, space is hard. I'm impressed more and more with Rocket Lab. I'm going to be living about 5 miles from their new facility on Wallops Is. and I've considered maybe going back to work. They must have something an old Software Engineer can do, maybe testing, QA, that kind of thing. Have to admit, it would be kinda fun!

[@terranspaceacademy]

Won't it be amazing if relativity space is the first company to get a methane fueled rocket to space? :-) Terran 1! Represent!

[@rexprangnell6815]

We kiwis are known for what is called our no8 fencing wire thinking , being a small country very isolated from the rest of the world , we have had to do with little or nothing to survive , so we learnt how to use everyday things for multi purpose,that means we think differently see things in ways not recognised,necessity is the mother of invention , we have invented more than most but I’m just an ignorant kiwi fan

[@terranspaceacademy]

Rutherford alone would prove your point but now you've got an orbital rocket company :-)

[@davidhenry5128]

I like the new choice of engine design and the reasoning behind it, It allows for an engine design that can be easily altered to suit future power requirements etc. I like the fact that Rocket Lab is doing some genuinely innovative stuff here, instead of just another Spacex copy. I think Peter Beck was perhaps a little misleading with the comment of carbon fiber being 1/4 the weight of metal for the same load, that may be true, but when used in this application the tanks need to be seperate to the outer structure. With metal the tanks are part of that structure, so perhaps the actual figure is more like 1/2. From what I have read on carbon fiber (I work in the metal trades) it's strength in any direction depends largely on the lay of the fiber (to make it very strong in one direction it becomes weaker in others). It's durability and ability to consistantly handle the change from ambient temp to cryogenic temp for the tanks, and ambient to reentery temp for the outer structure is largly reliant on the glue that holds those fibers together. While I think using carbon fiber is a difficult task for this application, Rocket Lab have stated that they have developed their own 'glue' for this purpose. They have also developed their own nontoxic hyperbolic fuel, I think that is a first, but could be wrong. In any case Rocket Lab clearly employ high quality chemical engineers who would be as good as anyone at engineering those problem 'glues that I mentioned above. I guess this has been a long winded of saying yes, I think Rocket Lab has what is needed to succeed with Neutron.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Spell check made you say hyperbolic fuel :-) Which is proprietary to Blue Origin! I am still mixed on composite materials but I think the Neutron application is about the right size, and the booster won't experience anything near orbital reentry heat. But when you get really big I think steel is the way to go. Or lunar titanium... I love titanium :-)

[@TimStCroix]

@@terranspaceacademy I've been saying that, since Heavy Booster won't experience high temperatures and they don't need very many of them with the rapid turnaround time they're aiming for that it would make sense for SpaceX to use expensive, light materials for the weight savings without bankrupting the company. Also, yes to lunar titanium. With water, helium 3, titanium, low escape velocity and a barren environment (strip mining without protests) I would love to see lunar materials used for building infrastructure and spaceships with which we populate the rest of the solar system.

[@aldenconsolver3428]

I think Rocket Lab will get it done. I could see rocket lab being a company that builds special 2nd and 3rd sages custom and quick. Maybe even to be strapped onto Starship when SpaceX has a special project. Obviously rocket labs can do all parts of a spaceship themselves but I am looking forward to the day we can whip up lifters on demand, Things like series-produced landing modules for a company doing taxi work to the moon from lunar orbit

[@terranspaceacademy]

We agree. We expect great things from them.

[@costrio]

Excellent presentation of information. I love it! However, at 15:29 I have to say that ship really reminds me of the old B&W "Flash Gordon" flying ships (without the sparkly engines.)

[@terranspaceacademy]

Thank you! Flash Gordon was cool Olivier!

[@tekish7682]

Good Job! The one thing with SpaceX Raptor is the drive to make the most out of chamber pressure. I like the reduction of complexity for reliability. SpaceX has problems with reliability of the Raptor. I don't know if the engine is robust enough to handle the existing pressures without a big giveaway of longevity. SpaceX is redesigning thrust region for Raptor RUD.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Very true... if they can get the margins high enough they can pull that back some and still be ok.

