NASASpaceFlight.com Forum

Commercial and US Government Launch Vehicles => Blue Origin => Topic started by: 8900 on 11/08/2007 01:20 pm

Title: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: 8900 on 11/08/2007 01:20 pm
Completely silent for almost a year already
Does anyone know the inside of this company
What are they doing right now
Are they progressing well or getting into troubles
Maybe someone like Jim can answer my question?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 11/08/2007 01:42 pm
Have no idea since they don't interface with NASA
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: bad_astra on 11/08/2007 03:08 pm
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/launch_data/permitted_historical_launch/

They haven't apparently sent anything off the ground in awhile.
Their permit was one year renewable from Sept 06. I don't see that it's been renewed but that may not be updated publically.

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/
rgFinalRule.nsf/0/7f5242499c569f6c862572d7004aeed8!OpenDocument&ExpandSection=-4

Blue Origin suggested that 12 month Experimental permits be lengthened to 18 months.


I don't see anything that shows that they applied for renewal, nor do I see anything that shows such an application was rejected.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: PurduesUSAFguy on 11/12/2007 02:09 pm
Well given the job postings they had I'm guessing right now they are working on engine development, I guess they came to the same conclusion that Armadilo did and they are getting away from Hydrogen Peroxide.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Danderman on 11/12/2007 02:56 pm

Quote
PurduesUSAFguy - 12/11/2007  7:09 AM  Well given the job postings they had I'm guessing right now they are working on engine development, I guess they came to the same conclusion that Armadilo did and they are getting away from Hydrogen Peroxide.

If true, this would be the first indication that Blue Origin is potentially serious about their plans.

 

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: stockman on 11/21/2007 11:47 pm
Just found this update on livescience.com with regards to Blue Origin. Not much technical detail however it is current and is made to sound positive. I love the line "step by step, ferociously" 

http://www.livescience.com/blogs/2007/11/21/bezos-amazoncom-blue-origin-rocket-progress/

(Please do not post text from articles....it's called copyright - Chris).
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Danderman on 05/01/2008 08:56 pm
And then .... silence again.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: nacnud on 06/03/2008 02:29 pm
They have some pics up of their facility in Washington State, see http://public.blueorigin.com/index.html
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Zond on 08/18/2008 08:47 pm
Well given the job postings they had I'm guessing right now they are working on engine development, I guess they came to the same conclusion that Armadilo did and they are getting away from Hydrogen Peroxide.
Looking at this job opening:Engine Test Operations Lead (http://public.blueorigin.com/job_testops.htm), there are still planning on flying hydrogen peroxide and kerosene powered vehicles.
Quote
Qualifications:
Required
-Demonstrated technical expertise in liquid rocket engine test stand design, operation and maintenance.
-Pressurized Gas Systems
-Fluid Systems
-Working knowledge of a variety of rocket propellants, experience with cryogenic propellants, hydrogen peroxide and kerosene is preferred.
-Understand/experience with hazardous operations and design for system safety.
-Strong Project Management and team leadership skills
-BS degree in engineering and at least 5 years direct experience with propulsion test facilities.
-U.S. citizen, permanent resident alien or otherwise able to review all export-controlled technical information.

They always seem to have a lot of job openings. Is it that hard to find rocket engineers?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: iamlucky13 on 08/18/2008 10:24 pm
At the same time, there is also an opening for a turbomachinery engineer.

Hmm...is that a big carbon-fiber barrel section in the middle of the picture?

(http://public.blueorigin.com/img/bld5.jpg)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: jongoff on 08/19/2008 04:19 am
At the same time, there is also an opening for a turbomachinery engineer.

Hmm...is that a big carbon-fiber barrel section in the middle of the picture?

(http://public.blueorigin.com/img/bld5.jpg)

Nah, just a monolith.  Nothing to see here folks, moving right along....

;-)

~Jon
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: dunderwood on 08/19/2008 02:30 pm

and some "weather station" (I think that was their codeword for the McGregor, TX test site they later bought, but I could be wrong).

I think you mean Fort Stockton.  McGregor is SpaceX's test site.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: guru on 08/19/2008 02:32 pm

and some "weather station" (I think that was their codeword for the McGregor, TX test site they later bought, but I could be wrong).

I think you mean Fort Stockton.  McGregor is SpaceX's test site.

Yes, you're right.  Sorry. :)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Zond on 08/19/2008 06:46 pm

and some "weather station" (I think that was their codeword for the McGregor, TX test site they later bought, but I could be wrong).

I think you mean Fort Stockton.  McGregor is SpaceX's test site.

I think you mean Van Horn (http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/ap_bezos_spaceport_050315.html). Fort Stockton is near the West Texas/Pecos County spaceport (http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/county_84052___article.html/texas_project.html).
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Zond on 11/08/2008 12:40 am
According to a Blue Origin job ad they are presently integrating their 3rd flight article: http://www.linkedin.com/jobs?viewJob=&jobId=616978&fromSearch=1&sik=1226104399658 (http://www.linkedin.com/jobs?viewJob=&jobId=616978&fromSearch=1&sik=1226104399658)
Quote
Blue, home based in Kent, WA. and resides on 25 acres with approximately 250,000 square foot of facilities and a multi-million dollar propulsion test facilities on site. Blue also owns and maintains a 200,000+ acre private launch site in West Texas. Blue has designed and built 2 flight articles with 4 successful flights flown to date and presently integrating our 3rd flight article. We are a privately held, well funded company with a head count in excess of 100 engineers.

Blue Origin is committed in the development of vehicles and technologies that, over time, will help enable an enduring human presence in space. Our efforts are focused on reusable propulsion systems, fully autonomous, low cost of operations, life support, abort systems and human factors.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: corrodedNut on 12/08/2008 06:19 pm
Space.com has a new article on Blue Origin and the New Shepard vehicle.

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/081208-blue-origin-stern.html
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Comga on 12/09/2008 05:31 am
Space.com has a new article on Blue Origin and the New Shepard vehicle.

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/081208-blue-origin-stern.html

Very interesting.  We will see whose prediction of the demand for suborbital science is closer to reality, Alan Stern's or Ed Weiler's.

There is a chart titled "Sample New Shepherd CC Trajectories"".  Fitting curves to the chart indicates that gravity is treated as a variable, along with other curiosities.  One would expect better than a cartoon.

Although the video is over two years old, is is fun to see what looks very much like a DC-X flight.  Wonder what the relative budgets were.

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Zond on 01/17/2009 01:58 pm
Bezos owns his ranches in west texas through an entity calded "Daugherty Ranches". The "Texas Water Development Board" website has an overview of the wells located on these ranches and which includes the coordinates (Culberson county (http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/publications/reports/GroundWaterReports/GWDatabaseReports/Database%20Reports/Culberson/Record%20of%20Wells.pdf), Hudspeth county (http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/publications/reports/GroundwaterReports/GWDatabaseReports/Database%20Reports/Hudspeth/Record%20of%20Wells.pdf)). I put these coordinates in a kml file (you can open these with Google Earth). This gives a nice overview of the huge amount of land owned by Bezos.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Zond on 02/25/2009 09:39 pm
Another Blue Origin mystery:
http://n5lp.net/Saltflatmystery.html (http://n5lp.net/Saltflatmystery.html)

Bezos has apperently build a new airport on his land. Is he planning to switch to horizontal landing or is this airport unrelated to Blue Origin and is Bezos renting his land to the CIA like the website owner speculates?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Danderman on 02/26/2009 03:00 pm
Another Blue Origin mystery:
http://n5lp.net/Saltflatmystery.html (http://n5lp.net/Saltflatmystery.html)

Bezos has apperently build a new airport on his land. Is he planning to switch to horizontal landing or is this airport unrelated to Blue Origin and is Bezos renting his land to the CIA like the website owner speculates?


Although it is unlikely that the CIA is using this land, it is within the realm of possibility that the purpose of this project is hidden behind a cover story of a space tourism project, as that cover would certainly be plausible enough for most people not to think much about the mystery. However, I have no idea what could lie beneath if this were a cover story.

 ???
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: duane on 03/02/2009 09:21 pm
Jeff Bezos was on Charlie Rose last week and they briefly touched on Blue Origin. Nothing in detail though
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Zond on 03/12/2009 09:32 pm
Another Blue Origin mystery:
http://n5lp.net/Saltflatmystery.html (http://n5lp.net/Saltflatmystery.html)

Bezos has apperently build a new airport on his land. Is he planning to switch to horizontal landing or is this airport unrelated to Blue Origin and is Bezos renting his land to the CIA like the website owner speculates?


It is apparently not that new because it is allready visible on this satellite photo from march 2007. http://archive.digitalglobe.com/archive/showBrowse.php?catID=1010010005806A0A (http://archive.digitalglobe.com/archive/showBrowse.php?catID=1010010005806A0A)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Zond on 04/23/2009 07:28 pm
Hammer Mechanical Inc which build the tooling for Goddard has a picture of Goddard on their website during a static hot fire:
http://hammerbc.com/gallery.html (http://hammerbc.com/gallery.html)
I wonder how long it will take before they pull the image after an email from Blue Origin :).

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: agman25 on 04/23/2009 07:58 pm
Another Blue Origin mystery:
http://n5lp.net/Saltflatmystery.html (http://n5lp.net/Saltflatmystery.html)

Bezos has apperently build a new airport on his land. Is he planning to switch to horizontal landing or is this airport unrelated to Blue Origin and is Bezos renting his land to the CIA like the website owner speculates?


Although it is unlikely that the CIA is using this land, it is within the realm of possibility that the purpose of this project is hidden behind a cover story of a space tourism project, as that cover would certainly be plausible enough for most people not to think much about the mystery. However, I have no idea what could lie beneath if this were a cover story.

 ???
Larger server farms for Amazon.com
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Yeknom-Ecaps on 04/24/2009 01:06 am
New photos (4/18) at the site http://n5lp.net/Saltflatmystery.html
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Zond on 07/27/2009 12:48 pm
There's has been another update at the website: http://n5lp.net/Saltflatmystery.html (http://n5lp.net/Saltflatmystery.html) (2009/06/26). Some mobile buildings have been installed at the site and they are contructing something that looks like a small contol tower.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: zaitcev on 08/31/2009 01:37 am
I used the pictures from the "Salt Flat Mystery" website and other random aerial pictures to add a few marks to this map:
 http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF&msa=0&msid=115549724156132869845.000463e960dc2fc6a2fae
These should be relevant to Blue Origin's effort (we don't know if the airport is).
-- Pete
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Zond on 09/24/2009 12:56 pm
There's has been another update at the website: http://n5lp.net/Saltflatmystery.html (http://n5lp.net/Saltflatmystery.html) (2009/06/26). Some mobile buildings have been installed at the site and they are contructing something that looks like a small contol tower.

Another update at the Salt flat mystery website: it looks like it is indeed a small control tower that was constructed. He also got a fuzy picture of a sign at the airport. Is anybody able to read it?
He also took some pictures of the spaceport site. It seems to be coming back to life: some cars are present and the supports for static test firings of the vehicle are present at the launch pad.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Zond on 10/16/2009 11:16 pm
Alan Stern gives an interesting presentation on this page about suborbital research: http://www.dsls.usra.edu/grandrounds/20090922/ (http://www.dsls.usra.edu/grandrounds/20090922/). His presentation is also available: http://www.dsls.usra.edu/grandrounds/20090922/stern.pdf (http://www.dsls.usra.edu/grandrounds/20090922/stern.pdf)

He also gives some interesting details about Blue Origin. The propulsion module of new shepard has been build and will start testing soon. The crew capsule will be added on top. The big black cilinder in the picture of their production hall (also in his presentation) is a part of the propulsion module. It is about 33ft high. There's a small cgi picture of what i assume is the propulsion module.

There's a big space collection inside the Blue Origin building. New Shepard functions as the training wheels for further space projects.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: docmordrid on 10/17/2009 06:56 am
What with the similarities between New Shepard and Delta Clipper, which was done by Boeing, it's an interesting speculation that maybe they're still involved - perhaps through Phantom Works.  I *think* I read that several Boeing types ended up at Blue Origin - can anyone confirm/deny?

Can't imagine Boeing letting go of anything like Delta Clippers advanced avionics unless they had a stake in or licensed it. 
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Danderman on 10/17/2009 10:56 pm
Can't imagine Boeing letting go of anything like Delta Clippers advanced avionics unless they had a stake in or licensed it. 

IIRC, the avionics suite for Delta Clipper was an off the shelf FA-18 package.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: meiza on 10/18/2009 01:32 am
F-15 laser gyro at least IIRC...
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: kkattula on 10/18/2009 04:14 am
That's the advantage today's startups have. Much of the avionics is off the shelf and just needs a little integration.

Try duplicatiing GPS capability if you had to build it yourself, with no satelites...
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Swatch on 10/18/2009 06:28 am
That's the advantage today's startups have. Much of the avionics is off the shelf and just needs a little integration.

Try duplicatiing GPS capability if you had to build it yourself, with no satelites...

Three guys with binoculars.   ::)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: kkattula on 10/18/2009 06:35 am
That's the advantage today's startups have. Much of the avionics is off the shelf and just needs a little integration.

Try duplicatiing GPS capability if you had to build it yourself, with no satelites...

Three guys with binoculars.   ::)

That'll tell YOU where the rocket is. Try telling the rocket 10 times per second. :)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: SpacexULA on 10/18/2009 02:13 pm
That'll tell YOU where the rocket is. Try telling the rocket 10 times per second. :)

John Moschitta Jr. could do it :)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Lampyridae on 10/21/2009 05:46 am
Seems the "Salt Flat Mystery" is just some military parachute exercise ground. Some private military contractor, like Blackwater? The shots of Blue Origin show what look like a 1/6 section of the New Shepherd outside on a jig. Seems dark grey, like a carbon composite.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: mlorrey on 10/26/2009 02:51 pm
Seems the "Salt Flat Mystery" is just some military parachute exercise ground. Some private military contractor, like Blackwater? The shots of Blue Origin show what look like a 1/6 section of the New Shepherd outside on a jig. Seems dark grey, like a carbon composite.

Hmmm, could the military be backing Blue Origin as a black ops squad delivery vehicle, to overfly a country suborbitally, dropping the squad with retro rockets and parachutes? Perhaps this explains all the secrecy around Blue Origin. Even the company name sounds like some Area 51 black project.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 10/26/2009 03:02 pm

Hmmm, could the military be backing Blue Origin as a black ops squad delivery vehicle, to overfly a country suborbitally, dropping the squad with retro rockets and parachutes? Perhaps this explains all the secrecy around Blue Origin. Even the company name sounds like some Area 51 black project.

that concept has been debunked many times.  It is not militarily feasible.  Again, you are seeing things that don't exist.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/26/2009 03:18 pm

Hmmm, could the military be backing Blue Origin as a black ops squad delivery vehicle, to overfly a country suborbitally, dropping the squad with retro rockets and parachutes? Perhaps this explains all the secrecy around Blue Origin. Even the company name sounds like some Area 51 black project.

that concept has been debunked many times.  It is not militarily feasible.  Again, you are seeing things that don't exist.

I believe that this is an infeasible concept, too. Otherwise, they would do it already with planes like the U-2 or something.

Anyways, a much more valid reason explaining the lack of news is that the people involved just don't see the value in having a blog about every move they make.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: mlorrey on 10/29/2009 03:42 am

Hmmm, could the military be backing Blue Origin as a black ops squad delivery vehicle, to overfly a country suborbitally, dropping the squad with retro rockets and parachutes? Perhaps this explains all the secrecy around Blue Origin. Even the company name sounds like some Area 51 black project.

that concept has been debunked many times.  It is not militarily feasible.  Again, you are seeing things that don't exist.

If it's not militarily feasible, why do DARPA and the services regularly spend so much money on the concept?

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/hyperbola/2009/02/can-falcon-9-deliver-us-marine.html

http://www.examiner.com/x-504-Space-News-Examiner~y2008m10d19-Star-Wars-reality-Hot-Eagle-spaceplane-and-space-troopers-concept-in-work
"The marines first called for a spaceplane in 2002 after the US military failed to capture Osama Bin Laden in the mountains of Afghanistan. The project was known as the Small Unit Space Transport and Insertion programme (Sustain). Its advocates said it took too long on foot to reach the caves where Bin Laden was said to be hiding and helicopters were too visible.

General James Mattis, leading the marines’ Central Command at the time, said he wanted the  spaceplane in the air by 2019. He was recently promoted to be one of the most senior officers in the US military establishment and Sustain has since become a priority.

Last week Lieutenant Colonel Mark Brown, a US air force spokesman, confirmed that Nasa and Pentagon officers had met for two days of talks to draw up plans for Hot Eagle."

Yeah sure, Jim, its all figments....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SUSTAIN_%28military%29
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars_J on 10/29/2009 05:46 am
Even stupid ideas get airtime sometimes.

Can you imagine a less stealthy way of deploying troops than suborbital ballistic delivery? If your intended target is:
A) a powerful nation - they would detect the unscheduled launch and interpret it as an incoming ICBM
or B) some random warlord - then the concept is complete overkill, just do a high altitude paratrooper insertion instead
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: mlorrey on 10/29/2009 07:49 am
Even stupid ideas get airtime sometimes.

Can you imagine a less stealthy way of deploying troops than suborbital ballistic delivery? If your intended target is:
A) a powerful nation - they would detect the unscheduled launch and interpret it as an incoming ICBM
or B) some random warlord - then the concept is complete overkill, just do a high altitude paratrooper insertion instead

a) air launched manned suborbitals have distinctly different trajectories (and much cooler exhausts), which makes them fall outside the detection algorithms of satellite detections, and also only the US and Russia have said ballistic launch detection capability in space.
b) Try reading the the previous post again, it takes too long to do a regular airborne insertion.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 10/29/2009 12:16 pm

Yeah sure, Jim, its all figments....


It is.    Just like Dynasoar as a bomber. 
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 10/29/2009 12:19 pm

a) air launched manned suborbitals have distinctly different trajectories (and much cooler exhausts),

What says they are airlaunched?   SS1 is not an example.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: mlorrey on 10/29/2009 11:26 pm

a) air launched manned suborbitals have distinctly different trajectories (and much cooler exhausts),

What says they are airlaunched?   SS1 is not an example.

Thats funny Jim, tell us another one. Why is it then that the SUSTAIN page specifically shows an air launched suborbital, includes SS1 as an example of the type of vehicle.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Zond on 11/09/2009 09:54 pm
http://twitter.com/blue_origin (http://twitter.com/blue_origin)
Quote
so it appears that i am in charge of blue origin's official twitter account. uhh... what is one to post if all our work is secret?
http://twitter.com/Graham_Orr (http://twitter.com/Graham_Orr)
 :)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 11/09/2009 10:06 pm

Thats funny Jim, tell us another one. Why is it then that the SUSTAIN page specifically shows an air launched suborbital, includes SS1 as an example of the type of vehicle.

Show me where SUSTAIN is taken seriously by anybody other than the Marines.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Namechange User on 11/09/2009 11:00 pm
Why go through such an elaborate way to get them in there and then no real way to extract the team?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: docmordrid on 11/11/2009 02:52 pm
Why go through such an elaborate way to get them in there and then no real way to extract the team?

No different than infiltration units flying gliders into France just before Operation Overlord, their "recovery" being done by advancing front line forces.  Then again, at times, there actually are one-way missions.  My uncle *somehow* survived 2 of these during WW-II.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Halidon on 11/11/2009 05:41 pm

Thats funny Jim, tell us another one. Why is it then that the SUSTAIN page specifically shows an air launched suborbital, includes SS1 as an example of the type of vehicle.

Show me where SUSTAIN is taken seriously by anybody other than the Marines.

http://warisboring.com/?p=2675 (http://warisboring.com/?p=2675)
NSSO seems to be taking it seriously.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Lampyridae on 11/12/2009 05:06 am
Why go through such an elaborate way to get them in there and then no real way to extract the team?

The aim now is to insert robotic troops instead. The insertion vehicle needn't land in enemy territory, it could probably insert troops and fly away at high altitude. As for the enemy shooting it down, when was the last time someone like the Taliban succesfully downed something like a U-2?

Legally, this capability is actually very very important for the United States. You don't have to phone the prime minister of country Y at 3am in the morning and ask him/her to authorise passage through his/her country's airspace so you can go and pound somebody in country X. Right now, there are serious legal issues about using drones to kill people, which is technically assassination. 13 Marines wouldn't wipe out a wedding party but a Hellfire missile sure would.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Danderman on 11/12/2009 01:53 pm
Since we don't know if Blue Origin intends to fly troops anywhere, could we save the theoretical discussion for another thread?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Namechange User on 11/12/2009 02:07 pm
Why go through such an elaborate way to get them in there and then no real way to extract the team?

The aim now is to insert robotic troops instead. The insertion vehicle needn't land in enemy territory, it could probably insert troops and fly away at high altitude. As for the enemy shooting it down, when was the last time someone like the Taliban succesfully downed something like a U-2?

Legally, this capability is actually very very important for the United States. You don't have to phone the prime minister of country Y at 3am in the morning and ask him/her to authorise passage through his/her country's airspace so you can go and pound somebody in country X. Right now, there are serious legal issues about using drones to kill people, which is technically assassination. 13 Marines wouldn't wipe out a wedding party but a Hellfire missile sure would.

What????

Spaceplanes to Afghanistan.  Robotic soldiers.....

Why don't we just beam them in then?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Lampyridae on 11/13/2009 02:18 am
"Because the dilithium deposits in the Afghan caves are preventing us from gettin' a transporter lock, cap'n! I canna break the laws o' physics you know!"

The point is, I think it is at least possible that somebody in the US military is looking at some sort of suborbital weapons delivery where the weapons have to come down in one piece. As for the "robotic soldier" I'm taking a quote from a website but it would basically be a MAWP with a gun and lots of ammo, controlled by satellite. Great for interrupting a terrorist tea party.

To be honest, though, I do not think Blue Origin has anything to do with the military right now. And the idea I mentioned is still just a blue sky idea, with no funding yet. Maybe in 2030 we'll see something like that, but not earlier.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Hootz on 11/23/2009 10:56 pm
Something new-ish...

http://www.space.com/news/091123-blue-origin-bezos-rocket.html
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: robertross on 11/24/2009 01:04 am
Looking at their website, I didn't realize they had so many job openings. Heads-up for any out there looking for something different.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Zond on 12/17/2009 05:04 pm
Blue Origin has build their planned landing pad (in addition to their launch/testing pad) some time in 2008: see this link for a satellite photo: http://www.terraserver.com/view.asp?cx=522734&cy=3479319&proj=32613&mpp=5&pic=img&prov=gx19&stac=1056&ovrl=-1&drwl=-1 (http://www.terraserver.com/view.asp?cx=522734&cy=3479319&proj=32613&mpp=5&pic=img&prov=gx19&stac=1056&ovrl=-1&drwl=-1).
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: zaitcev on 12/22/2009 12:00 am
Zond, thanks a lot. I adjusted my Google map (http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en&ie=UTF8&msa=0&msid=115549724156132869845.000463e960dc2fc6a2fae&t=h&z=10") a bit, using the picture at Terraserver that you linked. Google lags by years in that location. Interestingly, the auxiliary pad (west-south-west of the technical facilities) that I thought was older does not even exist at Terraserver photo, so it is in fact very new.

Also, I renamed pads according to the scheme used in the Space.com map, e.g. the northmost pad is "Landing" pad, and the main pad where bleachers point is now "Launch" pad. The aero pictures do not identify any structures where the "explosive storage" area should be, so I didn't mark it.

-- Pete

Edit 2010/5/22: Google now shows the VAB and facilities as they were in 2008. No auxiliary pad on those, although landing pad is present.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Zond on 12/22/2009 10:01 pm
Zond, thanks a lot. I adjusted my Google map (http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en&ie=UTF8&msa=0&msid=115549724156132869845.000463e960dc2fc6a2fae&t=h&z=10") a bit, using the picture at Terraserver that you linked. Google lags by years in that location. Interestingly, the auxiliary pad (west-south-west of the technical facilities) that I thought was older does not even exist at Terraserver photo, so it is in fact very new.

Also, I renamed pads according to the scheme used in the Space.com map, e.g. the northmost pad is "Landing" pad, and the main pad where bleachers point is now "Launch" pad. The aero pictures do not identify any structures where the "explosive storage" area should be, so I didn't mark it.

-- Pete

I'm not sure if the structure you describe as the "auxilary pad" is even a launch pad at all: there's no mention of a launch pad in that area in the Environmental Assesment of the launch site and it's a lot closer to the other buildings and the launch site perimeter than the launch and landing pad.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: zaitcev on 12/23/2009 12:11 am
Interestingly, the auxiliary pad (west-south-west of the technical facilities) that I thought was older does not even exist at Terraserver photo, so it is in fact very new.

I'm not sure if the structure you describe as the "auxilary pad" is even a launch pad at all: there's no mention of a launch pad in that area in the Environmental Assesment of the launch site and it's a lot closer to the other buildings and the launch site perimeter than the launch and landing pad.

It's just a flat space on the ground which looks like a pad, on the right in this picture:
http://n5lp.net/DSC04571.jpg
Definitely not a "structure", but it's round, and it exists.

-- Pete
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Zond on 01/17/2010 12:45 pm
Blue Origin has build their planned landing pad (in addition to their launch/testing pad) some time in 2008: see this link for a satellite photo: http://www.terraserver.com/view.asp?cx=522734&cy=3479319&proj=32613&mpp=5&pic=img&prov=gx19&stac=1056&ovrl=-1&drwl=-1 (http://www.terraserver.com/view.asp?cx=522734&cy=3479319&proj=32613&mpp=5&pic=img&prov=gx19&stac=1056&ovrl=-1&drwl=-1).
The same aerial or satellite pictures are also used by mapquest: http://www.mapquest.com/mq/9-zADDrvYF (http://www.mapquest.com/mq/9-zADDrvYF)

Maybe the new landing pad is for helicopters, they could use helicopters to perform drop tests of the crew capsule.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: neilh on 02/01/2010 10:42 pm
According to this thread, Blue Origin is one of the recipients of funding (initially $3.7 million) to "further the commercial sector's capability to support transport of crew to and from low Earth orbit." Any thoughts on what this might entail? I'd been under the impression that Blue Origin was focusing on suborbital for now, with orbital quite a ways off.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Lampyridae on 02/01/2010 11:21 pm
Suborbital crew training would be my guess.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: HMXHMX on 02/02/2010 12:17 am
According to this thread, Blue Origin is one of the recipients of funding (initially $3.7 million) to "further the commercial sector's capability to support transport of crew to and from low Earth orbit." Any thoughts on what this might entail? I'd been under the impression that Blue Origin was focusing on suborbital for now, with orbital quite a ways off.

From the NASA selection statement:

"Blue Origin proposes to mature a pusher escape system that will provide information on pusher concepts, which is a different concept that the pull escape system used in crew transportation systems to date."

The source means "tractor" instead of "pull" but wasn't aware of the correct terminology, apparently.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/02/2010 01:22 am
So THAT's what OV-106 was talking about.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: neilh on 02/02/2010 01:53 am
According to this thread, Blue Origin is one of the recipients of funding (initially $3.7 million) to "further the commercial sector's capability to support transport of crew to and from low Earth orbit." Any thoughts on what this might entail? I'd been under the impression that Blue Origin was focusing on suborbital for now, with orbital quite a ways off.

From the NASA selection statement:

"Blue Origin proposes to mature a pusher escape system that will provide information on pusher concepts, which is a different concept that the pull escape system used in crew transportation systems to date."

The source means "tractor" instead of "pull" but wasn't aware of the correct terminology, apparently.

Where did you see that? I've been looking around and can't find it...
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 02/02/2010 02:05 am
See here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20268.msg533489#msg533489
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 02/02/2010 03:58 am
According to this thread, Blue Origin is one of the recipients of funding (initially $3.7 million) to "further the commercial sector's capability to support transport of crew to and from low Earth orbit." Any thoughts on what this might entail? I'd been under the impression that Blue Origin was focusing on suborbital for now, with orbital quite a ways off.

From the NASA selection statement:

"Blue Origin proposes to mature a pusher escape system that will provide information on pusher concepts, which is a different concept that the pull escape system used in crew transportation systems to date."

The source means "tractor" instead of "pull" but wasn't aware of the correct terminology, apparently.

Reminds me of MLAS:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=11053.0
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: neilh on 02/02/2010 10:26 pm
From the CCDev Source Selection PDF, one of the reasons that Blue Origin was chosen is because it's proposals is "well aligned with the needs of ISS and other commercial customers." This makes me wonder if they're planning on developing their pusher escape system in a way that would be adaptable to the capsules being built by other companies, perhaps even as an alternative to SpaceX developing their own launch escape system for the Dragon capsule.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 02/03/2010 12:23 am

Reminds me of MLAS:


MLAS was a tractor
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 02/03/2010 12:25 am
From the CCDev Source Selection PDF, one of the reasons that Blue Origin was chosen is because it's proposals is "well aligned with the needs of ISS and other commercial customers." This makes me wonder if they're planning on developing their pusher escape system in a way that would be adaptable to the capsules being built by other companies, perhaps even as an alternative to SpaceX developing their own launch escape system for the Dragon capsule.

That would be only reason they were chosen.  From an outside point of view
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: HMXHMX on 02/11/2010 05:35 pm
From the on-going FAA/AST conference, it is reported by Hobbyspace:

"[Alan] Lindenmoyer, NASA: Blue Origin CCDev funding for concept for bi-conic crew vehicle that could be launched on Atlas 5 402."

See:  http://www.hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=18585
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: neilh on 02/11/2010 05:57 pm
From the on-going FAA/AST conference, it is reported by Hobbyspace:

"[Alan] Lindenmoyer, NASA: Blue Origin CCDev funding for concept for bi-conic crew vehicle that could be launched on Atlas 5 402."

See:  http://www.hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=18585

Very interesting. I wonder if the bi-conic crew vehicle is what they got the composite capsule funding for. I also wonder if they're planning on a powered landing, perhaps with parachutes as backup.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: docmordrid on 02/11/2010 09:44 pm
t/Space CXV reborn?  If so it could kill two birds with one grant...

or LockMart's CTV concept when they started pushing a human rated Atlas V....
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: HMXHMX on 02/11/2010 10:29 pm
t/Space CXV reborn?  If so it could kill two birds with one grant...

or LockMart's CTV concept when they started pushing a human rated Atlas V....

My CXV design derives from the Discoverer platform, but isn't a bicone RV as BO's is reported to be.  CXV's principal advantage is if there is a control systems failure on re-entry it will default to a completely stable "carefree re-entry" albeit ballistic, without pilot input.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: robertross on 02/12/2010 02:51 am
t/Space CXV reborn?  If so it could kill two birds with one grant...

or LockMart's CTV concept when they started pushing a human rated Atlas V....

My CXV design derives from the Discoverer platform, but isn't a bicone RV as BO's is reported to be.  CXV's principal advantage is if there is a control systems failure on re-entry it will default to a completely stable "carefree re-entry" albeit ballistic, without pilot input.

Smart feature!
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: neilh on 02/12/2010 03:07 am
t/Space CXV reborn?  If so it could kill two birds with one grant...

or LockMart's CTV concept when they started pushing a human rated Atlas V....

My CXV design derives from the Discoverer platform, but isn't a bicone RV as BO's is reported to be.  CXV's principal advantage is if there is a control systems failure on re-entry it will default to a completely stable "carefree re-entry" albeit ballistic, without pilot input.

What are some of the advantages/disadvantages of going with a biconic capsule?

(ADDENDUM) Most info I've found so far is in this post from 2006 by simcosmos: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=709.msg19120#msg19120
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: HMXHMX on 02/12/2010 03:19 am
t/Space CXV reborn?  If so it could kill two birds with one grant...

or LockMart's CTV concept when they started pushing a human rated Atlas V....

My CXV design derives from the Discoverer platform, but isn't a bicone RV as BO's is reported to be.  CXV's principal advantage is if there is a control systems failure on re-entry it will default to a completely stable "carefree re-entry" albeit ballistic, without pilot input.

What are some of the advantages/disadvantages of going with a biconic capsule?

(ADDENDUM) Most info I've found so far is in this post from 2006 by simcosmos: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=709.msg19120#msg19120

Hypersonic L/D approaches that of a winged or conventional lifting body (X-38, HL-20), reducing felt G during entry and providing crossrange.  That's the principal advantage.  Disadvantages include problems packaging to get the Cg forward, nose heating compared with blunter bodies, and in my view they are harder to land with parachutes. 

In the end, we can make almost anything work with enough time and money.  I'm not adverse to someone trying a spectrum of options providing the funding is there and everything is judged using equal criteria (such as ride comfort, safety, and the all important metric of cost/price).
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Comga on 02/12/2010 03:50 am
From the CCDev Source Selection PDF, one of the reasons that Blue Origin was chosen is because it's proposals is "well aligned with the needs of ISS and other commercial customers." This makes me wonder if they're planning on developing their pusher escape system in a way that would be adaptable to the capsules being built by other companies, perhaps even as an alternative to SpaceX developing their own launch escape system for the Dragon capsule.
That would be only reason they were chosen.  From an outside point of view

From the on-going FAA/AST conference, it is reported by Hobbyspace:

"[Alan] Lindenmoyer, NASA: Blue Origin CCDev funding for concept for bi-conic crew vehicle that could be launched on Atlas 5 402."

See:  http://www.hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=18585

Is there a disagreement here?  Is Blue Origin being paid to develop a "pusher" LAS that would be adaptable to many systems (like the pictured Lockheed capsule for the Atlas V x01) or a "biconic capsule" (which is not the "Aurora" shape of the CTX capsule) ?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Patchouli on 02/12/2010 04:11 am
t/Space CXV reborn?  If so it could kill two birds with one grant...

or LockMart's CTV concept when they started pushing a human rated Atlas V....

My CXV design derives from the Discoverer platform, but isn't a bicone RV as BO's is reported to be.  CXV's principal advantage is if there is a control systems failure on re-entry it will default to a completely stable "carefree re-entry" albeit ballistic, without pilot input.

Smart feature!

Guidance and control systems are so reliable now days a complete failure would be unlikely unless a vehicle lacks redundancy on some systems such as the Soyuz DM.

Of course that redundancy does cost mass and $$$.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/12/2010 04:15 am
t/Space CXV reborn?  If so it could kill two birds with one grant...

or LockMart's CTV concept when they started pushing a human rated Atlas V....

My CXV design derives from the Discoverer platform, but isn't a bicone RV as BO's is reported to be.  CXV's principal advantage is if there is a control systems failure on re-entry it will default to a completely stable "carefree re-entry" albeit ballistic, without pilot input.

Smart feature!

Guidance and control systems are so reliable now days a complete failure would be unlikely unless a vehicle lacks redundancy on some systems such as the Soyuz DM.

A massive solar flare could cause a failure of redundant systems.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Patchouli on 02/12/2010 04:17 am
t/Space CXV reborn?  If so it could kill two birds with one grant...

or LockMart's CTV concept when they started pushing a human rated Atlas V....

My CXV design derives from the Discoverer platform, but isn't a bicone RV as BO's is reported to be.  CXV's principal advantage is if there is a control systems failure on re-entry it will default to a completely stable "carefree re-entry" albeit ballistic, without pilot input.

Smart feature!

Guidance and control systems are so reliable now days a complete failure would be unlikely unless a vehicle lacks redundancy on some systems such as the Soyuz DM.

A massive solar flare could cause a failure of redundant systems.

One that big also would kill the crew a dozen times over.

But simplicity is one reason why Soyuz is so light.
The Shuttle has five GPCs and three separate control system loops and all that stuff probably weighs more then the Soyuz DM.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: neilh on 02/12/2010 04:37 am
From the CCDev Source Selection PDF, one of the reasons that Blue Origin was chosen is because it's proposals is "well aligned with the needs of ISS and other commercial customers." This makes me wonder if they're planning on developing their pusher escape system in a way that would be adaptable to the capsules being built by other companies, perhaps even as an alternative to SpaceX developing their own launch escape system for the Dragon capsule.
That would be only reason they were chosen.  From an outside point of view

From the on-going FAA/AST conference, it is reported by Hobbyspace:

"[Alan] Lindenmoyer, NASA: Blue Origin CCDev funding for concept for bi-conic crew vehicle that could be launched on Atlas 5 402."

See:  http://www.hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=18585

Is there a disagreement here?  Is Blue Origin being paid to develop a "pusher" LAS that would be adaptable to many systems (like the pictured Lockheed capsule for the Atlas V x01) or a "biconic capsule" (which is not the "Aurora" shape of the CTX capsule) ?

Actually, I believe it was previously announced that Blue Origin would be working on both "pusher" LAS and testing of composite capsule techniques. I'm guessing that the composite capsule stuff is actually for the biconic reentry capsule mentioned at AST. Maybe they're even all part of the same project?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/12/2010 05:23 am
t/Space CXV reborn?  If so it could kill two birds with one grant...

or LockMart's CTV concept when they started pushing a human rated Atlas V....

