This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Strange way to "grab" the title "BE-4" for this rocket motor which is not even on the market. In my humble opinion the title should be changed to "Blue Origin BE-4" in the same fashion as the others (for instance "Beriev Be-4") and "BE-4" should become a normal resolution page which lists all the various uses of that designation - as is good Wikipedia praxis as long as one single use does not claim at least 10 times more page views than the others. JB -- 92.195.96.165 ( talk) 07:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the H-1, F-1, J-2, and maybe the M-1, include the manufacturer in the titles, but according to wiki rocketry and wiki spaceflight naming rules they shouldn't. A( Ch) 10:34, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Be-3 and Be-4 have different thrust classes, different fuel and different cycles. It is unlikely to have direct technological connections between these two engines. PSR B1937+21 ( talk) 02:25, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
@ N2e: re: edit 709945404, almost no content was removed. The large difference in file size is due to consolidating and removing long direct quotes from the references. My intent was to ensure the edit retained the information that was there previously, while correcting errors and improving readability. What content do you think was lost? A( Ch) 08:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Why not write 2,4MN instead of 2,400kN? I mean, maybe it's just me but it always bothers me when I see a measure being expressed above a thousand when it's already using a metric prefix. If you're to use a metric prefix, why not use the right one? -- Grondilu ( talk) 20:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
1800 seconds of engine test time to date in Feb 2019, but still only testing to 73% of rated thrust. Just updated the article prose with a citation from this interview with Jeff Bezos.
There is also a video loop in that article that is a compilation of various engine test runs. Clicking on the YouTube metadata, it looks like Blue released that vid in Sept 2018, but I haven't seen it mentioned here on this Talk page. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 12:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
There was a summary timeline given in one of the space fora on BE-4 engine development testing on BE-4 hardware. Not good enough to be a WP:RS for the WP article, but still useful, as good sources could be found for most or all of the dates given. Here's the forum post link. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 22:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
I edited the article but I think this needs more elaboration. The key difference is methane is pure whereas LNG is a compound of different gases, as it is found below ground as fossil fuel. It burns a little more dirty but I'm not not sure if BE-4 could also run on menthane without major tweaks or not. If it could only run on LNG it would be dependent on fossil fuel since you probably won't find the same composition on planets like Mars. Methane on the other hand is abundant in the solar system since it can be purified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrNabla ( talk • contribs) 19:58, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Can't we say anything about the engine weight (mass) ? (so a thrust-to-weight ratio can be shown). A TWR of ~80:1 has been estimated. - Rod57 ( talk) 10:23, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Per ULA's Vulcan Cert-1 mission profile, the two BE-4 engines combine produce 1.7 million lbs of thrust, or ~3.78 MN of thrust per engine. Vulcan with no SRBs would have a TWR <1 with the engine specs currently listed.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ai-AVMJdzVQ&t=16s 2603:9001:3500:6F10:1821:A61A:7424:6C84 ( talk) 11:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
EDIT - disregard, this includes the thrust of the two GEM SRBs.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Strange way to "grab" the title "BE-4" for this rocket motor which is not even on the market. In my humble opinion the title should be changed to "Blue Origin BE-4" in the same fashion as the others (for instance "Beriev Be-4") and "BE-4" should become a normal resolution page which lists all the various uses of that designation - as is good Wikipedia praxis as long as one single use does not claim at least 10 times more page views than the others. JB -- 92.195.96.165 ( talk) 07:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the H-1, F-1, J-2, and maybe the M-1, include the manufacturer in the titles, but according to wiki rocketry and wiki spaceflight naming rules they shouldn't. A( Ch) 10:34, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Be-3 and Be-4 have different thrust classes, different fuel and different cycles. It is unlikely to have direct technological connections between these two engines. PSR B1937+21 ( talk) 02:25, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
@ N2e: re: edit 709945404, almost no content was removed. The large difference in file size is due to consolidating and removing long direct quotes from the references. My intent was to ensure the edit retained the information that was there previously, while correcting errors and improving readability. What content do you think was lost? A( Ch) 08:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Why not write 2,4MN instead of 2,400kN? I mean, maybe it's just me but it always bothers me when I see a measure being expressed above a thousand when it's already using a metric prefix. If you're to use a metric prefix, why not use the right one? -- Grondilu ( talk) 20:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
1800 seconds of engine test time to date in Feb 2019, but still only testing to 73% of rated thrust. Just updated the article prose with a citation from this interview with Jeff Bezos.
There is also a video loop in that article that is a compilation of various engine test runs. Clicking on the YouTube metadata, it looks like Blue released that vid in Sept 2018, but I haven't seen it mentioned here on this Talk page. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 12:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
There was a summary timeline given in one of the space fora on BE-4 engine development testing on BE-4 hardware. Not good enough to be a WP:RS for the WP article, but still useful, as good sources could be found for most or all of the dates given. Here's the forum post link. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 22:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
I edited the article but I think this needs more elaboration. The key difference is methane is pure whereas LNG is a compound of different gases, as it is found below ground as fossil fuel. It burns a little more dirty but I'm not not sure if BE-4 could also run on menthane without major tweaks or not. If it could only run on LNG it would be dependent on fossil fuel since you probably won't find the same composition on planets like Mars. Methane on the other hand is abundant in the solar system since it can be purified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrNabla ( talk • contribs) 19:58, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Can't we say anything about the engine weight (mass) ? (so a thrust-to-weight ratio can be shown). A TWR of ~80:1 has been estimated. - Rod57 ( talk) 10:23, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Per ULA's Vulcan Cert-1 mission profile, the two BE-4 engines combine produce 1.7 million lbs of thrust, or ~3.78 MN of thrust per engine. Vulcan with no SRBs would have a TWR <1 with the engine specs currently listed.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ai-AVMJdzVQ&t=16s 2603:9001:3500:6F10:1821:A61A:7424:6C84 ( talk) 11:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
EDIT - disregard, this includes the thrust of the two GEM SRBs.