BO can't change the laws of physics.BO's New Shepard is small, agile, weighs (probably) very little, goes straight up, and back down again. If they are to make an orbital stage that is capable of putting a reasonable payload into orbit then they will face exactly the same issues as Space X, ULA and everyone else. They will have to manage fuel margins, control issues (they haven't even scratched that yet), strut breakages, engine out scenarios, stability of a large stage coming in at speed, heating control, and everything else that Space X is and has encountered. BO are only starting out on this adventure and while they have a nice (and probably the most potential) in a sub-orbital vehicle, there's a huge difference to taking the step to orbital stages, never mind orbital re-usable stages. Space X started with a clean sheet. Their plan was always to re-use and that means return and land, and that means legs. They didn't just decide to stick them on as an afterthought. They didn't design them on the back of a napkin and say "this will do". We've all seen that Space X have smart engineers and solve problems and this was their engineering solution based on the data they have. I'm not a betting man but I'll put $10 down that whenever BO/ULA or whoever build a re-usable orbital stage it will have many of the design and engineering decisions that we see in the Space X Falcon 9.There is no magic sauce here.
Their plan was always to re-use and that means return and land, and that means legs. They didn't just decide to stick them on as an afterthought.
It was an afterthought. Look at the Falcon 9 - it's a regular looking rocket with legs stuck on the side.
Quote from: Garrett on 01/25/2016 01:06 pmIt was an afterthought. Look at the Falcon 9 - it's a regular looking rocket with legs stuck on the side.That's like saying tree branches were afterthoughts in the design of trees because they're stuck on the sides.
I do like their fin arrangement at the top, I would expect that that can replace grid fins. But that is not a huge difference.
I guess the magic source is at the root of my original question. Given a completely clean sheet, will BO end up with something very different from F9 due to magic sauce,. or something very similar due to lack of magic sauce.I do like their fin arrangement at the top, I would expect that that can replace grid fins. But that is not a huge difference.
SpaceX: established in 2002, first paid launch in 2010 (?) and that launch was to orbit, already is making profit.Reusable orbital first stage.
Quote from: Elmar Moelzer on 01/26/2016 12:53 amSpaceX: established in 2002, first paid launch in 2010 (?) and that launch was to orbit, already is making profit.Reusable orbital first stage.That's interesting. Do you have official numbers backing up the claim about profitability?