Talk:BE-4

Rocketry Bottom‑importance

	Rocketry portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rocketry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rocketry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RocketryWikipedia:WikiProject RocketryTemplate:WikiProject RocketryRocketry articles
Bottom	This article has been rated as Bottom-importance on the project's importance scale.

Spaceflight Mid‑importance

	Spaceflight portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Name resolution

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)[reply]

If necessary, the page title would be changed to "BE-4 (rocket engine)": unlike aviation articles, spaceflight/rocketry articles do not include the manufacturer in the title. Since it doesn't seem like a disambig page is called for, the hat note seems sufficient. A(Ch) 03:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some articles like F-1 and J-2 do include the manufacturer in the title.PSR B1937+21 (talk) 02:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Predecessor

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)[reply]

Atlas V successor

@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)[reply]

Thanks for discussing it here. I'm a bit submerged with off-wiki work at present, so will comment quickly and get back later if more is needed. What I recall is that when I did a diff on that edit, it was simply hard for the wiki diff tool to clearly show the many smaller edits that made up that larger edit. In other words, the diff tool, which can show things a bit oddly sometimes, could not clearly show the major intent you had of "removing long direct quotes", possibly because there were simultaneaously a number of edits in the same overall single edit that were, as you said, intended to "improve readability" and "correct errors". Might you be willing to break that edit up into parts, for example, correcting errors first? Then another edit, whether the same day or later, to improve the readability? That would certainly make review easier by an editor who has this page on their watchlist. Cheers. N2e (talk) 09:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since the edit involves consolidating information I don't see how I would break it up. I put the edit on my sandbox. Feel free to look it over or edit to include anything you feel is missing. I realize the difference view can be messy, but the viewable content is still three paragraphs with the same information moved around. A(Ch) 10:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why kN and not MN?

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)[reply]

I guess it's down to tradition, that rocket thrust is expressed in kN, and as big engines enter MN territory, comparison is easier when every engine is rated in the same units. — JFG ^talk 11:45, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New video released of some of the engine test runs

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)[reply]

Summary timeline of BE-4 development and testing

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)[reply]

Methane vs Liquefied natural gas

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)[reply]

It's always some compound. Fuel is not clean. But it's usually identified by main component. And liquid gas is oxymoron. Elk Salmon (talk) 15:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not liquid gas (which would be an oxymoron, you're right), it's liquified gas, as in it's naturally a gas at STP, but it's been turned into a liquid. 77.95.179.227 (talk) 14:12, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can't we say anything about the engine weight (mass)

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)[reply]

Thrust incorrect

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)[reply]

EDIT - disregard, this includes the thrust of the two GEM SRBs.