Quote from: Jim on 03/19/2017 10:33 pmQuote from: AncientU on 03/19/2017 09:24 pmI envision a three engine, appropriately ballasted first stage (only) being used to test launch, reentry, landing.Nop, there is no intermediate vehicle.This isn't intermediate... it is 7m, using the BE-4 engines at full scale. Can only launch from coast, so test booster flight profile and EDL, then add rest of engines and second stage. Graditum.
Quote from: AncientU on 03/19/2017 09:24 pmI envision a three engine, appropriately ballasted first stage (only) being used to test launch, reentry, landing.Nop, there is no intermediate vehicle.
I envision a three engine, appropriately ballasted first stage (only) being used to test launch, reentry, landing.
Non Graditum.What if something goes poorly during the first minute of flight? (that happens on first orbital vehicles...)What of those systems have you tested?Has one of those customers signed up for first orbital launch attempt? Would you?
Quote from: meekGee on 03/19/2017 09:04 pmIf I were to throw a number out there, it'd be $15B.That's what it would cost NASA, due to all their bureaucracy. Commercial can do it an order of magnitude cheaper, so more likely $1.5B.
If I were to throw a number out there, it'd be $15B.
Quote from: AncientU on 03/20/2017 08:58 amQuote from: Jim on 03/19/2017 10:33 pmQuote from: AncientU on 03/19/2017 09:24 pmI envision a three engine, appropriately ballasted first stage (only) being used to test launch, reentry, landing.Nop, there is no intermediate vehicle.This isn't intermediate... it is 7m, using the BE-4 engines at full scale. Can only launch from coast, so test booster flight profile and EDL, then add rest of engines and second stage. Graditum.No "intermediate" as in no in-between development vehicle before New Glenn
Quote from: Jim on 03/20/2017 12:50 pmQuote from: AncientU on 03/20/2017 08:58 amQuote from: Jim on 03/19/2017 10:33 pmQuote from: AncientU on 03/19/2017 09:24 pmI envision a three engine, appropriately ballasted first stage (only) being used to test launch, reentry, landing.Nop, there is no intermediate vehicle.This isn't intermediate... it is 7m, using the BE-4 engines at full scale. Can only launch from coast, so test booster flight profile and EDL, then add rest of engines and second stage. Graditum.No "intermediate" as in no in-between development vehicle before New GlennNot even a suborbital flying test article? They are going to do an all-up demo including orbital 2nd stage and first stage recovery on the first flight? That's pretty late in the design cycle to learn about downrange high-velocity entry and ship landings.
A rational person would not be suck into the hype.
Quote from: envy887 on 03/20/2017 03:59 pmNot even a suborbital flying test article? They are going to do an all-up demo including orbital 2nd stage and first stage recovery on the first flight? That's pretty late in the design cycle to learn about downrange high-velocity entry and ship landings.I am confused by the course of this discussion. Somehow it seems like people are expecting a subscale non-orbital test vehicle, when I don't remember any recent rocket design requiring such. ITS may be an exception, because its second stage may be a suborbital vehicle on its own. Not having a second stage wouldn't even make a good demo anyway, 2 of the falcon 1 failures were at or after stage separation.Blue Origin has New Shepard anyway, which covers the need for learning about vertical landing. SpaceX didn't start figuring out landing the first stage until after multiple F9 flights, how is doing it on the first flight equate to learning about it "late in the cycle"? Not to mention the wind tunnel tests, extensive modeling, engine tests and hold down firings that will certainly happen before the first flight.The only thing not gradual about New Glenn is the size, and Bezos has said before (paraphrasing) that many aspects of rockets are easier to deal with as the rocket gets bigger.
