Landing seems one or more iterations behind SpaceX. Very slow, lots of fuel burn and a slight jump after landing.Good enough for suborbital space tourism (they seem to have excess fuel), but a waste of fuel for orbital missions.
Quote from: IRobot on 12/13/2017 03:18 pmLanding seems one or more iterations behind SpaceX. Very slow, lots of fuel burn and a slight jump after landing.Good enough for suborbital space tourism (they seem to have excess fuel), but a waste of fuel for orbital missions.Or they have healthy margins built into the system, using a more efficient fuel and far better throttle capabilties. Their methodology so far seems to be to overbuild systems with redundancy so that they are robust
and won't be destroyed in some of the hillarious ways featured in SpaceX's recent blooper reel. As enjoyable a spectacle as it is to watch, it doesn't pay the bills to explode or pancake boosters on the pad.
I still maintain that it's quite irrelevant whether I'll fly to 80km, 90 km, 99 km or just above 100 km. For the sake of experience and enterntainment, it doesn't matter too much.
Quote from: Darkseraph on 12/13/2017 03:40 pmQuote from: IRobot on 12/13/2017 03:18 pmLanding seems one or more iterations behind SpaceX. Very slow, lots of fuel burn and a slight jump after landing.Good enough for suborbital space tourism (they seem to have excess fuel), but a waste of fuel for orbital missions.Or they have healthy margins built into the system, using a more efficient fuel and far better throttle capabilties. Their methodology so far seems to be to overbuild systems with redundancy so that they are robust You can have healthy margins built into Falcon 9. But then you don't launch those big birds into GTO.Quote from: Darkseraph on 12/13/2017 03:40 pmand won't be destroyed in some of the hillarious ways featured in SpaceX's recent blooper reel. As enjoyable a spectacle as it is to watch, it doesn't pay the bills to explode or pancake boosters on the pad. My comment is that BE algorithm/mechanics looks grasshopper-like. Falcon 9 goes for a suicidal burn and quite successfully. I don't understand your comment regarding "SpaceX's recent blooper reel". They have been extremely successful this past 1.5 years, beyond expectations. If not mistaken, 15 landings in a row!
Was it just me or was the rocket take off surprisingly slow?It really surprised me because I have {never?} seen a rocket take off with such low acceleration.
I understand that they are aiming for a good passenger experience, so they would want to keep the G forces to a minimum. Slow acceleration would explain why the capsule did not reach the altitude that it did before. Personally I would think that moderate G-forces would give the system greater attraction. I would think that the acceleration of the Shuttle which experienced a max G force of 3 would be acceptable.
Congratulations @JeffBezos and @blueorigin team from all at Virgin Galactic. A great flight and another good day for the commercial space industry
SpaceX released a video not so long ago catalogueing their early attempts to achieve and refine landing of stages, with lots of explosions and mishaps. The Falcon 9 lands how it does by necessity. It has to come down immediately or run out of propellant and spectacularly crash. New Shepard can perform its designed mission with extra propellant to hover and adjust on landing. That capability to make small refinements in position will also be important for Blue Moon where craft have to land on unprepared surfaces.
The Falcon 9 lands how it does by necessity. It has to come down immediately or run out of propellant and spectacularly crash. New Shepard can perform its designed mission with extra propellant to hover and adjust on landing. That capability to make small refinements in position will also be important for Blue Moon where craft have to land on unprepared surfaces.
Quote from: DarkenedOne on 12/13/2017 03:02 pmWas it just me or was the rocket take off surprisingly slow?It really surprised me because I have {never?} seen a rocket take off with such low acceleration. Go watch a video of a Saturn V liftoff..QuoteI understand that they are aiming for a good passenger experience, so they would want to keep the G forces to a minimum. Slow acceleration would explain why the capsule did not reach the altitude that it did before. Personally I would think that moderate G-forces would give the system greater attraction. I would think that the acceleration of the Shuttle which experienced a max G force of 3 would be acceptable. Acceleration increases as you burn off fuel; the initial acceleration off the pad when tanks are full doesn't constrain the final acceleration when tanks are almost empty. The Saturn V is notable for having a relatively low thrust-to-weight ratio at liftoff and thus low initial acceleration.
Just out of curiosity, at what point would it matter to you? 50 km? 25 km? 10 km? Lower yet?
