Who said Falcon Heavy was only designed to lift 6.4mT to GTO? You know Musk has stated that FH is capable of throwing 14mT to Mars.
Article in The Space Review on New Shepard's latest flight, and what its early revenue sources could be:http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2871/1So they're mentioning micro-gravity experiments ahead of space tourism. Is there a significant market for micro-gravity payloads?
Quote from: sanman on 11/28/2015 06:24 pmArticle in The Space Review on New Shepard's latest flight, and what its early revenue sources could be:http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2871/1So they're mentioning micro-gravity experiments ahead of space tourism. Is there a significant market for micro-gravity payloads?Here is one possible payload, producing high performance silicon wafers. http://www.abqjournal.com/583056/biz/biz-most-recent/new-investment-boosts-space-wafer-technology.html
appears to be for booster recovery missions. Expendable missions can lift much more, but will have to also cost much more since the boosters will be lost.
Blue Origin's big orbital rocket appears to have legs in released artwork, so it will also be losing payload capability to allow recovery. The capability losses for stage recovery are substantial for beyond-LEO missions.
Quote from: LouScheffer on 11/26/2015 01:48 amFrom the calculations upthread, New Shepard has an estimated empty mass of 10t, and holds about 30t of fuel. So the delta-V will be 421 * 9.8 * ln(4) = 5.7 km/sec. For the Falcon first stage, it's suspected the empty mass is about 30t, and it's known to hold 386t of fuel (without sub-cooling). So the total delta-V is 310*9.8*ln(416/30), or about 7.9 km/sec. So in terms of delta-v provided per stage, the stage using Merlin is far more efficient than the stage using a BE-3.Of course you are comparing a stage designed for a specific suborbital mission and a return landing every time with one designed for orbital launch . Here's another comparison.Replace the Falcon 9 second stage with a BE-3 power LH2/LOX stage. You will find that the second stage weighs much less and that it should be possible to remove two of the first stage Merlin engines altogether and still put the same mass to GTO. Indeed the first stage can be shrunk, required to carry 30-80 tonnes less propellant. The entire rocket weighs 85-120 tonnes less at liftoff. Less rocket for the same payload. That's where the savings accrue. - Ed Kyle
From the calculations upthread, New Shepard has an estimated empty mass of 10t, and holds about 30t of fuel. So the delta-V will be 421 * 9.8 * ln(4) = 5.7 km/sec. For the Falcon first stage, it's suspected the empty mass is about 30t, and it's known to hold 386t of fuel (without sub-cooling). So the total delta-V is 310*9.8*ln(416/30), or about 7.9 km/sec. So in terms of delta-v provided per stage, the stage using Merlin is far more efficient than the stage using a BE-3.
Blue Origin likely would've been MUCH further along if Bezos had devoted as much mental bandwidth to Blue Origin as Musk has devoted to SpaceX. I think that might be changing, though....not that this was necessarily a suboptimal strategy. By focusing on Amazon, Bezos significantly increased his net worth, which gives more ammo for Blue Origin.
Blue were doing VTVL in 2007. Look up Goddard on you tube.
Isn't the difference between the two the value supply chain strategy?
Bezos-Blue-Amazon uses existing mostly legacy suppliers.Musk-Tesla-SpaceX builds it's own supply chain based on Musk's belief, backed by experience, he can build a better, higher quality and lower cost supply chain that answers only to the needs of Tesla and SpaceX.
I see Musk as pursuing a Chinese type of strategy of acquiring technogy with strategic partnerships and as soon as possible becoming independent and self sufficient. It's all about control.
Bezos out of necessity must form partnerships. Selling books required working with publishers, even when disrupting the business model they evolved into existance. Selling other goods that customers wanted required going with existing manufacturers rather than designing Amazon brand products. Amazon was the next stage of Sam Waltons Walmart. Amazon partners with all package delivery companies.
Results count, plain and simple. Blue delivered a first stage recovery on its 2nd try per their design, and concept (and a lot of hard engineering work). SX with 19 launches has yet to accomplish a first stage recovery.