My CXV design derives from the Discoverer platform, but isn't a bicone RV as BO's is reported to be.  CXV's principal advantage is if there is a control systems failure on re-entry it will default to a completely stable "carefree re-entry" albeit ballistic, without pilot input.

Smart feature!

Guidance and control systems are so reliable now days a complete failure would be unlikely unless a vehicle lacks redundancy on some systems such as the Soyuz DM.

A massive solar flare could cause a failure of redundant systems.

One that big also would kill the crew a dozen times over.

But simplicity is one reason why Soyuz is so light.
The Shuttle has five GPCs and three separate control system loops and all that stuff probably weighs more then the Soyuz DM.

A single high-energy cosmic ray (not a solar flare) could cause a particle shower that could simultaneously disrupt multiple redundant systems, giving multi-bit errors in each. Airline pilots are warned to reduce altitude during solar particle events when flying over the poles, even though they have multiply-redundant electronics. Solar flares cause large magnetic field variations which can also be harmful to electronics without causing radiation damage. And a design mistake could cause a double power system short-circuit, leaving you without power. As far as humans dying before the electronics, humans are rather resilient at times. But... it's another topic. Sorry for being very off-topic. But, having an inherently stable design is helpful especially for those cases which you haven't predicted, the unknown unknowns. Not that you necessarily have to design it inherently stable...
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: neilh on 02/18/2010 08:20 pm
The NewSpace Journal posted a very intriguing snapshot of a slide from NASA C3PO manager Alan Lindenmoyer's talk at last week's FAA commercial space conference:

http://www.newspacejournal.com/2010/02/18/blue-origin-proposes-orbital-vehicle/

The slide has a rough rendering of Blue Origin's biconic capsule design, and the following text:
Quote
Blue Origin CCDev Project
* System concept is bi-conic space vehicle launched on Atlas V 402
* Matures Pusher Escape System
** Conduct TVC ground testing
* Matures Composite Pressure Vessel
** Manufacture structural test article of a suborbital capsule as a subscale demonstrator for the orbital Space Vehicle
** Over-pressurize the test article to failure
** Repair the test article and conduct a drop test
* NASA investment $3.7M

If I understand correctly, Blue Origin must meet all of these milestones by September of this year in order to get the full payment.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: neilh on 02/18/2010 08:24 pm
Rand Simberg's Transterrestrial Musings has a great summary of the talk by Gary Lai of Blue Origin at the Next-Generation Suborbital Researchers Conference on Feb. 18. This was (I think) the first public talk by Blue Origin ever about what they're working on, with a focus on their suborbital work:

http://www.transterrestrial.com/?p=24927

Quote
Gary Lai is speaking for Blue Origin, describing the New Shepherd program. “Famous for being quiet.” Keeps their marketing and PR budget small. Also have a culture in the company to focus on results, rather than plans. When flight milestones are hit, they’ll discuss results in detail. This conference is the first in which any Blue employee has presented details to the public. Chose this conference because it is a market that (unlike tourism) must be built up. Also see opportunities for customers during flight test, when they won’t even have crew aboard. Company’s focus is on human spaceflight and launch. Everything they develop is planned to be fully reusable. Obsessive about human factors and safety systems, with emphasis on frequent launch operations.

Two locations: Kent, WA, and Culberson County, Texas (about two hours drive from El Paso). Only dedicated launch facility (no other users) in the US. On large rangeland, one of the least populated counties in the US. Been flying for about three years.

Vehicle designed for three or more astronauts to suborbital altitudes. Two separate vehicles — propulsion module and crew capsule, separate before entry. Both fully reusable and optimized for fast turnaround with small crew. Crew escape capability with abort propulsion system in crew module. Early prototype of propulsion module named Goddard, and final design may not look like that.

Showing chart of payload accommodation (comm, power, mass, windows, data interfaces, mechanical interfaces, microgee levels, etc.) Can offer both pressurized tended payloads, and mouts for external environment. They’ve selected three experiments to fly, and provided payload user guides to the experiment teams.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Bernie Roehl on 02/19/2010 11:17 am
I can't help noticing that the shift to a commercial launch industry has led to the return of "Kremlin watching".   :-)

With all the companies playing their cards so close to their chests, we're all busily listening for clues and hints wherever we can find them.  Quite the contrast to the openness of NASA.  Not that it's a bad thing -- I believe in competition, and I don't blame the companies for being secretive.

The irony is that since the fall of the Soviet Union, the Russian space program has become more open (even though most of their "announcements" are basically speculation as to what they might do in the future).
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: mmeijeri on 02/19/2010 08:58 pm
MLAS was a tractor

I don't understand this. From the pictures and video on the Wikipedia page it looks as if the thrusters are underneath the capsule in what the diagram calls the boost skirt and motor cage. There are also protrusions pointing diagonally downward on the forward fairing but in the video they do not appear to be thrusters or at least they don't appear to be firing. What exactly is the definition of a pusher LAS?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 02/19/2010 09:57 pm
MLAS was a tractor

I don't understand this. From the pictures and video on the Wikipedia page it looks as if the thrusters are underneath the capsule in what the diagram calls the boost skirt and motor cage. There are also protrusions pointing diagonally downward on the forward fairing but in the video they do not appear to be thrusters or at least they don't appear to be firing. What exactly is the definition of a pusher LAS?

MLAS was connected to the top of the CM and therefore "pulled" it.  A pusher is mounted on the base.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: mmeijeri on 02/19/2010 10:06 pm
MLAS was connected to the top of the CM and therefore "pulled" it.  A pusher is mounted on the base.

At 2:00 on this video (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f7/Fabrication_and_launch_of_the_Max_Launch_Abort_System_-_July_8_-_2009.ogg) of the pad abort test you see the firing of the LAS. The capsule appears to be encapsulated by the MLAS which appears to be pushing from beneath. The attached picture shows the encapsulation. I'm confused by the protrusions on the forward fairing, are they thrusters or something else?

EDIT: could it be that the boost skirt and motor cage are a simulator of the Ares, with the top part being the MLAS proper?
EDIT 2: I think I get it now. The protrusions are indeed the thrusters but the whole thing envelops the capsule (hence 'fairing'), and there are no thrusters in the motor cage. The Wikipedia article calls it an alternative to the Max Faget-invented tractor system. Is this in error?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 02/19/2010 10:22 pm
The Wikipedia article calls it an alternative to the Max Faget-invented tractor system. Is this in error?


It is an alternative in that the motors are mounted next to the capsule but it still is a tractor.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/19/2010 11:23 pm
MLAS was connected to the top of the CM and therefore "pulled" it.  A pusher is mounted on the base.

At 2:00 on this video (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f7/Fabrication_and_launch_of_the_Max_Launch_Abort_System_-_July_8_-_2009.ogg) of the pad abort test you see the firing of the LAS. The capsule appears to be encapsulated by the MLAS which appears to be pushing from beneath. The attached picture shows the encapsulation. I'm confused by the protrusions on the forward fairing, are they thrusters or something else?

EDIT: could it be that the boost skirt and motor cage are a simulator of the Ares, with the top part being the MLAS proper?
EDIT 2: I think I get it now. The protrusions are indeed the thrusters but the whole thing envelops the capsule (hence 'fairing'), and there are no thrusters in the motor cage. The Wikipedia article calls it an alternative to the Max Faget-invented tractor system. Is this in error?

Oh. My. Goodness. I had not seen that video before!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f7/Fabrication_and_launch_of_the_Max_Launch_Abort_System_-_July_8_-_2009.ogg
A very beautiful test.
Quite amazing. I can't wait to see what else Blue Origin is doing!!!
It looks like they recovered most (maybe even all?) of the craft pieces via parachute splashdown.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars_J on 02/19/2010 11:57 pm
An impressive launch, but it strikes me as needlessly complicated. Why so many pieces? Why so many parachutes that most open in the proper sequence?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: wjbarnett on 02/19/2010 11:58 pm
MLAS was a NASA launch, not Blue Origin. See http://www.nasa.gov/centers/wallops/missions/mlas.html

And, ircc, the boost stage was meant just to get the test article to altitude prior to the actual MLAS test.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: telomerase99 on 02/20/2010 12:01 am
The sequence of events was pretty cool.

However, it seemed like way too many steps for a safety system. Way too complicated, and way too much wasted mass.

I wonder how much mass this launch escape system would add? I wonder how much the OSC LAS adds? My guess is both are far too heavy to be of use to anything other than a Direct behemoth.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: mmeijeri on 02/20/2010 10:23 am
MLAS was a NASA launch, not Blue Origin. See http://www.nasa.gov/centers/wallops/missions/mlas.html

Sorry about the confusion people, this was MLAS not Blue Origin's system. I just wanted to make sure whether MLAS was a pusher like Blue Origin's system or not. I was adding a reference to Blue Origin to the Wikipedia Launch Escape System article and I wanted to know if it was unique or if it was similar to MLAS. My earlier misunderstanding of the diagram and video had led me to believe MLAS was a pusher too, in which case Blue Origin's system would have been slightly less innovative.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Zond on 02/27/2010 05:34 pm
Ive been intrigued by the delta v's mentioned in the shield of the Blue Origin logo. Im pretty sure about these: 3km/s = suborbital, 9.5km/s = orbital, but i'm not sure about the other values. I guess 13km/s = moon, 19 km/s = mars, 20 km/s asteroids?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: neilh on 02/27/2010 07:50 pm
Ive been intrigued by the delta v's mentioned in the shield of the Blue Origin logo. Im pretty sure about these: 3km/s = suborbital, 9.5km/s = orbital, but i'm not sure about the other values. I guess 13km/s = moon, 19 km/s = mars, 20 km/s asteroids?

Going by the "delta-v budget" wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-v_budget), it seems that delta-v for Phobos is ~15km/s, low Mars orbit is ~15.4 km/s, Mars landing is ~19.5 km/s.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Zond on 03/07/2010 05:10 pm
At the end of 2008, beginning of 2009 Blue Origin build a new structure (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=kent+wa&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=41.767874,47.109375&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Kent,+King,+Washington&ll=47.408895,-122.236785&spn=0.000546,0.001224&t=h&z=20) at their Kent, Washington facility. According to county records (http://info.kingcounty.gov/Assessor/eRealProperty/default.aspx?ParcelNbr=1222049005) this is a "Structural Steel Frame For Cable Testing". Anybody know a similar testing facility or what exactly the purpose of this facility is?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: neilh on 03/07/2010 05:54 pm
At the end of 2008, beginning of 2009 Blue Origin build a new structure (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=kent+wa&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=41.767874,47.109375&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Kent,+King,+Washington&ll=47.408895,-122.236785&spn=0.000546,0.001224&t=h&z=20) at their Kent, Washington facility. According to county records (http://info.kingcounty.gov/Assessor/eRealProperty/default.aspx?ParcelNbr=1222049005) this is a "Structural Steel Frame For Cable Testing". Anybody know a similar testing facility or what exactly the purpose of this facility is?

Perhaps it's for parachute load testing, where you attach cables to your structure and simulate a parachute load. SpaceX described and posted photos of such tests for their Dragon capsule recently: http://www.spacex.com/updates.php
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: HMXHMX on 03/07/2010 06:19 pm
At the end of 2008, beginning of 2009 Blue Origin build a new structure (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=kent+wa&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=41.767874,47.109375&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Kent,+King,+Washington&ll=47.408895,-122.236785&spn=0.000546,0.001224&t=h&z=20) at their Kent, Washington facility. According to county records (http://info.kingcounty.gov/Assessor/eRealProperty/default.aspx?ParcelNbr=1222049005) this is a "Structural Steel Frame For Cable Testing". Anybody know a similar testing facility or what exactly the purpose of this facility is?

This is a wild shot in the dark, but years ago, when I was working as a contractor to Kistler Aerospace Corp., back in the pre-George Mueller K-1 days (1994-95) one of Walt Kistler's favorites ideas was landing on a net to eliminate the weight of landing gear.  (Not arguing the technical issues here, just pointing out his interest.) 

He wrote about it here: http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/design_of_a_transportation_system_for_space_tourism.shtml

Below is an illustration of the approach from that paper.  It looks a lot like what I am seeing in the "spy" photo...and a number of Kistler alumni work at Blue.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: docmordrid on 03/07/2010 06:26 pm
Doesn't do much good for an off-trajectory landing, does it?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: HMXHMX on 03/07/2010 06:33 pm
Doesn't do much good for an off-trajectory landing, does it?

As I said, not pointing out the technical issues. 

There are a number – for example damage to the TPS. 

But one solution to your issue is to expect to lose airframes at some economical rate (1%?) by letting structure fail as was the plan for the Apollo CM (which had crushable structure for landing contingencies when only two of the three chutes opened).  Another observation is that landing a Shuttle Orbiter or an HL-20 type vehicle but missing the runway will have even greater "bad day" implications.  In general, in crash situations, VTOLs with relatively little horizontal velocity component can be made slightly safer than winged vehicles that have a high horizontal velocity.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: neilh on 03/07/2010 06:45 pm
At the end of 2008, beginning of 2009 Blue Origin build a new structure (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=kent+wa&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=41.767874,47.109375&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Kent,+King,+Washington&ll=47.408895,-122.236785&spn=0.000546,0.001224&t=h&z=20) at their Kent, Washington facility. According to county records (http://info.kingcounty.gov/Assessor/eRealProperty/default.aspx?ParcelNbr=1222049005) this is a "Structural Steel Frame For Cable Testing". Anybody know a similar testing facility or what exactly the purpose of this facility is?

This is a wild shot in the dark, but years ago, when I was working as a contractor to Kistler Aerospace Corp., back in the pre-George Mueller K-1 days (1994-95) one of Walt Kistler's favorites ideas was landing on a net to eliminate the weight of landing gear.  (Not arguing the technical issues here, just pointing out his interest.) 

He wrote about it here: http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/design_of_a_transportation_system_for_space_tourism.shtml

Below is an illustration of the approach from that paper.  It looks a lot like what I am seeing in the "spy" photo...and a number of Kistler alumni work at Blue.

Interesting, I wonder if such an approach would be useful for other VTVL folks like Armadillo and Masten.

Also, I'd posted my earlier comment about parachute load testing before i saw the satellite imagery (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=kent+wa&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=41.767874,47.109375&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Kent,+King,+Washington&ll=47.408895,-122.236785&spn=0.000546,0.001224&t=h&z=20). I retract my earlier comment, as that certainly doesn't look like something you'd use for parachute load testing. ;)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: HMXHMX on 03/07/2010 07:32 pm
At the end of 2008, beginning of 2009 Blue Origin build a new structure (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=kent+wa&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=41.767874,47.109375&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Kent,+King,+Washington&ll=47.408895,-122.236785&spn=0.000546,0.001224&t=h&z=20) at their Kent, Washington facility. According to county records (http://info.kingcounty.gov/Assessor/eRealProperty/default.aspx?ParcelNbr=1222049005) this is a "Structural Steel Frame For Cable Testing". Anybody know a similar testing facility or what exactly the purpose of this facility is?

This is a wild shot in the dark, but years ago, when I was working as a contractor to Kistler Aerospace Corp., back in the pre-George Mueller K-1 days (1994-95) one of Walt Kistler's favorites ideas was landing on a net to eliminate the weight of landing gear.  (Not arguing the technical issues here, just pointing out his interest.) 

He wrote about it here: http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/design_of_a_transportation_system_for_space_tourism.shtml

Below is an illustration of the approach from that paper.  It looks a lot like what I am seeing in the "spy" photo...and a number of Kistler alumni work at Blue.

Interesting, I wonder if such an approach would be useful for other VTVL folks like Armadillo and Masten.

Also, I'd posted my earlier comment about parachute load testing before i saw the satellite imagery (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=kent+wa&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=41.767874,47.109375&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Kent,+King,+Washington&ll=47.408895,-122.236785&spn=0.000546,0.001224&t=h&z=20). I retract my earlier comment, as that certainly doesn't look like something you'd use for parachute load testing. ;)

I am not a fan of the net approach for a number of reasons.  The main one relates to an analogy between seaplanes and land planes in the 1920-30s.  It was a commonly accepted belief among designers that large aircraft must be seaplanes due to point loads induced by landing gear and the drag of large fixed gear.

Of course, retractable gear took care of problem two and good engineering took care of problem one.  Meanwhile, it became apparent that water landing loads were also very high and less predictable than those of gear.  Adding in the flexibility of runway landings, the seaplane approach never recovered.

I have also found that it is possible to design perfectly acceptable VTOL gear for less than 1-2% landed weight.  So bottom line, I don't think avoiding landing gear is worth it.  But B.O. may have another design criteria or requirement of which we are not aware.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: neilh on 03/07/2010 08:41 pm
Quote
I have also found that it is possible to design perfectly acceptable VTOL gear for less than 1-2% landed weight.  So bottom line, I don't think avoiding landing gear is worth it.  But B.O. may have another design criteria or requirement of which we are not aware.

Agreed. I also suspect that it's for a different reason, especially since it's at their Kent facility (not their Texas launch complex), which is only used for engineering and manufacturing (since it's in a relatively populated area).
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: HMXHMX on 03/07/2010 11:45 pm
Quote
I have also found that it is possible to design perfectly acceptable VTOL gear for less than 1-2% landed weight.  So bottom line, I don't think avoiding landing gear is worth it.  But B.O. may have another design criteria or requirement of which we are not aware.

Agreed. I also suspect that it's for a different reason, especially since it's at their Kent facility (not their Texas launch complex), which is only used for engineering and manufacturing (since it's in a relatively populated area).

So why is there a bermed facility that looks suspiciously like a rocket engine test stand to the immediate bottom of the "net"?  ;)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Damon Hill on 03/09/2010 12:36 am
I live exactly 9.6 miles south of there...and don't have a clue about the place.  Wish I had a real job skill sufficiently good enough to apply for work there.  But they'd make me sign NDA's up to my nose and I couldn't talk about >anything<.

Next time I ride Sounder, I'll try to remember to bring along a camera.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Danderman on 04/12/2010 12:38 am
http://crusr.arc.nasa.gov/files/BlueOrigin-NASA-CRuSR-RFI-Response-Mod-2.pdf

Haven't seen this posted yet.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: corrodedNut on 04/12/2010 12:57 pm
http://crusr.arc.nasa.gov/files/BlueOrigin-NASA-CRuSR-RFI-Response-Mod-2.pdf

Haven't seen this posted yet.

"The Propulsion Module will use 90 percent concentration hydrogen peroxide as oxidizer and rocket propellant grade kerosene (RP) as propellant. The Crew Capsule will carry a solid rocket motor for use in an emergency escape situation. The Crew Capsule will have a low-thrust reaction control system (RCS) using cold gas for orientation."

So its H2O2 and RP-1 then. Does anyone know if Goddard was the same?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: swampcat on 04/12/2010 05:39 pm
http://crusr.arc.nasa.gov/files/BlueOrigin-NASA-CRuSR-RFI-Response-Mod-2.pdf

Haven't seen this posted yet.

"The Propulsion Module will use 90 percent concentration hydrogen peroxide as oxidizer and rocket propellant grade kerosene (RP) as propellant. The Crew Capsule will carry a solid rocket motor for use in an emergency escape situation. The Crew Capsule will have a low-thrust reaction control system (RCS) using cold gas for orientation."

So its H2O2 and RP-1 then. Does anyone know if Goddard was the same?

Goddard used liquid oxygen and gasoline.

Oh, you mean Blue Origin's Goddard  :-[

Astronautix.com says the engines used H202 only.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Zond on 07/03/2010 11:26 pm
At the end of 2008, beginning of 2009 Blue Origin build a new structure (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=kent+wa&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=41.767874,47.109375&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Kent,+King,+Washington&ll=47.408895,-122.236785&spn=0.000546,0.001224&t=h&z=20) at their Kent, Washington facility. According to county records (http://info.kingcounty.gov/Assessor/eRealProperty/default.aspx?ParcelNbr=1222049005) this is a "Structural Steel Frame For Cable Testing". Anybody know a similar testing facility or what exactly the purpose of this facility is?

Some interesting pics showed up on the county website (http://info.kingcounty.gov/Assessor/eRealProperty/pictures.aspx?ParcelNbr=1222049005&View=1): one is of the cable testing frame and another inside the facility of some kind of lab/clean room.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: NotGncDude on 07/09/2010 01:53 am
Quote
I have also found that it is possible to design perfectly acceptable VTOL gear for less than 1-2% landed weight.  So bottom line, I don't think avoiding landing gear is worth it.  But B.O. may have another design criteria or requirement of which we are not aware.

Agreed. I also suspect that it's for a different reason, especially since it's at their Kent facility (not their Texas launch complex), which is only used for engineering and manufacturing (since it's in a relatively populated area).

So why is there a bermed facility that looks suspiciously like a rocket engine test stand to the immediate bottom of the "net"?  ;)

Hehe. Maybe because it *is* an engine test facility? Good eye Mr. Hudson.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Zond on 07/15/2010 07:26 pm
Blue Origin is now also operating a rocket test stand at their west Texas facility: http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=60115 (http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=60115) (The forum post is from the owner of Salt flat mystery airport website (http://n5lp.net/Saltflatmystery.html))
They also have job openings at the west Texas facility:
Integration Engineer - (West Texas) (http://www.blueorigin.com/job_wtlsinteng.htm)
Test Engineer (West Texas) (http://www.blueorigin.com/job_wtlstesteng.htm)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 08/20/2010 03:23 pm
Blue Origin's Space Act Agreement has now been posted:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/news/contracts/CCDev.html
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: mmeijeri on 08/20/2010 03:25 pm
Good work on the updates yg1968! I've updated some Wikipedia pages with this information.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 08/20/2010 03:31 pm
Thanks. Good job on the Wikipedia updates!

Here is a second quarter update for CCDev for Blue Origin:
http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/RecipientReportedData/pages/RecipientProjectSummary508.aspx?AwardIDSUR=90717&qtr=2010Q2
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 08/20/2010 04:04 pm
That makes 4 American capsules in quite active development right now, with actual money being spent. Awesome. What we now need are some landers and tankers.

It's really starting to feel like that wave of optimism in human spaceflight has dissipated and is becoming an inexorable tide or flood.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Damon Hill on 08/20/2010 05:05 pm
Looking at Blue Origin's Kent, WA facility via Google Earth and Bing Maps (birds eye view) shows the mystery facility has an apparent cryogenic tank and heat exchangers.  Seems like a pretty big tank for LN2; I think it has to be LOX.

Could they be cooking their own HTP?

These images are pretty recent and definitely worth checking out.



PS: Isn't industrial espionage fun?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Danderman on 08/20/2010 05:16 pm
It's really starting to feel like that wave of optimism in human spaceflight has dissipated and is becoming an inexorable tide or flood.

Jinx.

What is interesting is that this particular generation of commercial space projects is not being killed by the recession. The generation in the 1990s was basically destroyed by the dotcom crash, but the following recession administered the coup de grace.

This time around, the possibility of government support for commercial space is keeping these guys afloat, plus the reality that many of the investors are extremely well heeled.  The combination of government plus billionaire support makes these projects viable, although a handful of accidents or the end of the government support could smash these guys.

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Patchouli on 08/20/2010 06:39 pm
Looking at Blue Origin's Kent, WA facility via Google Earth and Bing Maps (birds eye view) shows the mystery facility has an apparent cryogenic tank and heat exchangers.  Seems like a pretty big tank for LN2; I think it has to be LOX.

Could they be cooking their own HTP?

These images are pretty recent and definitely worth checking out.



PS: Isn't industrial espionage fun?

I would not be surprised if they are as most industrial sources of HTP are under 70% concentration for safety reasons.
They also stick stabilizers in most of it for the same reasons that have to be removed before it's any good for propellant use.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Space Pete on 08/29/2010 06:16 pm
Some new info from this Parabolic Arc article (http://www.parabolicarc.com/2010/08/25/public-finally-peek-blue-origins-work/):

Quote
The report indicates that the [pusher escape system and composite vessel cabin] project is now more than 50 percent complete and directly generated 22.5 full-time jobs at Blue Origin. It indicates that "following completion of the CCDev activity, Blue Origin plans suborbital flight test at private expense." The company also will conduct a drop test of the composite test cabin.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Zond on 09/01/2010 11:39 pm
Blue Origin is now also operating a rocket test stand at their west Texas facility: http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=60115 (http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=60115) (The forum post is from the owner of Salt flat mystery airport website (http://n5lp.net/Saltflatmystery.html))
They also have job openings at the west Texas facility:
Integration Engineer - (West Texas) (http://www.blueorigin.com/job_wtlsinteng.htm)
Test Engineer (West Texas) (http://www.blueorigin.com/job_wtlstesteng.htm)

The photos of the new test stand are now on the "Mystery at Salt Flat" (http://n5lp.net/Saltflatmystery.html) webpage.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Zond on 09/02/2010 11:02 pm
Interesting patent apllication from Blue Origin: http://www.wipo.int/patentscope/search/en/docservicepdf_pct/id00000011539918?download (http://www.wipo.int/patentscope/search/en/docservicepdf_pct/id00000011539918?download)

I guess this is what New Shepard will look like.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: corrodedNut on 09/03/2010 12:02 am
Backward Bob? Space Shuttlecock? Dis-orient Express?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: M_Puckett on 09/03/2010 12:39 am
It looks like something from an Adult Novelty store.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Lampyridae on 09/03/2010 07:56 am
An ass-backwards spaceship. Nice one.

Control surfaces look like they would overcompensate, but with the mass of the motors that's less of a problem. Where does the crew cabin and escape system go though? Presumably on top, though it was left out of the patent?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: bad_astra on 09/03/2010 03:47 pm
Looks a bit like Michelle-B
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 09/03/2010 05:13 pm
Looks like Bono's Pegasus/Ithacus
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: simonbp on 09/03/2010 10:15 pm
Looks like Bono's Pegasus/Ithacus

'Cept it's about 100x times smaller.

Bad Astra's closer; they clearly are using TGV's deployable airbrake idea...
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 11/06/2010 07:55 pm
CCDev-1 third quarter update for Blue Origin:
http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/RecipientReportedData/pages/RecipientProjectSummary508.aspx?AwardIdSur=90717&AwardType=Grants

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: daveklingler on 12/31/2010 05:43 pm
I guess this is what New Shepard will look like.

You can take the drawing with a grain of salt.  As the application states:

"Moreover, although the following disclosure sets forth several embodiments, several other embodiments can have different configurations, arrangements, and/or components than those described in this section.  In particular, other embodiments may have additional elements, and/or may lack one or more of the elements described below with reference to Figures 1A-4D."

Patent applicants quite commonly attempt to establish rights to intellectual property without giving away too many clues to what they are developing.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: NotGncDude on 01/03/2011 03:01 pm
Interesting patent apllication from Blue Origin: http://www.wipo.int/patentscope/search/en/docservicepdf_pct/id00000011539918?download (http://www.wipo.int/patentscope/search/en/docservicepdf_pct/id00000011539918?download)

I guess this is what New Shepard will look like.

Indeed... although not quite to scale. I don't think.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Zond on 01/27/2011 06:36 pm
Blue Origin is now filing a lot of patents. One even lists Bezos himself as an inventor: SEA LANDING OF SPACE LAUNCH VEHICLES AND ASSOCIATED SYSTEMS AND METHODS (http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220110017872%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20110017872&RS=DN/20110017872)

How to catch a rocket booster: Bezos seeks Blue Origin patent (http://www.techflash.com/seattle/2011/01/how-to-catch-a-rocket-booster-jeff.html)
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20110017872.pdf (http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20110017872.pdf)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/27/2011 06:41 pm
Blue Origin is now filing a lot of patents. One even lists Bezos himself as an inventor: SEA LANDING OF SPACE LAUNCH VEHICLES AND ASSOCIATED SYSTEMS AND METHODS (http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220110017872%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20110017872&RS=DN/20110017872)

How to catch a rocket booster: Bezos seeks Blue Origin patent (http://www.techflash.com/seattle/2011/01/how-to-catch-a-rocket-booster-jeff.html)
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20110017872.pdf (http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20110017872.pdf)
I think there's prior art here on NSF. I remember someone (could've even been myself, don't remember) speculating about propulsive landing on a sea-going platform.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: jongoff on 01/27/2011 07:06 pm
Blue Origin is now filing a lot of patents. One even lists Bezos himself as an inventor: SEA LANDING OF SPACE LAUNCH VEHICLES AND ASSOCIATED SYSTEMS AND METHODS (http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220110017872%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20110017872&RS=DN/20110017872)

How to catch a rocket booster: Bezos seeks Blue Origin patent (http://www.techflash.com/seattle/2011/01/how-to-catch-a-rocket-booster-jeff.html)
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20110017872.pdf (http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20110017872.pdf)

At least it's only a patent application, but can I be the one to ask how the hell this is in any way patentable?  We were talking about this at Masten at least 6 years ago.  There's no way this should pass the muster as "novel".  There's something wrong with the USPTO if this makes it through with any more than the narrowest of claims.

~Jon
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: jongoff on 01/27/2011 07:21 pm
For instance, from a year ago there was comment #6 on this blog post:

http://selenianboondocks.com/2010/06/vtvls-as-rtls-boosters/

Or comment #11 from this blog post three years ago:

http://selenianboondocks.com/2008/01/orbital-access-methodologies-part-ii-the-key-challenge-of-tsto-rlvs/

John Carmack was talking about doing VTVL landing of a suborbital vehicle on a barge way back in 2005 (scroll down a bit):

http://www.treitel.org/Richard/SA05/hardware.html

Those were all from the first page's results for "VTVL barge" on Google...

~Jon
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Namechange User on 01/27/2011 07:35 pm
Blue Origin is now filing a lot of patents. One even lists Bezos himself as an inventor: SEA LANDING OF SPACE LAUNCH VEHICLES AND ASSOCIATED SYSTEMS AND METHODS (http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220110017872%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20110017872&RS=DN/20110017872)

How to catch a rocket booster: Bezos seeks Blue Origin patent (http://www.techflash.com/seattle/2011/01/how-to-catch-a-rocket-booster-jeff.html)
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20110017872.pdf (http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20110017872.pdf)

At least it's only a patent application, but can I be the one to ask how the hell this is in any way patentable?  We were talking about this at Masten at least 6 years ago.  There's no way this should pass the muster as "novel".  There's something wrong with the USPTO if this makes it through with any more than the narrowest of claims.

~Jon

lol, it's a very generic concept of operations. 

I'd like to see a local airport patent their concept of operations, rather vaguely like above (for example all airplanes will take off and land horizontally, disembark crew/cargo, refuel, and have any required maintence performed) and then charge every other airport for using what is "legally theirs".

In other news, I have recently submitted a patent for my name.  I expect a lot of royalties. 
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: jongoff on 01/27/2011 07:39 pm
Blue Origin is now filing a lot of patents. One even lists Bezos himself as an inventor: SEA LANDING OF SPACE LAUNCH VEHICLES AND ASSOCIATED SYSTEMS AND METHODS (http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220110017872%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20110017872&RS=DN/20110017872)

How to catch a rocket booster: Bezos seeks Blue Origin patent (http://www.techflash.com/seattle/2011/01/how-to-catch-a-rocket-booster-jeff.html)
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20110017872.pdf (http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20110017872.pdf)

At least it's only a patent application, but can I be the one to ask how the hell this is in any way patentable?  We were talking about this at Masten at least 6 years ago.  There's no way this should pass the muster as "novel".  There's something wrong with the USPTO if this makes it through with any more than the narrowest of claims.

~Jon

lol, it's a very generic concept of operations. 

I'd like to see a local airport patent their concept of operations, rather vaguely like above (for example all airplanes will take off and land horizontally, disembark crew/cargo, refuel, and have any required maintence performed) and then charge every other airport for using what is "legally theirs".

In other news, I have recently submitted a patent for my name.  I expect a lot of royalties. 

Well put.  :-)

Seriously though, it ticks me off when people abuse the patent process to try and file patents on the bleedingly obvious.  Patents have their place (I just filed a provisional a few weeks ago, so I'd be a hypocrite to say otherwise), but stuff like this only hurts the industry.  Especially if the USPTO is dumb enough to grant them the patent.

~Jon
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/27/2011 08:06 pm
Is there a way to challenge patent applications?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: jongoff on 01/27/2011 08:13 pm
Is there a way to challenge patent applications?

Not sure, though I imagine there is.  The key is making sure stuff like this gets caught while it's still just a patent application and not the actual patent.

~Jon
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: simonbp on 01/27/2011 08:23 pm
USPTO sillyness aside (this is Jeff "PATENT EVERYTHING!" Bezos we're talking about), the main point to me is that this is the first clear indication that Blue Origin are developing a TSTO rocket with a fully reusable first stage. Not that novel a concept I know, but I think they're now the only group seriously working on such a thing (beside the "recoverable" Falcon 9 first stage). This is especially interesting as the first stage looks a lot like the vehicle in the other patent application.

So, their development plan could be to develop the first stage around the TSTO mission, but use it initially with an early New Shepard capsule as a suborbital vehicle. Then, once they have enough confidence from that, they add an upper stage and go for orbit...
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: rklaehn on 01/27/2011 08:31 pm
For instance, from a year ago there was comment #6 on this blog post:

http://selenianboondocks.com/2010/06/vtvls-as-rtls-boosters/

Or comment #11 from this blog post three years ago:

http://selenianboondocks.com/2008/01/orbital-access-methodologies-part-ii-the-key-challenge-of-tsto-rlvs/

That was me.

Quote
John Carmack was talking about doing VTVL landing of a suborbital vehicle on a barge way back in 2005 (scroll down a bit):

http://www.treitel.org/Richard/SA05/hardware.html

Those were all from the first page's results for "VTVL barge" on Google...

~Jon

Patenting landing on a barge is really quite bold. I seem to remember people talking about such things back in usenet days on sci.space.policy.

I hope somebody with some deep pockets such as spacex or ULA is challenging this. There should be plenty of prior art in forums such as this one, if that counts.

I have been talking about the concept for years, but I would never have thought that such a blatantly obvious idea would be patent worthy. See for example this recent post with some nice CGI: link (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=21923.msg611358#msg611358)

Now that spacex plans to get some experience with powered vertical landing, they're halfway there.

But mr. bezos is the owner of the famous one click patent for amazon.com. Maybe the blue origin business model is to be a space patent troll... 
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: HMXHMX on 01/28/2011 03:17 am
(Also posted at Hobbyspace)

The prior art in this area goes back decades. I proposed using a converted bulk carrier for Roton launch and recovery in 1998. The model of the system was on public view for at least a year. Bob Truax showed how to recover first stages on barges under NRL contract in the 1990s, possibly before. Burt Rutan talked about using a catamaran boat with a net to recover early versions of SpaceShipOne and even conducted tests on Lake Isabella.

So when the examiner looks at the application, he or she will read web comments like the ones here, and that should put real doubt into their minds.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: mmeijeri on 01/28/2011 08:02 am
IANAL, TINLA, but I thought patents could be challenged even after they have been granted, say while the bad guys are suing you. The silver lining is that twenty years after all these obvious ideas have been patented you have very well documented prior art. Only a silver lining, and a smaller cloud would be good.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: RanulfC on 02/08/2011 08:08 pm
Just to mix things up even more:
US20100326045
MULTIPLE-USE ROCKET ENGINES AND ASSOCIATED SYSTEMS AND METHODS

US20100327107
BIDIRECTIONAL CONTROL SURFACES FOR USE WITH HIGH SPEED VEHICLES, AND ASSOCIATED SYSTEMS AND METHODS

US20110017872
SEA LANDING OF SPACE LAUNCH VEHICLES AND ASSOCIATED SYSTEMS AND METHODS

US20100320329
LAUNCH VEHICLES WITH FIXED AND DEPLOYABLE DECELERATION SURFACES, AND/OR SHAPED FUEL TANKS, AND ASSOCIATED SYSTEMS AND METHODS

All of which are repeated as "W/O," "Japan," etc patent applications, and every single on of which is a "repeat" of previous patents from earlier work as far as I can see.

Of course, "on-the-Gripping-hand"...

I noticed long ago that one of Jon's favorite "new" technologies, (specifically "Thrust Augmentation Nozzles" ;) ) was patented several time previously in the 1960s. (Which, or COURSE I can't seem to actually locate at the moment but I recall the first patent I saw was dated in 1961 :) )

So it's not like this appears to be a "new" thing :)

Randy
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/08/2011 08:16 pm
Just to mix things up even more:
US20100326045
MULTIPLE-USE ROCKET ENGINES AND ASSOCIATED SYSTEMS AND METHODS

US20100327107
BIDIRECTIONAL CONTROL SURFACES FOR USE WITH HIGH SPEED VEHICLES, AND ASSOCIATED SYSTEMS AND METHODS

US20110017872
SEA LANDING OF SPACE LAUNCH VEHICLES AND ASSOCIATED SYSTEMS AND METHODS

US20100320329
LAUNCH VEHICLES WITH FIXED AND DEPLOYABLE DECELERATION SURFACES, AND/OR SHAPED FUEL TANKS, AND ASSOCIATED SYSTEMS AND METHODS

All of which are repeated as "W/O," "Japan," etc patent applications, and every single on of which is a "repeat" of previous patents from earlier work as far as I can see.

