![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
walkitoutRecently, Blue Origin successfully tested one of their engines, the big one.
Here is coverage at ars:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/10/blue-origin-has-successfully-tested-its-powerful-be-4-rocket-engine/
Probably should do the disclosure thing here: I used to work for the elf with the maniacal laugh. I'm about as big a fangirl as it is possible to be, since I was a customer at his other company before 1995 wrapped up, and working for it by the following spring. Every couple of days, I think of El Jefe, and go, I love you, dude! And I love the life I have, because I interviewed with you and you seemed like -- unlike a lot of other software types with entrepreneurial dreams -- you were okay with the money side of things (<-- still slightly embarrassed by how badly I underestimated him. But only slightly.). There _will_ be bias if he's anywhere in the picture.
"This engine, the liquid natural gas-powered BE-4, has been closely watched both within the aerospace industry and in military space because it uses innovative new technology, has largely been developed with private funding, and is fully reusable."
When I read this sentence, I went, weird. They left out the environmental issue. Entirely. But I don't think that was an accident, as such.
People who luuuuuurrrrvvveeee space development really don't like what rockets do to the atmosphere, so mostly, they hope that all of the people who they are trying to convince to support their outside-the-atmosphere dreams (Other Planets! Mining Asteroids! Orbital Colonies! Hydroponics! Beaming Solar Power to Earth! etc.) will fail to notice the really, really nasty shit that happens when you put a payload on top of a pillar of fire.
(The Raptor Engine, mentioned in the same article, is using the same fuel, or a very closely related fuel, as the BE-4.)
Traditionally, rockets have been fueled with Other Stuff. We never did actually do any of this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_thermal_rocket
But if you read the whole thing, you'll see that that idea was never entirely tabled, either; they just decided not to attempt it for launch from Earth.
Most _actual_ rockets have run on something that is more or less kerosene. Which sounds spectacularly weird when written down, because, wait, like hurricane lanterns? Yep, like that.
A characteristic of kerosene is that it produces a good amount of black soot when burned. And that is true even when burned in a rocket, and that black soot being deposited in the upper atmosphere is one of a number of worrisome things associated with rockets before this new generation being developed by Blue Origin and SpaceX. That black soot almost certainly will contribute to global warming; right now, few launches ("low cadence") means not a lot of soot; lots of launches would mean enough that probably we would need to factor that into global warming calculations. Other factors: alumina (which might be reflective and bounce heat out -- but probably would absorb IR and increase warming) and, worst of all, chlorine gas combining with other shit and eating up the ozone layer that we went to all that trouble over aerosols and old-school refrigerants to try to preserve.
As near as I can tell, this new generation of rocket engine won't make soot in the upper atmosphere, nor will it create chlorine oxides that eat up the ozone, nor will it do anything with alumina whatevers that are still a bit of a wild card in models. It may do something really, really awful, but if it will, I can't find any indication of that anywhere obvious. And it sort of looks like Musk and Bezos are genuinely trying to address the pollution / climate impact of rockets, along with the cost problem.
Which is basically all I'm looking for. I don't point at problems to make people _stop_. I point at problems to make sure that people devote resources to assessing and maybe addressing before progressing. Pretending those problems aren't there, or don't count, or can safely be hidden from the suspicious public does not impress me.
We still have a massive problem in terms of human exploration and development, because the shielding thing is going to be tough to solve. But if we can bring ourselves to take seriously the radiation hazards outside our atmosphere, I'm reasonably certain we can come up with a strategy there as well.
Here is coverage at ars:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/10/blue-origin-has-successfully-tested-its-powerful-be-4-rocket-engine/
Probably should do the disclosure thing here: I used to work for the elf with the maniacal laugh. I'm about as big a fangirl as it is possible to be, since I was a customer at his other company before 1995 wrapped up, and working for it by the following spring. Every couple of days, I think of El Jefe, and go, I love you, dude! And I love the life I have, because I interviewed with you and you seemed like -- unlike a lot of other software types with entrepreneurial dreams -- you were okay with the money side of things (<-- still slightly embarrassed by how badly I underestimated him. But only slightly.). There _will_ be bias if he's anywhere in the picture.
"This engine, the liquid natural gas-powered BE-4, has been closely watched both within the aerospace industry and in military space because it uses innovative new technology, has largely been developed with private funding, and is fully reusable."
When I read this sentence, I went, weird. They left out the environmental issue. Entirely. But I don't think that was an accident, as such.
People who luuuuuurrrrvvveeee space development really don't like what rockets do to the atmosphere, so mostly, they hope that all of the people who they are trying to convince to support their outside-the-atmosphere dreams (Other Planets! Mining Asteroids! Orbital Colonies! Hydroponics! Beaming Solar Power to Earth! etc.) will fail to notice the really, really nasty shit that happens when you put a payload on top of a pillar of fire.
(The Raptor Engine, mentioned in the same article, is using the same fuel, or a very closely related fuel, as the BE-4.)
Traditionally, rockets have been fueled with Other Stuff. We never did actually do any of this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_thermal_rocket
But if you read the whole thing, you'll see that that idea was never entirely tabled, either; they just decided not to attempt it for launch from Earth.
Most _actual_ rockets have run on something that is more or less kerosene. Which sounds spectacularly weird when written down, because, wait, like hurricane lanterns? Yep, like that.
A characteristic of kerosene is that it produces a good amount of black soot when burned. And that is true even when burned in a rocket, and that black soot being deposited in the upper atmosphere is one of a number of worrisome things associated with rockets before this new generation being developed by Blue Origin and SpaceX. That black soot almost certainly will contribute to global warming; right now, few launches ("low cadence") means not a lot of soot; lots of launches would mean enough that probably we would need to factor that into global warming calculations. Other factors: alumina (which might be reflective and bounce heat out -- but probably would absorb IR and increase warming) and, worst of all, chlorine gas combining with other shit and eating up the ozone layer that we went to all that trouble over aerosols and old-school refrigerants to try to preserve.
As near as I can tell, this new generation of rocket engine won't make soot in the upper atmosphere, nor will it create chlorine oxides that eat up the ozone, nor will it do anything with alumina whatevers that are still a bit of a wild card in models. It may do something really, really awful, but if it will, I can't find any indication of that anywhere obvious. And it sort of looks like Musk and Bezos are genuinely trying to address the pollution / climate impact of rockets, along with the cost problem.
Which is basically all I'm looking for. I don't point at problems to make people _stop_. I point at problems to make sure that people devote resources to assessing and maybe addressing before progressing. Pretending those problems aren't there, or don't count, or can safely be hidden from the suspicious public does not impress me.
We still have a massive problem in terms of human exploration and development, because the shielding thing is going to be tough to solve. But if we can bring ourselves to take seriously the radiation hazards outside our atmosphere, I'm reasonably certain we can come up with a strategy there as well.