[@tekish7682]

@@terranspaceacademy I certainly hope so. I saw yesterday that B9 will have the 2.1 with electric gimbal. I'm absolutely sure that they'll make it to orbit. I'm also absolutely confident, that we'll have a couple more excellent companies doing reuse soon. Rocket Lab and Relativity. It's all happening!

[@danwhiffen9235]

rocket lab is exciting. not quite as exciting as spacex, but very important in the space race V2.0 to keep someone nipping at spacex's heels. i really wish BO was doing this... i dont know what theyre up to...

[@terranspaceacademy]

No one does Dan! Not even Jeff :-)

[@rubikmonat6589]

I'm a couple of weeks late, but the stage engine must be on a stand. they show the engine height of 2.1 metres at 31:30 in the video.

[@terranspaceacademy]

We were wondering about that. Thank you.

[@darkguardian1314]

10:50 Blue Origin testing fairing recovery system similar to SpaceX. Don't care what company does the job but they deliver. After many By the Year 2000 "lies" I've heard since the 1960s, the goal isn't the best CGI but actual getting the job done... quickly.

[@terranspaceacademy]

I would agree with that completely Lee.

[@kennyg1358]

Good stuff

[@terranspaceacademy]

Glad you enjoyed it Kenny!

[@svOcelot]

Thank you for this. Very well done!

[@terranspaceacademy]

Thank you too!

[@jchidley]

Thank you for your analysis. I think that you are probably right. I expect Rocket Lab to beat Blue Origin.

[@terranspaceacademy]

You are most welcome. We expect great things from Rocket Lab in the future.

[@me4814]

I love RL!! I keep buying shares and watching in anticipation

[@terranspaceacademy]

We have very high hopes for them.

[@saumyacow4435]

Worth returning to this now we've seen the more or less final version of Archimedes?

[@terranspaceacademy]

Have they come out and announced the finished product? I thought they were still testing.

[@flechette3782]

I am so glad the discussion turned to leadership even though I am an engineer. I am so sick of American companies being run be CEOs that are clueless. Modern business schools teach that any business can be run the same way. This is why we see Boards of Directors hiring a former autoparts CEO for a toothpaste company and paying him millions. If you look at their qualifications/resume it is all about how much "money I managed" but says nothing about the business product. They really are clueless, and this is why they run companies into the ground. All the great aerospace companies were founded by guys who were actual engineers and understood the product AND the market, sometimes before the market knew what they wanted. Look at Jack Northrop, who pushed the concept of flying wings for decades, ultimately showing its advantages for lift capacity, range and stealth: the B-2. Elon Musk and Peter Beck are engineers. They know their product and they know the market. They can be great aerospace CEOs. Jeff Bezos sells books.

[@terranspaceacademy]

We would have to agree though there is always push-back that Elon didn't invent anything and just bought successful companies. We think his success has been do to two things, systems management skills and knowing what he's talking about when it comes to technology. He started in physics, a good foundation for any engineer, then he digs in and learns the details... Ever see Bezos walk around an engine pointing out its development? :-)

[@craigmorrison7747]

what makes RKLB so sure in themselves that they can land the vehicle back on the pad? SX took multiple goes to succeed and as far as I am aware they are still the only launch company successful in achieving the landing.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Once something is proven possible the technique can usually be rapidly duplicated.