Of course, "on-the-Gripping-hand"...

I noticed long ago that one of Jon's favorite "new" technologies, (specifically "Thrust Augmentation Nozzles" ;) ) was patented several time previously in the 1960s. (Which, or COURSE I can't seem to actually locate at the moment but I recall the first patent I saw was dated in 1961 :) )

So it's not like this appears to be a "new" thing :)

Randy
Of course it's not "new." You'd be hard-pressed to find a truly "new" idea in aerospace that wasn't thought up long ago.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 02/09/2011 04:26 pm
Fourth quarter CCDev-1 update for Blue Origin:
http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/RecipientReportedData/pages/RecipientProjectSummary508.aspx?AwardIdSur=90717&AwardType=Grants

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Comga on 02/18/2011 07:17 pm
There is an article in NASA Tech Briefs with an old photo of New Shepherd.
http://www.techbriefs.com/component/content/article/9165
Not much new, but the article does include a link to the Carreers page on the Blue Origin website.
They tout the fact that the system includes a LAS, but do not describe it or any work done to develop or test it.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Jason1701 on 02/18/2011 10:49 pm
Thanks for the link. I think the picture is actually of Goddard.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: cuddihy on 02/25/2011 02:24 pm
http://crusr.arc.nasa.gov/files/BlueOrigin-NASA-CRuSR-RFI-Response-Mod-2.pdf

Haven't seen this posted yet.

"The Propulsion Module will use 90 percent concentration hydrogen peroxide as oxidizer and rocket propellant grade kerosene (RP) as propellant. The Crew Capsule will carry a solid rocket motor for use in an emergency escape situation. The Crew Capsule will have a low-thrust reaction control system (RCS) using cold gas for orientation."

So its H2O2 and RP-1 then. Does anyone know if Goddard was the same?

Hey, let me post what I just got pointed to on a SpaceX thread. Barber-Nichols is the specialty machine outfit that designed the Fastrac and SpaceX merlin turbopumps:

http://www.barber-nichols.com/products/rocket_engine_turbopumps/

of interest is the last example on the page,

Quote
BNI has worked on several other turbopumps including an

H 2 O 2 /Hydrocarbon Turbopump for an engine which produces 34,000 pounds of thrust. Please contact Barber-Nichols any time to talk with our experienced engineering staff regarding your project.

Now what immediately pops to mind when I read that is, who in the Space industry would not want their name associated with a brand new 34,000 lbf engine? NASA, ULA, SpaceX, Sierra Nevada, XCOR, are all quick to release new projects and efforts... but one new space company like to fly below the radar

-And an engine for H2O2/hydrocarbon?
-And is clearly leaning towards a design that is too high a propellant mass fraction to rely on pressurized engine alone (H202)

Clearly, this has to be the new Blue Origin engine!

So now we have an engine. 34,000 lbf pump H2O2/Kerosene, turbopump driven... interesting.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: corrodedNut on 03/04/2011 01:36 pm
From the CCDev thread, just in case anyone wants to see real photos of actual Blue Origin hardware, starts at page 9:

http://www.aiaa.org/pdf/industry/presentations/Alan_Lindenmoyer.pdf

I don't know how "orange" H2O2xRP1 exhaust is supposed to look, maybe this is their "emergency escape solid rocket motor".
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/04/2011 01:41 pm
For what it's worth, I believe Blue Origin is going for hydrogen as a fuel, not hydrogen peroxide. They hired a whole bunch of DC-X folks (DC-X was hydrolox), and there are rumors (well, more than rumors, but effectively rumors because I cannot verify) that containers with "LH2" written on them were seen outside some of their facilities.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: NotGncDude on 03/04/2011 11:00 pm
Goddard was plain H2O2 (you see no flame). If you add RP it makes the flame yellow (ish) like the typical LOX/Kerosene rocket (say, Falcon).
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: douglas100 on 03/05/2011 09:10 am
From corrodedNut:

Quote
I don't know how "orange" H2O2xRP1 exhaust is supposed to look, maybe this is their "emergency escape solid rocket motor".

Black Arrow used an H2O2/kerosene combination.

(http://reocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/6133/arrow.jpg)

You can see that the exhaust is almost colourless in daylight. I think this is because with this propellant combination the fuel/oxidiser ratio is biased toward the oxidiser.

Not sure if this helps in gaining any clues about that deep mystery which is Blue Origin!
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: cuddihy on 03/07/2011 08:27 pm
For what it's worth, I believe Blue Origin is going for hydrogen as a fuel, not hydrogen peroxide. They hired a whole bunch of DC-X folks (DC-X was hydrolox), and there are rumors (well, more than rumors, but effectively rumors because I cannot verify) that containers with "LH2" written on them were seen outside some of their facilities.

They're probably going for both.

Consider a likely phased approach:

Phase 1: Goddard: develop the rocket design team, and much of the basic required systems, avionics and code required for VTVL operations in general. 2007-2009
Phase 2A: CRV: Develop a pressurized "Crew Return Vehicle"  capsule with TPS, solid escape system and a landing mechanism (whether that's VTVL rocket or parachutes or both). Partially funded by CCDEV. Give the solid escape system sufficient capability abort at liftoff and sufficient TPS  return from mach 10 trajectories (and structure to beef up TPS to orbital velocities). 2010-2013 mass 5000 kg

Phase 2B: New Shepard: Develop an H202/RP 35,000 lbf pumped GG engine (Isp 300s) and stick 3 of them on a cylindrical "base vehicle" with ability to lift the CRV capsule on nice subortial trajectories. Learn how to thermally protect/ do recovery of a multi-engine VTVL vehicle from high speeds. Qualify with the FAA and begin hauling suborbital customers. 2010-2013. initial (fueled) mass 41,600 kg. Dry mass 15,000 kg. delta-v increment = 3000 m/s

Phase 3A:  Shepard Lite: Develop an in house version of RL-10. Stick 4 of them on the bottom of a cryogenic booster (stretched New Shepard). Maintain basically the same mass, with a boost to the volume. This becomes the 1:1 replacement for New Shepard. delata v increment = 4250 m/s Learn how to do cryogenic RLV ops. Meanwhile, it also becomes a second stage vehicle for...

Phase 3B: Big Bob: Develop a big H2O2/RP pop-up booster. Engine TBD but could be an uprated version of the New Shepard.

Sorry for the break yesterday... Ran out of play time.

Anyway purpose of "Big Bob" is as a "zero stage" that that leverages much of the lessons from New Shepard to provide a nearly vertical "pop-up" a-la "The Rocket Company." I would think you could do this with 9 of the engines that power New Shepard.

OK... so I''m realizing this still won't get you to orbit, unless you drastically increase the Shepard Lite size...

but getting there...
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Lampyridae on 03/08/2011 06:48 am
Phase 3B: Big Bob: Develop a big H2O2/RP pop-up booster. Engine TBD but

Sounds like the Blue Origin goons got to him before he could divulge the rest of their super-secret program!  ;)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: simonbp on 03/08/2011 09:40 pm
Consider a likely phased approach:

Interesting, but doesn't exactly jive with the presentation a few posts up which calls Blue Origin's CCDEV work:

Quote
System concept is bi-conic space vehicle launched on Atlas V 402

It looks like they're just dropping the suborbital part, focusing on a manned orbital vehicle, and leaving the orbital launch vehicle to a later date...
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Danderman on 03/09/2011 04:23 am
If the game is orbital launch on EELV, then, assuming that's been the game all along, what we saw earlier were landing tests, not preparations for suborbital tests.

Of course, Blue Origin may be making it up as they go along.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Zond on 03/09/2011 07:52 pm
http://crusr.arc.nasa.gov/files/BlueOrigin-NASA-CRuSR-RFI-Response-Mod-2.pdf

Haven't seen this posted yet.

"The Propulsion Module will use 90 percent concentration hydrogen peroxide as oxidizer and rocket propellant grade kerosene (RP) as propellant. The Crew Capsule will carry a solid rocket motor for use in an emergency escape situation. The Crew Capsule will have a low-thrust reaction control system (RCS) using cold gas for orientation."

So its H2O2 and RP-1 then. Does anyone know if Goddard was the same?

Hey, let me post what I just got pointed to on a SpaceX thread. Barber-Nichols is the specialty machine outfit that designed the Fastrac and SpaceX merlin turbopumps:

http://www.barber-nichols.com/products/rocket_engine_turbopumps/

of interest is the last example on the page,

Quote
BNI has worked on several other turbopumps including an

H 2 O 2 /Hydrocarbon Turbopump for an engine which produces 34,000 pounds of thrust. Please contact Barber-Nichols any time to talk with our experienced engineering staff regarding your project.

Now what immediately pops to mind when I read that is, who in the Space industry would not want their name associated with a brand new 34,000 lbf engine? NASA, ULA, SpaceX, Sierra Nevada, XCOR, are all quick to release new projects and efforts... but one new space company like to fly below the radar

-And an engine for H2O2/hydrocarbon?
-And is clearly leaning towards a design that is too high a propellant mass fraction to rely on pressurized engine alone (H202)

Clearly, this has to be the new Blue Origin engine!

So now we have an engine. 34,000 lbf pump H2O2/Kerosene, turbopump driven... interesting.

Blue Origin calls the rocket engine for the New Shepard propulsion module the "BE-2".
Quote
Blue Origin has assembled a team of experienced space professionals. Together, this group has demonstrated successful operations as a team through development and flight of the Goddard sub-scale demonstrator; design and development of the New Shepard Propulsion Module, including the BE-2 rocket engine
Blue Origin CCDEV SAA (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/471971main_NNJ10TA02S_blue_origin_SAA_R.pdf)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Zond on 03/09/2011 07:53 pm
From the CCDev thread, just in case anyone wants to see real photos of actual Blue Origin hardware, starts at page 9:

http://www.aiaa.org/pdf/industry/presentations/Alan_Lindenmoyer.pdf

I don't know how "orange" H2O2xRP1 exhaust is supposed to look, maybe this is their "emergency escape solid rocket motor".
The tested motor is indeed a solid rocket motor. Blue Origin CCDEV SAA (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/471971main_NNJ10TA02S_blue_origin_SAA_R.pdf)
Quote
Conduct test firing of full scale demonstration SRM
According to the NASA FY2012 budget request (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/516651main_NASA_FY12_Budget-Exploration.pdf) they tested a jet tab thrust vector control
Quote
Blue Origin successfully met milestones for multiple pusher launch abort motor tests to verify operation of new jet tab thrust vector control and the manufacture, assembly, and structural testing of their crew composite pressure vessel.
According to the Recovery website (http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/RecipientReportedData/pages/RecipientProjectSummary508.aspx?AwardIdSur=90717&AwardType=Grants) Aerojet is the supplier of the SRM's.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Zond on 03/09/2011 08:01 pm
Consider a likely phased approach:

Interesting, but doesn't exactly jive with the presentation a few posts up which calls Blue Origin's CCDEV work:

Quote
System concept is bi-conic space vehicle launched on Atlas V 402

It looks like they're just dropping the suborbital part, focusing on a manned orbital vehicle, and leaving the orbital launch vehicle to a later date...
Why do you think they are dropping the suborbital part? They are promoting New Shepard for research.

According to the patents Blue has been filing and this quote they are planning to evolve the suborbital system into an orbital launch vehicle.
Quote
The Space Vehicle is being designed for launch initially on an Atlas V 405 launch vehicle from CCAFS, and later on Blue Origin's own reusable launch vehicle
Blue Origin CCDEV SAA (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/471971main_NNJ10TA02S_blue_origin_SAA_R.pdf)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: simonbp on 03/09/2011 10:59 pm
Are they now? I knew they were several years ago (back when Alan Stern was involved), but I can't recall any "promotion" to that effect for least the last three years.

And it would make sense, as suborbital is a pretty small market that more established players (e.g. Virgin and Xcor) will probably saturate fast. Recall that DreamChaser was originally meant as a suborbital vehicle, but is now totally orbital-focused. It's logical to assume Blue Origin followed the same line of reasoning as SpaceDev/SNC...
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Calorspace on 03/10/2011 11:30 am
I approve of the idea of not making wild claims and statements regarding ones plans for the future, as many have done, however it seems Blue Origin go a step further and actually hide the successes they do have.

Can anyone tell me the reasoning behind Blue Origins approach to their levels of secrecy?

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Zond on 03/10/2011 07:54 pm
Are they now? I knew they were several years ago (back when Alan Stern was involved), but I can't recall any "promotion" to that effect for least the last three years.

And it would make sense, as suborbital is a pretty small market that more established players (e.g. Virgin and Xcor) will probably saturate fast. Recall that DreamChaser was originally meant as a suborbital vehicle, but is now totally orbital-focused. It's logical to assume Blue Origin followed the same line of reasoning as SpaceDev/SNC...

http://www.blueorigin.com/nsresearch.html (http://www.blueorigin.com/nsresearch.html)
https://c3.ndc.nasa.gov/flightopportunities/platforms/suborbital/newshepard/ (https://c3.ndc.nasa.gov/flightopportunities/platforms/suborbital/newshepard/)
http://www.swri.org/9what/events/confer/nsrc/2011/sessions/panel-flight-provider.htm (http://www.swri.org/9what/events/confer/nsrc/2011/sessions/panel-flight-provider.htm)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: cuddihy on 03/12/2011 03:26 pm
Consider a likely phased approach:

Interesting, but doesn't exactly jive with the presentation a few posts up which calls Blue Origin's CCDEV work:

Quote
System concept is bi-conic space vehicle launched on Atlas V 402

It looks like they're just dropping the suborbital part, focusing on a manned orbital vehicle, and leaving the orbital launch vehicle to a later date...

I hear ya, but disagree-- these two approaches are compatible. Any serious business builds a fairly flexible plan that has multiple options for revenue streams based on market conditions. If, for instance, the suborbital business turns out to be less profitable or a net loser, they have the alternative orbital market that uses EELV lifter.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: mmeijeri on 03/12/2011 03:31 pm
Recall that DreamChaser was originally meant as a suborbital vehicle, but is now totally orbital-focused.

From Private Spaceflight Innovators Attract NASA's Attention (http://www.space.com/10785-nasa-commercial-space-innovators.html):

Quote
Under the NASA CCDev award, Sirangelo said that the company has met all of its milestones, announcing that "we’re on time, actually under budget." He added that Dream Chaser will become a fully capable suborbital vehicle on the way to reaching orbital capability.

He didn't say they would try to exploit that capability commercially, but that seems logical enough.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: go4mars on 03/15/2011 03:35 am
Can anyone tell me the reasoning behind Blue Origins approach to their levels of secrecy?

No, but I can speculate:

1)  Doesn't want to attract PR to his hobby.
2)  Doesn't want competitors to copy his stuff.
3)  Wants to have an element of surprise when he flys to the moon to claim it for his own.   :)   /sarc 
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: mlorrey on 03/15/2011 02:23 pm
Can anyone tell me the reasoning behind Blue Origins approach to their levels of secrecy?

No, but I can speculate:

1)  Doesn't want to attract PR to his hobby.
2)  Doesn't want competitors to copy his stuff.
3)  Wants to have an element of surprise when he flys to the moon to claim it for his own.   :)   /sarc 

Personally I think the secrecy has something to do with a contract with the US military to provide a  long range suborbital squad deployment vehicle.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: simonbp on 03/15/2011 08:21 pm
Then they must have had that contract since they were founded, as they've never been anything but secret.

I think it's more of standard tech company perspective: they don't need to go public with their work until they actually have something to sell. And since Bezos is providing the Benjamins, they don't even need to talk to investors...
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Zond on 03/17/2011 06:05 pm
Senate passes Uresti's space flight liability bill (http://www.alpineavalanche.com/news/article_1cbefbbe-50a6-11e0-b370-001cc4c03286.html)

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=82R&Bill=SB115 (http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=82R&Bill=SB115)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: mlorrey on 03/17/2011 09:32 pm
Senate passes Uresti's space flight liability bill (http://www.alpineavalanche.com/news/article_1cbefbbe-50a6-11e0-b370-001cc4c03286.html)

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=82R&Bill=SB115 (http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=82R&Bill=SB115)

THis is the wrong place for this, but its still welcome to see.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Downix on 03/18/2011 06:54 am
Good mention of Blue Origin in this document from NASA, page 25:

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/524774main_COOKE.pdf
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Halidon on 03/18/2011 05:32 pm
Good mention of Blue Origin in this document from NASA, page 25:

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/524774main_COOKE.pdf
Looks more purple than blue on my monitor...
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Danderman on 03/18/2011 06:27 pm
Senate passes Uresti's space flight liability bill (http://www.alpineavalanche.com/news/article_1cbefbbe-50a6-11e0-b370-001cc4c03286.html)

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=82R&Bill=SB115 (http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=82R&Bill=SB115)

THis is the wrong place for this, but its still welcome to see.

Blue Origin is based in Texas, IIRC, and therefore the above post may be 100% on topic.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: hokieSpace05 on 03/20/2011 12:06 am
Good mention of Blue Origin in this document from NASA, page 25:

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/524774main_COOKE.pdf
Looks more purple than blue on my monitor...

Thats because it is purple...   :)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: simonbp on 03/23/2011 04:21 am
Welcome to the site hokie! Is the color purposeful or just a result of the curing process?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: hokieSpace05 on 03/24/2011 03:54 am
Welcome to the site hokie! Is the color purposeful or just a result of the curing process?
Thanks for the welcome!  I have no idea why it is colored the way it is, but it looks cool in the pictures.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 04/18/2011 11:15 pm
Here is Blue Origin Space CCDev-2 Space Act Agreement for $22 million:
http://procurement.ksc.nasa.gov/documents/NNK11MS02S_SAA_BlueOrigin_04-18-2011.pdf
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: M_Puckett on 04/19/2011 01:22 am
http://www.hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=28803 (http://www.hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=28803)

Blue Origin announces fully-reusable TSTO.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 04/19/2011 02:07 am
Relevant stuff about the Reusable Booster System from the CCDev2 document:
Quote
Accelerating Engine Development

Blue Origin also proposes to speed development of its Reusable Booster System through accelerated testing of its 100,000 lbf liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen (LOx/LH2) engine. Development of Blue Origin's restartable, deep-throttle engine is pacing the entire orbital RBS program. Under CCDev 2, Blue Origin proposes to test the full-scale thrust chamber at NASA's Stennis Space Center and, optionally, perform development testing of the engine's fuel and oxidizer turbopumps.

Blue Origin requests $10,400,000 in NASA funding for the RBS Engine Risk Reduction Project with the possibility of an additional $3,000,000 for optional milestones. Partnering with NASA will not only accelerate the Reusable Booster System; it will also speed development of a low-cost LOx/LH2 engine suitable for a variety of other upper stage applications and deep-throttling exploration missions.


...

Incremental Development of Human Space Flight Capabilities

Blue Origin's incremental development approach uses suborbital tests to understand and characterize our system and retire development risks... The suborbital booster is currently undergoing integrated testing.
...
Milestone 3.4 -- Engine TCA Test May 2012 $3,000,000
Conduct pressure-fed test of the full-scale thrust chamber assembly (TCA).
Success Criteria: Provide NASA with a 'quick look' report summarizing the data gathered during the test.


RBS Engine Risk Reduction Project Optional Milestones: <note, not awarded>

Milestone 3.3--Engine Pump Cold Gas Drive Test [Date TBD] $2,000,000
Conduct cold gas drive test of rotordynamics for approximately 15 seconds on oxidizer pump and approximately 3 seconds on fuel pump.
...
Milestone 3.5--Engine Pump Hot Gas Drive Test [Date TBD] $1,000,000
Conduct hot gas drive test of rotordynamics for approximately 30 seconds on both fuel and oxidizer pumps.

http://procurement.ksc.nasa.gov/documents/NNK11MS02S_SAA_BlueOrigin_04-18-2011.pdf
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 04/19/2011 04:20 am
The SAA also speaks of a suborbital (subscale) booster. It says that "The suborbital capsule will separate from the subscale booster prior to reentry, followed by a land landing for recovery and reuse."
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: neilh on 04/21/2011 09:37 pm
I recall reading that Blue Origin ended up hiring quite a few engineers from the DC-X team. Does anyone know of reliable sources describing the specs of their eventual DC-1/Delta Clipper SSTO? Most of what I've found so far is this old NASA FAQ and astronautix:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/x-33/dcx-faq.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/dcy.htm

Combining those two, apparently the DC-1 SSTO was to have >8 hydrolox engines with a total thrust of ~1.2M lbf. It seems like it was planned to deliver a payload comparable to the capsule Blue Origin is now trying to build. Under CCDev2 Blue Origin is starting development of a 100klbf hydrolox engine, which seems like it would roughly match the thrust of the engine which was to be developed for the DC-1.

Is Blue Origin's "Reusable Booster System" basically the rebirth of the DC-1 SSTO?

A comment thread with others thinking similarly over at Space Transport News: http://hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=28803#c
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 04/21/2011 09:53 pm
I wonder if the crew capsule is the second stage? That would provide a lot of flexibility if combined with a hydrolox depot architecture...
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: neilh on 04/21/2011 10:32 pm
Looking through this thread, it seems like three different propellants have been discussed in the context of Blue Origin:

* H2O2/RP-1, for their flight tests so far
* a solid motor built by Aerojet for their CCDev escape system tests last year
* H2/O2 for the "Reusable Booster System"

I wonder if all of these would be used in a final orbital system:
* H2/O2 on the RBS for getting the capsule to orbit-ish
* solid for pusher escape system, and potentially providing a little extra orbital oomph on a nominal launch
* H2O2/RP-1 for in-orbit maneuvers and propulsive landing (and potentially replacing role of solids in escape system later on)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Cinder on 04/28/2011 05:07 pm
Seems there's no sound on this one.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: neilh on 04/28/2011 07:52 pm
I saw that ronsmytheiii uploaded CCDev briefing videos for 3 of the 4 companies today:

http://www.youtube.com/user/Ronsmytheiii

Was there one for Blue Origin?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: neilh on 04/28/2011 07:57 pm
I saw that ronsmytheiii uploaded CCDev briefing videos for 3 of the 4 companies today:

http://www.youtube.com/user/Ronsmytheiii

Was there one for Blue Origin?

It looks like Clark Lindsay wrote some notes up over at his site, although doesn't seem to have anything new from Blue Origin: http://www.hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=29078
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Cinder on 04/28/2011 07:59 pm
I saw that ronsmytheiii uploaded CCDev briefing videos for 3 of the 4 companies today:

http://www.youtube.com/user/Ronsmytheiii

Was there one for Blue Origin?
There was, but it had an audio issue.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: simonbp on 04/29/2011 07:57 pm
I wonder if the crew capsule is the second stage? That would provide a lot of flexibility if combined with a hydrolox depot architecture...

Well, the capsule is designed to initially fly on a Atlas V, and then move to the RBS. So, I can't imagine it having more than 1 km/s (or so) of dV. (Orion has 1.5 km/s, for comparison.)

That said, if the RBS is basically a modernized, unmanned DC-Y, then that should be enough, especially if it's a boost-stage-coast-boost trajectory (like going to GEO, but smaller scale).

One thing that you can't quite get from the Blue Origin image is the length of the capsule; part of the point of biconics is that you can make them fairly long per width.

EDIT: And if the idea is to refill the Biconic, LH2 isn't the best because of volume. LOX/Hydrocarbon or something like NOFBX would be a lot better.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Cinder on 04/29/2011 08:10 pm
ronsmytheiii uploaded CCDev briefing videos
Was there one for Blue Origin?
There was, but it had an audio issue.
And looks like it's now fixed?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwYutmipd28

.. Looks like the whole last third is missing.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Zond on 05/05/2011 08:17 pm
First flight of the New Shepard propulsion module?

http://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_1_0432.html (http://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_1_0432.html)
http://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/notam_actual_1_0432.html (http://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/notam_actual_1_0432.html)

Noticed by:
http://twitter.com/#!/Astrogator_Mike (http://twitter.com/#!/Astrogator_Mike)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Zond on 05/05/2011 09:50 pm
There is now a new notam for Blue Origin:
http://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_1_0986.html (http://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_1_0986.html)

Some kind of problem during the flight or did they start a fire?

Edit:
There's now a timeframe, so it looks like a second attempt at liftoff.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: zaitcev on 05/06/2011 10:02 pm
The phrase "relief aircraft" is somewhat misleading, because it conjures an image for a fire-fighting tanker or a rescue helicopter. These are usually the aircraft you see inside firefighting TFRs. But any other TFR NOTAM uses the same stock terminology. There's a TFR west of Socorro, NM, which is almost permanent now, which uses the same phraseology... But AFAIK it deals with explosives testing.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Zond on 05/21/2011 09:05 am
There is now confirmation that Blue Origin did a test flight: Recently Completed/Historical Launch Data: Permitted Launches (http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/launch_data/permitted_historical_launch/)

Quote
21   May 06, 2011   PM 2   Blue Origin   West Texas   Flight Test

The FAA now also lists their permit: Active Permits (http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/launch_data/current_permits/)

Hat tip to http://hobbyspace.com/nucleus/?itemid=29641 (http://hobbyspace.com/nucleus/?itemid=29641)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: libs0n on 05/27/2011 01:48 am
This presentation has a slide on Blue Origin's crew efforts that has a graphic of their suborbital vehicle and the RBS orbital vehicle, at 23:18 in:

http://spaceports.blogspot.com/2011/05/maria-colluras-overview-of-ccdev.html

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Jason1701 on 05/27/2011 02:40 am
Very nice, thanks. Wish we could get the presentation in higher-res. That video also had some more information about Dragon Crew.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 05/29/2011 01:09 am
Quote
Blue Origin differs from the other three [CCDev2] companies in that their leader is investing about $50M per year of his own money and proposes to get to System Requirements Review (SRR) stage.

See page 7:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/553714main_Space%20Ops%20Meeting%20Minutes%20May%203%202011.pdf
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: JSz on 05/29/2011 10:55 am
This presentation has a slide on Blue Origin's crew efforts that has a graphic of their suborbital vehicle and the RBS orbital vehicle, at 23:18 in:

http://spaceports.blogspot.com/2011/05/maria-colluras-overview-of-ccdev.html

The presentation can be found here as PDF:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/552848main_Commercial_Crew_Program_Overview_Collura.pdf
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: MikeAtkinson on 05/29/2011 01:51 pm
Quote
Blue Origin differs from the other three [CCDev2] companies in that their leader is investing about $50M per year of his own money and proposes to get to System Requirements Review (SRR) stage.

See page 7:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/553714main_Space%20Ops%20Meeting%20Minutes%20May%203%202011.pdf

Also
Quote
Mr. Mango said all but Blue Origin propose to meet the requirements NASA gives them.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: simonbp on 05/31/2011 10:41 pm
In that presentation, the mass of the Biconic SV is just 22,000 lbm (compared to CST-100 at 30,430 lbm). The CST-100 is rated for an Atlas 412 (one SRB, 2x RL-10), while the Biconic seems to use either a 401 or 402. What's the extra margin for?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: DGH on 06/02/2011 05:05 pm
[The presentation can be found here as PDF:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/552848main_Commercial_Crew_Program_Overview_Collura.pdf

A very interesting PDF that should probably be posted to the CST-100 thread and the Dream Chaser thread as well.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/06/2011 01:56 am
In that presentation, the mass of the Biconic SV is just 22,000 lbm (compared to CST-100 at 30,430 lbm). The CST-100 is rated for an Atlas 412 (one SRB, 2x RL-10), while the Biconic seems to use either a 401 or 402. What's the extra margin for?
You mean why does the Biconic weigh less? For one, Blue Origin want to launch it on their own totally reusable launch vehicle when it becomes available (and this is being designed with a much more sophisticated recovery system than the Falcon 9... it's to land vertically on a barge... though Blue Origin is still trading whether to do boost-back to launch site instead for the stages). And I think they can do it. They already have a lot of VTVL and hydrolox experience that they hired up from the old DC-X crew, and they've already demonstrated VTVL with their New Shephard vehicle. And they have a guy who is incredibly rich (with an independent way of remaining incredibly rich) and patient and passionate behind them.

EDIT:I attached the CCDEV2 presentation from which I got the slide in question, since the previous NASA links are now dead.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Danderman on 06/06/2011 04:23 am
In that presentation, the mass of the Biconic SV is just 22,000 lbm (compared to CST-100 at 30,430 lbm).

I know the answer to this, pick me, pick me!

Because Atlas-4XX is limited to ~20,000 lbm payload weight, per the user guide.

Atlas-5XX can do more, due to the payload fairing handling the extra loads.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Danderman on 06/06/2011 04:26 am
The CST-100 is rated for an Atlas 412 (one SRB, 2x RL-10), while the Biconic seems to use either a 401 or 402.

This must be theoretical, since Boeing is unlikely to support Lockheed receiving DDT&E funds for 2 engine Centaur or strengthening  Centaur to handle extra loads.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 06/06/2011 11:44 am
The CST-100 is rated for an Atlas 412 (one SRB, 2x RL-10), while the Biconic seems to use either a 401 or 402.

This must be theoretical, since Boeing is unlikely to support Lockheed receiving DDT&E funds for 2 engine Centaur or strengthening  Centaur to handle extra loads.


It wouldn't be Lockheed, it would be ULA.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 06/06/2011 01:23 pm
Dream Chaser also uses the 402. So all of the commercial crew spacecrafts need the 2 engine centaur.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Downix on 06/06/2011 01:42 pm
Small note, Dual Engine Centaur was flown 8 years ago for one of the Echostar launches. It does not need to be developed.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Danderman on 06/06/2011 02:12 pm
The CST-100 is rated for an Atlas 412 (one SRB, 2x RL-10), while the Biconic seems to use either a 401 or 402.

This must be theoretical, since Boeing is unlikely to support Lockheed receiving DDT&E funds for 2 engine Centaur or strengthening  Centaur to handle extra loads.


It wouldn't be Lockheed, it would be ULA.

I was under the impression that ULA is the launch operator, but that Boeing and Lockheed handle any design and development efforts.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Danderman on 06/06/2011 02:14 pm
Small note, Dual Engine Centaur was flown 8 years ago for one of the Echostar launches. It does not need to be developed.

That would have been on Atlas 3, not Atlas 4xx. The dual engine Centaur has never flown on a new generation Atlas.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: HMXHMX on 06/06/2011 02:44 pm
Small note, Dual Engine Centaur was flown 8 years ago for one of the Echostar launches. It does not need to be developed.

That would have been on Atlas 3, not Atlas 4xx. The dual engine Centaur has never flown on a new generation Atlas.


Exactly; the DDT&E ULA wanted to charge me in 2007 for a dual engine Centaur was, at the time, a very big number indeed.  I thought it unnecessary based on both historical experience and other reasons that I can't comment upon, but they insisted on including it in their bid to me.  So I expect somebody (read, NASA) will end up writing the check.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Downix on 06/06/2011 03:12 pm
Small note, Dual Engine Centaur was flown 8 years ago for one of the Echostar launches. It does not need to be developed.

That would have been on Atlas 3, not Atlas 4xx. The dual engine Centaur has never flown on a new generation Atlas.


Exactly; the DDT&E ULA wanted to charge me in 2007 for a dual engine Centaur was, at the time, a very big number indeed.  I thought it unnecessary based on both historical experience and other reasons that I can't comment upon, but they insisted on including it in their bid to me.  So I expect somebody (read, NASA) will end up writing the check.
I do too.  I find it very disingenuous to say that the DEC is all new development, as so many do (including within the business) so I remind folk of the DEC flight on Atlas III.  Mechanically it's identical to any new DEC.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Danderman on 06/06/2011 05:05 pm
Small note, Dual Engine Centaur was flown 8 years ago for one of the Echostar launches. It does not need to be developed.

That would have been on Atlas 3, not Atlas 4xx. The dual engine Centaur has never flown on a new generation Atlas.


Exactly; the DDT&E ULA wanted to charge me in 2007 for a dual engine Centaur was, at the time, a very big number indeed.  I thought it unnecessary based on both historical experience and other reasons that I can't comment upon, but they insisted on including it in their bid to me.  So I expect somebody (read, NASA) will end up writing the check.
I do too.  I find it very disingenuous to say that the DEC is all new development, as so many do (including within the business) so I remind folk of the DEC flight on Atlas III.  Mechanically it's identical to any new DEC.

Has any DEC flown supporting more than 20,000 lbm? If not, then someone would have to pay for that design and development effort.

Once again, I suspect that Boeing would not be thrilled to pay for Atlas DDT&E.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: kevin-rf on 06/06/2011 07:07 pm
I do too.  I find it very disingenuous to say that the DEC is all new development, as so many do (including within the business) so I remind folk of the DEC flight on Atlas III.  Mechanically it's identical to any new DEC.

It has been discussed in previous threads that Centaur went from hydraulic actuators to electric. That work was only done for the single engine version, and the work has yet to be done for the dual engine version. That is what I believe is the reason for the cost.

Honestly the money would be better spent developing a properly sized Atlas V upper stage like ACES (or what ever ULA has renamed it). The current Centaur tanks are a bit under sized.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Danderman on 06/07/2011 12:30 am
I do too.  I find it very disingenuous to say that the DEC is all new development, as so many do (including within the business) so I remind folk of the DEC flight on Atlas III.  Mechanically it's identical to any new DEC.

It has been discussed in previous threads that Centaur went from hydraulic actuators to electric. That work was only done for the single engine version, and the work has yet to be done for the dual engine version. That is what I believe is the reason for the cost.

Honestly the money would be better spent developing a properly sized Atlas V upper stage like ACES (or what ever ULA has renamed it). The current Centaur tanks are a bit under sized.

 ... and a larger upper stage tank set would require at least 2 RL-10s to offset gravity losses.

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Gregori on 06/07/2011 12:48 am
I don't know..... what's the advantage of their capsule being biconic? :)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/07/2011 01:40 am
I don't know..... what's the advantage of their capsule being biconic? :)
From a pressure-vessel standpoint, a biconic is usually less massive for the same volume than a simple cone.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: DGH on 06/07/2011 09:42 am
The CST-100 is rated for an Atlas 412 (one SRB, 2x RL-10), while the Biconic seems to use either a 401 or 402.

This must be theoretical, since Boeing is unlikely to support Lockheed receiving DDT&E funds for 2 engine Centaur or strengthening  Centaur to handle extra loads.


ULA plans to use the DEC on the Delta as well.
Delta looks like it gets a bigger improvement from it
then Atlas.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 06/07/2011 01:46 pm
I don't know..... what's the advantage of their capsule being biconic? :)
From a pressure-vessel standpoint, a biconic is usually less massive for the same volume than a simple cone.
I think I've read that biconic also is easier to model and predict on the supersonic and hypersonic regime. In other words, is easier to design and better behaved than an ogive. But it has more drag.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Mickey on 06/07/2011 06:18 pm

(Please do not post text from articles....it's called copyright - Chris).
[/quote]

I'm pretty sure that would be fair use.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: simonbp on 06/08/2011 11:36 pm
I don't know..... what's the advantage of their capsule being biconic? :)

Recoverable service module (OMS, ECLS, RCS, etc). Dragon gets close to this, but biconic gives you more room to work with.

Also, I just realized that 22,000 lbm is the Atlas 401 mass to LEO. So, all that hand wringing about about 402 and DEC appears for naught...
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 06/09/2011 03:00 am
Blue Origin uses either the Atlas 401 or 402. The Dream Chaser uses the Atlas 402 and the CST-100 uses the Atlas 412 according to that presentation. So the DEC is used by almost everyone.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Lobo on 06/09/2011 11:52 pm
In that presentation, the mass of the Biconic SV is just 22,000 lbm (compared to CST-100 at 30,430 lbm). The CST-100 is rated for an Atlas 412 (one SRB, 2x RL-10), while the Biconic seems to use either a 401 or 402. What's the extra margin for?
You mean why does the Biconic weigh less? For one, Blue Origin want to launch it on their own totally reusable launch vehicle when it becomes available (and this is being designed with a much more sophisticated recovery system than the Falcon 9... it's to land vertically on a barge... though Blue Origin is still trading whether to do boost-back to launch site instead for the stages). And I think they can do it. They already have a lot of VTVL and hydrolox experience that they hired up from the old DC-X crew, and they've already demonstrated VTVL with their New Shephard vehicle. And they have a guy who is incredibly rich (with an independent way of remaining incredibly rich) and patient and passionate behind them.

EDIT:I attached the CCDEV2 presentation from which I got the slide in question, since the previous NASA links are now dead.

So how exactly is their biconic supposed to land?  A vertical landing like the DC-X?
I didn't read back through every page of this thread, but several of them, and this is the only reference to how it lands that I found.