Not even a suborbital flying test article? They are going to do an all-up demo including orbital 2nd stage and first stage recovery on the first flight? That's pretty late in the design cycle to learn about downrange high-velocity entry and ship landings.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 03/20/2017 01:31 amQuote from: envy887 on 03/20/2017 12:42 amQuote from: Jim on 03/19/2017 10:33 pmQuote from: AncientU on 03/19/2017 09:24 pmI envision a three engine, appropriately ballasted first stage (only) being used to test launch, reentry, landing.Nop, there is no intermediate vehicle.Why wouldn't they have a testbed like Grasshopper, but higher flying?Ask Bezos why he chose not to, in spite of being supposedly the more "incremental" NewSpace company.By all your comments, you seem not to be very fond of Blue Origins, and you have the right to be, but why are you on this tread?
Quote from: envy887 on 03/20/2017 12:42 amQuote from: Jim on 03/19/2017 10:33 pmQuote from: AncientU on 03/19/2017 09:24 pmI envision a three engine, appropriately ballasted first stage (only) being used to test launch, reentry, landing.Nop, there is no intermediate vehicle.Why wouldn't they have a testbed like Grasshopper, but higher flying?Ask Bezos why he chose not to, in spite of being supposedly the more "incremental" NewSpace company.
Quote from: Jim on 03/19/2017 10:33 pmQuote from: AncientU on 03/19/2017 09:24 pmI envision a three engine, appropriately ballasted first stage (only) being used to test launch, reentry, landing.Nop, there is no intermediate vehicle.Why wouldn't they have a testbed like Grasshopper, but higher flying?
Quote from: meberbs on 03/20/2017 06:21 pmQuote from: envy887 on 03/20/2017 03:59 pmNot even a suborbital flying test article? They are going to do an all-up demo including orbital 2nd stage and first stage recovery on the first flight? That's pretty late in the design cycle to learn about downrange high-velocity entry and ship landings.I am confused by the course of this discussion. Somehow it seems like people are expecting a subscale non-orbital test vehicle, when I don't remember any recent rocket design requiring such. ITS may be an exception, because its second stage may be a suborbital vehicle on its own. Not having a second stage wouldn't even make a good demo anyway, 2 of the falcon 1 failures were at or after stage separation.Blue Origin has New Shepard anyway, which covers the need for learning about vertical landing. SpaceX didn't start figuring out landing the first stage until after multiple F9 flights, how is doing it on the first flight equate to learning about it "late in the cycle"? Not to mention the wind tunnel tests, extensive modeling, engine tests and hold down firings that will certainly happen before the first flight.The only thing not gradual about New Glenn is the size, and Bezos has said before (paraphrasing) that many aspects of rockets are easier to deal with as the rocket gets bigger.STS did drop tests. Falcon had Grasshopper and F9R dev vehicles. New Shepard had Goddard and PM2. DC-X was a reusable suborbital test article. What reusable system hasn't tested getting back?Flying a rocket tail first from 130 km and Mach 8 down to a moving ship is highly nontrivial, they are probably going to lose a few. Maybe they want to get all the way to an all-up demo before trying EDL, but I wouldn't.
What reusable system hasn't tested getting back?
Blue Origin has New Shepard anyway, which covers the need for learning about vertical landing.... Not to mention the wind tunnel tests, extensive modeling, engine tests and hold down firings that will certainly happen before the first flight.
SpaceX didn't start figuring out landing the first stage until after multiple F9 flights, how is doing it on the first flight equate to learning about it "late in the cycle"?
Quote from: hkultala on 03/19/2017 05:22 amQuote from: pippin on 03/19/2017 03:29 amOne big topic will be reliability. We've seen with SpaceX and others that failures often happen in places you didn't expect them to so being conservative in your design doesn't necessarily prevent them.The reality does not meet your beliefs here.AMOS 6 failure was directly related to 1) using new materials(carbon fiber) in the helium tanks2) using subcooled propellant.Neither of these two things are conservative.Conservative design is a design which MINIMIZES those unexpected places.There is nothing conservative about building a company's first orbital rocket using seven oxygen-rich staged combustion engines and a seven meter core... with landing legs and a ship under full steam cruising down range. Plenty room for 'unexpected places' in this approach.
