Blue Origin Completes Acceptance Testing of BE-3 Engine
Blue Origin’s BE-3 engine throttles to its maximum 110,000-lbf thrust during acceptance testing at the company’s dedicated facility in West Texas. (Credit: Blue Origin)
KENT, Wash., April 7, 2015 (Blue Origin PR) – Blue Origin recently completed acceptance testing of its BE-3 rocket engine, the first new hydrogen engine to be developed in the United States in more than a decade. The 110,000-lbf BE-3 will power Blue Origin’s New Shepard suborbital system, and later, will be modified for upper stage applications.
“The BE-3 has now been fired for more than 30,000 seconds over the course of 450 tests,” said Jeff Bezos, Blue Origin founder. “We test, learn, refine and then test again to push our engines. The Blue Origin team did an outstanding job exploring the corners of what the BE-3 can do and soon we’ll put it to the ultimate test of flight.”
The BE-3 can be continuously throttled between 110,000-lbf and 20,000-lbf thrust, a key capability for vertical takeoff and vertical landing vehicles. The testing profile included multiple mission duty cycles, deep throttling and off-nominal test points.
“Liquid hydrogen is challenging, deep throttling is challenging and reusability is challenging,” said Bezos. “This engine has all three. The rewards are highest performance, vertical landing even with a single-engine vehicle and low cost. And, as a future upper stage engine, hydrogen greatly increases payload capabilities.”
The BE-3 engine was designed and fabricated at Blue Origin’s design, development and production facility in Kent, Wash. Full-engine testing was conducted at the company’s facilities in West Texas, while earlier combustion chamber testing was completed at NASA’s Stennis Space Center in Mississippi.
The BE-3 is the third generation of Blue Origin-developed engines. The fourth-generation BE-4 uses liquid oxygen and liquefied natural gas (LNG) to produce 550,000-lbf thrust at sea level. Under development since 2012, the BE-4 provides the lowest cost and fastest production path to power the nation’s access to space. Selected by United Launch Alliance to serve as the primary propulsion provider for its Next Generation Launch System, Blue Origin is developing the BE-4 as an integrated part of America’s newest launch vehicle.
About Blue Origin
Blue Origin, LLC (Blue Origin) is a private company developing vehicles and technologies to enable commercial human space transportation. Blue Origin has a long-term vision of greatly increasing the number of people that fly into space so that we humans can better continue exploring the solar system. For more information and a list of job openings, please visit us at www.blueorigin.com.
49 responses to “Blue Origin Completes Acceptance Testing of BE-3 Engine”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Congratulations to BO!
Once BO has new shepard up and running, hopefully, they will take on a number of VG’s customers.
BO could help push interest in space.
Windbourne, it is really a miracle to me, who is possible for BO to sustain its secrecy up to now without a significant information did leak to outside. I am expecting a real quantum leap in there coming test flight results.
BO’s success it is also very important, because not all new space hopes should rely or last on SpaceX’s shoulders, which has already resulted in a somewhat not so healthy “fanboyship”. I hope that we will see also some future BO “fanboys”.
Blue Origin and SpaceX do things nearly completely differently. Blue Origin operates in near-total secrecy, whereas SpaceX highly publicizes and hypes up nearly everything they do.
It’s not difficult to figure out which method will produce more interested / enthusiastic “fans” :p
Please. Give me a break about ‘fanboyship’.
SpaceX has a large number of successes and the world knows about it. Musk himself has done a great job at managing his companies and getting out the word.
OTOH, VG had fanboys, but they failed miserably on their management.
Personally, I find it interesting that so many will call you a fanboy if you oppose what they want. So be it.
However, with that said, I have always said that we need MULTIPLE launch vehicles of similar sizes/capabilities so that we can get TRUE competition. That is why I support keeping ULA’a Delta alive until ULA has their next system going and vetted. I find it interesting that Brono would claim that Delta is too expensive when Atlas is also subsidized heavily as well. As such, we should stop the 1B /year subsidy and just pay the real price of the Delta launch. IOW, give them 3-7 launches / year, until they are at the point of competing again.
As to BO, hopefully, they will be where we need them in 2 years or so.
Good to see that we both share the opinion that a full BO success would very desirable for all who are interested in space development (also in regard to reuse of first
stage).
Do you know if it is allowed that BO can use the new methane/LOX engine also for its own purposes? If BO keeps on track (and Amazon makes further money in next 10
years), the company may derive a set of launchers on base of its both engine types (methane and hydrogen).
Yes, BE-4 is their own engine, they intend to use it themselves. Selling engines to ULA will help with development, but the primary purpose they have for the engine is for use on the first stage of their own orbital system.