[@cedriccease8385]

Not sure if anyone commented about this already … but Peter Beck mentioned something about their new engine that was not covered (or maybe I missed it) in any of your past videos. He said they don’t want to push the envelope on anything and that it was going to be the most boring engine in the world. One thing in particular he mentioned is the chamber pressure, he said it will be around 1500-2000 psi, the implication being they will not push the 4500+psi Raptor is doing. Now, in your BE-4 fault analysis video you said the weakest point in the design are the turbines since BE-4, like Rocketlab, opted for the single shaft design. You mentioned the required mass throughput and possibly the rpm requirements. My point … isn’t this one of the reasons why Raptor is going for high pressures. I would guess that both fuel and oxidizer will be either in the gas or SCF phase in the turbines. Therefore higher pressure meant higher density for the fluid. Higher density implies higher mass flow rate from a lower turbine rpm. Therefore higher pressure DOES NOT necessarily mean lower reusability for the engine. I am not a rotating equipment expert but I worked with enough people who are and I recall them telling me that it is easier to control pressure/temperature and loads on bearings in design parameters for pumps than it is for higher rpm requirements. Because pressure/temperature/load requirements may just mean picking the correct material but higher rpms require picking the correct material and tighter tolerances for making the rotating parts in the pump or turbine.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Very good point. High pressure equals short residence time equals higher mass propellant flow and therefore higher thrust from a smaller engine. Low pressure equals larger combustion chamber and longer residence time. High pressure does not mean lower reusability as you state, IF, you can solve the explodeyness factor. Copyright pending on that term. Efficiency comes from chemistry (energy content of reaction of fuel and oxidizer) and power or thrust comes from physics (how fast can you get propellants into the combustion chamber and have them react. The Raptor is based on two turbopumps to share the workload, extremely high combustion chamber pressure to reduce residence time and allow higher propellant flow which increases thrust. A lot of people criticize the exploding Raptors now but SpaceX could downtune it a little today and have the best most reliable methane engine on Earth. Just like the Merlin is the best RP-1 engine. Don't tell me that the RD-180 is better when it can't even be reused once. The keep blowing them up to push the envelope and find the limits of current metallurgy and technology and push beyond them. When they start flying regularly Raptors will be like aircraft engines. Always running with a large safety margin.

[@cedriccease8385]

@@terranspaceacademy Question … are the failure points of the exploding raptors always at the combustion chamber? No failures at the turbines? I have been looking at videos from many sites to determine this. I expect that if the failure point is at the combustion chamber then you should at least see the bell nozzle falling off in the SpaceX vertical test stand, or pieces of the nozzle shooting out on the horizontal test stand. I don’t recall seeing anything like that. Any analysis video planned by TSA to speculate on possible failure points on the current Raptor-2?

[@cedriccease8385]

Reviewed the Raptor failure videos from Lab Padre. I don’t see any pieces of nozzle flying out or falling off. However, 2 videos showed the green flame that is indicative of the injectors burning off because the methane supply was cut, just like in one of the SNs during landing. So this implies the Methane Turbine failing instead of a failure in the combustion chamber. Brings back my initial point that the high pressures of Raptor is not just for combustion efficiency but maybe to reduce the RPM of the turbine.

[@joseeduardobolisfortes]

The ideal should be a rocket like Neutron that can launch the Dream Chaser; that could be a true totally reusable system. But we need to content us with the reality...

[@terranspaceacademy]

That's a great idea!

[@Knossos22]

The BE-4 might be made to work, but it looks like it will end up being a decade late. Nonetheless, the number of new engines and launch vehicles and inevitable reusability and the necessity to stay competitive is and will lead to a remarkable period in the relatively near future. If the Super heavy / Starship is successful in its design specification (TPS, engines, structure, second-stage reusability, lift capacity, and ease of producing a multitude of vehicle design capabilities) will lead to a moment, where the world is suddenly going to look remarkably different just 3 or 5 years after its first successful launches. The rapid, full, cost-effective, reusability, i.e. an efficient solution to lower earth orbit, will lead to rapid development of Lunar resources and cis-lunar space.

[@terranspaceacademy]

We agree. A decade from the first success of a Starship will be the greatest time in space history on this planet. Finally surpassing Apollo.

[@ti994apc]

I never liked the names Archimedes or Rutherford. It sound like an old car my grandfather would drive.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Doesn't it though! Yup, got T-boned by a Rutherford back in '22. Still walk with a limp kids...

[@dexterberry1874]

All hail the algorithm.