Quote from: Prober on 11/29/2015 04:11 pmResults count, plain and simple. Blue delivered a first stage recovery on its 2nd try per their design, and concept (and a lot of hard engineering work). SX with 19 launches has yet to accomplish a first stage recovery.So just comparing the reusability results of both - can we say that the return flight and recovery of New Shepard is more or less equivalent to a return flight of F9R Booster in terms of engineering difficulty?I'm just wondering how Blue achieved such a success by getting a full flyback by the 2nd flight, as compared to so many flights with Grasshopper and F9R.New Shepard doesn't achieve orbit, but F9R booster doesn't either. Is it fair to say that both re-enter the atmosphere at comparably similar velocities? How similar is the re-entry profile of both?I've read that given F9R booster's braking burn, that it's actually doing re-entry at lower velocity than New Shepard is.How well-positioned is Blue to give SpaceX a run for their money, overall? Could Blue one day take a share of SpaceX's business directly, or will it be done through partners like ULA mainly? Is Blue just going to focus purely on manned space tourism flights?
So just comparing the reusability results of both - can we say that the return flight and recovery of New Shepard is more or less equivalent to a return flight of F9R Booster in terms of engineering difficulty?
Quote from: Robotbeat on 11/27/2015 12:27 amBlue Origin likely would've been MUCH further along if Bezos had devoted as much mental bandwidth to Blue Origin as Musk has devoted to SpaceX. I think that might be changing, though....not that this was necessarily a suboptimal strategy. By focusing on Amazon, Bezos significantly increased his net worth, which gives more ammo for Blue Origin.Couldn't disagree more. Bezos is right on plan. The timing might be off a bit but Both Blue and SX worked from the very beginning for a reusable stage. Going to put this up as a "Historical reminder".These facts can be found in the older NSF files available with NSF searches.Back when SpaceX promoted the early Falcon9 their planning, simulation, engineering, and testing were all for the F9 design to parachute down for a water recovery and reuse. This as we know was a complete failure. SX next went on to the grasshopper tests, and a new approach to recovery we see in work today.Results count, plain and simple. Blue delivered a first stage recovery on its 2nd try per their design, and concept (and a lot of hard engineering work). SX with 19 launches has yet to accomplish a first stage recovery.We can be shallow and try and nit pick who's stage is bigger, or who's mission was more difficult, who's richer; it doesn't matter. No matter how much spin, or negative PR a company wishes to put out, its the end result of "stage recovery" that matters. In the end results count
What BO recovered was not a first stage of an orbital system. It is a suborbital carrier, capable of much much lower energies. It looks like a stage, but does more or less what VG does. So they have "vehicle recovery", but not "stage recovery".
If you go by results, SpaceX is still much further ahead.
As for plans, I can tell you that internally, RTLS was the plan much much earlier than the re-use video came out - almost all the way back to original F9 flight.
Quote from: meekGee on 11/30/2015 06:18 pmWhat BO recovered was not a first stage of an orbital system. It is a suborbital carrier, capable of much much lower energies. It looks like a stage, but does more or less what VG does. So they have "vehicle recovery", but not "stage recovery".I have to disagree with you here, if Blue put an upperstage on the New Shepard Stage it has the performance to put a small payload in orbit. It almost went to Mach 4 at 100 km, a Falcon 9 1st stage sep is near Mach 5 at 80 km. So if you trade altitude for speed (there is a reason the earliest technicians who worked on the first satellite launches thought the rocket was going too low, trading altitude for speed)
QuoteIf you go by results, SpaceX is still much further ahead.Why does it have to be a race?
Blue Origin is going for human +spaceflight +re-usability simultaneously, but starting from suborbital to build up to orbital. SpaceX went orbital first, and now is working on re-usability followed by human spaceflight.Also we said the same about ULA and SpaceX back in the Falcon 1 days, doent take long to catch up. I for one am looking forward to the competition.QuoteAs for plans, I can tell you that internally, RTLS was the plan much much earlier than the re-use video came out - almost all the way back to original F9 flight.As I recall the first couple flights of Falcon 9 still had cork and parachutes.....
Quote from: sanman on 11/30/2015 10:09 amSo just comparing the reusability results of both - can we say that the return flight and recovery of New Shepard is more or less equivalent to a return flight of F9R Booster in terms of engineering difficulty?No. As has been discussed in the other thread to make the engineering efforts comparable BO engineers would somehow have to load about five times as much fuel into a vehicle with the same dry mass, which would make it unable to take off. Or alternatively somehow magically shave ~80% off the vehicles dry weight. Which would make it unable to land the way it did. Safe to say there are significant challenges ahead.