O.K., thank you. I am really curious to see what BO will present to the world.
Matt, you should understand that Elon Musk announced his ultimate goal: “To establish a human colony on Mars, do Humanity multi planetary civilization.” And, despite the mistakes and retreathe is moving toward this goal. Therefore, BO and ULA without their own goals, will never be such a large number of fans. Most of the fans came because they share the ultimate goal. This is the first and most important thing.
But there is a second one. Despite all the problems and errors, SpaceX quickly moves forward, achieving results, until recently considered impossible.
But there is a third. All these wonders Elon Musk makes spending very little /in comparison with other/ sums of money. Frankly, a very modest amount – for such tasks.
That is quite objective reasons for a large number of fans Elon Musk.
Blue Origin is much more self-funded than SpaceX. Since Bezos hasn’t tried to hit up his VC capital friends to fund development, he doesn’t need to advertise the companies accomplishments as much. They did do some work on their capsule under the CCDEV contract with NASA, but for the most part, it’s just been the fairly lean team funded with Jeff Bezos cash. I think about Blue Origin with every Amazon purchase I make. Of course, I also make my purchases thru smile.amazon.com, so my favorite charity gets a share as well. What charities does Elon Musk support ?
“What charities does Elon Musk support ?” As I learned in that blog: Obama. 🙂
Matt, do not talk nonsense. ULA, Boeing and Lockheed contributors to the politicians no less than Elon Musk.
http://www.smithsonianmag.c…
http://www.spacepolicyonlin…
It was quite hotly debated in the 70’s during the 1st space age whether there was any place suitable for humans to live except in a one gravity Earth environment. Gerard K. O’Neill came to the conclusion that artificial spinning hollow moons several miles in diameter with people living on the inner surface in an Earth environment was the best solution. Artificial moons fabricated from material lifted from the Moon. Mars is a terrible place to live and is in my view a gimmick to garner support from the uninformed and misinformed. Now you have been informed.
The ice on the Moon was guessed at but there was no evidence in the 70’s when the funding was cut for any further exploration. In a desperate attempt by NASA to save the Human Space Flight program and preserve the heavy lift infrastructure the Space Shuttle and subsequent space station to nowhere were funded. Low Earth Orbit is not really space- it stopped being exploration when astronauts left it far behind in 1968. We have been stranded in LEO since 1972 so the space age really only lasted 4 years. Now we know there are millions and probably billions of tons of water ice on the Moon and this resource makes the 2nd space age imminent.
The President’s infamously blunt 2010 remark that we have “been there” did not come from nowhere. A political campaign contribution from a party pursuing a plan to develop LEO for tourism and break into the satellite industry- by using NASA to subsidize that business plan- wanted nothing to do with the Moon. In the years since, any discussion of a Moon return and Super Heavy Lift Vehicles, that would divert funding from LEO and “NewSpace”, has brought immediate and intense criticism by fans/fanatics and space industry “experts.”
It is not a conspiracy but it is also no coincidence. The P.R. hype has played a major role in billions of tax dollars ultimately subsidizing SpaceX which is now launching commercial satellites for profit using NASA technology and support. It is Orwellian that while portraying the company as the opposite, SpaceX is actually the poster child for corporate welfare and continues to pursue government dollars using tactics such as suing the Air Force.
And that is why SpaceX is the worst thing that has ever happened to space exploration.
Gary, what do you think about Krafft Ehricke and his moon plans?
I am thinking that you are right in your wish to review all open and hidden subsidiaries to Space and its open discussion.
Krafft had some interesting ideas- I tend to think of O’Neill as the real genius and “space prophet.”
Obama’s remark, that we have “been there” (on Moon) is a master-piece of stupidity and did show openly that he is in reality not interested in consistent space development. It is about coming back and staying there.
I voted for him Matt. He is one of the best Presidents we have had in a long time. Really. He did not think it was stupid to pay back that campaign contribution. It’s politics and NASA has always been a political football that get’s thrown wherever it lands. I don’t blame him for doing what he had to do. I blame Musk and SpaceX for setting space exploration back a decade at least with their space tourism/satellite launch scam. They used NASA to set up their commercial launch capability by calling it “space exploration.” We still do not have our taxi ride to the space station to nowhere. But they are launching commercial satellites for profit and playing at landing on barges. Our tax dollars at work.
Gary, I can not understand that you voted for Obama, who displayed himself objectively as the worst president in US history. Even his black followers, of which voted 90% for him, should unterstand this.