[@terranspaceacademy]

All hail!

[@plainText384]

The claim that Blue Origin failed with BE4 seems, at best, premature and at worst a lie. The development may have taken longer than initially expected (ca. +4 year), but that's true for most large aerospace projects (Starship/BFR was supposed to have two mars landings by 2022), and BO principle was never speed above everything else. Less than a month after this video was posted BO delivered its first BE4 flight engine to ULA and unless BE4 causes Vulcan to fail, I'd consider the BE4 a success.

[@terranspaceacademy]

They accepted a commercial contract and FAILED to deliver on time, costing their customer hundreds of millions. That's a fact. SpaceX/Starship disappoints only itself when it has a delay. The BE-4 is NOT a success at this point. It hasn't accomplished anything except burning through a lot of money. It will probably work fine as a single flight non-reusable engine for Vulcan but that remains to be seen.

[@plainText384]

@Terran Space Academy BO has accomplished developing a powerful (~2.4MN) reusable staged combustion rocket engine, with deep throttle capability (at least down to 40% thrust) and no reliance on Russian components, which was their goal and is extremely impressive. SpaceX also has customers that suffer from their delays, such as DearMoon, that is true for any company, not just BO. As for "cost ULA hundreds of millions", if that is a fact, please post a source. Every article I've read, for example one from Arstechnica in 2021, claims that BE4 is STILL a cheaper and faster choice than the alternative AR1 from Aerojet Rocketdyne.

[@terranspaceacademy]

@@plainText384 No... they haven't. Nothing has been proven reusable or even operational yet. Raptors have lifted Starships off the ground. BO is a no go so far. And the BE-4 is much more expensive than the Raptor. No one cares about the AR1 at this point.

[@mikedagenais3410]

Agree ULA Blue Origin are going nowhere fast unless things change they will not succeed! Rocket Labs have impressed me for quite sometime and they are I believe going to become a definite option to SpaceX! Not sure about Ariane they might have a chance looks like they are turning the corner as they realized SpaceX had become “the” one! Looks like they are going ahead with a reusable rocket we will see how they do!?

[@terranspaceacademy]

What do you think about Relativity Mike? We have high hopes for them.

[@schrodingersjet1043]

The BE-4 has far, far more thrust than the Archimedes. The only advantage Archimedes has is that it will probably be flying dozens of times while Blue Origin is taking the BE-4 back to the test stand yet again to get all the bugs worked out.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Just comparing engines with similar cycles etc for educational purposes.

[@schrodingersjet1043]

@@terranspaceacademy Oh sure, I wasn't criticizing, just trying to make a joke that Archimedes started much later but might very well fly before the BE-4!! Just attempting humor.

[@terranspaceacademy]

@@schrodingersjet1043 It might indeed. It looks like another delay for Vulcan. Very hard on the companies that contracted.

[@nikohamil538]

Who is no 2 in both SpaceX and Rocket Lab ? I mean Elon Musk, as you say and as everybody knows, is the guy knowing this and that. He s a decision maker He s the order giving He is the navigator and the captain. And from what i ve seen all this time, Peter Beck is like this too "The ship is mine" type of guy So what happens to these 2 companies and specially SpaceX after their 'captain' move aside ? Will the vision remain ? Or they will end up like 2 more ULAs ?

[@terranspaceacademy]

That's a good question. I think Shotwell can keep things going, she does most of it anyway, but can she inspire the investments the way he has?

[@iamscoutstfu]

BO didn't fail, it turns out. Flight BE4s are have passed their tests and are being delivered to ULA. Also where do you get the 32 engine figure for the 2023 launches? And people should be looking at a company because the CEO makes turkey stuffing metaphors and doesn't have the confidence in their own technology to push it to its maximum capacity?

[@terranspaceacademy]

That was from an older update. I hope the BE-4s come through but we've been disappointed many times. Fingers crossed.