Quote from: pippin on 03/19/2017 03:29 amOne big topic will be reliability. We've seen with SpaceX and others that failures often happen in places you didn't expect them to so being conservative in your design doesn't necessarily prevent them.The reality does not meet your beliefs here.AMOS 6 failure was directly related to 1) using new materials(carbon fiber) in the helium tanks2) using subcooled propellant.Neither of these two things are conservative.Conservative design is a design which MINIMIZES those unexpected places.
One big topic will be reliability. We've seen with SpaceX and others that failures often happen in places you didn't expect them to so being conservative in your design doesn't necessarily prevent them.
Quote from: AncientU on 03/19/2017 12:14 pmQuote from: hkultala on 03/19/2017 05:22 amQuote from: pippin on 03/19/2017 03:29 amOne big topic will be reliability. We've seen with SpaceX and others that failures often happen in places you didn't expect them to so being conservative in your design doesn't necessarily prevent them.The reality does not meet your beliefs here.AMOS 6 failure was directly related to 1) using new materials(carbon fiber) in the helium tanks2) using subcooled propellant.Neither of these two things are conservative.Conservative design is a design which MINIMIZES those unexpected places.There is nothing conservative about building a company's first orbital rocket using seven oxygen-rich staged combustion engines and a seven meter core... with landing legs and a ship under full steam cruising down range. Plenty room for 'unexpected places' in this approach.Yeah, Blue has always gone for too big, too fast in my opinion.~Jon
Quote from: jongoff on 03/21/2017 03:19 amQuote from: AncientU on 03/19/2017 12:14 pmQuote from: hkultala on 03/19/2017 05:22 amQuote from: pippin on 03/19/2017 03:29 amOne big topic will be reliability. We've seen with SpaceX and others that failures often happen in places you didn't expect them to so being conservative in your design doesn't necessarily prevent them.The reality does not meet your beliefs here.AMOS 6 failure was directly related to 1) using new materials(carbon fiber) in the helium tanks2) using subcooled propellant.Neither of these two things are conservative.Conservative design is a design which MINIMIZES those unexpected places.There is nothing conservative about building a company's first orbital rocket using seven oxygen-rich staged combustion engines and a seven meter core... with landing legs and a ship under full steam cruising down range. Plenty room for 'unexpected places' in this approach.Yeah, Blue has always gone for too big, too fast in my opinion.~JonThat is sarcasm, right?
Quote from: Jim on 03/20/2017 12:50 pmQuote from: AncientU on 03/20/2017 08:58 amQuote from: Jim on 03/19/2017 10:33 pmQuote from: AncientU on 03/19/2017 09:24 pmI envision a three engine, appropriately ballasted first stage (only) being used to test launch, reentry, landing.Nop, there is no intermediate vehicle.This isn't intermediate... it is 7m, using the BE-4 engines at full scale. Can only launch from coast, so test booster flight profile and EDL, then add rest of engines and second stage. Graditum.No "intermediate" as in no in-between development vehicle before New GlennYou shouldn't believe everything a billionaire says.Quote from: Jim on 03/19/2017 10:38 pmA rational person would not be suck into the hype.