If you were an American you would understand why so many people like me voted for him. The Republicans are the party of the insane and the train wreck they left for Obama will still be hurting us during Hillary’s second term. But that’s all politics and space is more about technology and decisions than ideology- don’t you agree Matt?
USA needs a much better political system, internally much more democratic and externally no imperial system. Your country needs more alternatives as just only Democrats
and Republicans, which display together a pseudo-democratic show.
No argument from me about that. In Australia I read you have to vote or you get a fine. I think they should do that in the U.S. with the option of voting “no confidence” if you don’t like either candidate. Too many no confidence votes and some issues should automatically go up for a vote (like tax rates on the rich, military expenditures, etc). That way we the people keep the uber-rich and the corporations in fear of us. As it should be. Actually, the easiest way to get a far-right conservative upset is to tell them the only reason they own anything is everyone else lets them keep what they have. For some reason this simple truth seems to short circuit something in their psychological make-up and they go nuts. It works every time in my experience.
Elon Musk operates his own charitable organization, the Musk Foundation, as well as gives to others. He is also a signatory to The Giving Pledge, a movement to get billionaires to donate the majority of their wealth to philanthropic causes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik…
I knew everything that you have written. I do not think that Bezos would give up subsidies from NASA. I suppose that at the time of starting the program COTS he had nothing to offer. And now it has only a rocket engine, and Elon Musk is preparing to test a manned spacecraft.
Mr. Gilinskij, you are right, the amount of money that Musk himself did invest into his space project is really quite small (even if he sold it as large). I would like not to open older discussion, but much official and not official help from
NASA, TRW and Air force should also moneytorized to get an appropriate comparison to BO for example. Musk is a great man, but he was lucky also receive significant Air Force and NASA contracts from the beginning, which allowed him realizing F9 and Dragon finally. I am not able to say something about a potential connection to his campaign donation to Obama, which was told to me in this forum.
Yes, Elon Musk received for their projects tremendous support from NASA. But, although the extent of financial support from NASA’s new commercial projects reduced non-financial support through technology transfer, conduct advis, providing test base expands. Therefore, in principle, anyone can try to repeat the made by Elon Musk.
Help is not for Elon Musk, but for all. And, again, this assistance is extended, and it is absolutely legal. NASA could launch new subsidy program to create a commercial infrastructure in orbit. But a lot of money spent on useless Senate Launch System.
Matt wrote:
“even if he sold it as large”
You can not imagine how the stock market works. You said a great folly.
If the buyer does not agree with the assessment – he does not buy. Recently, Google agreed that the market value SpaceX about ten billion dollars. But that’s your problem.
You misunderstood my comment: “even if he sold it as large”. I mean that Musk always emphasis his personal 100 million dollar contribution to SpaceX very strongly, which as I assume is a very small sum compared to that what Mr. Bezos
did invest as own money.
By the way, did Google not invest “only” 900 millions?
Matt, you’re talking nonsense again. I understand you perfectly. And said – “you do not know how the stock market works.”
The Google knows it. Therefore, Google, together with Fidelity, has invested billions of dollars, acquired ownership of 10% SpaceX. They agreed that the market value of SpaceX about ten billion dollars.
Matt, you Russian? I think the only Russians who grew up under socialism, believe that the company draws and have no value. Elon Musk does not think so. If Mr. Bezos has invested more, and the result was less than that, it says only that Elon Musk more skilled businessman.
Hhheh, what are you talking about??
BO also would seem to have the most straightforward path from suborbital operations to orbital. Its eventual full range of services could help make real space tourism (staying in space for more than just a few minutes) more achievable.
XCOR with its Lynx and especially VG its SS2 seem unlikely to be able to make that leap any time soon.
I agree. But I would love to see them turn this be3 unit into a tug with NDS on the end. BA could use it to attach to a ba330 and create a true space taxi to move between iss and ba-alpha. Likewise get the jump on sending ppl and cargo to the moon.
The BE-3 at the low end of its throttle range has thrust comparable to the RL-10. With a proper vacuum nozzle, I wonder how it compares to the RL-10 in terms of weight, Isp, and cost. The Boeing CST-100 is set to fly on the Atlas V 402 variant which uses two RL-10s. One BE-3 would likely be significantly less expensive than two RL-10s which are reportedly very expensive because they’re largely hand-made. ULA has a contract with XCOR for an RL-10 replacement engine. Perhaps the BE-3 would work as well. It’s nice to have options.
Anything know about Isp of BE-3?
I don’t know any more technical information than what BO has released. I’ll guess the vacuum version of the engine is in the 440 second range but that’s just a guess.