[@iamscoutstfu]

@@terranspaceacademy Stay tuned ;)

[@recycle320]

Yes working on thee website that will transition crypto into the next phase. The bridging of the digital and the physical.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Not sure you posted that on the right channel Tycoon. Space and all that.

[@recycle320]

@@terranspaceacademy yes listening to you while

[@tariq5783]

Very good presentation. Boring design? Yeah right! No closed cycle engine is ever boring! I would like to know exactly what chamber pressures he is talking about. And what metallurgy and seals he is using to combat the corrosive effects of hot oxygen. Maybe, that's his secret sauce. So far, we've had one example of a reliable oxygen rich pre-burner closed cycle engine - the RD-180. But, that has to work only once! A reusable, let alone a rapidly reusable, oxygen rich closed cycle engine remains to be proven. You know what boring is? A basic gas generator open cycle engine like the Meriln-1D. Now, extend that to burn methane instead of RP1 and you have a true boring workhorse!

[@terranspaceacademy]

You are correct Tariq. I have wondered why they don't combine expander and closed fuel rich cycles with a turbine on either end and the pumps in between... I know the complexity goes up but so does the redundancy. That way no turbine is forced to kill itself on such a big engine.

[@tariq5783]

One point that Peter Beck made that I thought was very significant, certainly resonated with me as a hardware design engineer - do not push your design implementation to the edge of what your system can tolerate before breakdown. In other words, leave plenty of design margin. This design philosophy will go a long ways towards achieving the desired reliability and reusability. I suspect that's what Beck implies with "boring". Elon Musk, on the other hand, likes to push the design to its limits. With all due respect, Elon, that approach does not bode well for rapid reusability. 33 Raptors, 66 turbopumps in the booster alone - there are many failure modes yet to be understood in a system of such complexity. Don't expect an orbital flight/recovery anytime soon! Looking forward to seeing how rapidly reusable the Raptor is compared to the Archimedes.

[@manuelurdaneta8649]

And Firefly?

[@terranspaceacademy]

We did a whole lesson on them. Great company, still RP-1 right now so competing with Electron, Astra Rocket and Falcon. Not really anything ground breaking with the alpha, while the Neutron will be. Great to see them get to orbit with the Alpha though.

[@dmurray2978]

CEO entrepreneur, born in nineteen sixty four

[@terranspaceacademy]

Ah it was a good year! The Mustang came out that year! :-)

[@cwcordes]

Yes Bezos was an online bookseller. He's not an engineer and forbids his engineers to speak. So we have no idea what is happening, but we can easily see what is not happening. I have been expecting ULA to bolt for the last 2 years. As a retired engineer, I just gobble up Terran Space Academy, Musk, and Beck with a serving ladle. All three are well-spoken and smart. Thank you.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Glad to hear it Cliff! Thank you!

[@danapted]

Well, yes beck is better than Bezos, but who will succeed? That will hopefully be both. They are serving different markets.

[@terranspaceacademy]

I think RL will take BOs lunch money if they aren't careful. What's after the neutron? Positron! No that's an electron flying backwards... Kaon! Higher mass!

[@FranciscoRamirez-gb6zc]

He is right I got my bet on Peter Beck with thousands of shares in my portfolio

[@terranspaceacademy]

We think that's a pretty safe bet these days Francisco. Though we did buy some Astra and didn't sell in time so....

[@davidrobertson5700]

Engines that burn fuel seem old hat when the British have the tic tacs that don't burn fuel and can do water, atmosphere, space so why carry fuel to burn fuel ?

[@terranspaceacademy]

Because... the British don't have the tic tacs... :-) No one has the tic tacs... at least no one on Earth :-)

[@davidrobertson5700]

@@terranspaceacademy BAE systems, project greenglow.

[@paulcarter7445]

@@davidrobertson5700 Project greenglow has been fooling the unwary for 27 years, it's unreasonable to expect satellite launch atop theories, asperations and visions.

[@dissaid]

😎....You guys are getting ridiculous....