Quote from: Svetoslav on 12/13/2017 11:27 amQuote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 12/13/2017 10:33 amCapsule apogee is a few km less than on some previous flights, though given the payloads - and windows - I imagine somewhat heavier than previous flights. Or have Blue used ballast previously?I wonder how much margin they have to push things further. It seems to be a long hold down after ignition and a notable hover before landing.I assume they want to break 100 km with a full complement of passengers. Especially if that's better than SpaceShipTwo can manage ...I'm not sure that both companies will want to break the 100km barrier. It seems to me that they're comfortable with the 80km boundary used in the USA. Which would restrict bragging rights of their customers to the USA given that the rest of the world recognizes the Karman line as the boundary of space.
Quote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 12/13/2017 10:33 amCapsule apogee is a few km less than on some previous flights, though given the payloads - and windows - I imagine somewhat heavier than previous flights. Or have Blue used ballast previously?I wonder how much margin they have to push things further. It seems to be a long hold down after ignition and a notable hover before landing.I assume they want to break 100 km with a full complement of passengers. Especially if that's better than SpaceShipTwo can manage ...I'm not sure that both companies will want to break the 100km barrier. It seems to me that they're comfortable with the 80km boundary used in the USA.
Capsule apogee is a few km less than on some previous flights, though given the payloads - and windows - I imagine somewhat heavier than previous flights. Or have Blue used ballast previously?I wonder how much margin they have to push things further. It seems to be a long hold down after ignition and a notable hover before landing.I assume they want to break 100 km with a full complement of passengers. Especially if that's better than SpaceShipTwo can manage ...
Dec. 13, 2017NASA Funds Flight for Space Medical Technology on Blue OriginBlue Origin successfully launched its New Shepard reusable space vehicle on Dec. 12 carrying a medical technology that could potentially treat chest trauma in a space environment.The New Shepard reusable vertical takeoff and vertical landing space vehicle was launched with the experimental technology from Blue Origin’s West Texas launch site. In addition to NASA funding non-government researchers to fly payloads, Blue Origin is a Flight Opportunities program launch provider for government payloads. The Flight Opportunities program, is managed under NASA’s Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD).“This flight marks the first of many Flight Opportunities’ flights of payloads with Blue Origin,” said Ryan Dibley, NASA Flight Opportunities campaign manager for Blue Origin. “New Shepard brings new capabilities to the program. This launch platform allows for larger payloads, provides lower launch accelerations, and maintains a sealed pressure environment.”With NASA funding to support the flight cost, the Evolved Medical Microgravity Suction Device technology was developed by Charles Marsh Cuttino and his team at Orbital Medicine, Inc. in Richmond, Virginia.The device could potentially assist in treating accidents such as a collapsed lung where air and blood enter the pleural cavity. The payload was constructed in collaboration with the Purdue University of Aeronautics and Astronautics in Indiana.Currently astronauts and cosmonauts have to return to Earth quickly for medical treatment should an incident arise with chest trauma on the International Space Station. Collapsed lungs are treated on Earth with gravity dependent collectors that will not work in space. “My hope is that in the future, this type of medical device will be able to save the life of an astronaut, to continue their mission of exploration,” said Dr. Cuttino. “These types of medical treatment options could be required to explore the Moon and Mars.”The new technology has a suction system that collects the blood in microgravity and allows for the lungs to continuously inflate as well as store blood for transfusion. The device also has a pneumothorax simulator, which simulates an injured person and shows how the device removes the air and blood to promote healing. Orbital Medicine’s suction device technology was selected in Nov. 2015 under a NASA Research Announcement: Space Technology Research and Development, Demonstration and Infusion, or Space Technology REDDI-2015. The device has already flown on parabolic flights with past program funding. Through the Flight Opportunities program, STMD selects promising technologies from industry, academia and government for testing on commercial launch vehicles. The Flight Opportunities program is funded by STMD, and managed at NASA's Armstrong Flight Research Center in Edwards, California.STMD is responsible for developing the crosscutting, pioneering, new technologies and capabilities needed by the agency to achieve its current and future missions.For more information about the Flight Opportunities Program, visit:http://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/flight_opportunities/index.htmlFor more information about the Space Technology Mission Directorate, visit:http://www.nasa.gov/spacetechLeslie WilliamsNASA Armstrong Flight Research Center