I'd think you could put a parafoil and landing gear on it and land it on a runway like Gemini was supposed to eventually .  A biconic lends itslef to a horizontal landing like that than a capsule does.  I'd think that'd be less massive than full propulsive vertical landing.  Although you'd have to have the landing gear deploy through your TPS, and that might present more risk into the design that you wouldn't want.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/12/2011 03:32 am
In that presentation, the mass of the Biconic SV is just 22,000 lbm (compared to CST-100 at 30,430 lbm). The CST-100 is rated for an Atlas 412 (one SRB, 2x RL-10), while the Biconic seems to use either a 401 or 402. What's the extra margin for?
You mean why does the Biconic weigh less? For one, Blue Origin want to launch it on their own totally reusable launch vehicle when it becomes available (and this is being designed with a much more sophisticated recovery system than the Falcon 9... it's to land vertically on a barge... though Blue Origin is still trading whether to do boost-back to launch site instead for the stages). And I think they can do it. They already have a lot of VTVL and hydrolox experience that they hired up from the old DC-X crew, and they've already demonstrated VTVL with their New Shephard vehicle. And they have a guy who is incredibly rich (with an independent way of remaining incredibly rich) and patient and passionate behind them.

EDIT:I attached the CCDEV2 presentation from which I got the slide in question, since the previous NASA links are now dead.

So how exactly is their biconic supposed to land?  A vertical landing like the DC-X?
I didn't read back through every page of this thread, but several of them, and this is the only reference to how it lands that I found.

I'd think you could put a parafoil and landing gear on it and land it on a runway like Gemini was supposed to eventually .  A biconic lends itslef to a horizontal landing like that than a capsule does.  I'd think that'd be less massive than full propulsive vertical landing.  Although you'd have to have the landing gear deploy through your TPS, and that might present more risk into the design that you wouldn't want.
I'd guess they plan to land like DC-X. After all, that's where all their expertise is, and everything we know about Blue Origin's spacecraft points in that direction (including the fact that their suborbital test vehicle lands like that).

But the Biconic will "fly"/reenter like Shuttle (which I grant is kind of weird, since I think it's landing like DC-X), on its side.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Lampyridae on 06/12/2011 09:53 am
I'd guess they plan to land like DC-X. After all, that's where all their expertise is, and everything we know about Blue Origin's spacecraft points in that direction (including the fact that their suborbital test vehicle lands like that).

But the Biconic will "fly"/reenter like Shuttle (which I grant is kind of weird, since I think it's landing like DC-X), on its side.

Makes sense, though. You don't want your engines poking into the hot airflow. Also, there's more area so a tiles solution might be possible.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: NotGncDude on 06/13/2011 11:31 pm
In that presentation, the mass of the Biconic SV is just 22,000 lbm (compared to CST-100 at 30,430 lbm). The CST-100 is rated for an Atlas 412 (one SRB, 2x RL-10), while the Biconic seems to use either a 401 or 402. What's the extra margin for?
You mean why does the Biconic weigh less? For one, Blue Origin want to launch it on their own totally reusable launch vehicle when it becomes available (and this is being designed with a much more sophisticated recovery system than the Falcon 9... it's to land vertically on a barge... though Blue Origin is still trading whether to do boost-back to launch site instead for the stages). And I think they can do it. They already have a lot of VTVL and hydrolox experience that they hired up from the old DC-X crew, and they've already demonstrated VTVL with their New Shephard vehicle. And they have a guy who is incredibly rich (with an independent way of remaining incredibly rich) and patient and passionate behind them.

EDIT:I attached the CCDEV2 presentation from which I got the slide in question, since the previous NASA links are now dead.

So how exactly is their biconic supposed to land?  A vertical landing like the DC-X?
I didn't read back through every page of this thread, but several of them, and this is the only reference to how it lands that I found.

I'd think you could put a parafoil and landing gear on it and land it on a runway like Gemini was supposed to eventually .  A biconic lends itslef to a horizontal landing like that than a capsule does.  I'd think that'd be less massive than full propulsive vertical landing.  Although you'd have to have the landing gear deploy through your TPS, and that might present more risk into the design that you wouldn't want.
I'd guess they plan to land like DC-X. After all, that's where all their expertise is, and everything we know about Blue Origin's spacecraft points in that direction (including the fact that their suborbital test vehicle lands like that).

But the Biconic will "fly"/reenter like Shuttle (which I grant is kind of weird, since I think it's landing like DC-X), on its side.

Well... the DC-X intended to fly/reenter nose first too, and then do the flip over.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/14/2011 03:56 am
Yes, GncDude, I believe you're right! I had forgotten.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: simonbp on 06/14/2011 08:48 pm
From Gary Hudson's (1991) article here: http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/history_of_the_phoenix_vtol_ssto_and_recent_developments_in_single_stage_launch_systems.shtml

Quote
The principal difference between Delta Clipper and previous VTOL SSTO concepts is that the Clipper will reenter nose, rather than base, first. This decision was made to improve the limited crossrange available to base-entry vehicles. It remains to be seen whether the crossrange will be worth the price paid in additional thermal protection required for the lifting entry, as well as the forced acceptance of a less efficient structural concept (in contrast to a simpler base-first vehicle).
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: NotGncDude on 06/14/2011 10:28 pm
From Gary Hudson's (1991) article here: http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/history_of_the_phoenix_vtol_ssto_and_recent_developments_in_single_stage_launch_systems.shtml

Quote
The principal difference between Delta Clipper and previous VTOL SSTO concepts is that the Clipper will reenter nose, rather than base, first. This decision was made to improve the limited crossrange available to base-entry vehicles. It remains to be seen whether the crossrange will be worth the price paid in additional thermal protection required for the lifting entry, as well as the forced acceptance of a less efficient structural concept (in contrast to a simpler base-first vehicle).

That's interesting, since Gary Hudson is proposing nose first for his CCDev entry.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: HMXHMX on 06/14/2011 11:43 pm
From Gary Hudson's (1991) article here: http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/history_of_the_phoenix_vtol_ssto_and_recent_developments_in_single_stage_launch_systems.shtml

Quote
The principal difference between Delta Clipper and previous VTOL SSTO concepts is that the Clipper will reenter nose, rather than base, first. This decision was made to improve the limited crossrange available to base-entry vehicles. It remains to be seen whether the crossrange will be worth the price paid in additional thermal protection required for the lifting entry, as well as the forced acceptance of a less efficient structural concept (in contrast to a simpler base-first vehicle).

That's interesting, since Gary Hudson is proposing nose first for his CCDev entry.

You have the tense wrong; proposed.  ;)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Lobo on 06/15/2011 12:10 am

I'd guess they plan to land like DC-X. After all, that's where all their expertise is, and everything we know about Blue Origin's spacecraft points in that direction (including the fact that their suborbital test vehicle lands like that).

But the Biconic will "fly"/reenter like Shuttle (which I grant is kind of weird, since I think it's landing like DC-X), on its side.

All propulsive landing is cool, but does anyone have some sort of SWAG guestimate of volume and mass requirements of a propulsive landing system vs. a parafoil and landing gear?  (Or a parafoil with mid air capture)
Seems like a parafoil would be more volume/mass efficient, but I have nothing to actually base that on.  I guess SpaceX thinks they can build one into the existing space of the dragon capsule, so maybe it won't require as much volume/mass as I'm thinking...
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: docmordrid on 06/15/2011 01:42 am
At most Dragon would have to be decelerated from its terminal velicity, IIRC in an earlier thread that was guesstimated at abiut 250 mph, so start calculating from there.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: telomerase99 on 06/16/2011 02:52 am
Is there any way that you could harvest oxidizer ie O2 on your way in on reentry to fill your tanks so that you would only have to carry the H2 for example if you did a LOX powered earth lander?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/16/2011 03:00 am
Is there any way that you could harvest oxidizer ie O2 on your way in on reentry to fill your tanks so that you would only have to carry the H2 for example if you did a LOX powered earth lander?
Or even, push on the atmosphere itself...

...Look, there's lots better ways to just use deployable aerosurfaces to slow down. Which Blue Origin is planning (at least on their reusable booster).
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Danderman on 06/16/2011 03:08 am
How about a separate thread for Blue Origin on technical issues, and leave this one for updates?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Bernie Roehl on 06/16/2011 09:43 am
How about a separate thread for Blue Origin on technical issues, and leave this one for updates?


I like that idea. However, given how Blue Origin has chosen to play their cards close to their chest, I doubt if the technical thread will see much traffic.

Aside from "biconic capsule launched on Atlas V, and later on a reusable two-stage hydrolox booster", is there anything we actually now about Blue Origin's tech?

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Danderman on 06/16/2011 02:46 pm
Let's use this thread for updates from and on Blue Origin, and use another thread for technical discussions:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=25556.0

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Zond on 06/18/2011 10:58 pm
It's not related to Blue Origin but Bezos is building a 10000 year clock on land he owns in the Sierra Diablo mountain range (this is the mountain range to the west of the Blue Origin launch site).
http://www.10000yearclock.net/learnmore.html (http://www.10000yearclock.net/learnmore.html)

The clock is however somewhat space related:
Quote
Carved into the mountain are five room-sized anniversary chambers: 1 year, 10 year, 100 year, 1,000 year, and 10,000 year anniversaries. The one year anniversary chamber is a special orrery. In addition to the planets and the Earth's moon, it includes all of the interplanetary probes launched during the 20th century, humankind's first century in space. Among others, you'll see the Grand Tour: Voyager 2's swing by of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. The Clock will activate and run the orrery once a year on a pre-determined date at solar noon.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: simonbp on 06/19/2011 06:11 am
What, no New Horizons? It's pretty much the same sort of trajectory as Voyager 2...
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: NotGncDude on 06/19/2011 05:46 pm
From Gary Hudson's (1991) article here: http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/history_of_the_phoenix_vtol_ssto_and_recent_developments_in_single_stage_launch_systems.shtml

Quote
The principal difference between Delta Clipper and previous VTOL SSTO concepts is that the Clipper will reenter nose, rather than base, first. This decision was made to improve the limited crossrange available to base-entry vehicles. It remains to be seen whether the crossrange will be worth the price paid in additional thermal protection required for the lifting entry, as well as the forced acceptance of a less efficient structural concept (in contrast to a simpler base-first vehicle).

That's interesting, since Gary Hudson is proposing nose first for his CCDev entry.

You have the tense wrong; proposed.  ;)

True. True. But what do you think these days? Bottom first or nose first? (hmm, maybe that's for a different thread)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: HMXHMX on 06/19/2011 10:49 pm
From Gary Hudson's (1991) article here: http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/history_of_the_phoenix_vtol_ssto_and_recent_developments_in_single_stage_launch_systems.shtml

Quote
The principal difference between Delta Clipper and previous VTOL SSTO concepts is that the Clipper will reenter nose, rather than base, first. This decision was made to improve the limited crossrange available to base-entry vehicles. It remains to be seen whether the crossrange will be worth the price paid in additional thermal protection required for the lifting entry, as well as the forced acceptance of a less efficient structural concept (in contrast to a simpler base-first vehicle).

That's interesting, since Gary Hudson is proposing nose first for his CCDev entry.

You have the tense wrong; proposed.  ;)

True. True. But what do you think these days? Bottom first or nose first? (hmm, maybe that's for a different thread)

See my reply in the t/Space thread.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 07/04/2011 03:51 pm
CCDev-2 bi-monthly update:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/563409main_201106_Commercial_60day_Report_508.pdf

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 07/04/2011 05:59 pm
Although, the information in the article makes it sound like SpaceX, it's more likely related to Blue Origin:
http://www.hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=30642#c
http://www.themonitor.com/news/spaceport-52431-talks-county.html
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2011/07/05/mystery-company-could-build-new-spaceport-on-texas-gulf-coast/
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/05/2011 02:17 pm
Although, the information in the article makes it sound like SpaceX, it's more likely related to Blue Origin:
http://www.hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=30642#c
http://www.themonitor.com/news/spaceport-52431-talks-county.html
Yes, that's very exciting stuff.

After all, much of Blue Origin is already in Texas.

Blue Origin is the dark horse.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Nate_Trost on 07/05/2011 02:43 pm
Huh? Pretty sure most of their workforce and facilities are in the Seattle area.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 07/05/2011 02:57 pm
Huh? Pretty sure most of their workforce and facilities are in the Seattle area.

Blue Origin already owns land in Texas (Corn Ranch). See this article from 2006:
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2006/06/26/207423/faa-report-reveals-details-of-blue-origin-space-tourism-vehicle-planned-by-amazon.com-founder-jeff.html
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/05/2011 03:17 pm
Huh? Pretty sure most of their workforce and facilities are in the Seattle area.
Noted and edited.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: NotGncDude on 07/05/2011 03:24 pm
Huh? Pretty sure most of their workforce and facilities are in the Seattle area.

Blue Origin already owns land in Texas (Corn Ranch). See this article from 2006:
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2006/06/26/207423/faa-report-reveals-details-of-blue-origin-space-tourism-vehicle-planned-by-amazon.com-founder-jeff.html

Loved that article! Thanks! It shows in writing how behind Blue Origin is on their schedule.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: simonbp on 07/05/2011 07:45 pm
Well, there has been a bit a recession between now and 2006, so Bezos's funds might not have been as forthcoming as planned.

Still, as long as Scaled/VG and Xcor are delayed too, Blue Origin isn't that far behind...
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/05/2011 07:46 pm
Well, there has been a bit a recession between now and 2006, so Bezos's funds might not have been as forthcoming as planned.

Still, as long as Scaled/VG and Xcor are delayed too, Blue Origin isn't that far behind...
Blue Origin isn't just competing for suborbital... That's just a fraction of what they're going for.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: NotGncDude on 07/09/2011 06:17 am
Well, there has been a bit a recession between now and 2006, so Bezos's funds might not have been as forthcoming as planned.

Still, as long as Scaled/VG and Xcor are delayed too, Blue Origin isn't that far behind...

Well... given that BO is sinking $50 million a year of Amazo-bucks (per their own admission) I think they're on a different league. How much is that since they started in the early 2000's ?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: NotGncDude on 07/09/2011 06:19 am
Well, there has been a bit a recession between now and 2006, so Bezos's funds might not have been as forthcoming as planned.

Still, as long as Scaled/VG and Xcor are delayed too, Blue Origin isn't that far behind...
Blue Origin isn't just competing for suborbital... That's just a fraction of what they're going for.

Well, if you're quoting public claims then suborbital is just a fraction of what Masten, Armadillo, XCOR and Virgin are going for. They've also shown *some* interest on orbital stuff.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 07/09/2011 01:47 pm
Although, the information in the article makes it sound like SpaceX, it's more likely related to Blue Origin:
http://www.hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=30642#c
http://www.themonitor.com/news/spaceport-52431-talks-county.html
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2011/07/05/mystery-company-could-build-new-spaceport-on-texas-gulf-coast/

It looks like it was SpaceX after all (and not Blue Origin).

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/07/08/pm-elon-musk-on-the-future-of-space-travel-and-exploration/

Elon still believes in the fully and rapid turnaround vehicle.

Interesting:

Quote
Ryssdal: And how does it go from here to Florida?

Musk: It goes from here to Texas to get test fired and then it goes to Cape Canaveral, Vandenberg, which is back to California, or we're considering establishing a third site as well which it might be in Texas or somewhere else.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: NotGncDude on 07/09/2011 11:19 pm
It does, doesn't it?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: mr. mark on 08/23/2011 03:28 pm
Blue Origin has a flight planned in the next few days. Most likely suborbital.
http://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_1_3552.html
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: apace on 08/23/2011 03:30 pm
Blue Origin has a flight planned in the next few days. Most likely suborbital.
http://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_1_3552.html

Can someone of you guys there go out and make a few photos? We need more information what's going on the Blue Origin ;-)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Comga on 08/23/2011 03:36 pm
Blue Origin has a flight planned in the next few days.
Beginning Date and Time :  August 24, 2011 at 1200 UTC 
Ending Date and Time :      August 24, 2011 at 1700 UTC 
i.e. Wednesday morning

Most likely suborbital.

Altitude:  From the surface up to and including 18000 feet MSL
definitely suborbital, in case there was a question
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: NotGncDude on 08/23/2011 04:16 pm
Blue Origin has a flight planned in the next few days. Most likely suborbital.
http://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_1_3552.html

Blue Origin doesn't have an orbital capability (yet, and orbital is many years away)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: mr. mark on 08/23/2011 04:19 pm
LOL who knows what Blue Origin has or does not have? They seem to be just behind Area 51 in the openness department. 
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: apace on 08/23/2011 04:23 pm
LOL who knows what Blue Origin has or does not have? They seem to be just behind Area 51 in the openness department. 

And their website looks like created in the last century ;-)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Downix on 08/23/2011 04:42 pm
LOL who knows what Blue Origin has or does not have? They seem to be just behind Area 51 in the openness department. 

And their website looks like created in the last century ;-)
I remember making those kinds of websites... Makes me miss my dad.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: corrodedNut on 08/23/2011 05:55 pm
What does "PM2" stand for?

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/launch_data/current_permits/
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: simonbp on 08/23/2011 07:39 pm
Propulsion Module 2?
Peacock Mauler 2?
Poetry Machine 2?
Practicality Missing 2?
Petunia Missile 2?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: apace on 08/23/2011 07:43 pm
Propulsion Module 2?
Peacock Mauler 2?
Poetry Machine 2?
Practicality Missing 2?
Petunia Missile 2?

Paper Mario 2
;-)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: HMXHMX on 08/23/2011 08:16 pm
What does "PM2" stand for?

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/launch_data/current_permits/

I'd guess Personnel Module.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 08/23/2011 08:25 pm
PM = Propulsion Module, aka Goddard.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: MarekCyzio on 08/24/2011 03:45 pm
Any news? The window will close soon...

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Jason1701 on 08/24/2011 03:47 pm
They've had test flights like this before, and there is almost never any news. Don't hold your breath.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Zond on 08/24/2011 08:31 pm
What does "PM2" stand for?

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/launch_data/current_permits/

http://procurement.ksc.nasa.gov/documents/NNK11MS02S_SAA_BlueOrigin_04-18-2011.pdf (http://procurement.ksc.nasa.gov/documents/NNK11MS02S_SAA_BlueOrigin_04-18-2011.pdf)
p42
Quote
New Shepard Propulsion Module (PM) PM1 (also known as Goddard), PM2, PM3, PM4
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: mr. mark on 08/25/2011 05:42 pm
According to sources the Blue Origin flight never happened....?

"the request from Blue Origin has mysteriously disappeared".   ???

http://nasawatch.com/archives/2011/08/blue-origin-tes.html

Ok, I've heard about secrets but this is positively black ops. Don't know what to think. The flight could have happened and it was covered up or it just never happened because of technical issues. Oh, the mystery.........


Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Zond on 08/26/2011 06:55 pm
Seattle Area Conference on Science Education (http://www.nsta.org/pdfs/2011SeattlePreview.pdf)
Quote
Blue Origin (T-4)
Date: Thursday, December 8, 12:30–3:30 PM
Registration Fee: $41 advance; $46 on-site
It really is rocket science! We are excited to offer the chance for
up to 10 conference attendees to tour Blue Origin, a privately
funded aerospace company. Blue Origin is committed to lowering
the cost of spaceflight, thus allowing more people access
to space. The company is focused on vertical takeoff and
landing launch vehicles and has made successful flights
to demonstrate that unique concept. Visit the production/
assembly floor and see where the next generation of launch
vehicles is being developed.
Note: All tour participants must be U.S. citizens and must
be willing to sign a nondisclosure agreement. No cameras
or camera phones are to be used at any time during the tour.

Better be quick!
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Zond on 09/02/2011 07:17 pm
Blue Origin crash?
Bezos-Funded Spaceship Misfires (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904716604576546712416626614.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/02/2011 07:44 pm
Blue Origin crash?
Bezos-Funded Spaceship Misfires (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904716604576546712416626614.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)

Quote
The mishap dealt a potentially major blow to the ambitions of Mr. Bezos, the founder and chief executive of Amazon.com Inc., to develop a system able to reliably blast tourists and eventually astronauts out of the atmosphere.
Says who?
Quote
The serious malfunctions, which haven't been disclosed by the company or reported previously, also could set back White House plans to promote a range of commercially developed spacecraft designed to transport crews to the International Space Station by the second half of this decade.
The least-funded (among 4) commercial crew contenders has a crash of an unmanned test vehicle, and all of a sudden the whole program is called into question? Methinks the author is putting a little spin on this story.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: jongoff on 09/02/2011 08:02 pm
Blue Origin crash?
Bezos-Funded Spaceship Misfires (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904716604576546712416626614.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)

Quote
The mishap dealt a potentially major blow to the ambitions of Mr. Bezos, the founder and chief executive of Amazon.com Inc., to develop a system able to reliably blast tourists and eventually astronauts out of the atmosphere.
Says who?
Quote
The serious malfunctions, which haven't been disclosed by the company or reported previously, also could set back White House plans to promote a range of commercially developed spacecraft designed to transport crews to the International Space Station by the second half of this decade.
The least-funded (among 4) commercial crew contenders has a crash of an unmanned test vehicle, and all of a sudden the whole program is called into question? Methinks the author is putting a little spin on this story.

Well, this *is* Andy Pasztor we're talking about.  The guy's had an axe to grind against commercial space for a long time.  While news of the test failure is interesting, it's not at all surprising that Andy would try to push this as yet another reason to bash commercial crew. 
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Jose on 09/02/2011 08:27 pm
Well, this *is* Andy Pasztor we're talking about.  The guy's had an axe to grind against commercial space for a long time.  While news of the test failure is interesting, it's not at all surprising that Andy would try to push this as yet another reason to bash commercial crew. 

The article is a little longer now, but it may actually be worse

Quote
The latest event, however, isn't expected to have a direct impact on Blue Origin's access to federal dollars, government officials said...

I'd never heard of this person before. Why is he impersonating a journalist? More importantly, why the WSJ letting him?


Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: corrodedNut on 09/02/2011 08:48 pm
The article is a little longer now, but it may actually be worse

Quote
The latest event, however, isn't expected to have a direct impact on Blue Origin's access to federal dollars, government officials said...

That's because, if this is a test of "Propulsion Module 2", it is unrelated to Blue Origin's CCDev2 work. Which of course, Andy Past-snore neglects to mention.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: simonbp on 09/02/2011 09:02 pm
Still, this is not exactly the kind thing you want to hear from anyone:

Quote
The exact nature and cause of the failure were unclear, but remnants of the spacecraft could provide clues for investigators.

Doesn't exactly sound like an "intact recovery"...
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 09/02/2011 09:03 pm
Bad luck that… I feel for the team. Pick up the pieces, learn from it and keep moving forward. Never give up!
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Danderman on 09/02/2011 09:07 pm
One of the best ways to learn the rocket business is to experience something like this. Having said that, it doesn't appear that the crash was due to use of H2O2 as an oxidizer, which means that Mr. Bezos might still be a believer in the Peroxide Cult. In other words, an even bigger spontaneous unplanned rapid dis-assembly is still in the cards for Blue Origen.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/02/2011 09:09 pm
Now this piece of trash some might jokingly call "journalism" is on Fox News.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: NotGncDude on 09/02/2011 09:15 pm
One of the best ways to learn the rocket business is to experience something like this. Having said that, it doesn't appear that the crash was due to use of H2O2 as an oxidizer, which means that Mr. Bezos might still be a believer in the Peroxide Cult. In other words, an even bigger spontaneous unplanned rapid dis-assembly is still in the cards for Blue Origen.


What? People have been using peroxide for rockets since like forever with very little unplanned rapid dis-assembly to show for as a result. H2O2 has its issues but that is not one of them.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Patchouli on 09/02/2011 09:26 pm
One of the best ways to learn the rocket business is to experience something like this. Having said that, it doesn't appear that the crash was due to use of H2O2 as an oxidizer, which means that Mr. Bezos might still be a believer in the Peroxide Cult. In other words, an even bigger spontaneous unplanned rapid dis-assembly is still in the cards for Blue Origen.


What? People have been using peroxide for rockets since like forever with very little unplanned rapid dis-assembly to show for as a result. H2O2 has its issues but that is not one of them.

It is still used in the RCS on the Soyuz descent module.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Zond on 09/02/2011 09:30 pm
Successful Short Hop, Set Back, and Next Vehicle (http://www.blueorigin.com/letter.htm)

Quote
Three months ago, we successfully flew our second test vehicle in a short hop mission, and then last week we lost the vehicle during a developmental test at Mach 1.2 and an altitude of 45,000 feet. A flight instability drove an angle of attack that triggered our range safety system to terminate thrust on the vehicle. Not the outcome any of us wanted, but we're signed up for this to be hard, and the Blue Origin team is doing an outstanding job. We're already working on our next development vehicle.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: mmeijeri on 09/02/2011 09:33 pm
Quote
Three months ago, we successfully flew our second test vehicle in a short hop mission, and then last week we lost the vehicle during a developmental test at Mach 1.2 and an altitude of 45,000 feet.

Ahead of the pack (Masten, Armadillo, the Breeds) in other words.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: SpacexULA on 09/02/2011 09:38 pm
Successful Short Hop, Set Back, and Next Vehicle (http://www.blueorigin.com/letter.htm)

Quote
Three months ago, we successfully flew our second test vehicle in a short hop mission, and then last week we lost the vehicle during a developmental test at Mach 1.2 and an altitude of 45,000 feet. A flight instability drove an angle of attack that triggered our range safety system to terminate thrust on the vehicle. Not the outcome any of us wanted, but we're signed up for this to be hard, and the Blue Origin team is doing an outstanding job. We're already working on our next development vehicle.

45,000 feet and Mach 1.2....  That's got to be a little shock for Masten and Armadillo.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Downix on 09/02/2011 09:46 pm
Now this piece of trash some might jokingly call "journalism" is on Fox News.
Um, you do know WSJ and Fox News are the same company now right? They have been for a few years.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: JimO on 09/02/2011 09:49 pm
"Gradatim Ferociter". Working, or making progress, patiently by frequent and small steps ALL with a steely determination.

Ad Astra per Aspera, in other words.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Patchouli on 09/02/2011 10:14 pm
Successful Short Hop, Set Back, and Next Vehicle (http://www.blueorigin.com/letter.htm)

Quote
Three months ago, we successfully flew our second test vehicle in a short hop mission, and then last week we lost the vehicle during a developmental test at Mach 1.2 and an altitude of 45,000 feet. A flight instability drove an angle of attack that triggered our range safety system to terminate thrust on the vehicle. Not the outcome any of us wanted, but we're signed up for this to be hard, and the Blue Origin team is doing an outstanding job. We're already working on our next development vehicle.

45,000 feet and Mach 1.2....  That's got to be a little shock for Masten and Armadillo.


I think you could call it a partial success even though the test vehicle was lost.

Can't tell much about the failure but it apparently had nothing to do with the choice of propellants.

Could have been anything from aerodynamic instability at mach 1 +,fuel slosh,or just a software bug.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Danderman on 09/02/2011 10:14 pm
One of the best ways to learn the rocket business is to experience something like this. Having said that, it doesn't appear that the crash was due to use of H2O2 as an oxidizer, which means that Mr. Bezos might still be a believer in the Peroxide Cult. In other words, an even bigger spontaneous unplanned rapid dis-assembly is still in the cards for Blue Origen.


What? People have been using peroxide for rockets since like forever with very little unplanned rapid dis-assembly to show for as a result. H2O2 has its issues but that is not one of them.

Peroxide is an oxidizer for large rocket engines (as opposed to small thrusters) have a very sad history.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: uko on 09/02/2011 10:17 pm
Successful Short Hop, Set Back, and Next Vehicle (http://www.blueorigin.com/letter.htm)

omg.. this almost 5 years after the previous official update
another 5 to wait for the next? ;)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: jongoff on 09/02/2011 10:19 pm
Quote
Three months ago, we successfully flew our second test vehicle in a short hop mission, and then last week we lost the vehicle during a developmental test at Mach 1.2 and an altitude of 45,000 feet.

Ahead of the pack (Masten, Armadillo, the Breeds) in other words.

One would definitely hope.  Masten, AA, and the Breeds together have spent less than $10M total.  Blue Origin has spent upwards of $100-200M.

~Jon
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: corrodedNut on 09/02/2011 10:19 pm
I'm glad they went with the update, seems like the right thing to do. Here's to more openness!
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/02/2011 10:21 pm
One of the best ways to learn the rocket business is to experience something like this. Having said that, it doesn't appear that the crash was due to use of H2O2 as an oxidizer, which means that Mr. Bezos might still be a believer in the Peroxide Cult. In other words, an even bigger spontaneous unplanned rapid dis-assembly is still in the cards for Blue Origen.


What? People have been using peroxide for rockets since like forever with very little unplanned rapid dis-assembly to show for as a result. H2O2 has its issues but that is not one of them.

Peroxide is an oxidizer for large rocket engines (as opposed to small thrusters) have a very sad history.

Luckily their large orbital rockets are going to use hydrogen and oxygen. Only landing thrusters will be used with hydrogen peroxide from what I can tell. Hydrogen peroxide is also better understood than it was back then. As long as you treat it with respect (and I expect that they have, since Blue Origin has assembled a professional team, from the snippets I've heard), it's just about as good as any other oxidizer... There are no nice oxidizers.

Let it become contaminated, and it can easily blow up on you, like any other oxidizer.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/02/2011 10:29 pm
I'm glad they went with the update, seems like the right thing to do. Here's to more openness!
Awesome!

Operating in different flight regimes is difficult... As you go from subsonic through transonic to supersonic, you go from incompressible to compressible flow... lots of things change. It should be expected that failures happen in a test program. And you most certainly have to test this sort of thing.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: brtbrt on 09/02/2011 10:38 pm
One of the best ways to learn the rocket business is to experience something like this. Having said that, it doesn't appear that the crash was due to use of H2O2 as an oxidizer, which means that Mr. Bezos might still be a believer in the Peroxide Cult. In other words, an even bigger spontaneous unplanned rapid dis-assembly is still in the cards for Blue Origen.


What? People have been using peroxide for rockets since like forever with very little unplanned rapid dis-assembly to show for as a result. H2O2 has its issues but that is not one of them.

Peroxide is an oxidizer for large rocket engines (as opposed to small thrusters) have a very sad history.

Luckily their large orbital rockets are going to use hydrogen and oxygen. Only landing thrusters will be used with hydrogen peroxide from what I can tell. Hydrogen peroxide is also better understood than it was back then. As long as you treat it with respect (and I expect that they have, since Blue Origin has assembled a professional team, from the snippets I've heard), it's just about as good as any other oxidizer... There are no nice oxidizers.

Let it become contaminated, and it can easily blow up on you, like any other oxidizer.

The engine exhaust doesn't look like either HTP monoprop (which would be almost entirely transparent) or LOX/LH2 (pure blue).

To me, it looks like either HTP-Kero or LOX-Kero. I'm betting on the latter, as there are signs of what appears to be LOX boil-off in two of the four pictures. Although I'm not too sure about the fuel being Kero. It could be another hydrocarbon.

Re: HTP as oxidizer: it works well in small quantities confined by tankage/plumbing that conducts heat well. In large batches, as with Nitrous, consequences of even tiny initial decomposition are more dire, as any initial heat doesn't get to tank/pipe walls quickly enough to be quenched. So large tanks and pipes have a higher chance of going boom than the smaller ones, all other things being equal.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: mmeijeri on 09/02/2011 10:43 pm
Interesting to see they have multiple engines. I hadn't seen that before in the New Space world.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/02/2011 10:49 pm
Interesting to see they have multiple engines. I hadn't seen that before in the New Space world.
I believe Armadillo has done some of that. They've done A LOT of different configurations, actually.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: jongoff on 09/02/2011 11:04 pm
Interesting to see they have multiple engines. I hadn't seen that before in the New Space world.
I believe Armadillo has done some of that. They've done A LOT of different configurations, actually.

Masten originally had four engines, and had been intending to do 12...before sanity struck and the pedaled back to just one.  Though I'm pretty sure they'll want to do multi-engine again at some point.

~Jon
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/02/2011 11:12 pm
Interesting to see they have multiple engines. I hadn't seen that before in the New Space world.
I believe Armadillo has done some of that. They've done A LOT of different configurations, actually.

Masten originally had four engines, and had been intending to do 12...before sanity struck and the pedaled back to just one.  Though I'm pretty sure they'll want to do multi-engine again at some point.

~Jon
I think I remember how you were saying that at that scale, T/W increases pretty greatly with increasing scale. So, a 4 engine configuration would be heavier than a single engine config with the same total thrust at the scale you guys were working on for LLC.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: corrodedNut on 09/02/2011 11:14 pm
Interesting to see they have multiple engines. I hadn't seen that before in the New Space world.

I guess you don't consider SpaceX to be "New Space" then....
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: mmeijeri on 09/02/2011 11:17 pm
I guess you don't consider SpaceX to be "New Space" then....

Heh, that's a good point. You can think of Blue Origin as the smallest of the big boys, or the biggest of the small startups. Their vehicle is more similar to those of the small ones than to Falcon of course. It does show how more (and early!) funding can help a lot.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: corrodedNut on 09/02/2011 11:37 pm
From here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2011/09/02/jeff-bezos-spacecraft-blows-up-in-secret-test-flight-locals-describe-challenger-like-explosion/

"One said it was just like the Challenger: an explosion, then a stream of smoke in the sky."

And from the earlier WSJ article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904716604576546712416626614.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

"Blue Origin said it lost control of the vehicle at 45,000 feet and the spacecraft was destroyed during the test flight as a precaution."

And here: http://news.discovery.com/space/bad-day-for-jeff-bezos-rocket-company-110902.html

"The vehicle was destroyed at an altitude of 45,000 feet. It was traveling at 1.2 times the speed of sound at the time."

They make it sound as if there was some explosive termination system on board.  I guess if it was travelling that fast, and lost control, it would disintegrate even without needing to "be destroyed".
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: JMS on 09/03/2011 12:20 am
"A flight instability drove an angle of attack that triggered our range safety system to terminate thrust on the vehicle.
Jeff Bezos
September 2, 2011"
http://www.blueorigin.com/letter.htm
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: NotGncDude on 09/03/2011 12:54 am
One of the best ways to learn the rocket business is to experience something like this. Having said that, it doesn't appear that the crash was due to use of H2O2 as an oxidizer, which means that Mr. Bezos might still be a believer in the Peroxide Cult. In other words, an even bigger spontaneous unplanned rapid dis-assembly is still in the cards for Blue Origen.


What? People have been using peroxide for rockets since like forever with very little unplanned rapid dis-assembly to show for as a result. H2O2 has its issues but that is not one of them.

Peroxide is an oxidizer for large rocket engines (as opposed to small thrusters) have a very sad history.

Luckily their large orbital rockets are going to use hydrogen and oxygen. Only landing thrusters will be used with hydrogen peroxide from what I can tell. Hydrogen peroxide is also better understood than it was back then. As long as you treat it with respect (and I expect that they have, since Blue Origin has assembled a professional team, from the snippets I've heard), it's just about as good as any other oxidizer... There are no nice oxidizers.

Let it become contaminated, and it can easily blow up on you, like any other oxidizer.

The engine exhaust doesn't look like either HTP monoprop (which would be almost entirely transparent) or LOX/LH2 (pure blue).

To me, it looks like either HTP-Kero or LOX-Kero. I'm betting on the latter, as there are signs of what appears to be LOX boil-off in two of the four pictures. Although I'm not too sure about the fuel being Kero. It could be another hydrocarbon.

Re: HTP as oxidizer: it works well in small quantities confined by tankage/plumbing that conducts heat well. In large batches, as with Nitrous, consequences of even tiny initial decomposition are more dire, as any initial heat doesn't get to tank/pipe walls quickly enough to be quenched. So large tanks and pipes have a higher chance of going boom than the smaller ones, all other things being equal.


It's H2O2 and Kero. That's being said publicly somewhere...
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: NotGncDude on 09/03/2011 12:56 am
One of the best ways to learn the rocket business is to experience something like this. Having said that, it doesn't appear that the crash was due to use of H2O2 as an oxidizer, which means that Mr. Bezos might still be a believer in the Peroxide Cult. In other words, an even bigger spontaneous unplanned rapid dis-assembly is still in the cards for Blue Origen.


What? People have been using peroxide for rockets since like forever with very little unplanned rapid dis-assembly to show for as a result. H2O2 has its issues but that is not one of them.

Peroxide is an oxidizer for large rocket engines (as opposed to small thrusters) have a very sad history.


I guess I am not familiar with that history, so color me ignorant. What rockets are these? Beal Aerospace?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: NotGncDude on 09/03/2011 12:57 am
Quote
Three months ago, we successfully flew our second test vehicle in a short hop mission, and then last week we lost the vehicle during a developmental test at Mach 1.2 and an altitude of 45,000 feet.

Ahead of the pack (Masten, Armadillo, the Breeds) in other words.

One would definitely hope.  Masten, AA, and the Breeds together have spent less than $10M total.  Blue Origin has spent upwards of $100-200M.

~Jon

Much more than that. Much more. Those number were thrown around years ago.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: JimO on 09/03/2011 03:15 am
So it cratered within hours of the Progress failure. Any better ideas out there about exactly WHEN it hit the ground?

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: simonbp on 09/03/2011 04:12 am
I guess I am not familiar with that history, so color me ignorant. What rockets are these? Beal Aerospace?

