Bob Smith, Blue Origin: making good progress on BE-4 engine. Recently had 114-second firing at 65% power. #SatShow
Quote from: cscott on 03/12/2018 12:50 pmIf ACES is truly the magical holy grail, then the price will be high (though still lower then buying ULA!). But if it's not actually that special, then the price would be low and that's all the more reason to license rather then try to work around ULA's patents.The exception would be if ULA was unfriendly and unwilling to license, in which case Blue would be forced to reimplement and work around the patent protection, or maybe do a purchase via hostile takeover... but that doesn't seem to be the case here.If ACES truly was the “holy grail”, ULA would have done it years ago. Patents you just sit on aren’t worth much.Just sitting on patents and doing nothing with them is closer to patent trolling, although Amazon does have some experience in that regard.
If ACES is truly the magical holy grail, then the price will be high (though still lower then buying ULA!). But if it's not actually that special, then the price would be low and that's all the more reason to license rather then try to work around ULA's patents.The exception would be if ULA was unfriendly and unwilling to license, in which case Blue would be forced to reimplement and work around the patent protection, or maybe do a purchase via hostile takeover... but that doesn't seem to be the case here.
1) Severe weather agility thrusters, and associated systems and methods are disclosed. (2) A representative system includes a launch vehicle having a first end and a second end generally opposite the first end, and is elongated along a vehicle axis extending between the first and second ends. (3) A propulsion system is carried by the launch vehicle and has at least one main engine having a corresponding nozzle positioned toward the first end to launch the launch vehicle. (4) At least one laterally-directed thruster is positioned toward the second end of the launch vehicle. (5) The system further includes a controller in communication with the launch vehicle and programmed with instructions that, when executed, direct the launch vehicle in a first direction during vehicle ascent, direct the launch vehicle in a second direction, opposite the first direction, during vehicle descent, and direct activation of the at least one laterally-directed thruster to guide the launch vehicle during descent.
Did Blue Origin try to patent using RCS thrusters to land a first stage?
Which leaves me wondering if early speculative discussions of landing on off-center engines on this very forum could count as prior art. (I'm pretty sure I remember such chatter, but I have no idea if it was early enough to matter. The ITS announcement would be a better thing to point to in any event, if the dates worked -- but I'm not sure they do; September 2016, not June.)
I gave this a brief read. Apparently these are sets of relatively small thrusters that would push the vehicles sideways and maintain attitude to assist during a landing. The vehicle could translate directly without first pitching. AFAIK, neither Falcon 9 nor New Shepard can do so, they pitch first, move laterally and then pitch back the opposite direction to correct their attitude. Also it is mentioned that the extra stability and control of attitude enabled by the thrusters allow for a smaller landing gear. The span of the legs on New Glenn is relatively short compared to F9.Apparently this system is designed for landings in severe weather like 40+ knot winds to increase the availability of the vehicle. In the event of engine out that forces landing with an outboard engine in strong winds, the vehicle could be rotated around its vertical axis to be more stable against the wind.The most important info from this is that Blue Origin intends to build vehicles that can launch and land in conditions that currently would force scrubs and delays. That's super important if reusable vehicles are to have plane like operations. New Glenn seemed overbuilt for launching commercial satellites when it was announced but this is probably because it has huge margins to accommodate engine failure, bad weather, leg failures etc..
That's pretty much exactly how SpaceX described the ITS booster landing in 2016. That part at least certainly isn't novel.
That doesn't strike me as particularly novel, though. I mean, if they just have a bunch of lawyer money burning holes in their pockets and they want to create a minefield for their competitors, they can't just think of every obvious slight variation in landing technology and patent it.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 03/15/2018 01:34 amThat doesn't strike me as particularly novel, though. I mean, if they just have a bunch of lawyer money burning holes in their pockets and they want to create a minefield for their competitors, they can't just think of every obvious slight variation in landing technology and patent it. That's kind of the very essence of patent trolling, though, isn't it? Lots of lawyers and better funding than your opponents, who then settle, and you roll them all up starting with the very smallest and working progressively upwards.
That's kind of the very essence of patent trolling, though, isn't it? Lots of lawyers and better funding than your opponents, who then settle, and you roll them all up starting with the very smallest and working progressively upwards.
CEO Bob Smith of @blueorigin on what @ulalaunch contract would mean for Blue, why reusing the New Glenn rocket first stage makes business sense regardless of launch cadence, and the virtues of patience provided by @JeffBezos's @amazon largesse.https://www.spaceintelreport.com/interview-blue-origin-chief-executive-bob-smith/
Quote from: Darkseraph on 03/15/2018 09:34 amI gave this a brief read. Apparently these are sets of relatively small thrusters that would push the vehicles sideways and maintain attitude to assist during a landing. The vehicle could translate directly without first pitching. AFAIK, neither Falcon 9 nor New Shepard can do so, they pitch first, move laterally and then pitch back the opposite direction to correct their attitude. Also it is mentioned that the extra stability and control of attitude enabled by the thrusters allow for a smaller landing gear. The span of the legs on New Glenn is relatively short compared to F9.Apparently this system is designed for landings in severe weather like 40+ knot winds to increase the availability of the vehicle. In the event of engine out that forces landing with an outboard engine in strong winds, the vehicle could be rotated around its vertical axis to be more stable against the wind.The most important info from this is that Blue Origin intends to build vehicles that can launch and land in conditions that currently would force scrubs and delays. That's super important if reusable vehicles are to have plane like operations. New Glenn seemed overbuilt for launching commercial satellites when it was announced but this is probably because it has huge margins to accommodate engine failure, bad weather, leg failures etc.. I am pretty sure that the DC-X was using thrusters for attitude control for landings and they did a pretty extreme nose first maneuver and then went upright again. I may be wrong though. Maybe Gary Hudson can chime in on that?
QuoteCEO Bob Smith of @blueorigin on what @ulalaunch contract would mean for Blue, why reusing the New Glenn rocket first stage makes business sense regardless of launch cadence, and the virtues of patience provided by @JeffBezos's @amazon largesse.https://www.spaceintelreport.com/interview-blue-origin-chief-executive-bob-smith/https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/975664660081979392