I am not sure about losses due to gas-generator cycle compared gains due to higher chamber pressure in case of BE-3 compared to RL-10.
The J-2X is the more powerful hydrogen engine in the BE-3 class and may yet be resurrected for SHLV use.
The 5 segment SRB at 3.6 million pounds of thrust and the RS-68A at 705,000 pounds of thrust are the premier rocket booster and liquid fuel engine on planet Earth. Nothing else comes close. The RS-68A was the choice for Super Heavy Lift Vehicle core stage main engines but human-rating it and other factors made the RS-25E’s the more practical choice. The RS-25E’s are less powerful but have a significantly higher Isp.
We have had the technology to do anything we wanted in space for many years. These NewSpace companies claiming that they are now making it all possible is pure B.S.
Sorry, but it make no sense that NASA develops standard technology liquid rocket engines itself. Let this done by industry with assistance of NASA (test stands, …). Why not use two BE-3 for SLS upper stage? I assume that is a cheaper solution as one J-2X. J-2X as follower of J-2/J-2S would have been the right engine at its time, that was in 1972.
You assume two rocket engines are a cheaper solution than one.
In this case it is quite probable.
Always use one if possible. In the case of SRB’s they use two but for liquid fuel engines on a stage one is the best. It is called the K.I.S.S. principle.
Are you familiar with what those letters stand for?
One hydrogen engine and two SRB’s – and a single hydrogen engine in the upper stage is the best possible mix for a launch vehicle performance-wise.
It is about specific launch cost (total costs per payload mass). Even if well-designed overall hydrogen fueled rocket may result in about 5% LEO payload mass fraction, and a well-designed overall at all stages using kerosene or methane rocket only in 3%, at the end the non-hydrogen rocket can be more cost-effective. It is known for many decades (many studies exists on the topic) that the best configuration in terms of cost is to use only hydrogen for the small upper-stage (in case of a 2-stage design), but the all-kerosene launcher was not far away in terms of specific launch costs in such studies. Because these studies did often not reproduce communality between stages correctly, which is a major factor for the Falcon 9 design and its cost effectiveness, a single fuel hydrocarbon rocket may even cheaper for a given launch mass as that one with final hydrogen stage.
NewSpace propaganda. The extra mass for the larger stage is more than made up for by the higher Isp. It’s B.S. that has been pushed for years by SpaceX infomercials and now everyone seems to think it is true. It’s not. The Delta IV heavy is the inarguable proof.
If you are trying to put a small payload in LEO then you can make up stories about how great your inferior lift vehicle using an obsolete propellent and a cluster of low thrust engines is. But if you are trying to leave Earth behind and return humans to space- only Super Heavy Lift Vehicles and hydrogen works.
Sorry, the insights that I presented above were valid as the word “Newspace” did not even exist and was proven by decades of Russian/Soviet launcher designs.
Sorry but the Russians have never been able to make hydrogen engines like the U.S. does. It is why we went to the Moon and they did not.
No, that is not true. Soviet Union did not land manned on Moon before USA, because: 1. Internal conflicts between major design organizations, 2. To small budget and 3. The wrong decision not to test the complete N1-first stage with its 30 NK-31/33 engines at a test-stand at ground (see point 2).
Payload of all kerosene N1-launcher (last version: 105 tons to LEO) was quite right for their manned lunar mission, otherwise they would have not designed as it is. Propellant choice was not a major factor. Soviet Union later demonstrated by two Energia launches (hydrogen core stage) that it can build and launch SSME type LH2-LOX engine, even it was a pure choice in respect to cost.
If you say so. But we landed and Russia did not and has never left Earth orbit. Von Braun seemed to think hydrogen was the reason we made it to the Moon. Propellant choice has always been the major factor in my view.
I see it pragmatically, if an engine already exists (as in case of BE-3) and if its fits the requirements, why not use it? Government/NASA shall provide good provisions for space development and program and system management, perform itself basic research (as really advanced propulsion and energy supply or life support and may supply basic infrasctructure, but not build a standard technology rocket itself. The BE-3 project is a good example of private-government cooperation. NASA supplies test stands and externally sight on development.
“Pragmatically” the J-2X was almost ready to go. It is over twice as powerful as the BO offering and because of the inherent design the BO engine will not have as high an Isp. It is the engine designed from the start and upgraded with modern technology for pushing the upper stage of a Super Heavy Lift Vehicle. But the Moon rocket has powerful enemies and they managed to lame the J-2X program. Yet another reason why SpaceX is the worst thing that has ever happened to space exploration.
Not replying to you any more- you are just too bizarre to waste time on.