IIRC, the biggest was Black Arrow, which had an OK record; 2/4 flights were failures, but not really due to the use of peroxide...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Arrow
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: savuporo on 09/03/2011 04:26 am
Just a stray thought. Bezos should team up or consult with Yoshifumi Inatani.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/03/2011 05:25 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13qeX98tAS8
During the Cold War, we blew up a LOT of rockets.

Good thing we didn't give up on that spaceflight thing, huh? Otherwise we'd be without GPS, accurate weather forecasts, etc.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: docmordrid on 09/03/2011 05:57 am
http://www.blueorigin.com/letter.htm (http://www.blueorigin.com/letter.htm)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: kkattula on 09/03/2011 06:33 am
Well done Blue Origin for trying something new and taking a risk!

If they're anything like the rest of the VTVL crowd, they probably expect to lose a test vehicle now and then, while hoping they don't.


BTW, I'm no aerodynamics expert, but those fins make me nervous.  I can't see them adding much stability on the way up, with possibly some nasty effects in the trans-sonic region.

I guess they act as canards on the way down, with the 'drag curtin' deployed. Maybe they're steerable?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: docmordrid on 09/03/2011 06:52 am
This gives a better look (I adjusted the levels from their muddy pic)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: douglas100 on 09/03/2011 09:23 am

IIRC, the biggest was Black Arrow, which had an OK record; 2/4 flights were failures, but not really due to the use of peroxide...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Arrow

And Black Arrow was based on the smaller Black Knight which flew 22 times with, I believe,  no failures caused by the use of HTP.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: douglas100 on 09/03/2011 09:46 am

To me, it looks like either HTP-Kero or LOX-Kero. I'm betting on the latter, as there are signs of what appears to be LOX boil-off in two of the four pictures. Although I'm not too sure about the fuel being Kero. It could be another hydrocarbon.

Yes, could be either. HTP kerosene as used in Black Arrow had an almost transparent exhaust, unlike the Blue Origin vehicle, but a different fuel oxidiser ratio could change that I suppose. I didn't notice the LOX boil off you mentioned. Nor did there appear to be any umbilicals on the launch platform for topping off a LOX tank. So I'm leaning toward the use of HTP.

Of course Blue Origin could publish some technical information about their vehicle. I personally deplore their almost obsessive secrecy. Someone on this thread called it "black opps." I've got to mostly agree with that.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: mmeijeri on 09/03/2011 10:58 am
I guess they act as canards on the way down, with the 'drag curtin' deployed. Maybe they're steerable?

As nooneofconsequence put it elsewhere: the thing is supposed to come down lawn dart style, though I imagine a nominal final descent and landing goes slightly differently than a lawn dart...
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: mmeijeri on 09/03/2011 11:33 am
I guess you don't consider SpaceX to be "New Space" then....

Heh, that's a good point. You can think of Blue Origin as the smallest of the big boys, or the biggest of the small startups. Their vehicle is more similar to those of the small ones than to Falcon of course. It does show how more (and early!) funding can help a lot.

Oops, I forgot about Space Ship One too!
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Danderman on 09/03/2011 01:54 pm
This gives a better look (I adjusted the levels from their muddy pic)

Any idea how big that thing is?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: edkyle99 on 09/03/2011 02:46 pm
I guess you don't consider SpaceX to be "New Space" then....

"New Space".  Hmmmm.

SpaceX has been around for nearly a decade, has a sweet government contract, and is launching about one rocket per year after substantial schedule slippage.  By some definition's that's how the "Old Space" guys do things.

Then again, SpaceX, like Blue Origin, is still creating new things, being innovative.  That fits the "New" description.

But Orbital, Lockheed Martin, and Boeing are all working on "New" things, like Taurus 2, Orion, CST-100, etc.  Isn't that "New Space" too?

This Blue Origin rocket is definitely "New" - a heartening example of capitalist experimentation and innovation, but the fact that Bezos hid his failure for two weeks until the media dug up the truth - that seems seriously "Old" to me.  SpaceX didn't hide its flight failures - though it tightly "managed" how they were presented.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: JimO on 09/03/2011 04:58 pm
I'm still getting nowhere with this query. Any help?

So it cratered within hours of the Progress failure. Any better ideas out there about exactly WHEN it hit the ground?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: docmordrid on 09/03/2011 05:14 pm
Any idea how big that thing is?

Went to Google Earth and measured the pad diameter at 40 meters. Enlarged the image, accounted for the transform of a circular pad to get the shape in the image, calculated pixels/meter then transferred those measurements to the rocket to get a guesstimate.

Height: 12.2m
Top diameter: 3.7m
Bottom diameter:3.4m

Edit: improved description of process
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Danderman on 09/03/2011 05:16 pm
Any idea how big that thing is?

Went to Google Earth and measured the pad diameter at 40 meters.  Enlarged the image, calculated pixels/meter then transferred those measurements to the rocket to get a guesstimate.

Height: 12.2m
Top diameter: 3.7m
Bottom diameter:3.4m

Given those measurements, any chance that this thing would a viable second stage for Atlas V or Delta IV?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/03/2011 05:21 pm
Any idea how big that thing is?

Went to Google Earth and measured the pad diameter at 40 meters.  Enlarged the image, calculated pixels/meter then transferred those measurements to the rocket to get a guesstimate.

Height: 12.2m
Top diameter: 3.7m
Bottom diameter:3.4m

Given those measurements, any chance that this thing would a viable second stage for Atlas V or Delta IV?

Why?

Blue Origin wants their own orbital rocket.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: MikeAtkinson on 09/03/2011 05:27 pm
This gives a better look (I adjusted the levels from their muddy pic)

Any idea how big that thing is?


I'm guessing judging by the size of the guard rails and the lighting rig about 40 ft high.

Edit: which agrees with docmordrid's estimate.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: docmordrid on 09/03/2011 05:31 pm
12.2m = 40.0262ft

GMTA ;)

Maybe later those "fins" are attachments for deployable recovery structures akin on the TGV Michelle-B X-Prize entry?

Patent for their barge recovery system:

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20110017872.pdf
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: zaitcev on 09/04/2011 04:05 pm
Given those measurements, any chance that this thing would a viable second stage for Atlas V or Delta IV?
What is your definition of "viable"? As far as payload per launch mass goes, it is quite advantageous to optimize the upper stages by Isp. You certaintly do not want HTP/Kero there for that reason. Calculating cost per kg is trickier, unfortunately: you have issues like the launch rate. So, it may produce the elusive Delta-II replacement based on Atlas CCB, but most likely not. I would rather bet on the in-house XCOR-engined stage for that purpose.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: N45deg on 09/04/2011 08:24 pm
The original FAA NOTAM was for up to only 18,000 Mean Sea Level altitude.

What were they doing up at 45,000 ft.  Runaway?

"FDC 1/3552 ZAB TX.. TEMPORARY FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS VAN HORN, TX. EFFECTIVE 1108241200 UTC UNTIL 1108241700 UTC. PURSUANT TO 14 CFR SECTION 91.143 TEMPORARY FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS ARE IN EFFECT DUE TO ROCKET LAUNCH ACTIVITY WITHIN A 17 NM RADIUS OF 312706N/1044546W OR THE SALT FLAT /SFL/ VORTAC 125 DEGREE RADIAL AT 24.3 NAUTICAL MILES SFC TO 18000 MSL. BLUE ORIGIN LLC, TELEPHONE 253-347-2821, IS IN CHARGE OF THE OPERATION. ALBUQUERQUE /ZAB/ ARTCC, 505-856-4500, IS THE FAA COORDINATION FACILITY."
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: zaitcev on 09/05/2011 02:03 am
The original FAA NOTAM was for up to only 18,000 Mean Sea Level altitude.
All of the airspace at and above 18000 feet MSL is Class A above the CONUS. The AirMen for which the the NOtice was disseminated cannot enter it on their own. Presumably whatever internal communication FAA posts to ARTCCs, it contained a warning to prevent routing above the TFR. Note that "NOTAM" was not "up to", the TFR was. The NOTAM is a means of communication, like a newspaper.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: N45deg on 09/05/2011 02:39 am
Understood, however, I find it very hard to believe the excellent engineers at Blue Horizons blew their peak expected altitude by almost double!  If they were planning on a controlled  landing, they may have burned away what they needed and had to terminate.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Silmfeanor on 09/05/2011 11:21 am
Understood, however, I find it very hard to believe the excellent engineers at Blue Horizons blew their peak expected altitude by almost double!  If they were planning on a controlled  landing, they may have burned away what they needed and had to terminate.

That is not what zaitcev said; he merely said that this notice was for up to 18000 feet. If you are allowed to fly higher then that, you'll get another notice or will be routed around it by ATC. If you flew in a liner and it was higher then this you'd get routed around it; the NOTAM is only part of the message.
So there is nothing here that indicates that they blew their peak expected alltitutde; it might well have been in excess of 60000 feet, for all we know.
We also know that this is certainly not the reason they terminated; it says that in the letter.

From Blue Origin's letter:

Quote
A flight instability drove an angle of attack that triggered our range safety system to terminate thrust on the vehicle

Nothing here says anything about peak expected alltitude; neither does the notam; it's not the problem.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: kevin-rf on 09/05/2011 01:57 pm
Now this piece of trash some might jokingly call "journalism" is on Fox News.
Um, you do know WSJ and Fox News are the same company now right? They have been for a few years.
Small nit, owned by the same parent company... There is a difference.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/09/2011 11:06 pm
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/awst/2011/09/12/AW_09_12_2011_p39-366720.xml
Quote
The failure last month was unrelated to the CCDev-2 tasks, according to Phil MacAlister, who runs the CCDev program for NASA.

“The vehicle used during the test was intended for suborbital trajectories, with no crew capsule, no abort system, and used a very different engine,” MacAlister says. “NASA does not foresee any negative ramifications of this test flight anomaly on the company’s ability to perform on its CCDev 2 SAA with NASA.”

(also, the suborbital rocket was/is using peroxide and RP-1, which isn't surprising)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: mmeijeri on 09/09/2011 11:13 pm
Interesting to see (partial) confirmation peroxide is still in the picture.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Zond on 09/10/2011 03:01 pm
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/awst/2011/09/12/AW_09_12_2011_p39-366720.xml
Quote
The failure last month was unrelated to the CCDev-2 tasks, according to Phil MacAlister, who runs the CCDev program for NASA.

“The vehicle used during the test was intended for suborbital trajectories, with no crew capsule, no abort system, and used a very different engine,” MacAlister says. “NASA does not foresee any negative ramifications of this test flight anomaly on the company’s ability to perform on its CCDev 2 SAA with NASA.”

(also, the suborbital rocket was/is using peroxide and RP-1, which isn't surprising)

From the article:
Quote
By comparison, the cylindrical vehicle that failed had three engines that pushed it beyond the speed of sound before its attitude control system—which included four fins at the bottom of the cylinder—sent it into an angle of attack that triggered the range-safety abort.

If i look at the pictures on the Blue Origin website i see three engines used for the liftoff of the "hop" test and two used for the landing. The picture of the second test isn't very clear but is think i see 5 different rocket plumes.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: e of pi on 09/12/2011 03:04 pm
Does anyone have any estimates on any intended use of this vehicle type other than testing? If most of the volume is fuel tankage, then simply approximating it as a cylinder suggests it could carry maybe 120-140 tons of fuel by my estimates. What role is this intended for? It seems like a fair bit of capability, but I'm not seeing where it links up with any particular intended use.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Jason1701 on 09/12/2011 04:10 pm
Does anyone have any estimates on any intended use of this vehicle type other than testing? If most of the volume is fuel tankage, then simply approximating it as a cylinder suggests it could carry maybe 120-140 tons of fuel by my estimates. What role is this intended for? It seems like a fair bit of capability, but I'm not seeing where it links up with any particular intended use.

My guess is it's a negatively-stretched version of the Reusable Booster System. Its drag flaps match up with those in the patent drawing.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Zond on 09/12/2011 05:58 pm
A visit to the crash site:
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=76459 (http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=76459)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: robertross on 09/12/2011 08:50 pm
A visit to the crash site:
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=76459 (http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=76459)

Thanks for the link.

Unfortunate for the team. Chin up!
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: zaitcev on 09/13/2011 08:23 pm
Does anyone have any estimates on any intended use of this vehicle type other than testing? If most of the volume is fuel tankage, then simply approximating it as a cylinder suggests it could carry maybe 120-140 tons of fuel by my estimates. What role is this intended for? It seems like a fair bit of capability, but I'm not seeing where it links up with any particular intended use.

It's the booster for the suborbital capsule.

RBS is way different due to different fuel, although it may use some of the same design decisions, e.g. the fins and skirt.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: mmeijeri on 09/13/2011 08:34 pm
RBS is way different due to different fuel, although it may use some of the same design decisions, e.g. the fins and skirt.

Has anything been said about the propellants for the first stage? We've heard about the second stage (LOX/LH2), but I don't recall anything about the first stage.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/13/2011 09:23 pm
RBS is way different due to different fuel, although it may use some of the same design decisions, e.g. the fins and skirt.

Has anything been said about the propellants for the first stage? We've heard about the second stage (LOX/LH2), but I don't recall anything about the first stage.
I think the idea was Lox/H2 for both stages of the RBS.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: neilh on 09/24/2011 05:57 pm
Regarding Blue Origin's primary funding source, Jeff Bezos apparently gained $6.5 billion in the past year:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2011/09/22/jeff-bezos-amazons-rocket-man-keeps-getting-richer/
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: docmordrid on 09/24/2011 07:59 pm
And if the rumored merger of Netflix & Amazon is true he'll be able to fund NASA next year  :P
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 09/24/2011 08:57 pm
Maybe someone can interest him in investing in depots. Set up a consortium of SpaceX to provide FH for large tanker launches, ULA to provide both launch services initially for the first depot and the small tanker also as the manufacturer of the small and large tanker vehicles as well as the depot based on the Centaur tank technology, Boeing for its engineering and patents for the needed depot technologies, and finally Blue Origin as depot operator. The company with the most to gain in the relationship is ULA. Depots will make their LV’s much more commercial friendly. SpaceX gets a significant customer for the capabilities of the FH, the large tanker being ~30MT of propellant plus its dry weight or about 35MT. Boeing makes money coming and going (patents and engineering R&D work as well as its share of ULA). Blue origin the operator then sells propellant at LEO for profit to all comers, specifically NASA. Sell of 30MT of propellant at ~$8,000/kg per year = $240M and a 20% profit margin = ~$40M a year profit.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: MP99 on 09/25/2011 08:07 pm
I guess you don't consider SpaceX to be "New Space" then....

"New Space".  Hmmmm.

SpaceX has been around for nearly a decade, has a sweet government contract, and is launching about one rocket per year after substantial schedule slippage.  By some definition's that's how the "Old Space" guys do things.

Then again, SpaceX, like Blue Origin, is still creating new things, being innovative.  That fits the "New" description.

Puberty space? Hope they'll be all grown up soon (but still as innovative as young adults can be).

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: MP99 on 09/25/2011 08:10 pm
What, no New Horizons? It's pretty much the same sort of trajectory as Voyager 2...

But that launched in 2006...

Quote
launched during the 20th century

 ;)

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: zaitcev on 09/26/2011 12:10 am
By the way, Bing maps have a fresher aerial view of the Corn Ranch Spaceport. It includes a picture of their engine test facility, built from scratch after 2008. The guy from the "Salt Flat Mystery" website took a picture right when the construction just started, so I discerned a flat area, connecting road, and some construction debris. But it seems to be completed now, and appears to be several stories tall. Google is years behind, as usual, but unfortunately I have my map sitting on it. Here's a link to the location:
 http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msa=0&msid=215231451669260323291.000463e960dc2fc6a2fae&ie=UTF8&ll=31.396378,-104.752235&spn=0.010751,0.013175&t=h&z=16&vpsrc=6&iwloc=000463e990ca432a03c81
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: 2552 on 09/28/2011 06:21 pm
From AIAA Space 2011:

Quote from: Jeff Foust
https://twitter.com/#!/jeff_foust/status/119112019491295232 (https://twitter.com/#!/jeff_foust/status/119112019491295232):
Meyerson: working on 100,000-lbf LOX/LH2 engine; plan to test engine chamber at Stennis next spring. #aiaaspace
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 10/17/2011 02:12 am
A recent article on Blue Origin:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/rockets/what-is-jeff-bezos-building-out-there?click=pm_latest

See also the updated aviation week article:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/awst/2011/09/12/AW_09_12_2011_p39-366720.xml&headline=Blue%20Origin%20Failure%20Unlikely%20Show-Stopper&next=0
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: wolfpack on 10/18/2011 01:51 pm
How is it legal to launch rockets from West Texas? Much as I'd like to see a spent booster fall on Jerry Jones's billion dollar stadium, I can't see how this works from a range safety standpoint. What am I missing?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: kevin-rf on 10/18/2011 05:52 pm
How is it legal to launch rockets from West Texas? Much as I'd like to see a spent booster fall on Jerry Jones's billion dollar stadium, I can't see how this works from a range safety standpoint. What am I missing?

As long as the rocket doesn't have a failure mode that will allow it to leave the range and endanger non range property it is legal. West Texas is pretty sparse ... it is doubtful if aimed at said stadium it would been able to even come close to getting out of west Texas, much less scoring a touchdown!
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/18/2011 07:24 pm
How is it legal to launch rockets from West Texas? Much as I'd like to see a spent booster fall on Jerry Jones's billion dollar stadium, I can't see how this works from a range safety standpoint. What am I missing?

As long as the rocket doesn't have a failure mode that will allow it to leave the range and endanger non range property it is legal. West Texas is pretty sparse ... it is doubtful if aimed at said stadium it would been able to even come close to getting out of west Texas, much less scoring a touchdown!
Yeah, these are suborbital flights. It'd be another story for orbital flights.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: wolfpack on 10/18/2011 08:14 pm
I see. But suborbital still goes downrage a bit, right? Bezos must own a boatload of land out there!
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/18/2011 08:21 pm
I see. But suborbital still goes downrage a bit, right? Bezos must own a boatload of land out there!
Doesn't have to go really downrange if it's suborbital. It can just go basically straight up.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: bad_astra on 10/18/2011 08:52 pm
I see. But suborbital still goes downrage a bit, right? Bezos must own a boatload of land out there!

Not really that far. Of course, B-O hasnt exactly been sending everyone copies of their future flightplans, but if you look at other sub-orbital flights, like sounding rockets, there's not a lot of crossrange.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: go4mars on 10/19/2011 02:28 am
A bit iffy, but seem to recall reading something years ago about Jeff Bezos also using his ranch for pliestocene rewilding starting with endangered tortoises and gradually progressing to bigger stuff like camels eventually.  Does anyone have any links related to this?  Or am I mis-remembering?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Jason1701 on 10/19/2011 03:55 am
A bit iffy, but seem to recall reading something years ago about Jeff Bezos also using his ranch for pliestocene rewilding starting with endangered tortoises and gradually progressing to bigger stuff like camels eventually.  Does anyone have any links related to this?  Or am I mis-remembering?

I hope no camels were harmed in the test vehicle crash.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: wolfpack on 10/19/2011 12:37 pm
I see. But suborbital still goes downrage a bit, right? Bezos must own a boatload of land out there!

Not really that far. Of course, B-O hasnt exactly been sending everyone copies of their future flightplans, but if you look at other sub-orbital flights, like sounding rockets, there's not a lot of crossrange.

I get it. So he's out there testing some sort of booster recovery scheme then. Shoot it straight up and see if you can land it back near the pad.

Yeah, I read the article where they tee'd off the local sheriff by not telling him about a launch. Flooded them with 911 calls!
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: kevin-rf on 10/19/2011 03:01 pm
A little late to the conversation, but another fun fact. During the 50's  Viking Program they designed the trajectories so that they counter-acted the earths rotation, so despite going up 158 miles (Viking 11) it came back down on the range.

With the earths rotation, if you go straight up, you will land somewhere west of the pad, if you give it enough forward motion you will land on the pad, and give it to much forward oomph... maybe you'll score that billion dollar touchdown ;)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: krytek on 10/19/2011 05:07 pm
Aren't all rockets launched counter earth rotation? (except Israel, were we pretty much have to launch ours west).
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/19/2011 05:25 pm
Aren't all rockets launched counter earth rotation? (except Israel, were we pretty much have to launch ours west).
No, they're launched WITH the Earth's rotation to get better performance (i.e. they're launched mostly to the East, like you say... except for sun-synch, I believe).
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Comga on 10/19/2011 05:43 pm
A little late to the conversation, but another fun fact. During the 50's  Viking Program they designed the trajectories so that they counter-acted the earths rotation, so despite going up 158 miles (Viking 11) it came back down on the range.

With the Earth's rotation, if you go straight up, you will land somewhere west of the pad, if you give it enough forward motion you will land on the pad, and give it to much forward oomph... maybe you'll score that billion dollar touchdown ;)

If you go straight up 100 km from a 6371 km Earth for a 5 minute flight against a 1440 minute rotation period..... you might as well be on a flat non-rotating Earth.  The "Coriolis force" is that small.  Less than 2 km, equivalent to tilting off the vertical by a degree or so.

edit to remove an eroneous statement
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: simonbp on 10/19/2011 07:31 pm
Well, if you're trying to land back on the pad (like BO was/is), then 2 km isn't insignificant! Though, they probably gained that extra degree-or-so though the GNC system, rather than a Viking-style tilt of the launch tower.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 10/25/2011 08:15 pm
Quote
Blue Origin LLC successfully completed two technical reviews. Their space vehicle Mission ConceptReview(MCR)identified proposed mission objectives as well as the design concepts to meet them. Also, in preparation for their Reusable Booster System (RBS) engine component testing next year, Blue Origin presented their test plan and test article interface data to NASA experts.

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/598228main_October_2011_CSD%2060%20Day%20Report_508.pdf
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: neilh on 11/14/2011 07:09 am
For the curious, Wired just posed an interview with Jeff Bezos. Most of it's about the Kindle Fire, but the last page has a few questions about Blue Origin:

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/11/ff_bezos/4/

I liked this response:

Quote
...
Bezos: I like to say, “Maintain a firm grasp of the obvious at all times.” For Amazon, that’s selection, speed of delivery, lower prices. Well, for Blue Origin it’s cost and safety. If you really want to make it so that anybody can go into space, you have to increase the safety and decrease the cost. That’s Blue Origin’s mission. I’m super passionate about it.

Levy: Do you feel that it’s a bit disconnected to start a space-exploration company in this economically grim time?

Bezos: No. We employ a lot of aerospace engineers. They have families, their kids go to college. We buy a lot of materials. Somebody made those materials, right?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: docmordrid on 11/14/2011 01:57 pm
Good for him!
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: iamlucky13 on 11/14/2011 08:35 pm
For the curious, Wired just posed an interview with Jeff Bezos. Most of it's about the Kindle Fire, but the last page has a few questions about Blue Origin:

Quote
...

Levy: Do you feel that it’s a bit disconnected to start a space-exploration company in this economically grim time?

Oh boy.  ::)

This "economically grim time" is defined by widespread unemployment and large numbers of people complaining about the wealthy hoarding what they have...

...so Levy asks if perhaps he shouldn't be focusing more on hoarding than on spending his fortune on private endeavors that create jobs now and may in the future have spin-off benefits for society.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Rocket Guy on 11/18/2011 02:25 am
They've posted two videos of the hop test earlier this year:

http://www.blueorigin.com/updates/updates-2011-11-17-video-of-the-short-hop-flight.html
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 11/18/2011 02:43 am
They've posted two videos of the hop test earlier this year:

http://www.blueorigin.com/updates/updates-2011-11-17-video-of-the-short-hop-flight.html
Very nice! It looks like they launched with 3 engines and landed with 2, with a total of 5 engines on the vehicle itself (2 unused).
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: simonbp on 11/18/2011 04:53 am
Yeah, with all five engines lit in the right-before-it-blew-up picture...
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 11/21/2011 01:54 am
Here is an update:
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/11/18/8871807-blue-origin-spruces-up-rocket-report
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: e of pi on 11/21/2011 05:58 am
The capsule on top of the Propulsion Module is pretty interesting--look like the same 3.7 m diameter and about a 10 degree slope to the capsule sidewall? I ran some quick numbers and without the non-spherical portion it would be around 16 m^3.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: simonbp on 11/21/2011 03:53 pm
I think that's just a poor photoshop job to match up a side view the biconic with an oblique view of the reusable booster...
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: docmordrid on 11/21/2011 05:06 pm
Thinking TGV's Michelle-B - a deployable airbrake/stabilizer for after MECO but before landing restart?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: e of pi on 11/21/2011 05:17 pm
I think that's just a poor photoshop job to match up a side view the biconic with an oblique view of the reusable booster...

I don't think so, the biconic has a very different shape and look. It may still not mean anything, bu this looks like a different vehicle than the biconic.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 11/21/2011 06:33 pm
A recent article on Blue Origin:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/rockets/what-is-jeff-bezos-building-out-there?click=pm_latest

See also the updated aviation week article:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/awst/2011/09/12/AW_09_12_2011_p39-366720.xml&headline=Blue%20Origin%20Failure%20Unlikely%20Show-Stopper&next=0

" the orbital vehicle will carry seven astronauts and use 100,000-lb.-thrust, liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen, “deep-throttling, restartable engines "

this sounds great, would enjoy knowing more.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: savuporo on 11/21/2011 07:16 pm
Thinking TGV's Michelle-B - a deployable airbrake/stabilizer for after MECO but before landing restart?
Superficially it looked very much like Michelle-B concept (http://space.xprize.org/files/downloads/ansari/tgv.pdf) renderings to me as well.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: manboy on 11/22/2011 03:27 am
The capsule on top of the Propulsion Module is pretty interesting--look like the same 3.7 m diameter and about a 10 degree slope to the capsule sidewall? I ran some quick numbers and without the non-spherical portion it would be around 16 m^3.
Here's a larger version
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: douglas100 on 11/22/2011 07:29 am
Where did you get the 3.7 metre diameter from? Is it listed somewhere?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: docmordrid on 11/22/2011 07:51 am
Some of my skulling from up-thread about the dimensions of the PM-2 testbed based on the attached image. Probably off a bit, but absent real data from Blue Origin....

Link....
 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=10685.msg802257#msg802257)
Quote
Went to Google Earth and measured the pad diameter at 40 meters.  Enlarged the image, accounted for the transform of a circular pad to get  the shape in the image, calculated pixels/meter then transferred those  measurements to the rocket to get a guesstimate.

Height: 12.2m
Top diameter: 3.7m
Bottom diameter:3.4m

Edit: improved description of process
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: e of pi on 11/22/2011 07:19 pm
The capsule on top of the Propulsion Module is pretty interesting--look like the same 3.7 m diameter and about a 10 degree slope to the capsule sidewall? I ran some quick numbers and without the non-spherical portion it would be around 16 m^3.
Here's a larger version
Manboy, I was actually referring to this image. The capsule in the image you show does indeed appear to be their CCDev 2 biconic capsule. It's a very different vehicle than either their biconic orbital vehicle or Goddard, and I think this is the first I've seen of anything like it from them.  It's just a promotional image, so probably best not to read too much into it, but it is interesting.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: douglas100 on 11/22/2011 07:23 pm
Thanks.

Although I can understand and sympathise with Blue Origin not wanting to publish details of their future plans, I think their obsessive secrecy stinks. There is no good reason why they can't give some technical details of their current vehicle (like dimensions, engine thrust for example) now that it has flown.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: neilh on 11/23/2011 04:51 am
Thanks.

Although I can understand and sympathise with Blue Origin not wanting to publish details of their future plans, I think their obsessive secrecy stinks. There is no good reason why they can't give some technical details of their current vehicle (like dimensions, engine thrust for example) now that it has flown.

Is there any good reason -to- give out these details?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Patchouli on 11/23/2011 05:13 am
The capsule on top of the Propulsion Module is pretty interesting--look like the same 3.7 m diameter and about a 10 degree slope to the capsule sidewall? I ran some quick numbers and without the non-spherical portion it would be around 16 m^3.
Here's a larger version

I wonder what the flight profile is for that thing.
Does the first stage act like a popup stage with the upper stage providing nearly all of the horizontal velocity or does it fly a normal first stage profile and does a boost back like what Spacex plans?

As for the biconic I wonder if it steers in the same way as the ESA IXV.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=de8iP6mH2GU
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: douglas100 on 11/23/2011 08:19 am

Is there any good reason -to- give out these details?

Is there any good reason not to? (I'm not talking about proprietary or other sensitive information.)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: docmordrid on 11/23/2011 09:21 am
>
As for the biconic I wonder if it steers in the same way as the ESA IXV.
>
Blue Origin's drawn artwork showed a similar paddle airfoil at the rear, so the inference could be made.

As to why/why not release propriatory information - is that a joke? Everyone from restaurants (KFC etc) on up holds back propriatory info. Just because we want to know what they're doing doesn't oblige them to tell us.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: douglas100 on 11/23/2011 12:34 pm
Doc, you'll notice that I said I am not expecting them to release proprietary information. Nor do I expect them to say what and when they intend to do next. That's what Scaled did with SS 1, but they did release plenty of information about their vehicle.

Blue Origin are not obliged to release any information of course. But there is no need for their excessive secrecy. I'm not joking when I say I dislike it.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: kevin-rf on 11/23/2011 12:48 pm

Blue Origin are not obliged to release any information of course. But there is no need for their excessive secrecy. I'm not joking when I say I dislike it.


Easier than having to sanitize every release and make sure it does not run afoul of ITAR.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: kch on 11/23/2011 01:14 pm

Blue Origin are not obliged to release any information of course. But there is no need for their excessive secrecy. I'm not joking when I say I dislike it.


I'm sure that bothers them greatly ... ;)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: douglas100 on 11/23/2011 01:16 pm
I was thinking of stuff like the dimensions of the vehicle, what propellants it uses (Aviation Week says kerosene and hydrogen peroxide but I'm not aware that Blue Origin has confirmed it), engine thrust, vehicle masses etc. Are these things embargoed by ITAR?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: douglas100 on 11/23/2011 01:19 pm

Blue Origin are not obliged to release any information of course. But there is no need for their excessive secrecy. I'm not joking when I say I dislike it.


I'm sure that bothers them greatly ... ;)

Actually, I think it would be to their benefit if they were a bit more open.

Anyway, rant over.  :) I think the point was worth bringing up.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: apace on 11/23/2011 01:23 pm
Actually, I think it would be to their benefit if they were a bit more open.

Don't think so, otherwise they appeared at the last hearing of the senate. It looks more, that they are sure to reach their goals without political/public support.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Namechange User on 11/23/2011 01:40 pm
Actually, I think it would be to their benefit if they were a bit more open.

Don't think so, otherwise they appeared at the last hearing of the senate. It looks more, that they are sure to reach their goals without political/public support.

Then they should return the public's money if Blue Origin is supposedly so confident for whatever reason.  To not show for a Congressional Hearing, to not participate in any of the of the CCIDC industry day, etc is incredibly bad form. 

In other words, BO better be able to make it on their own because I believe they have burned their bridges.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: apace on 11/23/2011 01:46 pm
Then they should return the public's money if Blue Origin is supposedly so confident for whatever reason.

If you get money without be part in the public hearings or other meetings, why you should not take it? Of course it's bad behavior, but it's not the only company which do so in this times.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Namechange User on 11/23/2011 01:49 pm
Then they should return the public's money if Blue Origin is supposedly so confident for whatever reason.

If you get money without be part in the public hearings or other meetings, why you should not take it? Of course it's bad behavior, but it's not the only company which do so in this times.

Incorrect.  If they are so confident, as you suggested, then they do not require government funding for their "commercial" venture and therefore should return the public's money.

It has nothing to do with showing up to a hearing.  However, by not showing up, by not participating, etc I believe they have sealed their fate with respect to future government funding anyway, so you better be correct about their confidence. 
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: mmeijeri on 11/23/2011 01:50 pm
Aviation Week says kerosene and hydrogen peroxide but I'm not aware that Blue Origin has confirmed it

I think kerosene / peroxide has been confirmed for New Shephard, but not for the first stage of the orbital vehicle.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: wolfpack on 11/23/2011 01:50 pm
Actually, I think it would be to their benefit if they were a bit more open.

Don't think so, otherwise they appeared at the last hearing of the senate. It looks more, that they are sure to reach their goals without political/public support.

A quick check shows Mr. Bezos as being worth nearly $18B. Mr. Musk is closer to 1/100th of that value. So, one needs taxpayer money and the other doesn't. Simple.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: douglas100 on 11/23/2011 03:19 pm
Aviation Week says kerosene and hydrogen peroxide but I'm not aware that Blue Origin has confirmed it

I think kerosene / peroxide has been confirmed for New Shephard, but not for the first stage of the orbital vehicle.

This is the article I meant:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/awst/2011/09/12/AW_09_12_2011_p39-366720.xml&headline=Blue%20Origin%20Failure%20Unlikely%20Show-Stopper&channel=awst
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: simonbp on 11/23/2011 03:56 pm
Incorrect.  If they are so confident, as you suggested, then they do not require government funding for their "commercial" venture and therefore should return the public's money.

Yeah, I gotta agree. It was one thing to be super-duper secret when it was all private funds, but the moment you take tax dollars, you darn well better be clear about what you are doing and how.

Especially in the post-Solyndra climate, any potential for start-ups misusing public funds is going to be investigated.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Namechange User on 11/23/2011 04:14 pm
Incorrect.  If they are so confident, as you suggested, then they do not require government funding for their "commercial" venture and therefore should return the public's money.

Yeah, I gotta agree. It was one thing to be super-duper secret when it was all private funds, but the moment you take tax dollars, you darn well better be clear about what you are doing and how.

Especially in the post-Solyndra climate, any potential for start-ups misusing public funds is going to be investigated.

Well just to be clear, they have the right to be "secret" to most as long as they publish and give the data to NASA and the government at large consistent with what is required per their funded SAA agreement.

The thing I take issue with is the statement that they do not need public funds.  Ok, and if that is the case, good for them.  My point is that is better be true because not showing up for a congressional panel after getting government money (when all the others did, even those who are not currently funded directly) not participating in CCIDC industry days and one-on-ones, etc sends a very poor message on Blue Origin's part. 

Personally, I think there is one less commercial, CCDev, CCIDC or whatever contender now. 
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: apace on 11/23/2011 04:16 pm
Question will be why?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Namechange User on 11/23/2011 04:22 pm
why what?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: apace on 11/23/2011 04:26 pm
why what?

What's the reason of their behavior.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: wolfpack on 11/23/2011 04:33 pm
What's the reason of their behavior.

Jeff Bezos.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: apace on 11/23/2011 04:37 pm
What's the reason of their behavior.
Jeff Bezos.

As long as his space hero is not Hugo Drax.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 11/23/2011 04:45 pm
They're also definitely the smallest commercial crew contender. Fewer people to fly around, hob-nobbing with Congressfolk. Also received the least money of any who received money.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Nate_Trost on 11/23/2011 05:13 pm
I just think Blue Origin is probably realistic about their chances in the inevitable downselect. SpaceX, Boeing and SNC are "ahead" and at most there are only going to be two providers. Depending on how the funding ultimately shakes down, maybe only one.

However, if Blue Origin saw a chance to get a decent amount of CCDev money in the last round for little effort and few strings attached for stuff they were planning on doing anyway, why not go for it? It's not like they have to give the money back if they don't get included in the next round.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: wolfpack on 11/23/2011 05:22 pm
What's the reason of their behavior.
Jeff Bezos.

As long as his space hero is not Hugo Drax.

This is the guy who walks around with a $1.6M/year security detail. Paranoid, perhaps?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 11/23/2011 05:24 pm
I just think Blue Origin is probably realistic about their chances in the inevitable downselect. SpaceX, Boeing and SNC are "ahead" and at most there are only going to be two providers. Depending on how the funding ultimately shakes down, maybe only one.

The writing was on the wall when NASA chose to exercise optional CCDev-2 milestones for Boeing and SNC, but not Blue Origin.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Namechange User on 11/23/2011 05:24 pm
I just think Blue Origin is probably realistic about their chances in the inevitable downselect. SpaceX, Boeing and SNC are "ahead" and at most there are only going to be two providers. Depending on how the funding ultimately shakes down, maybe only one.

However, if Blue Origin saw a chance to get a decent amount of CCDev money in the last round for little effort and few strings attached for stuff they were planning on doing anyway, why not go for it? It's not like they have to give the money back if they don't get included in the next round.

This all goes back to the definitions of "commercial".  Too many here and elsewhere see the above list and leap to the conclusion that those four companies are "commercial" and that is all it will ever be. 

In addition, I think people make the unfortunate assumption that government should essentially totally fund and subsidize the above list and if there is not enough money to that get up in arms and blame the government and then cut the list all the way down to one if necessary.  This results in calling it "commercial" to make ourselves feel better but we have compromised every value and intent about what this whole process was supposed to be about all along the way. 

Now regarding BO, if they can fund it themselves or get private money, that is great.  After all "commercial" SHOULD have large private investment from either the companies, other investors or down-payments from other customers.  Again, where I believe they went wrong it to accept government funding but not participate in hearing about the very nature of that funding and why it is required and what should be expected from the government and what should be expected from the company.