[@terranspaceacademy]

We do are best Commander :-)

[@demultiplexdfunc177]

Composite is a dead end, IMHO. Currently, SpaceX is leading by a light year and following distantly behind is China. I see India closing the gap. Russia is going backward.

[@terranspaceacademy]

For the first stage for a small or medium sized rocket composite is still a viable option... but for anything really big steel is far superior.

[@paulcarter7445]

Composite a dead end ? There are increasing numbers of composite solutions delivering great results e.g. Firefly. Even F9 is partly composite.

[@demultiplexdfunc177]

@@paulcarter7445 Firefly has not made a dime. Yes, the Falcon 9 fairings are made of composite and we all know the effort SpaceX has gone through to recover it. Remember all those failed catches? They cost several million dollars per pair thus recovering them make sense. The cost/weight benefit likely prohibit use of disposable steel in fairings consequently SpaceX never replace Falcon 9 fairings with steel. I believe once Starship is in service (~2-3 years from now), it is game over in the launch space, no pun intended. Firefly and Rocket Lab best pivot to other space manufacturing pursuits - there are plenty of things to do in space!!

[@paulcarter7445]

@@demultiplexdfunc177 "Making a dime" is not a criterion for usefulness of composites. It's not just the F9's fairings that use composites - the interstage does too. Musk told us clearly why he rejected composites for Starship, despite composite's superior performance. He used metals because they're quicker to change during development of Starship. Starship does not address small launch and because of competing demands for limited resources , Starship will be used for what it's best at - heavy launch, and Neutron and others will be used for what they're best at.

[@linyenchin6773]

Y ooo no in chat!! 🤖

[@terranspaceacademy]

I know! Mea culpa! It's a crazy time right now. Very, very busy. I was on the road when it released. :-) I'll be in the next one I promise.

[@theantsaretakingover]

The bezos comment didn’t age well lol

[@terranspaceacademy]

Which one? He still hasn't put one of his own rockets into orbit but the BE-4s worked okay on one test.

[@theantsaretakingover]

@@terranspaceacademy the comment where you say that you’d never seen Jeff do interviews and that he doesn’t know nearly as much about his rockets as Elon musk, which now Tim Dod has just toured with bezos around new Glenn’s facility and it’s clear he knows every part that goes on in new Glenn and understands rocketry thoroughly.

[@pad39a81]

Jeff Bezos old company is basically a package delivery service. Now he heads a rocket company which is something he knows little about. Beck knows rocket engines. Ula and the good old boys, have been draining NASA's budget for years. Now that NASA has wised up with their contracts, Boeing has to eat the losses, which they can't afford. Some say they wish NASA cancels the contract, as do many of Boeing stockholders. The starship lunar lander can almost do the entire job by itself. It can send close to 100 astronauts to the Moon. It can take off from the moon's surface. All it needs is to rendezvous with a moon orbiting fuel tanker and return to Earth orbit whereupon they will dock with a starship with heat shields to return the astronauts to Earth. This won't happen though, because NASA has to have two competitors. Want to do the job and the other to satisfy the lobbyist.

[@pad39a81]

One to do the job and the other to satisfy the lobbyists.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Sadly very accurate revered Pad39A.

[@linyenchin6773]

@@pad39a81 Jeff Bezos is attempting to Cyber-enhance for nootropic effect to boost his ofnitive resolution by 63.56% ... Then he can finally be 45% as smart as he dreams he is... He won't be able to sense the light within the Human(e) Heart, the Light(path, way) of hope and possibility. He is unfit to pilot the Gundam.

[@kenrdavis2266]

NOT REUSABLE! NOT EVEN USABLE!

[@terranspaceacademy]

Which one Ken?

[@ritterkreutztrager]

Hey Joseph, I had to quit patreon. Inflation is the cause. Sorry. KH

[@terranspaceacademy]

We undestand and thank you so much for your support. Like and subscribe is free :-)... at least for now.

[@ritterkreutztrager]

@@terranspaceacademy Very sorry...your mission is awesome. Am down but not out. Interstellar conference in Montreal next year. Might see you there? K