Quote from: envy887 on 03/21/2017 12:59 amQuote from: meberbs on 03/20/2017 06:21 pmQuote from: envy887 on 03/20/2017 03:59 pmNot even a suborbital flying test article? They are going to do an all-up demo including orbital 2nd stage and first stage recovery on the first flight? That's pretty late in the design cycle to learn about downrange high-velocity entry and ship landings.I am confused by the course of this discussion. Somehow it seems like people are expecting a subscale non-orbital test vehicle, when I don't remember any recent rocket design requiring such. ITS may be an exception, because its second stage may be a suborbital vehicle on its own. Not having a second stage wouldn't even make a good demo anyway, 2 of the falcon 1 failures were at or after stage separation.Blue Origin has New Shepard anyway, which covers the need for learning about vertical landing. SpaceX didn't start figuring out landing the first stage until after multiple F9 flights, how is doing it on the first flight equate to learning about it "late in the cycle"? Not to mention the wind tunnel tests, extensive modeling, engine tests and hold down firings that will certainly happen before the first flight.The only thing not gradual about New Glenn is the size, and Bezos has said before (paraphrasing) that many aspects of rockets are easier to deal with as the rocket gets bigger.STS did drop tests. Falcon had Grasshopper and F9R dev vehicles. New Shepard had Goddard and PM2. DC-X was a reusable suborbital test article. What reusable system hasn't tested getting back?Flying a rocket tail first from 130 km and Mach 8 down to a moving ship is highly nontrivial, they are probably going to lose a few. Maybe they want to get all the way to an all-up demo before trying EDL, but I wouldn't.I am assuming you just posted without thinking, because you apparently didn't bother reading my post:Quote from: envy887 on 03/21/2017 12:59 amWhat reusable system hasn't tested getting back?They already tested it:Quote from: meberbs on 03/20/2017 06:21 pmBlue Origin has New Shepard anyway, which covers the need for learning about vertical landing.... Not to mention the wind tunnel tests, extensive modeling, engine tests and hold down firings that will certainly happen before the first flight. They will have learned way more about getting a stage back from high altitude then SpaceX ever did from grasshopper. Your post is effectively answered already in my previous post, and you have no explanation as to why you think NS doesn't count as testing for New Glenn. I would guess this is because of the different engine (though that isn't valid) if you hadn't also compared PM2 and New Shepard. No one has ever tested the most difficult part, the high altitude, high speed return before a full up demo, not grasshopper, not the shuttle, and the closest is Blue Origin which has done the high altitude with New Shepard.Also, you in no way addressed the question:Quote from: meberbs on 03/20/2017 06:21 pm SpaceX didn't start figuring out landing the first stage until after multiple F9 flights, how is doing it on the first flight equate to learning about it "late in the cycle"?Since you don't seem to have any value to add on the technical front I have a different question for you: Are you just trolling, or is there something about Blue Origin that has made you (and some others) stop thinking? Is it all the money Bezos has that he doesn't have to worry about startup costs? Besides the fact that most of his money isn't available as cash, it seems clear to me that he has not been just blindly dumping money into Blue Origin. His goal is to lower cost to access space, that means he still wants the low cost route and efficient use of money.
They will have learned way more about getting a stage back from high altitude then SpaceX ever did from grasshopper. Your post is effectively answered already in my previous post, and you have no explanation as to why you think NS doesn't count as testing for New Glenn. I would guess this is because of the different engine (though that isn't valid) if you hadn't also compared PM2 and New Shepard. No one has ever tested the most difficult part, the high altitude, high speed return before a full up demo, not grasshopper, not the shuttle, and the closest is Blue Origin which has done the high altitude with New Shepard.
The snark is unnecessary.SpaceX used the F9 v1.0 booster as a nigh-velocity entry test vehicle, but it was a relatively small and cheap vehicle flying paying missions so they were willing to expend it if the tests failed (which they frequently did). NG is not going to be small or cheap, and expending massive boosters doesn't seem to be Bezos' style.SpaceX then redesigned the Falcon 9 multiple times to account for the lessons they learned with v1.0, and v1.1, and v1.2. They were flying paying missions early in the design cycle, and aren't going to stop throwing away boosters until the design matures.Is Blue going to fly expendable until they nail reuse? It's not all that realistic to say they will have everything figured out before the first launch. New Shepard experiences at least 10x less and probably 50x the peak heat flux that New Glenn will see - it's NOT a hypersonic entry test vehicle like the F9 v1.0 booster.
I think their distinction between New Shepard and New Glenn is that New Shepard barely crossed the Karman line, and had essentially zero horizontal velocity. New Glenn will be re-entering with a substantially higher velocity (probably substantially higher velocity than Falcon 9 as well), and will be precision-landing downrange on a target that isn't perfectly stationary. I agree with you that Blue Origin doesn't need to build any test vehicles or anything like that (after all, you're right that SpaceX never built a test vehicle of that kind), but I do think that they need to be prepared for (possibly multiple) failures before they make this work (which is exactly what SpaceX did). Of course, they have plenty of smart people working for them and I'm sure they've already been aware of the likelihood of losing some early cores since they started designing the rocket.