If they can't do it themselves, I stand by the "scarlet letter" I believe they have given themselves politically speaking. 
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 11/23/2011 06:02 pm
The NASA concept of "commercial" has nothing to do with the source of money.  It is how NASA interacts with the contractor.  To NASA,  "commercial" means buying a service and not hardware.  A  "commercial" contract  can be 100% gov't funded. 
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Nate_Trost on 11/23/2011 06:07 pm
This is the guy who walks around with a $1.6M/year security detail. Paranoid, perhaps?

No more so than many other multi-multi billionaires and/or Fortune 100 CEOs. 24/7/365 security coverage isn't cheap.

While I can agree that Blue Origin probably aren't doing themselves any favors in the near-term by not playing the political games, considering the marathon Bezos seems intent on running, I'm not sure it really makes any difference in the long run (basically, 10 years from now). He wants to make a manned RLV, and has the patience to do it, and unless Amazon somehow collapses, the financial resources. Given the levels of governmental dysfunction we're reaching, at this point I'd lay better odds on Blue Origin having their manned orbital RLV by 2020-2025 than SLS surviving to its first manned launch.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Namechange User on 11/23/2011 06:08 pm
The NASA concept of "commercial" has nothing to do with the source of money.  It is how NASA interacts with the contractor.  To NASA,  "commercial" means buying a service and not hardware.  A  "commercial" contract  can be 100% gov't funded. 

No.  In fact yg1968 just linked to a whitehose.gov document that supposedly defines "commercial". 

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27302.msg832403#msg832403

It does not say what you claim above and, according to yg, is left intentionally vague so that I guess the end result is everyone is unclear about who is exactly responsible for what. 
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 11/23/2011 06:19 pm
"space goods, services, or activities provided by private sector enterprises that bear a reasonable portion of the investment risk and responsibility for the activity, operate in accordance with typical market-based incentives for controlling cost and optimizing return on investment, and have the legal capacity to offer these goods or services to existing or potential nongovernmental customers."

The above with modifications is what I basically said.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Namechange User on 11/23/2011 08:21 pm
"space goods, services, or activities provided by private sector enterprises that bear a reasonable portion of the investment risk and responsibility for the activity, operate in accordance with typical market-based incentives for controlling cost and optimizing return on investment, and have the legal capacity to offer these goods or services to existing or potential nongovernmental customers."

The above with modifications is what I basically said.


Well and without that modification, which is the official white house document, is basically what I just said.

And if that is "policy", should it not be incumbent upon everyone (especially between NASA, Congress and the potential providers) to determine and agree upon what is "reasonable" in order to have consistent funding from the government, knowing what delta-funding is required by the providers/investors and actually move forward?

Seems pretty logical to me but instead, what are we doing YEARS on now?  Still arguing over the definition of "commercial" even though it is given above and still vague and subjective and complaining when more government funding is not provided.  That should have been step 0.1 in the overall project plan. 

In other words, it is just another symptom of the lack of leadership displayed in many facets of this country today. 
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Patchouli on 11/23/2011 08:46 pm
What's the reason of their behavior.
Jeff Bezos.

As long as his space hero is not Hugo Drax.

The villain from Moonraker lol.
I'll admit I found his station cool too but yes he was as evil as they come.

This is the guy who walks around with a $1.6M/year security detail. Paranoid, perhaps?

No more so than many other multi-multi billionaires and/or Fortune 100 CEOs. 24/7/365 security coverage isn't cheap.

While I can agree that Blue Origin probably aren't doing themselves any favors in the near-term by not playing the political games, considering the marathon Bezos seems intent on running, I'm not sure it really makes any difference in the long run (basically, 10 years from now). He wants to make a manned RLV, and has the patience to do it, and unless Amazon somehow collapses, the financial resources. Given the levels of governmental dysfunction we're reaching, at this point I'd lay better odds on Blue Origin having their manned orbital RLV by 2020-2025 than SLS surviving to its first manned launch.

I will agree he is paranoid but then he does have three competitors one of which is a huge multinational corporation two to three times as large as Amazon.com.

Spacex and SNC have proven to be very agile and Boeing despite being an old aero space company has been showing agility more typical of a new space company.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: docmordrid on 11/23/2011 10:17 pm
Part of the work was done at Phantom Works, which presumably doesn't work in traditional big outfit ways.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 11/24/2011 01:43 am
Actually, I think it would be to their benefit if they were a bit more open.

Don't think so, otherwise they appeared at the last hearing of the senate. It looks more, that they are sure to reach their goals without political/public support.

Blue Origin may not need government money to pay for the development of their spacecraft but I suspect that they will need NASA as a customer.

Not supporting your customer in public can cause problems.  For example NASA did not get all the money it requested in the 'Commercial' budget.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: simonbp on 11/24/2011 02:02 am
What's the reason of their behavior.
Jeff Bezos.
As long as his space hero is not Hugo Drax.

apace wins the thread. :)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 11/24/2011 03:15 am
The NASA concept of "commercial" has nothing to do with the source of money.  It is how NASA interacts with the contractor.  To NASA,  "commercial" means buying a service and not hardware.  A  "commercial" contract  can be 100% gov't funded. 

No.  In fact yg1968 just linked to a whitehose.gov document that supposedly defines "commercial". 

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27302.msg832403#msg832403

It does not say what you claim above and, according to yg, is left intentionally vague so that I guess the end result is everyone is unclear about who is exactly responsible for what. 

I said that the expression "a reasonable portion" in the definition is purposely left vague (i.e. an exact percentage isn't specified) in order to fit various scenarios since it applies to more than just commercial crew. But the rest of the definition isn't vague.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: kkattula on 11/24/2011 04:08 pm
It's obvious Jeff Bezos can afford to fund BO without NASA money.

Might I suggest it's in NASA's interest to continue funding BO, (at a lower level than the others), in order to maintain a degree of insight into what BO are doing?

Sure they could have an unfunded SAA, but BO might not consider it worth their trouble without a 'sweetener'. 20 odd $million will both buy some co-operation, and add some respectability to the enterprise.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 12/01/2011 09:13 pm
image is not that high of resolution

http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/search.cfm?cat=4
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: AnalogMan on 12/08/2011 09:26 pm
RELEASE : 11-412

NASA Deputy Administrator Garver Tours Blue Origin;
Announces Commercial Space Firm's April Engine Testing At NASA Stennis


Dec 8, 2011
 
WASHINGTON -- NASA Deputy Administrator Lori Garver is visiting Blue Origin in Kent, Wash., today. The company is one of NASA's commercial partners opening a new chapter in human exploration by developing innovative systems to reach low Earth orbit as part of the Commercial Crew Development Program.

"Blue Origin is creating cutting edge technologies to take us to low Earth orbit," Garver said. "Like all of our commercial partners, they're making real progress and opening up a new job-creating segment of the economy that will allow NASA to focus on our next big challenges -- missions to asteroids and Mars."

Garver also announced Blue Origin has delivered its BE-3 engine thrust chamber assembly -- the engine's combustion chamber and nozzle -- to NASA's Stennis Space Center in Mississippi, where testing will begin in April 2012. The company is developing a reusable launch vehicle, designed to take off and land vertically, and an escape system for its crewed spacecraft. Testing will take place on the center's E-1 Test Stand.

"We're delighted Blue Origin is taking advantage of Stennis, a center with a long record of propulsion testing from the dawn of the Space Age, to test the rocket engines of the future," Garver said.

"We appreciate the opportunity to work with the depth of expertise and utilize the facilities at Stennis for our engine testing, and are glad to have the test hardware onsite and ready to go," said Rob Meyerson, president and program manager at Blue Origin.

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2011/dec/HQ_11-.html (http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2011/dec/HQ_11-.html)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: 2552 on 12/09/2011 02:21 am
Quote from: Lori Garver
https://twitter.com/#!/Lori_Garver/status/144971491732234241 (https://twitter.com/#!/Lori_Garver/status/144971491732234241):
Thanks to Jeff Bezos and the Blue Origin team for a great visit today. http://yfrog.com/ob266ohj

Mod edit: do not embed images
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: 2552 on 12/09/2011 12:25 pm
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_2127.html

Much bigger version of above image, full size is 3658 x 2707!
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: docmordrid on 12/09/2011 12:38 pm
Can we assume that's just the pressure vessel?

Composite?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/09/2011 05:25 pm
Will this be a test of Blue Origin's reusable hydrolox engine? Is that what "BE-3" means?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: simonbp on 12/09/2011 06:39 pm
Will this be a test of Blue Origin's reusable hydrolox engine? Is that what "BE-3" means?

Presumably, as that's the only engine they're getting NASA funding for.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: apace on 12/11/2011 01:36 pm
Just screened the videos from "NASA Future Forum: How Commercial Space Benefits U.S." and there was one remark from the Blue Origin guy, that they have a secured funding for the next 20 years, so they can establish a working space transportation system also with changes in administration and support for commercial crew.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: iamlucky13 on 12/12/2011 11:09 pm
Can we assume that's just the pressure vessel?

Composite?

Yes, it's composite. Aside from the generally non-metallic appearance, in the full size version you can see the layup pattern.

I'm not sure if the purple color is the lighting or something in their epoxy or primer coat.

As the metal ring below it appears to be lightweight and aluminum, I assume it's part of the spacecraft, not part of the tooling.

It looks to me, although I can't say with absolute certainty, that this basically shows the entirety of the vehicle above the where the heatshield will be. It's a slightly different layout than Dragon...no collar of systems/storage around the base.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Zond on 12/22/2011 05:52 pm
The FAA AST recently posted the active launch permits and licenses on their website. They also posted the permit for PM2:
Experimental Permit Number: EP 11-006 (http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/launch_license/active_permits/media/BlueOriginEP_11-006%20rev1.pdf)
It doesn't contain much info about the vehicle itself besides this: Blue Origin was allowed under the permit to modify the engines so they would have a thrust of 35,000lbf and a vacuum specific impulse of 252 seconds.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/22/2011 05:55 pm
The FAA AST recently posted the active launch permits and licenses on their website. They also posted the permit for PM2:
Experimental Permit Number: EP 11-006 (http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/launch_license/active_permits/media/BlueOriginEP_11-006%20rev1.pdf)
It doesn't contain much info about the vehicle itself besides this: Blue Origin was allowed under the permit to modify the engines so they would have a thrust of 35,000lbf and a vacuum specific impulse of 252 seconds.
Ah! Lots of information revealed there.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: apace on 12/22/2011 06:11 pm
Hm... no rocket around ;-)
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=31.4517,-104.7628
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Lurker Steve on 12/22/2011 06:25 pm
What's the reason of their behavior.
Jeff Bezos.
As long as his space hero is not Hugo Drax.

apace wins the thread. :)

Except for the destroy all human life on earth part, Hugo was a pretty cool guy. He had he own personal fleet of Shuttles, a space station, and surrounded himself with beautiful people. His only flaw was hiring Jaws. Should have left him in the previous Bond movie.

Of course, the movie lost any hope of realism as soon as they air-launched a shuttle. That's what you get from a Roger Moore-era Bond movie.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: apace on 12/22/2011 06:30 pm
Of course, the movie lost any hope of realism as soon as they air-launched a shuttle. That's what you get from a Roger Moore-era Bond movie.

Stupid that this happened at the beginning of the movie ;-) but I loved the space marines scene...
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Moe Grills on 12/23/2011 09:54 pm
  To get the thread back on topic, I'm wondering if Jeff Bezos
has access to a supersonic (shock-tube) wind tunnel?
The problems that the Blue Origin craft experienced after going supersonic
may have been prevented. Whose to say?

Would computer simulation have helped?

The best definition of computer simulations that I've heard of goes like this:

1) Lies.
2) Damnable lies.
3) Computer simulations.   
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Zed_Noir on 12/23/2011 10:52 pm
IMO supersonic wind tunnel access wouldn't  matter with the BO test article. Since it departed from flight profile limitations. Which we still no idea of the cause.

A better question, was the FAA aware of the supersonic nature of the test flight as it was taking place?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: e of pi on 12/23/2011 11:07 pm
A better question, was the FAA aware of the supersonic nature of the test flight as it was taking place?
Yes, they were. The notice to airmen was IIRC up to 40kft, and they also were cleared beyond that (as I recall above that height regular aircraft aren't supposed to be anyway, so the notice didn't need to cover it). To hit that altitude with a rocket, you have to be supersonic at some point in the flight. 0.5*m*v^2=g*h
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: strangequark on 12/23/2011 11:27 pm
To hit that altitude with a rocket, you have to be supersonic at some point in the flight. 0.5*m*v^2=g*h

That is not true. A slow burn up to altitude could do exactly that. It's just not the most efficient way. The equation you cited only applies if the sum of kinetic and gravitational potential energies for this system were conserved. It is not.

What you really meant to say was m*dv/dt=-dm/dt*u_eff-m*g0.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: simonbp on 12/24/2011 02:02 pm
IMO supersonic wind tunnel access wouldn't  matter with the BO test article. Since it departed from flight profile limitations. Which we still no idea of the cause.

We have no idea of the cause, but the fact that it happened at transonic/supersonic speeds, and that that was first time they had ever flown that fast would seem to indicate it at least contributed.

Moe's point is quite valid; supersonic and transonic CFD models are really poory calibrated compared to subsonic CFD. Access to a proper supersonic tunnel (e.g. at Langley, AEDC, or MSFC) could be quite beneficial to them.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Downix on 12/25/2011 08:20 pm
Of course, the movie lost any hope of realism as soon as they air-launched a shuttle. That's what you get from a Roger Moore-era Bond movie.

Stupid that this happened at the beginning of the movie ;-) but I loved the space marines scene...
That only applied if the Moonraker was identical in operation to the STS.  Studying the movie I noticed that several elements of the MR shuttle do not match the regular shuttle.  For one, the main engines exhaust is not Hydrolox, being of the wrong color.  It does match Kerolox, or a few hypergolic solutions, but *only* for launching off of the 747.  In the actual launch, the exhaust changes from orange to blue, matching Methane.  There was one hyrocarbon engine design I saw studied once which could use the atmosphere for a low-level thrust in order to improve cross-range, but only with kerosene.  The mounting of the Moonraker on the 747 has an extra line, which matches up to the fuel-feed line on the Moonraker shuttle to its external tank.  If the MR was a Kerolox, it could run on the same fuel as the 747, draining the fuel from the carrying aircraft (which would have triggered the alert in the cockpit as seen in the movie) for the launch.  For the main launch, however, they launched it with Methane/Oxygen.  A dual-purpose engine could be designed if you had a super-genius like Hugo Drax behind it I suppose.  A small amount of rp-1 could be carried onboard the MR for cross-range use, with the rp-1 also serving for the RCS system, a bipropellant with nitric acid.  You then get a nice multiple-use system which is storable on-orbit.

This brings up something else I noticed, that the boosters used were not segmented solids as the shuttle used, as there are no seams on the bands, which look more like reinforcement bands for a balloon tank arrangement.  The exhaust from those is another color, matching several hybrid fuel combinations I've worked with this past year.  If done right, a Hybrid hypergolic hybrid design could achieve the right performance curve, with the solid element residing inside of the oxygen balloon tank.  The fuel could even expel the pressurization system, the heat of the reaction releasing trapped gasses in the outer layer of the fuel chamber.  Add in a burn inhibiting layer on the outside of the fuel tube, you can even control shutdown in the manner showed in the movie.

Yes, I spent way too much time watching Bond films.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Jorge on 12/25/2011 08:49 pm
Yes, I spent way too much time watching Bond films.

I wouldn't say you've been spending too much time watching Bond films. I *would* say you've been spending way too much *thought* on Bond films.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Zond on 04/21/2012 12:11 pm
Quote
Charlie Bolden (r) & Steve Knowles of Blue Origin look at Blue's BE-3 engine on a test stand @NASAStennis

http://twitpic.com/9c38fp (http://twitpic.com/9c38fp)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: apace on 04/21/2012 01:43 pm
Quote
Charlie Bolden (r) & Steve Knowles of Blue Origin look at Blue's BE-3 engine on a test stand @NASAStennis
http://twitpic.com/9c38fp (http://twitpic.com/9c38fp)

Any more information about this engine? A quick google search unveil not a lot about it.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: mmeijeri on 04/21/2012 01:46 pm
Any more information about this engine?

It's not currently on.  ;D
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Zond on 04/21/2012 02:40 pm
Quote
Charlie Bolden (r) & Steve Knowles of Blue Origin look at Blue's BE-3 engine on a test stand @NASAStennis
http://twitpic.com/9c38fp (http://twitpic.com/9c38fp)

Any more information about this engine? A quick google search unveil not a lot about it.

From http://procurement.ksc.nasa.gov/documents/NNK11MS02S_SAA_BlueOrigin_04-18-2011.pdf (http://procurement.ksc.nasa.gov/documents/NNK11MS02S_SAA_BlueOrigin_04-18-2011.pdf):
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 04/21/2012 02:59 pm
Quote
Charlie Bolden (r) & Steve Knowles of Blue Origin look at Blue's BE-3 engine on a test stand @NASAStennis
http://twitpic.com/9c38fp (http://twitpic.com/9c38fp)

Any more information about this engine? A quick google search unveil not a lot about it.
It uses hydrogen as fuel, is reusable, will be used on at least one (probably both) of their fully reusable two-stage orbital rocket (VTVL), and is partially funded by CCDev2. They have folks from DC-X working for them, and they are pretty secretive. It's a project by Jeff Bezos, the Amazon.com guy (another billionaire, richer than Elon Musk).

A lot of real work is being done on RLVs these days.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: apace on 04/21/2012 04:07 pm
Powerfull for a second stage engine and not powerfull enough for a first stage engine if I compare with other rockets around. Hm?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 04/21/2012 07:18 pm
Powerfull for a second stage engine and not powerfull enough for a first stage engine if I compare with other rockets around. Hm?
Multiple engines, obviously.

Also, remember that an all-hydrogen rocket has significantly less take-off mass compared to an equivalent non-hydrogen rocket.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: apace on 04/21/2012 07:37 pm
Powerfull for a second stage engine and not powerfull enough for a first stage engine if I compare with other rockets around. Hm?
Multiple engines, obviously.
Also, remember that an all-hydrogen rocket has significantly less take-off mass compared to an equivalent non-hydrogen rocket.

True, but if I compare with a DELTA IV, Medium configuration, upmass of around 10 metric tons, they need around 8 or 9 engines for the first stage. Will be nice to see this rocket somewhere in the future.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 04/21/2012 08:29 pm
Powerfull for a second stage engine and not powerfull enough for a first stage engine if I compare with other rockets around. Hm?
Multiple engines, obviously.
Also, remember that an all-hydrogen rocket has significantly less take-off mass compared to an equivalent non-hydrogen rocket.

True, but if I compare with a DELTA IV, Medium configuration, upmass of around 10 metric tons, they need around 8 or 9 engines for the first stage. Will be nice to see this rocket somewhere in the future.
Falcon 9 has nine engines, so that's not a show-stopper.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: apace on 04/21/2012 08:33 pm
Falcon 9 has nine engines, so that's not a show-stopper.

Of course not, but a LH/LOX engine will look quite nice at ascent.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 04/21/2012 08:35 pm
Falcon 9 has nine engines, so that's not a show-stopper.

Of course not, but a LH/LOX engine will look quite nice at ascent.
I don't understand.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Danderman on 04/30/2012 04:05 am
Blue Origin is talking about a 100,000 lb thrust LH2/LOX  engine, so what happened to their plans for peroxide? And, is this somehow connected to SpaceX not developing Raptor?

 ??? ??? ??? ???
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 04/30/2012 04:10 am
Blue Origin is talking about a 100,000 lb thrust LH2/LOX  engine, so what happened to their plans for peroxide? And, is this somehow connected to SpaceX not developing Raptor?

 ??? ??? ??? ???
They've been developing the LH2/LOx engine for quite a while. The peroxide work is old, more related to their suborbital VTVL test-bed than their orbital RLV. I believe the TSTO VTVL RLV was always supposed to be powered by a LH2/LOx engine.

This has pretty much nothing to do with SpaceX.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Nascent Ascent on 04/30/2012 04:15 am
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2012/04/commercial-space-shuttle-wind-tunnel-testing/

(http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/autopia/2012/04/CFD-image-for-wind-tunnel-660x586.png)

-NA
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Dalon on 04/30/2012 12:20 pm
It's a project by Jeff Bezos, the Amazon.com guy (another billionaire, richer than Elon Musk).


That's an understatement.  I recently read that Bezos was worth about 20 billion.  Meaning he's is probably worth 20 to 40 times Elon Musk, at least on paper. 
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: go4mars on 04/30/2012 01:28 pm
It's a project by Jeff Bezos, the Amazon.com guy (another billionaire, richer than Elon Musk).


That's an understatement.  I recently read that Bezos was worth about 20 billion.  Meaning he's is probably worth 20 to 40 times Elon Musk, at least on paper. 
10 times.  Elon's got more than $2 billion now according to Forbes.  Clearly both men of means. 

My guess is that they'll be at roughly the same level within 3 years. 
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 04/30/2012 01:37 pm

My guess is that they'll be at roughly the same level within 3 years. 

It won't be from Spacex money
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: butters on 04/30/2012 02:01 pm
It's a project by Jeff Bezos, the Amazon.com guy (another billionaire, richer than Elon Musk).


That's an understatement.  I recently read that Bezos was worth about 20 billion.  Meaning he's is probably worth 20 to 40 times Elon Musk, at least on paper. 
10 times.  Elon's got more than $2 billion now according to Forbes.  Clearly both men of means. 

My guess is that they'll be at roughly the same level within 3 years. 

Elon has long since cashed out and reinvested, whereas Bezos is 20% owner, chairman, and CEO of the world's largest e-commerce service and cloud hosting platform. Bezos is still milking an enormously lucrative cash cow whose growth is showing no signs of slowing.

Amazon is a gold mine. Microsoft worries about Google. Google worries about Facebook. Facebook worries about Apple. Apple worries about Amazon. Amazon is Big Content's favorite Web Giant.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: go4mars on 04/30/2012 02:07 pm
Bezos is 20% owner, chairman, and CEO of the world's largest e-commerce service and cloud hosting platform. Bezos is still milking an enormously lucrative cash cow whose growth is showing no signs of slowing.

Amazon is a gold mine. Microsoft worries about Google. Google worries about Facebook. Facebook worries about Apple. Apple worries about Amazon. Amazon is Big Content's favorite Web Giant.
In 3 years: Tesla a ten bagger.  Solar City a triple.  SpaceX equity at least a double.   

Amazon: Not sure how that's going to grow markets or market share.  They are already essentially dominant.  I think Bezos bank account deflates a little,  and Musk's goes up a lot in the next 3 years.  just my guess.   

Not that I'm against Bezos or Blue Origin in the slightest.  Other than over-patenting.  That 1-click patent is just silly. 
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Lurker Steve on 04/30/2012 02:23 pm
Bezos is 20% owner, chairman, and CEO of the world's largest e-commerce service and cloud hosting platform. Bezos is still milking an enormously lucrative cash cow whose growth is showing no signs of slowing.

Amazon is a gold mine. Microsoft worries about Google. Google worries about Facebook. Facebook worries about Apple. Apple worries about Amazon. Amazon is Big Content's favorite Web Giant.
In 3 years: Tesla a ten bagger.  Solar City a triple.  SpaceX equity at least a double.   

Amazon: Not sure how that's going to grow markets or market share.  They are already essentially dominant.  I think Bezos bank account deflates a little,  and Musk's goes up a lot in the next 3 years.  just my guess.   

Not that I'm against Bezos or Blue Origin in the slightest.  Other than over-patenting.  That 1-click patent is just silly. 

If you look at the anemic Chevy Volt sales figures, it doesn't bode well for Telsa. Solar City (and the entire solar energy market) is highly dependant on favorable tax status. Those tax breaks won't last forever.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: go4mars on 04/30/2012 02:39 pm
If you look at the anemic Chevy Volt sales figures, it doesn't bode well for Telsa. Solar City (and the entire solar energy market) is highly dependant on favorable tax status. Those tax breaks won't last forever.
1) Chevy Volt is not predictive of Tesla sales imo.
2) Favourable tax status unlikely to shrink for political reasons.  Regardless,  Solar City is more a financing solution than a solar hardware solution company.  Their IPO is soon.  I think they gain further market share and multiplier expansion. 
3)  We are waaaaay OT.         

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Danderman on 04/30/2012 02:45 pm

3)  We are waaaaay OT.         



Does the above post mean that Blue Origin in done with hydrogen peroxide as a principal propellant?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: mmeijeri on 04/30/2012 02:47 pm
I've been wondering about that for some time, and people have suggested that is the case, but I don't think Blue Origin has released any unequivocal statement to that effect.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 04/30/2012 03:00 pm
I've been wondering about that for some time, and people have suggested that is the case, but I don't think Blue Origin has released any unequivocal statement to that effect.
Except that they've never said that peroxide would be a principal propellant for their orbital vehicle, either. All information has point to LH2/LOx for both stages since as long as I've been following it.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: mmeijeri on 04/30/2012 03:02 pm
That's true, but then again, why are they still working with peroxide? Kerosene / peroxide (or kerolox) for the first stage and LOX/LH2 for the second wouldn't be illogical. Not conclusive of course.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: butters on 04/30/2012 03:14 pm
They might be using H2O2 monoprop for RCS?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 04/30/2012 03:52 pm
That's true, but then again, why are they still working with peroxide? Kerosene / peroxide (or kerolox) for the first stage and LOX/LH2 for the second wouldn't be illogical. Not conclusive of course.
They're working with peroxide because it's a convenient propellant for suborbital operations. And is storable enough for the spacecraft itself (ala Soyuz).

Remember, Blue Origin slurped up a bunch of DC-X folks.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: mmeijeri on 04/30/2012 04:18 pm
They're working with peroxide because it's a convenient propellant for suborbital operations.

Such as a first stage. ;)

Quote
Remember, Blue Origin slurped up a bunch of DC-X folks.

I know, and some Beal people too I think (hence the peroxide?). You could well be right, but we can't be sure. I'd like to know, but if Bezos decides to keep things secret, then that's his call.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Chris Bergin on 04/30/2012 04:24 pm
This looks like it's back on track, but earlier report to mods said it was going off a cliff, so keep pulling it back guys! :)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: mmeijeri on 04/30/2012 04:26 pm
Do we want a separate "Blue Origin general discussion" thread? We don't get too many updates, most of the discussion in this thread is speculation.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Chris Bergin on 04/30/2012 04:28 pm
Yeah, we can always do two threads! Do you want to set another one up Martijn? If not I can do it later.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: tegla on 04/30/2012 06:14 pm
TSTO VTVL RLV

Should I be happy I understood this, or concerned? :-)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: simonbp on 04/30/2012 09:44 pm
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2012/04/commercial-space-shuttle-wind-tunnel-testing/

That's certainly the most we've seen publicly about the biconic's true shape, specifically that it's not a true biconic, but rather a biconic with a slice out of the bottom.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: kch on 04/30/2012 09:50 pm
TSTO VTVL RLV

Should I be happy I understood this, or concerned? :-)

Yes ... ;)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: JazzFan on 05/08/2012 10:40 pm
Here is some general news.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/05/07/secretive-blue-origin-reveals-new-details-spacecraft-plans/
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Danderman on 05/09/2012 04:44 pm
Here is some general news.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/05/07/secretive-blue-origin-reveals-new-details-spacecraft-plans/


http://i.space.com/images/i/16905/i02/blue-origin-biconic-120424d-02.jpg

An interesting look at the capsule, its copyrighted so I can't upload it.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: daj24 on 05/09/2012 04:51 pm
Here is some general news.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/05/07/secretive-blue-origin-reveals-new-details-spacecraft-plans/ (http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/05/07/secretive-blue-origin-reveals-new-details-spacecraft-plans/)


http://i.space.com/images/i/16905/i02/blue-origin-biconic-120424d-02.jpg (http://i.space.com/images/i/16905/i02/blue-origin-biconic-120424d-02.jpg)

An interesting look at the capsule, its copyrighted so I can't upload it.


I think that I have seen this before.  And I thought the same thing.  If indeed the seating is arranged in this manor they must have some great seat belts for liftoff! :D
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: simonbp on 05/09/2012 07:05 pm
That internal arrangement is almost certainly not real. It's based on the ESA's ERV, which was never meant to be launched manned. In reality, the seats will likely be arranged so that the crew are eyeballs-in at launch and eyeballs-down at reentry (just like Shuttle).
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: IanO on 05/09/2012 11:15 pm
Here is some general news.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/05/07/secretive-blue-origin-reveals-new-details-spacecraft-plans/


http://i.space.com/images/i/16905/i02/blue-origin-biconic-120424d-02.jpg

An interesting look at the capsule, its copyrighted so I can't upload it.


Actually it is just interesting speculation, and graphics of ESA and NASA biconic proposals. Blue Origin hasn't yet released anything this detailed about their design.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Zond on 05/23/2012 06:41 pm
Blue Origin's first flying vehicle "Charon" will be displayed at the Museum of Flight.
http://www.blueorigin.com/media/media.html# (http://www.blueorigin.com/media/media.html#)
(http://www.blueorigin.com/media/Images/Charon.jpg)

The vehicle is mentioned in the last paragraph of this article from 2005 http://www.space.com/1689-bezos-blue-origin-set-rocket-hq-washington-state.html (http://www.space.com/1689-bezos-blue-origin-set-rocket-hq-washington-state.html)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: simonbp on 05/23/2012 11:33 pm
If it's not clear from the picture, it used 4x aircraft jet engines.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: wholmeswa on 05/23/2012 11:44 pm
Link to pictures that MoF posted this afternoon.

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10150786668222224.376963.8855517223&type=3&l=3d7c87992f

Was there last week. Looks like it is time for another visit.  :)

Wayne
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: neilh on 05/24/2012 12:00 am
http://www.seattlepi.com/business/boeing/article/Blue-Origin-test-craft-lands-in-Museum-of-3580425.php
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: RanulfC on 05/24/2012 07:39 pm
Blue Origin's first flying vehicle "Charon" will be displayed at the Museum of Flight.
http://www.blueorigin.com/media/media.html# (http://www.blueorigin.com/media/media.html#)
(http://www.blueorigin.com/media/Images/Charon.jpg)

The vehicle is mentioned in the last paragraph of this article from 2005 http://www.space.com/1689-bezos-blue-origin-set-rocket-hq-washington-state.html (http://www.space.com/1689-bezos-blue-origin-set-rocket-hq-washington-state.html)
Arrrggggghhhh! It figures... The perfect testbed for Jet-Engine-Launch-Assist (JELAC) goes to a museum. Then again despite the article from 2005 this is pretty much the first I'd heard of the vehicle and I'm pretty sure Mr. Bezos' had/has no intentions of loaning it out for testing anyway :)

Randy
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Chris-A on 05/24/2012 08:39 pm
Close up picture. Yes, those are jet engines.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2012/05/private-spaceflight
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: RanulfC on 05/24/2012 08:49 pm
Close up picture. Yes, those are jet engines.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2012/05/private-spaceflight
Great. Now how about a nice "how-we-built-it" and "we-had-these-problems-and-this-performance" so someone ELSE can use it if they are not? :)

Randy
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 06/05/2012 03:30 am
Quote
Commercial space company Blue Origin has completed the system requirements review (SRR) of its reusable Space Vehicle, which will earn the company $900,000 from NASA.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/blue-origin-completes-system-requirements-review-of-reusable-capsule-372612/
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Silmfeanor on 06/19/2012 08:01 pm
from
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/660802main_June_2012_60_Day_Report_508.pdf (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/660802main_June_2012_60_Day_Report_508.pdf)
( the seventh 60-day report on commercial spaceflight )

Quote
Another example of a recent CCDev2 milestone is Blue
Origin’s “pusher” escape system test vehicle, which has now
been assembled and shipped to the company’s test range
near Van Horn, Texas. This is a significant milestone in
preparation for Blue Origin’s pad escape flight test planned
for later this summer. The pusher escape system protects
crew in the event of a catastrophic failure of the launch
vehicle, enabling the crew vehicle to carry the crew to safety. 
The upcoming test campaign will validate the system’s rocket
motor and thrust vector control.

Picture attached. Are we seeing the whole spacecraft here - or at least the outer mold line?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Jason1701 on 06/20/2012 02:52 am
from
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/660802main_June_2012_60_Day_Report_508.pdf (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/660802main_June_2012_60_Day_Report_508.pdf)
( the seventh 60-day report on commercial spaceflight )

Quote
Another example of a recent CCDev2 milestone is Blue
Origin’s “pusher” escape system test vehicle, which has now
been assembled and shipped to the company’s test range
near Van Horn, Texas. This is a significant milestone in
preparation for Blue Origin’s pad escape flight test planned
for later this summer. The pusher escape system protects
crew in the event of a catastrophic failure of the launch
vehicle, enabling the crew vehicle to carry the crew to safety. 
The upcoming test campaign will validate the system’s rocket
motor and thrust vector control.

Picture attached. Are we seeing the whole spacecraft here - or at least the outer mold line?

It looks like the actual OML of the crew module, but there's a cylindrical service module that should go behind. Perhaps we can infer from this that the launch abort engines are on the crew module (like Dragon), rather than the service module (like CST-100). Maybe Blue Origin is considering propulsive landing as well.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Go4TLI on 06/20/2012 02:56 am
from
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/660802main_June_2012_60_Day_Report_508.pdf (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/660802main_June_2012_60_Day_Report_508.pdf)
( the seventh 60-day report on commercial spaceflight )

Quote
Another example of a recent CCDev2 milestone is Blue
Origin’s “pusher” escape system test vehicle, which has now
been assembled and shipped to the company’s test range
near Van Horn, Texas. This is a significant milestone in
preparation for Blue Origin’s pad escape flight test planned
for later this summer. The pusher escape system protects
crew in the event of a catastrophic failure of the launch
vehicle, enabling the crew vehicle to carry the crew to safety. 
The upcoming test campaign will validate the system’s rocket
motor and thrust vector control.

Picture attached. Are we seeing the whole spacecraft here - or at least the outer mold line?

It looks like the actual OML of the crew module, but there's a cylindrical service module that should go behind. Perhaps we can infer from this that the launch abort engines are on the crew module (like Dragon), rather than the service module (like CST-100). Maybe Blue Origin is considering propulsive landing as well.

From what is known of Blue Origin's concept, it is a biconic vehicle.  This is not a biconic vehicle, especially if it the whole thing.  Also look at the size of it compared to those standing around it.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 06/23/2012 12:43 am
Close up picture. Yes, those are jet engines.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2012/05/private-spaceflight

Yes, Jet engines and H2o2 would work very well together.   The early 1950's rockets assisted jet engines.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: krytek on 06/23/2012 02:42 pm
That's one of the coolest things I've ever seen.
If anyone can get their hands on some flight footage....
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: krytek on 06/23/2012 04:20 pm
from
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/660802main_June_2012_60_Day_Report_508.pdf (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/660802main_June_2012_60_Day_Report_508.pdf)
( the seventh 60-day report on commercial spaceflight )

Quote
Another example of a recent CCDev2 milestone is Blue
Origin’s “pusher” escape system test vehicle, which has now
been assembled and shipped to the company’s test range
near Van Horn, Texas. This is a significant milestone in
preparation for Blue Origin’s pad escape flight test planned
for later this summer. The pusher escape system protects
crew in the event of a catastrophic failure of the launch
vehicle, enabling the crew vehicle to carry the crew to safety. 
The upcoming test campaign will validate the system’s rocket
motor and thrust vector control.

Picture attached. Are we seeing the whole spacecraft here - or at least the outer mold line?
That looks more like the New Shepherd capsule than the biconic one, see pic below.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Jason1701 on 07/07/2012 01:23 am
Looking at the milestone charts, Blue Origin should have tested the thrust chamber of its main engine for the reusable booster by now. The launch abort test should take place around the end of the month.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/08/2012 08:48 pm
Looking at the milestone charts, Blue Origin should have tested the thrust chamber of its main engine for the reusable booster by now. The launch abort test should take place around the end of the month.
Any news of it? (bumping to see if anyone has seen news)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 07/09/2012 12:43 am
Looking at the milestone charts, Blue Origin should have tested the thrust chamber of its main engine for the reusable booster by now. The launch abort test should take place around the end of the month.
Any news of it? (bumping to see if anyone has seen news)

Charlie Bolden (r) & Steve Knowles of Blue Origin look at Blue's BE-3 engine on a test stand @NASAStennis. http://twitpic.com/9c38fp

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=366006906775557&set=a.182739015102348.38515.134512156591701&type=1&theater

says it was "upcoming". That's the last I heard.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/09/2012 04:38 am
Looking at the milestone charts, Blue Origin should have tested the thrust chamber of its main engine for the reusable booster by now. The launch abort test should take place around the end of the month.
Any news of it? (bumping to see if anyone has seen news)

Charlie Bolden (r) & Steve Knowles of Blue Origin look at Blue's BE-3 engine on a test stand @NASAStennis. http://twitpic.com/9c38fp

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=366006906775557&set=a.182739015102348.38515.134512156591701&type=1&theater

says it was "upcoming". That's the last I heard.

Thanks. :)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Zond on 07/22/2012 09:54 am
Intriguing poster:
http://instagram.com/p/NO06dDCf69/ (http://instagram.com/p/NO06dDCf69/)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/23/2012 06:10 am
Intriguing poster:
http://instagram.com/p/NO06dDCf69/ (http://instagram.com/p/NO06dDCf69/)
Well, "July 21" was a day or two ago. And space.amazon.com doesn't go anywhere. I haven't found out any more info on this yet. Anyone else have better luck?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 07/23/2012 02:10 pm
It could be that they are waiting for the CCiCap announcement before making any announcement on this.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 07/23/2012 02:19 pm
I guess in August we'll know.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 07/23/2012 04:04 pm
Intriguing poster:
http://instagram.com/p/NO06dDCf69/ (http://instagram.com/p/NO06dDCf69/)
Well, "July 21" was a day or two ago. And space.amazon.com doesn't go anywhere. I haven't found out any more info on this yet. Anyone else have better luck?

maybe a new ebook or toy model?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 08/25/2012 02:36 am
Here is some general news.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/05/07/secretive-blue-origin-reveals-new-details-spacecraft-plans/


This article was from a few months ago. But it has a number of interesting quotes from Brett Alexander about Blue Origin's plans after NASA/CCDev-2:

Quote
Regarding what happens with NASA's CCDev program in the future, Alexander said Blue Origin intends to go forward with or without the space agency.

"The work we've done with their commercial crew office has helped us to accelerate plans that we had…but we're not just doing it for NASA," he said. "If we don't continue on the commercial crew program, it's not like we're going to stop the work. We're going to continue the effort."

NASA embracing the commercial sector so that private firms can move into low-Earth orbit is the right approach, Alexander said, a step that propels the space agency farther into deep space.

"The burden now is less on NASA and more on the private sector to deliver," Alexander added.

These quotes are from May 7, 2012 (which was after the March 23, 2012 deadline for submitting CCiCap proposals) which means that Alexander already knew at the time that Blue Origin would not be taking part in CCiCap. So his comments are still very relevant as to what happen's next for Blue Origin.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Zond on 08/25/2012 04:02 pm
Blue Origin has completed the pusher escape motor ground firing.

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/679670main_August_2012_60_Day_Report_508.pdf (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/679670main_August_2012_60_Day_Report_508.pdf)
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/679671main_CCDev2_Public_August2012_508.pdf (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/679671main_CCDev2_Public_August2012_508.pdf)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: thomson on 09/10/2012 12:15 am
2 photos of the Blue Origin capsule:
http://www.citizensinspace.org/2012/09/blue-origin-a-peak-inside/ (http://www.citizensinspace.org/2012/09/blue-origin-a-peak-inside/)

No new information, but I haven't seen those photos before.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Comga on 09/10/2012 04:49 am
2 photos of the Blue Origin capsule:
http://www.citizensinspace.org/2012/09/blue-origin-a-peak-inside/ (http://www.citizensinspace.org/2012/09/blue-origin-a-peak-inside/)

No new information, but I haven't seen those photos before.

Old news.  It was all over the web months ago including here (http://ajorbahman.blogspot.com/2012/05/secretive-blue-origin-reveals-new.html) dated May 8 and here (http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/12/09/9327876-private-venture-gets-go-ahead-for-february-space-station-trip?lite), both found with a quick search in images.google.com.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 09/27/2012 04:13 am
Blue Origin is potentially interested in CPC (phase 1 of certification):

See this post:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29593.msg958361#msg958361
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 09/27/2012 04:16 am
Interesting.. guess we'll find out if this really is an "open" competition after CCiCap.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 09/27/2012 04:23 am
Interestingly NASA left the door open to having up to 4 CPC awards (they said likely between 2 to 4 awards).

See page 3 of the white paper:
http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/document_file_get.cfm?docID=637
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Retired Downrange on 10/15/2012 10:57 pm
Blue Origin Tests Rocket Engine Thrust Chamber10.15.12
 

NASA's Commercial Crew Program (CCP) partner Blue Origin has successfully fired the thrust chamber assembly for its new 100,000 pound thrust BE-3 liquid oxygen, liquid hydrogen rocket engine. As part of Blue's Reusable Booster System (RBS), the engines are designed eventually to launch the biconic-shaped Space Vehicle the company is developing.

The test was part of Blue Origin's work supporting its funded Space Act Agreement with NASA during Commercial Crew Development Round 2...

"Blue Origin continues to be extremely innovative as it develops a crew-capable vehicle for suborbital and orbital flights," said Ed Mango, CCP manager. "We're thrilled the company's engine test fire was met with success."

The test took place early this month on the E-1 test stand at NASA's Stennis Space Center near Bay St. Louis, Miss. Blue Origin engineers successfully completed the test by powering the thrust chamber to its full power level.


http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/commercial/crew/blue-origin-be3.html
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 10/15/2012 11:26 pm
add the large pic to enjoy
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/16/2012 12:16 am
add the large pic to enjoy

Sweet.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: neilh on 10/16/2012 01:00 am
Is the ISP for Blue Origin's BE-3 engine known? I wonder how it compares to the RL-10.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: jacqmans on 10/16/2012 04:13 am
RELEASE: 12-362

NASA COMMERCIAL CREW PARTNER BLUE ORIGIN COMPLETES ROCKET ENGINE THRUST CHAMBER TEST

WASHINGTON -- NASA's Commercial Crew Program (CCP) partner Blue Origin
has successfully fired the thrust chamber assembly for its new
100,000 pound thrust BE-3 liquid oxygen, liquid hydrogen rocket
engine. As part of Blue's Reusable Booster System (RBS), the engines
are designed eventually to launch the biconic-shaped Space Vehicle
the company is developing.

The test was part of Blue Origin's work supporting its funded Space
Act Agreement with NASA during Commercial Crew Development Round 2
(CCDev2). CCDev2 continues to bring spacecraft and launch vehicle
designs forward to develop a U.S. commercial crew space
transportation capability that ultimately could become available for
the government and other customers.

"Blue Origin continues to be extremely innovative as it develops a
crew-capable vehicle for suborbital and orbital flights," said Ed
Mango, CCP manager. "We're thrilled the company's engine test fire
was met with success."

The test took place early this month on the E-1 test stand at NASA's
Stennis Space Center near Bay St. Louis, Miss. Blue Origin engineers
successfully completed the test by powering the thrust chamber to its
full power level.

"We are very excited to have demonstrated a new class of
high-performance hydrogen engines," said Rob Meyerson, president and
program manager of Blue Origin. "Access to the Stennis test facility
and its talented operations team was instrumental in conducting
full-power testing of this new thrust chamber."

As part of CCDev2, Blue Origin also completed a system requirements
review of its spacecraft. During the review, engineers and technical
experts representing NASA, the Federal Aviation Administration and
the company assessed the spacecraft's ability to meet safety and
mission requirements to low-Earth orbit. That review also included
results from more than 100 wind tunnel tests of the vehicle's
aerodynamic design, stability during flight and cross-range
maneuverability.

All of NASA's industry partners, including Blue Origin, continue to
meet their established milestones in developing commercial crew
transportation capabilities.

While NASA works with U.S. industry partners to develop commercial
spaceflight capabilities, the agency also is developing the Orion
spacecraft and the Space Launch System (SLS), a crew capsule and
heavy-lift rocket to provide an entirely new capability for human
exploration. Designed to be flexible for launching spacecraft for
crew and cargo missions, SLS and Orion will expand human presence
beyond low-Earth orbit and enable new missions of exploration into
the solar system.

For more information about NASA's Commercial Crew Program, visit:

http://www.nasa.gov/commercialcrew
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: john smith 19 on 10/16/2012 08:24 am
RELEASE: 12-362

Blue Origin has successfully fired the thrust chamber assembly for its new
100,000 pound thrust BE-3 liquid oxygen, liquid hydrogen rocket
engine. As part of Blue's Reusable Booster System (RBS), the engines
are designed eventually to launch the biconic-shaped Space Vehicle
the company is developing.
http://www.nasa.gov/commercialcrew
I had not realized they were going with LH2/LO2. I'd through the HTP was a stepping stone to LO2 but they'd stay with a hydrocarbon fuel.

A LO2/LH2 LV + biconic capsule (with nose first re-entry presumably) is definitely on the sporty end of  commercial spaceflight options.

That's very impressive.


Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 10/16/2012 02:58 pm
Is the ISP for Blue Origin's BE-3 engine known? I wonder how it compares to the RL-10.

I don't know how it compares to the RL-10 but it seems that Blue Origin wants its engine to also be used as an upper stage for various applications.

Quote
Blue Origin requests $10,400,000 in NASA funding for the RBS Engine Risk Reduction Project with the possibility of an additional $3,000,000 for optional milestones. Partnering with NASA will not only accelerate the Reusable Booster System; it will also speed development of a low-cost LOx/LH2 engine suitable for a variety of other upper stage applications and deep-throttling exploration missions.

See page 29 of the PDF of their CCDev-2 SAA:
http://procurement.ksc.nasa.gov/documents/NNK11MS02S_SAA_BlueOrigin_04-18-2011.pdf
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=36766
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Danderman on 10/16/2012 03:16 pm
With the caveat that this engine is years away from flight, I can't see a reason for the RL-10 to have a place in the market if this engine is adapted to upper stage use. A 100,000 lb thrust LH2 engine would be a game changer in the commercial world.


Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 10/16/2012 03:45 pm
With the caveat that this engine is years away from flight, I can't see a reason for the RL-10 to have a place in the market if this engine is adapted to upper stage use. A 100,000 lb thrust LH2 engine would be a game changer in the commercial world.




Was thinking the same.
Delta IV would be an easy pick for this engine.   Only concerns would be costs, if Blue Origin would want to sell engines.  Complexity of the design?

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 10/16/2012 04:52 pm
T/W? Isp? Additional fluid requirements? Air startable? Number of restarts? We don't know squat about those. Plus, whatever sort of certification program would be needed for the EELV requirements.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Zed_Noir on 10/16/2012 05:01 pm
With the caveat that this engine is years away from flight, I can't see a reason for the RL-10 to have a place in the market if this engine is adapted to upper stage use. A 100,000 lb thrust LH2 engine would be a game changer in the commercial world.


Would Blue Origins be willing to offer the LOX/LH2 motor for sell?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: daveklingler on 10/16/2012 08:00 pm
T/W? Isp? Additional fluid requirements? Air startable? Number of restarts? We don't know squat about those. Plus, whatever sort of certification program would be needed for the EELV requirements.

Restartable, anyway.

From the SpaceRef article:
Quote
Blue Origin also proposes to speed development of its Reusable Booster System through accelerated testing of its 100,000 lbf liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen (LOx/LH2) engine. Development of Blue Origin's restartable, deep-throttle engine is pacing the entire orbital RBS program. Under CCDev 2, Blue Origin proposes to test the full-scale thrust chamber at NASA's Stennis Space Center and, optionally, perform development testing of the engine's fuel and oxidizer turbopumps.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/16/2012 08:02 pm
Restartable implies air-startable.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: mmeijeri on 10/16/2012 08:04 pm
Air-startable implies restartable.

It didn't for the SSME, which is why Ares I switched from SSME to J2X and from 4 seg to 5 seg SRBs.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/16/2012 08:24 pm
Air-startable implies restartable.

It didn't for the SSME, which is why Ares I switched from SSME to J2X and from 4 seg to 5 seg SRBs.
I meant the other way and edited it soon after posting... you must have caught it before I edited it!
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: neilh on 10/17/2012 09:11 pm
It's also probably worth remembering that this is a test of the thrust chamber, not the full engine.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: spectre9 on 10/17/2012 11:20 pm
That's everything except the nozzle right?

Any speculation on that? Ablative or regen?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/17/2012 11:44 pm
It's also probably worth remembering that this is a test of the thrust chamber, not the full engine.
And the nozzle. You mean, of course, that this doesn't test the pumps. Quite true and probably more challenging than what they've done so far.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Jason1701 on 10/17/2012 11:58 pm
It's also probably worth remembering that this is a test of the thrust chamber, not the full engine.
And the nozzle. You mean, of course, that this doesn't test the pumps. Quite true and probably more challenging than what they've done so far.

So it was pressure fed? How long can tests like that run?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Silmfeanor on 10/18/2012 12:22 am
It's also probably worth remembering that this is a test of the thrust chamber, not the full engine.
And the nozzle. You mean, of course, that this doesn't test the pumps. Quite true and probably more challenging than what they've done so far.

So it was pressure fed? How long can tests like that run?

It might be fed by "generic" turbopumps installed in the test stand?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 10/18/2012 12:25 am
Everything I've heard about Blue Origin's LH2/LOX stage has been pressure fed. If they have any pumps they haven't told anyone about it. Not that this is surprising of Blue Origin.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/18/2012 05:08 am
Everything I've heard about Blue Origin's LH2/LOX stage has been pressure fed. If they have any pumps they haven't told anyone about it. Not that this is surprising of Blue Origin.
I can guarantee you that their flight hydrolox engine will have pumps. Hydrogen wouldn't make sense as a fuel otherwise, since its density is so low and so the tanks would be prohibitively heavy. If they were using a denser fuel, pressure-fed may be feasible.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: john smith 19 on 10/18/2012 07:11 am
Everything I've heard about Blue Origin's LH2/LOX stage has been pressure fed. If they have any pumps they haven't told anyone about it. Not that this is surprising of Blue Origin.

A 100Klb pressure fed would IIRC make it the biggest since the Beale Aerospace attempt.

I don't think *anyone* has attempted a LH2/LO2 flight weight pressure fed, although NASA seems to use a sort of aerospike nozzle design for thermal testing at about 20Klb

As for Blue Origin's for information management I'm always reminded of this shot of the Reaction Engines shareholders group

http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/news_dec2011.html   :)

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/18/2012 03:26 pm
Usually you only attach the flight pumps later in development. That is the only reason their current engine they just tested was pressure fed.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Zond on 10/18/2012 04:57 pm
Everything I've heard about Blue Origin's LH2/LOX stage has been pressure fed. If they have any pumps they haven't told anyone about it. Not that this is surprising of Blue Origin.

You should listen more intensely:
Quote
We are particularly looking for experienced propulsion engineers and experienced turbomachinery engineers, as well as a senior leader to head our turbopump group.
http://www.blueorigin.com/updates/updates-2007-01-02-Flight-Test-Goddard%20Low-Altitude-Mission.html (http://www.blueorigin.com/updates/updates-2007-01-02-Flight-Test-Goddard%20Low-Altitude-Mission.html)

And several proposed milestones for CCDEV2 were about testing the turbopump for the BE-3: http://procurement.ksc.nasa.gov/documents/NNK11MS02S_SAA_BlueOrigin_04-18-2011.pdf (http://procurement.ksc.nasa.gov/documents/NNK11MS02S_SAA_BlueOrigin_04-18-2011.pdf)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 10/19/2012 12:42 am
Thanks Zond.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: daveklingler on 10/19/2012 05:47 pm
And several proposed milestones for CCDEV2 were about testing the turbopump for the BE-3: http://procurement.ksc.nasa.gov/documents/NNK11MS02S_SAA_BlueOrigin_04-18-2011.pdf (http://procurement.ksc.nasa.gov/documents/NNK11MS02S_SAA_BlueOrigin_04-18-2011.pdf)

If I'm not mistaken, two milestones remain on the engine portion of BO's CCDev2 SAA:

Milestone 3.3: Engine Pump Cold Gas Drive Test
Milestone 3.5: Engine Pump Hot Gas Drive Test

I haven't yet checked for other remaining milestones on BO's CCDev2 SAA.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Zond on 10/19/2012 06:01 pm
And several proposed milestones for CCDEV2 were about testing the turbopump for the BE-3: http://procurement.ksc.nasa.gov/documents/NNK11MS02S_SAA_BlueOrigin_04-18-2011.pdf (http://procurement.ksc.nasa.gov/documents/NNK11MS02S_SAA_BlueOrigin_04-18-2011.pdf)

If I'm not mistaken, two milestones remain on the engine portion of BO's CCDev2 SAA:

Milestone 3.3: Engine Pump Cold Gas Drive Test
Milestone 3.5: Engine Pump Hot Gas Drive Test

I haven't yet checked for other remaining milestones on BO's CCDev2 SAA.

These were optional milestones that were not funded. The only remaining milestone for Blue is the "pusher escape pad escape test". According to the latest schedule this should already have been performed, but I guess it got delayed. http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/679671main_CCDev2_Public_August2012_508.pdf (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/679671main_CCDev2_Public_August2012_508.pdf)
I hope they release some video of the pad escape test.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 10/19/2012 08:24 pm
I'd be happy to see any Video from BO.

Engine test fires a plus.

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Owen on 10/22/2012 07:49 pm
Pusher escape test, with video :)

http://www.blueorigin.com/updates/updates-2012-10-22-Great-Day-in-West-Texas.html
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/22/2012 07:54 pm
Wow. That's spectacular!

I think people consistently under-rate Blue Origin. They really shouldn't.

(Note that neither SpaceX nor Boeing nor Spacedev have completed a similar test, though this is for the suborbital vehicle.)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: neilh on 10/22/2012 07:56 pm
Pusher escape test, with video :)

http://www.blueorigin.com/updates/updates-2012-10-22-Great-Day-in-West-Texas.html

Wow!

This was Blue Origin's final milestone under CCDev-2, right?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars_J on 10/22/2012 08:17 pm
Wow! That was quite impressive!  :o
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/22/2012 08:27 pm
I'll write this up, as we've done little on this vehicle (there's been little to write about to be fair).
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 10/22/2012 08:36 pm
Wow. That's spectacular!

I think people consistently under-rate Blue Origin. They really shouldn't.

(Note that neither SpaceX nor Boeing nor Spacedev have completed a similar test, though this is for the suborbital vehicle.)

I agree with everything you have said

very well done Blue Origin !!!

the video is like they landed in my back yard, enjoyed it.


edit: couple screen grabs to enjoy
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: jacqmans on 10/22/2012 08:47 pm
RELEASE: 12-368

NASA COMMERCIAL CREW PARTNER BLUE ORIGIN COMPLETES PAD ESCAPE TEST

VAN HORN, Texas -- NASA's Commercial Crew Program (CCP) partner Blue
Origin conducted a successful pad escape test Friday at the company's
West Texas launch site, firing its pusher-escape motor and launching
a full-scale suborbital crew capsule from a simulated propulsion
module.

The test was part of Blue Origin's work supporting its funded Space
Act Agreement with NASA during Commercial Crew Development Round 2
(CCDev2). Through initiatives like CCDev2, NASA is fostering the
development of a U.S. commercial crew space transportation capability
with the goal of achieving safe, reliable and cost-effective access
to and from the International Space Station and low-Earth orbit.
After the capability is matured and available to the government and
other customers, NASA could contract to purchase commercial services
to meet its station crew transportation needs.

"The progress Blue Origin has made on its suborbital and orbital
capabilities really is encouraging for the overall future of human
spaceflight," CCP Manager Ed Mango said. "It was awesome to see a
spacecraft NASA played a role in developing take flight."

The suborbital crew capsule traveled to an altitude of 2,307 feet (703
meters) during the flight test before descending safely by parachute
to a soft landing 1,630 feet (497 meters) away.

The pusher escape system was designed and developed by Blue Origin to
allow crew escape in the event of an emergency during any phase of
ascent for its suborbital New Shepard system. As part of an
incremental development program, the results of this test will shape
the design of the escape system for the company's orbital
biconic-shaped Space Vehicle. The system is expected to enable full
reusability of the launch vehicle, which is different from NASA's
previous launch escape systems that would pull a spacecraft away from
its rocket before reaching orbit.

"The use of a pusher configuration marks a significant departure from
the traditional towed-tractor escape tower concepts of Mercury and
Apollo," said Rob Meyerson, president and program manager of Blue
Origin. "Providing crew escape without the need to jettison the
unused escape system gets us closer to our goal of safe and
affordable human spaceflight."

All of NASA's industry partners, including Blue Origin, continue to
meet their established milestones in developing commercial crew
transportation capabilities.

While NASA works with U.S. industry partners to develop commercial
spaceflight capabilities, the agency also is developing the Orion
spacecraft and the Space Launch System (SLS), a crew capsule and
heavy-lift rocket to provide an entirely new capability for human
exploration. Designed to be flexible for launching spacecraft for
crew and cargo missions, SLS and Orion will expand human presence
beyond low-Earth orbit and enable new missions of exploration into
the solar system.

For more information about NASA's Commercial Crew Program, visit:

http://www.nasa.gov/commercialcrew
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: jacqmans on 10/22/2012 08:48 pm
Oct. 22, 2012
Blue Origin Conducts Successful Pad Escape Test

KENT, Wash. – Blue Origin conducted a successful Pad Escape test last week at its West Texas launch site, firing its pusher escape motor and launching a full-scale suborbital Crew Capsule from a launch vehicle simulator. The Crew Capsule traveled to an altitude of 2,307 feet under active thrust vector control before descending safely by parachute to a soft landing 1,630 feet downrange.

Blue Origin’s novel pusher escape system has been designed and developed to allow full-envelope crew escape in the event of an emergency on ascent for its suborbital New Shepard system. As part of an incremental development program, the results of this test will inform the design of the escape system for its orbital Space Vehicle. Traditional tractor escape systems are not compatible with reuse. Blue Origin's pusher escape system is a key enabler of full-vehicle reusability, as well as improving the safety of human access to space.

“The first test of our suborbital Crew Capsule is a big step on the way to safe, affordable space travel,” said Jeff Bezos, founder of Blue Origin. “This wouldn’t have been possible without NASA’s help, and the Blue Origin team worked hard and smart to design this system, build it, and pull off this test. Lots of smiles around here today. Gradatim Ferociter!”

Video of the test is available on the Blue Origin website.

Blue Origin is testing the pusher escape system in partnership with NASA under the Commercial Crew Development (CCDev) program. As part of CCDev, Blue Origin earlier this year completed the System Requirements Review of its Space Vehicle, designed to provide safe, affordable transport of up to seven astronauts to low-Earth orbit and the International Space Station, as well as a full-power test firing of the thrust chamber for its new 100,000 lbf BE-3 LOX/LH2 engine.

About Blue Origin
 Blue Origin, LLC (Blue Origin) is a private company developing vehicles and technologies to enable commercial human space transportation. Blue Origin has a long-term vision of greatly increasing the number of people that fly into space through low-cost, highly reliable commercial space transportation. For more information and a list of job openings, please visit us at www.blueorigin.com.
http://www.blueorigin.com/media/media.html#10222012
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: jabe on 10/22/2012 08:54 pm
so..solid rocket motor for the escape system?  And how are they arranged on bottom.. great video..
jb
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/22/2012 09:04 pm
so..solid rocket motor for the escape system?  ...
I see no direct statement that it was a solid rocket motor, though that would be easiest.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: neilh on 10/22/2012 09:21 pm
so..solid rocket motor for the escape system?  ...
I see no direct statement that it was a solid rocket motor, though that would be easiest.

Their SAA doesn't explicitly say what their pusher escape system uses, although it does list this in their major suppliers section: "Aerojet, for solid rocket motors and test facilities"

http://procurement.ksc.nasa.gov/documents/NNK11MS02S_SAA_BlueOrigin_04-18-2011.pdf
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: jabe on 10/22/2012 09:33 pm
I was simply going by exhaust colour  .  Am I wrong to assume that?
Jb
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/22/2012 09:55 pm
I was simply going by exhaust colour  .  Am I wrong to assume that?
Jb
I was just looking for confirmation. Neilh shows that you're probably right.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Comga on 10/22/2012 10:20 pm
So how does putting the solid rocket LAS motors in a pusher configuration help in retrieving them after flight? 
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: douglas100 on 10/22/2012 10:30 pm
I was simply going by exhaust colour  .  Am I wrong to assume that?
Jb

I think you're right. The amount of smoke certainly makes it look like a solid propellant system. And that was a one spectacular test.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/22/2012 10:49 pm
And done with the article on Blue Origin. Nothing amazing, just a round up of the recent milestones...

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/10/blue-origin-capsule-pad-aborts-pusher-escape/
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: krytek on 10/22/2012 10:57 pm
What softens the landing?
I know Soyuz uses rockets to slow down just before landing
and CST-100 is supposed to use airbags. This system looks like it has neither.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 10/23/2012 12:23 am
That sucker pulled some g's! Looked good and stable throughout flight. Hard to get a lot of details out of Area 51 eh?... ;D Thanks for the update Chris! :)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Jason1701 on 10/23/2012 12:50 am
There was a lot of dust or smoke when it touched down. Did it look to anyone like it had small solid motors to soften the impact?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: neilh on 10/23/2012 12:54 am
This article has a brief interview snippets with Blue Origin, which confirm that the escape system used Aerojet solids:

http://www.spacenews.com/launch/121022-blue-origin-escape-system-test.html
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 10/23/2012 03:06 am
I don't see any information on Aerojet in that article.

But Aerojet is a supplier to Blue Origin according to the summary of Blue Origin's CCDev2 SAA and a presentation by Maria Collura:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=36766
http://www.hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?blogid=1&archive=2011-05&catid=49
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: john smith 19 on 10/23/2012 12:55 pm
There was a lot of dust or smoke when it touched down. Did it look to anyone like it had small solid motors to soften the impact?
I'd have expected some bursts of intense light *just* before contact with the ground but I only looked at it at full speed.

It is desert that could have just been the dust cloud from hitting the ground at speed. *Apart* from Soyuz capsules do *any* air drop systems use terminal rockets to kill more of the descent rate than the parachutes already do?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: thydusk666 on 10/23/2012 02:26 pm
It is desert that could have just been the dust cloud from hitting the ground at speed. *Apart* from Soyuz capsules do *any* air drop systems use terminal rockets to kill more of the descent rate than the parachutes already do?
The Shenzhou capsule uses landing rockets.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: go4mars on 10/23/2012 02:35 pm
Must have been something active right at the end.  At the speed demonstrated, "normal" sand/silt would not behave that way.  My opinion as a geologist.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: jimvela on 10/23/2012 03:19 pm
Must have been something active right at the end.  At the speed demonstrated, "normal" sand/silt would not behave that way.  My opinion as a geologist.

Except for the distinctive sound of solid motors firing.  Perhaps sound had been shut off or edited out.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: john smith 19 on 10/23/2012 03:29 pm
The Shenzhou capsule uses landing rockets.
I think the Shenzhou is more or less a direct Soyuz copy.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Zed_Noir on 10/23/2012 09:03 pm
There was a lot of dust or smoke when it touched down. Did it look to anyone like it had small solid motors to soften the impact?
I'd have expected some bursts of intense light *just* before contact with the ground but I only looked at it at full speed.

It is desert that could have just been the dust cloud from hitting the ground at speed. *Apart* from Soyuz capsules do *any* air drop systems use terminal rockets to kill more of the descent rate than the parachutes already do?

I posted something about this earlier.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26163.msg939736#msg939736 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26163.msg939736#msg939736)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: neilh on 10/23/2012 11:27 pm
I don't see any information on Aerojet in that article.

How odd, it seems to have been edited afterwards (I have an auto-screenshot of the original). The article basically mentioned that someone from Blue Origin had mentioned some delays related to the Aerojet motor, and the author hadn't been able to contact somebody from Aerojet yet for comment.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: spacejulien on 10/24/2012 08:06 am
Two screenshots from the video [1] by BlueOrigin. Not only does it show the engine nozzle still glowing (one more indication for solid), it also gives the impression, that the crew Capsule has either no or a very recessed backside.

Thus, I think, on touchdown the lower rim of the shell penetrates the sand/soil, the air inside would be compressed and then escapes at some locations around the rim of the shell entraining sand and dust particles and thus creating such large dust clouds.

So, I think there were no "landing" rockets involved.

[1] http://www.blueorigin.com/updates/updates-2012-10-22-Great-Day-in-West-Texas.html
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 10/24/2012 07:30 pm
The use of solids is confirmed in this article:
Quote
The pad-escape test served as an end-to-end tryout for Blue Origin's crew capsule: A center-mounted solid-rocket engine from Aerojet lofted the capsule to a height of 2,307 feet (703 meters) under active thrust vector control.

http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/22/14623551-jeff-bezos-blue-origin-spaceship-company-aces-pad-escape-test?lite
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Comga on 10/24/2012 11:49 pm
Two screenshots from the video [1] by BlueOrigin. Not only does it show the engine nozzle still glowing (one more indication for solid), it also gives the impression, that the crew Capsule has either no or a very recessed backside.(snip)
[1] http://www.blueorigin.com/updates/updates-2012-10-22-Great-Day-in-West-Texas.html

That seems to show the LAS embedded in the heat shield. 

How would that work? 
Would it sit in a volume between the pressure shell and a hatch in the heat shield?
Any guesses as to how they accomplished thrust vector control with a center mounted solid rocket?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Jason1701 on 10/25/2012 01:35 am
Two screenshots from the video [1] by BlueOrigin. Not only does it show the engine nozzle still glowing (one more indication for solid), it also gives the impression, that the crew Capsule has either no or a very recessed backside.(snip)
[1] http://www.blueorigin.com/updates/updates-2012-10-22-Great-Day-in-West-Texas.html

That seems to show the LAS embedded in the heat shield. 

How would that work? 
Would it sit in a volume between the pressure shell and a hatch in the heat shield?
Any guesses as to how they accomplished thrust vector control with a center mounted solid rocket?


Keep in mind this is their suborbital vehicle, so it may not need a dedicated heat shield.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: ChefPat on 10/25/2012 03:20 am
Two screenshots from the video [1] by BlueOrigin. Not only does it show the engine nozzle still glowing (one more indication for solid), it also gives the impression, that the crew Capsule has either no or a very recessed backside.(snip)
[1] http://www.blueorigin.com/updates/updates-2012-10-22-Great-Day-in-West-Texas.html

That seems to show the LAS embedded in the heat shield. 

How would that work? 
Would it sit in a volume between the pressure shell and a hatch in the heat shield?
Any guesses as to how they accomplished thrust vector control with a center mounted solid rocket?

I thought their orbital ship was going to be Bi-conic & come down nose first.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/25/2012 04:08 am
COmga: prbly a gimbaled nozzle.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 10/25/2012 12:57 pm
Two screenshots from the video [1] by BlueOrigin. Not only does it show the engine nozzle still glowing (one more indication for solid), it also gives the impression, that the crew Capsule has either no or a very recessed backside.(snip)
[1] http://www.blueorigin.com/updates/updates-2012-10-22-Great-Day-in-West-Texas.html

That seems to show the LAS embedded in the heat shield. 

How would that work? 
Would it sit in a volume between the pressure shell and a hatch in the heat shield?
Any guesses as to how they accomplished thrust vector control with a center mounted solid rocket?

I thought their orbital ship was going to be Bi-conic & come down nose first.

not for a launch abort.

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/25/2012 02:33 pm
Two screenshots from the video [1] by BlueOrigin. Not only does it show the engine nozzle still glowing (one more indication for solid), it also gives the impression, that the crew Capsule has either no or a very recessed backside.(snip)
[1] http://www.blueorigin.com/updates/updates-2012-10-22-Great-Day-in-West-Texas.html

That seems to show the LAS embedded in the heat shield. 

How would that work? 
Would it sit in a volume between the pressure shell and a hatch in the heat shield?
Any guesses as to how they accomplished thrust vector control with a center mounted solid rocket?

I thought their orbital ship was going to be Bi-conic & come down nose first.

not for a launch abort.


Citation needed.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: douglas100 on 10/25/2012 04:17 pm
I thought I saw somewhere that the test was in relation to the New Shepherd suborbital vehicle.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/25/2012 05:08 pm
I thought I saw somewhere that the test was in relation to the New Shepherd suborbital vehicle.
You're exactly right.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: kch on 10/25/2012 05:17 pm
Two screenshots from the video [1] by BlueOrigin. Not only does it show the engine nozzle still glowing (one more indication for solid), it also gives the impression, that the crew Capsule has either no or a very recessed backside.(snip)
[1] http://www.blueorigin.com/updates/updates-2012-10-22-Great-Day-in-West-Texas.html

That seems to show the LAS embedded in the heat shield. 

How would that work? 
Would it sit in a volume between the pressure shell and a hatch in the heat shield?
Any guesses as to how they accomplished thrust vector control with a center mounted solid rocket?


I thought their orbital ship was going to be Bi-conic & come down nose first.

So did I ... and, according to this, so do they:

http://www.blueorigin.com/media/media.html#04262012

:)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: ChefPat on 10/26/2012 12:46 pm
Two screenshots from the video [1] by BlueOrigin. Not only does it show the engine nozzle still glowing (one more indication for solid), it also gives the impression, that the crew Capsule has either no or a very recessed backside.(snip)
[1] http://www.blueorigin.com/updates/updates-2012-10-22-Great-Day-in-West-Texas.html

That seems to show the LAS embedded in the heat shield. 

How would that work? 
Would it sit in a volume between the pressure shell and a hatch in the heat shield?
Any guesses as to how they accomplished thrust vector control with a center mounted solid rocket?

I thought their orbital ship was going to be Bi-conic & come down nose first.

not for a launch abort.


Could you expand on that statement a little? The way I read it now is that it's biconic, unless it aborts. Then it's magically not biconic.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: dcporter on 10/26/2012 03:31 pm
Could you expand on that statement a little? The way I read it now is that it's biconic, unless it aborts. Then it's magically not biconic.

I would expect that he was referring to the side that didn't require magic, the nose-first descent.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Zond on 10/26/2012 04:37 pm
Two screenshots from the video [1] by BlueOrigin. Not only does it show the engine nozzle still glowing (one more indication for solid), it also gives the impression, that the crew Capsule has either no or a very recessed backside.(snip)
[1] http://www.blueorigin.com/updates/updates-2012-10-22-Great-Day-in-West-Texas.html

That seems to show the LAS embedded in the heat shield. 

How would that work? 
Would it sit in a volume between the pressure shell and a hatch in the heat shield?
Any guesses as to how they accomplished thrust vector control with a center mounted solid rocket?


http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=10685.msg706590#msg706590 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=10685.msg706590#msg706590)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Jason1701 on 10/26/2012 05:39 pm
Two screenshots from the video [1] by BlueOrigin. Not only does it show the engine nozzle still glowing (one more indication for solid), it also gives the impression, that the crew Capsule has either no or a very recessed backside.(snip)
[1] http://www.blueorigin.com/updates/updates-2012-10-22-Great-Day-in-West-Texas.html

That seems to show the LAS embedded in the heat shield. 

How would that work? 
Would it sit in a volume between the pressure shell and a hatch in the heat shield?
Any guesses as to how they accomplished thrust vector control with a center mounted solid rocket?

I thought their orbital ship was going to be Bi-conic & come down nose first.

not for a launch abort.


Could you expand on that statement a little? The way I read it now is that it's biconic, unless it aborts. Then it's magically not biconic.

The Space Vehicle is always biconic. This abort test was not of the Space Vehicle, it was of New Shepard.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Comga on 10/26/2012 06:13 pm
Two screenshots from the video [1] by BlueOrigin. Not only does it show the engine nozzle still glowing (one more indication for solid), it also gives the impression, that the crew Capsule has either no or a very recessed backside.(snip)
[1] http://www.blueorigin.com/updates/updates-2012-10-22-Great-Day-in-West-Texas.html
That seems to show the LAS embedded in the heat shield. 

How would that work? 
Would it sit in a volume between the pressure shell and a hatch in the heat shield?
Any guesses as to how they accomplished thrust vector control with a center mounted solid rocket?

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=10685.msg706590#msg706590 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=10685.msg706590#msg706590)

Thanks
While that document is no longer available at that link, this was quoted:
Quote
Blue Origin successfully met milestones for multiple pusher launch abort motor tests to verify operation of new jet tab thrust vector control and the manufacture, assembly, and structural testing of their crew composite pressure vessel.
  my emphasis

Is "jet tab thrust vector control" like the "jet vanes" in the exhaust path of the V2?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 10/27/2012 02:58 am
Aerojet press release on the pad escape test:
http://www.aerojet.com/news2.php?action=fullnews&id=343
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: john smith 19 on 10/27/2012 06:34 am

Thanks
While that document is no longer available at that link, this was quoted:
Quote
Blue Origin successfully met milestones for multiple pusher launch abort motor tests to verify operation of new jet tab thrust vector control and the manufacture, assembly, and structural testing of their crew composite pressure vessel.
  my emphasis

Is "jet tab thrust vector control" like the "jet vanes" in the exhaust path of the V2?
IIRC this is described in Sutton 4th Ed. Jet vanes are little aerofoils *permanently* in the flow which are rotated to deflect it. Being permanently in the flow they are subject to erosion and the V2 ones were made of graphite for temperature resistance.

The drawings I've seen of tabs are literally circular plates with a very off centre pivot that are rotated into the flow when needed.

IIRC Armadillo Aerospace have used tabs. I'd guess they are not as efficient as vanes but *much* simpler to design and construct (only eroding when in flow. Only in flow *changing* direction. Once on new heading they can withdrawn and all main flow is in new direction. Worst case would be *continual* turning but who would want to execute a 180?  :) )
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Zond on 11/07/2012 07:39 pm
Some new pictures of the escape test capsule from a presentation at ISPCS 2012 (http://www.ispcs.com/files/ww/files/ISPCS%202012/presenations/02_Erika%20Wagner_Blue%20Origin%20Overview%20-%20ISPCS%20-%202012-10-14.pdf).
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: simonbp on 11/07/2012 08:17 pm
Heh, reminds me of the LM ascent module's engine sticking up in the middle of the vehicle.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Comga on 11/07/2012 09:24 pm
Is "jet tab thrust vector control" like the "jet vanes" in the exhaust path of the V2?

IIRC this is described in Sutton 4th Ed. Jet vanes are little aerofoils *permanently* in the flow which are rotated to deflect it. Being permanently in the flow they are subject to erosion and the V2 ones were made of graphite for temperature resistance.

The drawings I've seen of tabs are literally circular plates with a very off centre pivot that are rotated into the flow when needed.

Two of the tabs and their actuators are visible in that cross-section that Zond posted.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: go4mars on 11/12/2012 05:09 am
Handy that they put some bookshelves in her next to the gray chaise longue's.    :-*
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 11/21/2012 05:58 pm
Astronaut Nick Patrick joins Blue Origin:
http://www.bis-space.com/2012/11/19/7627/nick-patrick-joins-blue-origin
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 11/21/2012 06:44 pm
Astronaut Nick Patrick joins Blue Origin:
http://www.bis-space.com/2012/11/19/7627/nick-patrick-joins-blue-origin

born British (should make some happy).

Does have an outstanding record.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/09/2013 08:03 pm
Blue Origin mentionned during today's press conference that they will be continuing their commercial crew work with NASA on an unfunded basis.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30772.msg999154#msg999154
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: JMS on 01/11/2013 03:25 am
Astronaut Nick Patrick joins Blue Origin:
http://www.bis-space.com/2012/11/19/7627/nick-patrick-joins-blue-origin

That article says that Mark Kelly "has teamed with Elon Musks’s Space-X"... Is that accurate?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: catdlr on 01/11/2013 03:48 am
Astronaut Nick Patrick joins Blue Origin:
http://www.bis-space.com/2012/11/19/7627/nick-patrick-joins-blue-origin

That article says that Mark Kelly "has teamed with Elon Musks’s Space-X"... Is that accurate?

well Wikipedia states this:

Quote
On March 28, 2012 SpaceX announced that Mark Kelly would be part of an independent safety advisory panel composed of leading human spaceflight safety experts.[49]

And SPACE-X has this on the subject:
http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20120329
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: JMS on 01/11/2013 03:52 am
Thanks. Missed that.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 01/11/2013 01:48 pm
Astronaut Nick Patrick joins Blue Origin:
http://www.bis-space.com/2012/11/19/7627/nick-patrick-joins-blue-origin

born British (should make some happy).

Does have an outstanding record.


Outstanding record of what?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/12/2013 02:29 pm
From page 15 of this presentation, Blue Origin intends to re-use its first stage but not its second stage. This probably isn't new information but I hadn't noticed before that the second stage would be expendable:

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/718299main_CCP-Status-Update-1-9-13-finalSM.pdf
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 01/12/2013 06:15 pm
Wonder what part of the Calender year BO ends on.

I'm thinking Amazon does most of their cash during the holidays.  Maybe sometime in the 1 qtr of the year.

So Bezo's might inject cash at this time of the year?

How is that thinking?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: mmeijeri on 01/12/2013 06:18 pm
I think Bezos can afford to inject money into Blue Origin whenever he wants...
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/12/2013 07:24 pm
A couple of years ago, it was stated that Bezos injects about $50M per year into Blue Origin.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=10685.msg747827#msg747827
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: simonbp on 01/12/2013 10:40 pm
Yeah, I don't think Blue is lacking for green(backs) at the moment. They are probably more delayed by figuring out what when wrong with the 2011 supersonic flight and how to prevent it. IIRC, that vehicle was the prototype for the manned suborbital launch vehicle, so they want it to be darn safe.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Linze on 01/13/2013 09:36 pm
I think Bezos can afford to inject money into Blue Origin whenever he wants...

Absolutely, Bezos has an astonishing net worth.  Two years ago, Bezos was worth more than either of the Google founders and was at least 10 times wealthier than Elon Musk.  23 billion seems to be the most recent guess, but even that seems to be low given Amazon's latest stock rise.   I wouldn't be shocked if it were 10% to 20% higher. 

If Amazon continues to be a successful business, he could afford to dump a billion dollars a year into Blue Origin, forever, while only marginally impacting his holdings.  To put that in perspective, an estimate last year suggested SpaceX had spent roughly a single billion over their entire existence.

Not to say Bezos is giving Blue Origin a billion a year, but he could. 
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Danderman on 01/13/2013 10:19 pm
Wonder what part of the Calender year BO ends on.

I'm thinking Amazon does most of their cash during the holidays.  Maybe sometime in the 1 qtr of the year.

So Bezo's might inject cash at this time of the year?

How is that thinking?


Or Jess Bezos may just inject ponies at this time of year.

People with real money distribute their cash according to their plans, not simply at times when their cash flow is greatest.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 01/14/2013 12:46 pm
Wonder what part of the Calender year BO ends on.

I'm thinking Amazon does most of their cash during the holidays.  Maybe sometime in the 1 qtr of the year.

So Bezo's might inject cash at this time of the year?

How is that thinking?



Or Jess Bezos may just inject ponies at this time of year.

People with real money distribute their cash according to their plans, not simply at times when their cash flow is greatest.


Blue can't be making money atm, so for Bezo's it would be an investment in R&D and a cash write off before the tax man gets it.

Edit: fix error
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/14/2013 02:37 pm
Edit yer quotes.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Danderman on 01/14/2013 02:40 pm
Not to say Bezos is giving Blue Origin a billion a year, but he could. 

Anything is possible, but what does it tell you that he isn't giving Blue Origin a billion dollars a year?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 01/14/2013 02:48 pm
Not to say Bezos is giving Blue Origin a billion a year, but he could. 

Anything is possible, but what does it tell you that he isn't giving Blue Origin a billion dollars a year?

That their current businessplan does not require a billion dollars a year?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: simonbp on 01/14/2013 08:16 pm
Right. Again, some engineering just takes time, not money. In their update last week, they said that using the Stennis stand to test their engine took a year off of development because they didn't have to develop a stand from scratch. Once the next flight vehicle (the follow-up to the one that crashed) starts flying, their progress might become more visible.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Linze on 01/14/2013 08:49 pm
Not to say Bezos is giving Blue Origin a billion a year, but he could. 

Anything is possible, but what does it tell you that he isn't giving Blue Origin a billion dollars a year?

That their current businessplan does not require a billion dollars a year?


That's my belief as well. 

When BlueOrigin needs big money, they'll have it.  Perhaps most importantly, they'll have it without having to enter the private launch market. 

Musk and Bezos seem to share the same goal - Mars.  Musk's fewer resources - by necessity, have forced SpaceX to fund that goal with launch customers.    Bezos doesn't have to do that.

Not having to develop commercial launch services would allow Origin to better focus on the target.  Were SpaceX to completely achieve their reusable plans, Origin couldn't compete on price anyway.  Given Bezos resources, Origin doesn't have to.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: john smith 19 on 01/14/2013 11:06 pm
I just realized the New Shepard vehicle was listed at something like M1.6.

I think this is faster and higher than DC-X ever achieved.

but I'm not sure.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Afrocle on 01/15/2013 03:03 am
Blue Origin said during the press brief that they were going to start testing their fully integrated BE-3 engine, including the turbopumps, in the next few days and months.

Blue Origin also said a few months ago that their next sub-orbital test vehicle would use a single BE-3 engine versus the 5 H2O2/RP-1 engines used on the version that crashed at over Mach 1.

Blue Origin seems to be making good progress.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/15/2013 03:10 am
...

Blue Origin also said a few months ago that their next sub-orbital test vehicle would use a single BE-3 engine versus the 5 H2O2/RP-1 engines used on the version that crashed at over Mach 1.
...
I missed that. Sounds like good news! It'll be a good development. SpaceX really needs some competition in the credible reusable launch vehicle department.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 01/15/2013 11:17 am
Not to say Bezos is giving Blue Origin a billion a year, but he could. 

Anything is possible, but what does it tell you that he isn't giving Blue Origin a billion dollars a year?


Most Billionare's have millions in available cash to work with, and the rest in paper (stock shares).
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: john smith 19 on 01/15/2013 11:25 am
I missed that. Sounds like good news! It'll be a good development. SpaceX really needs some competition in the credible reusable launch vehicle department.
They may already have it if BO would actually say what they were doing.

I think that would make BE-3 the biggest reusuable LH2/LO2 engine after the SSME. J2-X is bigger but I thought it's expendable only.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: mmeijeri on 01/15/2013 11:26 am
Would they be interested in selling engines to ULA?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 01/15/2013 01:43 pm
They may already have it if BO would actually say what they were doing.

I think that would make BE-3 the biggest reusuable LH2/LO2 engine after the SSME. J2-X is bigger but I thought it's expendable only.
Is there any more information available about that engine? Isp, T/W, etc?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Afrocle on 01/15/2013 02:38 pm
...

Blue Origin also said a few months ago that their next sub-orbital test vehicle would use a single BE-3 engine versus the 5 H2O2/RP-1 engines used on the version that crashed at over Mach 1.
...
I missed that. Sounds like good news! It'll be a good development. SpaceX really needs some competition in the credible reusable launch vehicle department.

Brett Alexander said in his October interview with Alan Boyle of MSNBC that BO was re-building their New Shepard suborbital vehicle with just 1 BE-3 engine versus the previous 5 peroxide/kerosene BE-2 engines they made (supposedly) with Barber-Nichols turbopumps (i.e. just like the original SpaceX Merlin engines).
http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/22/14623551-jeff-bezos-blue-origin-spaceship-company-aces-pad-escape-test?lite

New Shepard was originally supposed to be a ~ 70-ton vehicle including the crew capsule with 5 BE-2 engines of ~ 15-tons thrust each, so if BO built a LH2 version of New Shepard of approximately the same size then the propellant weight would probably be 1/2 to 2/3 lower due to the much lower density of LH2, which would mean that the 100,000-lbf BE-3 would probably have to lift a ~ 66,000-lb (30-ton) New Shepard LH2 vehicle with a 10-ton (22,000 lb) crew capsule.

Brett Alexander also said in a previous interview that BO's plan was still to put their 10-ton crew capsule on top of the New Shepard for human suborbital flights to over 100-km altitude. They want to test their BE-3 engine and crew capsule a lot in the suborbital environment with New Shepard before moving forward.

Blue Origin has said that their entire human orbital system might be ready in the 2016 to 2018 timeframe, but they would not commit to that. This puts it close to the timeframe that SpaceX would be ready with its reusable launch system and crew capsule. I think Elon Musk already knows that Bezos is lurking behind the scenes as a competitor, just as Amazon.com quietly snuck up on Netflix and now Apple with their own movie and phone/tablet capabilities.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: go4mars on 01/15/2013 03:33 pm
http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/22/14623551-jeff-bezos-blue-origin-spaceship-company-aces-pad-escape-test?lite
Good article. 

Quote
Gradatim Ferociter!"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That last phrase is Blue Origin's motto, which is Latin for "Step by Step, Courageously."

Does anyone have a zoom in on that corporate logo (the spaceship with the claw hands)?  Looks like a lot of interesting things packed in there. 

Google image search showed it a little better.  The claw hands are also tortoise parts.  A rocket from Texas?  A sailboat in the ocean?  Some wings?  An hourglass that's almost empty?   A couple of longitude lines pointing at the all-seeing eye?

Ah.  Just found a good quality image of the logo here:
http://marsartists.blogspot.ca/2012/12/references-blue-origin.html

     Does anyone care to speculate what Bezos is saying with his symbols? 

Why tortoises?  Is this related to pleistocene rewilding of tortoises at corn  ranch?  Though, those don't look like Bolson tortoises to me.  Maybe a tortoise related to Walter Rothschild?   

And the delta-V chart in the middle.  I'm trying to puzzle out what those represent but am lost. 

3 km/s, 9.5 km/s, 13 km/s 19 km/s, 20 km/s. 

 http://hopsblog-hop.blogspot.ca/2012/06/inflated-delta-vs.html#!/2012/06/inflated-delta-vs.html

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: mmeijeri on 01/15/2013 03:38 pm
The tortoise and the hare?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Danderman on 01/15/2013 03:50 pm
It appears that Bezos is no longer a member of the Peroxide Religion. Everyone I can remember that joined that religion either suffered technical failures, or quit the religion for more useful propellant combinations, having suffered quite a bit of time lost on H2O2.

Peroxide as an oxidizer for main propulsion seems to be a great choice, but its subtle flaws make it suboptimal.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: mmeijeri on 01/15/2013 04:52 pm
What do you mean, "religion"? Just because some people have different technical preferences than you do and aren't convinced by your arguments doesn't mean they're religious about it any more than it means you are.

It does look as if they've abandoned peroxide, and it's interesting that they've finally said something about this. I had wondered if they would go for kerosene / peroxide for the first stage and LOX / LH2 for the second. It would have been an interesting combination.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/15/2013 04:57 pm
It appears that Bezos is no longer a member of the Peroxide Religion. Everyone I can remember that joined that religion either suffered technical failures, or quit the religion for more useful propellant combinations, having suffered quite a bit of time lost on H2O2.

Peroxide as an oxidizer for main propulsion seems to be a great choice, but its subtle flaws make it suboptimal.

Soyuz uses peroxide. ;)

But honestly, I agree. H2O2 is not ideal for main propulsion. LOx is cheap.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 01/15/2013 04:57 pm
What do you mean, "religion"? Just because some people have different technical preferences than you do and aren't convinced by your arguments doesn't mean they're religious about it any more than it means you are.

It does look as if they've abandoned peroxide, and it's interesting that they've finally said something about this. I had wondered if they would go for kerosene / peroxide for the first stage and LOX / LH2 for the second. It would have been an interesting combination.

Speaking of peroxide thrusters, the Chinese are planning to use a kerosene / peroxide (probably pressure-fed) trim stage III for their new Vega-class small launcher CZ-6. It might debut sometime in 2014-16....
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Joel on 01/15/2013 05:20 pm
What sort of engine is BE-3? Gas generator, staged combustion? Does anyone know?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 01/15/2013 05:25 pm
Ok, I am confused. I was always under the impression that the best use of H2O2 was as a monoprop (with cathalyst). I dont quite see how it would ever make sense as only an oxidizer compared to LOX (other than some minor storage reasons).
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: mmeijeri on 01/15/2013 05:37 pm
Storability, density, capable of being used as a monopropellant. Downsides too, as there's no such thing as an ideal fuel or an ideal oxidiser.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: john smith 19 on 01/15/2013 06:05 pm
Is there any more information available about that engine? Isp, T/W, etc?
I was just going by what's on the state of progress PDF at the top of this thread. It's 100 000lb of thrust but I'm not sure if mentions Isp or T/W. They do confirm its a turbopump design but that's all I can recall.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: john smith 19 on 01/15/2013 06:17 pm
Ok, I am confused. I was always under the impression that the best use of H2O2 was as a monoprop (with cathalyst). I dont quite see how it would ever make sense as only an oxidizer compared to LOX (other than some minor storage reasons).

The British Black Arrow launch vehicle put a 100Kg satellite into a 500Km orbit. The LV weighed 18mt. 2 of its main stages were HTP, the last solid.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 01/15/2013 06:24 pm
Ok, I am confused. I was always under the impression that the best use of H2O2 was as a monoprop (with cathalyst). I dont quite see how it would ever make sense as only an oxidizer compared to LOX (other than some minor storage reasons).

The British Black Arrow launch vehicle put a 100Kg satellite into a 500Km orbit. The LV weighed 18mt. 2 of its main stages were HTP, the last solid.
I get that it can be used, but other than storage, it seems to be much of an advantage over LOX, or am I missing something?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/15/2013 07:28 pm
Ok, I am confused. I was always under the impression that the best use of H2O2 was as a monoprop (with cathalyst). I dont quite see how it would ever make sense as only an oxidizer compared to LOX (other than some minor storage reasons).

The British Black Arrow launch vehicle put a 100Kg satellite into a 500Km orbit. The LV weighed 18mt. 2 of its main stages were HTP, the last solid.
I get that it can be used, but other than storage, it seems to be much of an advantage over LOX, or am I missing something?
Storage, and it was thought to be safer (I doubt it). Also, not having to deal with cryogenic temperatures makes things easier. Also, the density of HTP is quite high, which is very helpful.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Joel on 01/15/2013 08:00 pm
Is there any more information available about that engine? Isp, T/W, etc?

On the CCP status update report (Jan 9, 2013) they mentioned that the BE-3 can deep-throttle down to "teens", i.e. somewhere between 10-20 %. I think I also saw that the 100000 lbs are at sea level, actually putting them ahead of the Merlin 1C in thrust (right?).
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 01/15/2013 08:05 pm
Is there any more information available about that engine? Isp, T/W, etc?

On the CCP status update report (Jan 9, 2013) they mentioned that the BE-3 can deep-throttle down to "teens", i.e. somewhere between 10-20 %. I think I also saw that the 100000 lbs are at sea level, actually putting them ahead of the Merlin 1C in thrust (right?).
Cool thanks for the info! Yes sl thrust is slightly higher than Merlin 1Cs 95,000 lbs.
Guess Isp and T/W are secret/unknown at this point.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: simonbp on 01/15/2013 08:11 pm
Though, if they are bothering with LH2, it's because they want Isp. It's just not worth it otherwise. So, it's probably a reasonable assumption that the Isp is at least 400 sec, and probably closer to 420 sec.

The ability to throttle that deep is interesting. I wonder if they are also using a pintle injector, like SpaceX...
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 01/15/2013 08:16 pm
Though, if they are bothering with LH2, it's because they want Isp. It's just not worth it otherwise. So, it's probably a reasonable assumption that the Isp is at least 400 sec, and probably closer to 420 sec.
That is what I would assume as well. They are clearly planning ahead for their orbital two stage launcher with that engine.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/15/2013 08:18 pm
Though, if they are bothering with LH2, it's because they want Isp. It's just not worth it otherwise. So, it's probably a reasonable assumption that the Isp is at least 400 sec, and probably closer to 420 sec.
That is what I would assume as well. They are clearly planning ahead for their orbital two stage launcher with that engine.

Not just planning ahead but precisely and explicitly the purpose of the rocket engine.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: RanulfC on 01/15/2013 09:39 pm
It appears that Bezos is no longer a member of the Peroxide Religion. Everyone I can remember that joined that religion either suffered technical failures, or quit the religion for more useful propellant combinations, having suffered quite a bit of time lost on H2O2.

Peroxide as an oxidizer for main propulsion seems to be a great choice, but its subtle flaws make it suboptimal.
The Brits would like to "discuss" your opions vis-a-vis successful use of H2O2 :)

Just because the Germans had issues under wartime conditions and the Americans never liked it in the first place doesn't make it a "religious" issue...

Ok, I am confused. I was always under the impression that the best use of H2O2 was as a monoprop (with cathalyst). I dont quite see how it would ever make sense as only an oxidizer compared to LOX (other than some minor storage reasons).

The British Black Arrow launch vehicle put a 100Kg satellite into a 500Km orbit. The LV weighed 18mt. 2 of its main stages were HTP, the last solid.
I get that it can be used, but other than storage, it seems to be much of an advantage over LOX, or am I missing something?
Storage, and it was thought to be safer (I doubt it). Also, not having to deal with cryogenic temperatures makes things easier. Also, the density of HTP is quite high, which is very helpful.
In addition to the above when decomposed through a catalyst and injected with Kerosene it auto-ignites and this makes combustion dynamics a lot easier.

Given the right storage and handling H2O2 has the above mentioned qualities going for it. The main issue is getting the storage and handling "right" and since LOX is overall "better" in most propellant mixtures, only mildly cryogenic and readily available as well as cheap Peroxide has taken a back seat to it for the majority of uses. In most cases the needs for handling LOX are about on par with those for H2O2, which it seems tends to lull those using it into a false sense of security. It looks like water and doesn't smell or release vapors like LOX does so its quite easy to "forget" what you're dealing with.
If you're lazy and/or careless you can get "bit" by LOX about as bad as with H2O2.

(A nice "attention getting" demonstration they used to do during Air Force LOX training was putting a puddle of LOX down and then dropping a boot on it. Watching the shards of flaming boot raining down does tend to focus your mind :)

Randy
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Joel on 01/15/2013 10:02 pm
Though, if they are bothering with LH2, it's because they want Isp. It's just not worth it otherwise. So, it's probably a reasonable assumption that the Isp is at least 400 sec, and probably closer to 420 sec.
That is what I would assume as well. They are clearly planning ahead for their orbital two stage launcher with that engine.

Not just planning ahead but precisely and explicitly the purpose of the rocket engine.

I am quite sure that the BE-3 is intended as the first-stage engine of the OLV (orbital launch vehicle). Are you suggesting that it will also be used for the (expendable) upper stage? That was not my impression at least. The picture of the OLV showed a smaller diameter for the upper stage than the first, suggesting a more dense fuel.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 01/15/2013 10:16 pm
Though, if they are bothering with LH2, it's because they want Isp. It's just not worth it otherwise. So, it's probably a reasonable assumption that the Isp is at least 400 sec, and probably closer to 420 sec.
That is what I would assume as well. They are clearly planning ahead for their orbital two stage launcher with that engine.

Not just planning ahead but precisely and explicitly the purpose of the rocket engine.
Yes, but to my understanding, they are going to use it in the suborbital vehicle first.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/15/2013 10:42 pm
Though, if they are bothering with LH2, it's because they want Isp. It's just not worth it otherwise. So, it's probably a reasonable assumption that the Isp is at least 400 sec, and probably closer to 420 sec.
That is what I would assume as well. They are clearly planning ahead for their orbital two stage launcher with that engine.

Not just planning ahead but precisely and explicitly the purpose of the rocket engine.

I am quite sure that the BE-3 is intended as the first-stage engine of the OLV (orbital launch vehicle). Are you suggesting that it will also be used for the (expendable) upper stage? That was not my impression at least. The picture of the OLV showed a smaller diameter for the upper stage than the first, suggesting a more dense fuel.
What kind of rocket designer would use hydrogen for first stage but something with worse Isp for the second stage? I'd bet the expendable stage uses just another BE-3-like engine, though perhaps significantly modified and operating at a different thrust level. The upper stage WANTS to be hydrogen/oxygen.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Joel on 01/16/2013 01:21 am
What kind of rocket designer would use hydrogen for first stage but something with worse Isp for the second stage? I'd bet the expendable stage uses just another BE-3-like engine, though perhaps significantly modified and operating at a different thrust level. The upper stage WANTS to be hydrogen/oxygen.

Before switching to hydrolox, Ariane 5's upper stage had much worse Isp than the first stage. I'm sure there are more examples.

The key is that the OLV upper stage is going to be expendable. A hydrolox stage powered by the BE-3 engine might simply be too expensive to operate in expendable mode. But I could be wrong, maybe the OLV upper stage is in fact hydrolox. Just didn't look like that from the drawing. Why make two hydrolox stages with different diameter?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/16/2013 01:28 am
What kind of rocket designer would use hydrogen for first stage but something with worse Isp for the second stage? I'd bet the expendable stage uses just another BE-3-like engine, though perhaps significantly modified and operating at a different thrust level. The upper stage WANTS to be hydrogen/oxygen.

Before switching to hydrolox, Ariane 5's upper stage had much worse Isp than the first stage. I'm sure there are more examples.
...
And, of course, now it's hydrolox!
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Joel on 01/16/2013 01:34 am
And, of course, now it's hydrolox!

I'm sure they plan to switch to hydrolox for the upper stage eventually. But I don't think it will happen in this iteration.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/16/2013 01:35 am
And, of course, now it's hydrolox!

I'm sure they plan to switch to hydrolox for the upper stage eventually. But I don't think it will happen in this iteration.
What evidence do you have the upperstage isn't already hydrolox? That would make by far the most sense.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Joel on 01/16/2013 04:04 am
And, of course, now it's hydrolox!

I'm sure they plan to switch to hydrolox for the upper stage eventually. But I don't think it will happen in this iteration.
What evidence do you have the upperstage isn't already hydrolox? That would make by far the most sense.

No evidence. Just things suggesting it:
    * Second stage has smaller diameter than the first on BO's drawing of the orbital launch vehicle. Why make two hydrolox tanks with different diameter?
    * Second stage will be expendable, hydrolox/BE-3 might be too expensive.
    * BE-3 will probably be overpowered for the upper stage, so they need a smaller hydrolox (vacuum optimized) engine. And not necessarily a pump-fed one.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/16/2013 04:15 am
Lots of rockets use different sized upper stages. It doesn't have to be because it uses a different propellant. And, in fact, because hydrolox is less dense than any other propellant combo (worth mentioning), and based on the difference in volume we see between first and second stage ( here: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30772.msg999136#msg999136 ) the second stage would be far too heavy if it was filled with anything BUT hydrolox.

(hydrolox is roughly one third the density of kerolox, for instance)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: simonbp on 01/16/2013 04:50 am
What kind of rocket designer would use hydrogen for first stage but something with worse Isp for the second stage?

McDonnell F'ning Douglas:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_IV#Delta_IV_Small

Everything with a liquid first stage and solid upper stage would apply too. Sometimes it just makes sense.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: john smith 19 on 01/16/2013 08:52 am
Before switching to hydrolox, Ariane 5's upper stage had much worse Isp than the first stage. I'm sure there are more examples.

Prior to Ariane 5 all all Ariane Launch vehicles were NTO/UDMH.
More like Titan IIs than the Shuttle.
[edit]Black arrow with it's waxwing solid 3rd stage. In fact anything with a last solid stage, which would have included several US designs in the 50's and 60's. Development speed and reliability concerns over rode the performance concerns.
[edit]
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Joel on 01/16/2013 10:43 am
the second stage would be far too heavy if it was filled with anything BUT hydrolox.

You can't say that without knowing the thrust of the second stage engine. Since the first stage is reusable and has to return to the pad it will provide a relatively small delta-v. So the second stage must be large to make it to orbit.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Afrocle on 01/16/2013 11:25 am
And, of course, now it's hydrolox!

I'm sure they plan to switch to hydrolox for the upper stage eventually. But I don't think it will happen in this iteration.
What evidence do you have the upperstage isn't already hydrolox? That would make by far the most sense.

No evidence. Just things suggesting it:
    * Second stage has smaller diameter than the first on BO's drawing of the orbital launch vehicle. Why make two hydrolox tanks with different diameter?
    * Second stage will be expendable, hydrolox/BE-3 might be too expensive.
    * BE-3 will probably be overpowered for the upper stage, so they need a smaller hydrolox (vacuum optimized) engine. And not necessarily a pump-fed one.

Blue Origin will use 1 BE-3 LH2 engine on the expendable upper stage and 5 to 9 BE-3 engines on the reusable 1st stage.

The second stage probably has a different diameter from the 1st stage, because I speculate that BO will use the diameter of the tooling for their New Shepard test vehicle (which will now use 1 BE-3 engine) to create their upper stage while they have to purchase and develop new expensive tooling to manufacture the wider diameter reusable first stage.

SpaceX could have done the same thing by placing their single Merlin engine Falcon-1 first stage on top of their 9 Merlin engine Falcon-9 first stage to serve as an upper stage, eventhough the 1.7-meter diameter Falcon-1 stage would look ugly on top of the 3.6-diameter Falcon-9.

Some of the pictures of the SLS with the 5-meter diameter Boeing upper stage and Orion capsule look similar.

The BO orbital vehicle's 1st stage will probably be at least 5-meter in diameter similar to the Delta IV LH2 1st stage, and the New Shepard test vehicle with only one BE-3 engine appears to have similar width to the BO crew capsule which looks to be under 4-meters in diameter.

The BE-3 will not be over powered for an upper stage, because ULA has been seeking funding for 10 years to make a 4 to 6 RL10 version of its LH2 upper stages which would give it 100,000-lbf to 150,000-lbf in thrust. Higher thrust is good if you do not suffer a big weight penalty for the bigger engine.

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Afrocle on 01/16/2013 11:30 am
BO still says that it is commited to its sub-orbital human flights with the single BE-3 equipped New Shepard rocket, so BO might leverage the tooling from New Shepard to build upper stages for their orbital rocket versus making both stages the same diameter.

This would keep the employees building New Shepard vehicles and that tooling active, and would allow them to depreciate this tooling over a longer period of time versus SpaceX abandoning their Falcon-1 tooling upon moving to the Falcon-9.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Afrocle on 01/16/2013 11:44 am
BO may have used peroxide and RP-1 for their BE-2 engine, because it was their first pump-fed engine and bi-prop engine, and BO had recent prior experience with their peroxide monopropellant BE-1 engine and Barber Nichols (the supposed BO BE-2 turbopump manufacturer) had experience with kerosene turbopumps (from SpaceX Merlin and NASA Fastrac engines).

After getting experience in manufacturing the BE-2 pump fed peroxide/kerosene engines, BO felt confident in building their own cryogenic LOX and LH2 pumps for the BE-3 engine.

SpaceX apparently did not build their own pumps (they used Barber Nichols) until the Merlin-1C engine (or maybe the 1D??). SpaceX may want their Raptor engine to use Methane versus LH2, because a methane pump is comparable to a cryogenic LOX pump (where SpaceX has experience) whereas a LH2 pump is supposedly harder because it is deeply cryogenic (and SpaceX has no experience).

SpaceX has to use its engine team on manufacturing and qualifying 100 Merlins a year versus BO being able to focus on non-customer driven R&D tasks. BO is making huge leaps in capability from BE-1 pressure fed monoprop, to BE-2 pump-fed bi-prop, to BE-3 deeply cryogenic LH2 engine, while SpaceX has evolved linearly over 10 years with their LOX/Kerosene Merlin engines.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Joel on 01/16/2013 12:11 pm
Well put, I hope you are right. I look forward to BE-4!
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/16/2013 12:14 pm
What kind of rocket designer would use hydrogen for first stage but something with worse Isp for the second stage?

McDonnell F'ning Douglas:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_IV#Delta_IV_Small
....
never flew.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Afrocle on 01/16/2013 01:10 pm
Well put, I hope you are right. I look forward to BE-4!

I have a feeling that BO will be working with the BE-3 for a long while, and that a BE-4 is a decade away.

The BE-4 would probably be a 10-times higher thrust version, or use a more complex engine cycle.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 01/16/2013 02:44 pm

Blue Origin will use 1 BE-3 LH2 engine on the expendable upper stage and 5 to 9 BE-3 engines on the reusable 1st stage.

The second stage probably has a different diameter from the 1st stage, because I speculate that BO will use the diameter of the tooling for their New Shepard test vehicle (which will now use 1 BE-3 engine) to create their upper stage while they have to purchase and develop new expensive tooling to manufacture the wider diameter reusable first stage.

That was what I was assuming as well. Would make sense...
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Danderman on 01/16/2013 03:09 pm
Blue Origin will use 1 BE-3 LH2 engine on the expendable upper stage and 5 to 9 BE-3 engines on the reusable 1st stage.


What is the source for this statement?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Joel on 01/16/2013 04:45 pm
In the presentation they wrote that the Space Vehicle weighs 22000 lb fully loaded. And it should be launched to the ISS.I guess with that you should be able to get an idea of the number of engines in the first stage.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Afrocle on 01/16/2013 05:00 pm
Blue Origin will use 1 BE-3 LH2 engine on the expendable upper stage and 5 to 9 BE-3 engines on the reusable 1st stage.


What is the source for this statement?


Blue Origin has already said in multiple press interviews that their orbital vehicle will use LH2 on both stages and that the BE-3 engine will be used for upper stages.

I do not know if BO has specificially said that only 1 BE-3 engine will be used on the upper stage versus more than 1 engine or a different LH2 engine, but 1 BE-3 engine on the upper stage would be consistent with the history of upper stages.

At 100,000-lbf thrust the BE-3 probably only makes sense as the 1 engine on the upper stage, if BO is truthful in saying that the orbital vehicle is optimized to lift 10-tons to orbit. The BO orbital vehicle will probably resemble the performance of the Delta IV rocket (8.4 tons to LEO without solid strap on boosters) which has ~ 700,000-lbf 1st stage thrust and ~ 22,000-lbf 2nd stage thrust. BO like ULA (with their evolved Centaur) desires a LH2 2nd stage with 100,000-lbf or more thrust.

Because BO wants to recover and reuse the 1st stage, it would be logical to only fly it to Mach-6 or less velocity for stage separation similar to SpaceX F9-reusable (Mach 6) and the Kistler K-1 (Mach 4 separation). I think that Rob Meyerson, the BO President worked at Kistler and so did other BO engineers. If you fly the 1st stage to a lower separation velocity, then you need a higher-performing and heavier 2nd stage with a bigger engine (or several engines). I think like Kistler and the SpaceX F9-reusable, the BO plan is to use a single larger engine versus multiple engines on the 2nd stage.

BO says they are building a single BE-3 engine equipped New Sheppard right now, so it should be straight forward to use that tooling and process to manufacture an upper stage with a single BE-3 engine.

It will be harder to come up with new tooling to build the wider diameter BO 1st stage with 5 to 9 BE-3 engines.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Joel on 01/16/2013 05:06 pm
Purely FWIW:
In general, I think that a good number engines is 7 with one central gimballing engine and 6 engines surrounding it. This configuration allows you to have engine-out of any two engines and still be able to perform a propulsive landing with either the central engine or three symmetrically placed peripheral engines.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Afrocle on 01/16/2013 05:29 pm
In the presentation they wrote that the Space Vehicle weighs 22000 lb fully loaded. And it should be launched to the ISS.I guess with that you should be able to get an idea of the number of engines in the first stage.

Correct.

They also want to reuse the 1st stage so you could probably assume a Mach 6 separation (2,000 m/s delta V) and an additional 1,450 m/s in delta V expended on the 1st stage to over come gravity and drag losses for 3,450-sec of delta-V on 1st stage. For propulsive flyback to the launch pad they need as much propellant as the dry weight of the 1st stage. The second stage should have ~ 6,000 m/s of delta-V to reach orbit.

When I do some analysis with the online delta V calculator I get a 2nd stage of 50-tons with a 92% propellant mass fraction and a 1st stage of 250-tons with an 87% propellant mass fraction. The 1st stage has a lower PMF because it is reusable. The 1st stage has 32.5 tons of fuel leftover at separation/burnout to allow it to boost back propulsively to the launch site. The 1st stage has average Isp of 390-sec.

I assume that the BO BE-3 has the low performance of a terrible gas generator cycle LH2 engine like the ~ 425-sec Isp J-2 of the 1960s. I use 425-sec Isp for the vacuum optimized BE-3 on the 2nd stage.

This leads to a 300-ton rocket with a 10-ton orbital payload which would weigh 682,000 lbs at liftoff so 9 BE-3 engines with a vacuum thrust of 900,000-lbf and a sea level thrust of ~ 800,000-lbf might be good for a liftoff T/W approaching 1.2.

So...my educated guess would be 9 BE-3 engines on the reusable 1st stage and 1 BE-3 engine on the expendable 2nd stage.

Another educated guess would be that BO is using a lower performance gas generator cycle or an open expander cycle for their first generation of BE-3 to keep pressures low and to make things easy on themselves for engine development.



Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: simonbp on 01/16/2013 05:32 pm
Or, you know, nine engines with the outer eight in an octagonal configuration. :)

Still, just seeing the single engine New Shepard flying would be pretty cool. If they can land it with a single engine throttling, then all this odd-number engine business might be unnecessary and they'll just put the right number of engines on there to do the job. There are a fair number of DC-X people at Blue Origin, and that got away quite well with four engines.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Afrocle on 01/16/2013 05:45 pm
Or, you know, nine engines with the outer eight in an octagonal configuration. :)

Still, just seeing the single engine New Shepard flying would be pretty cool. If they can land it with a single engine throttling, then all this odd-number engine business might be unnecessary and they'll just put the right number of engines on there to do the job. There are a fair number of DC-X people at Blue Origin, and that got away quite well with four engines.

I am sure that Musk and Bezos will start copying each other's good ideas, just like all good entrepreneurs from the computer industry.

BO already said that they might trade into using a liquid propellant crew escape and landing system similar to the SpaceX Dragon, and I do not think it is a coincidence that Musk announced his Grasshopper in almost the same month that BO lost its similar New Shepard at Mach 1.2 in a test flight.

Who between Bezos and Musk do you think will have a successful supersonic flight first with their demo VTVL reusable rocket??? If Grasshopper crashes and burns, how long will it take SpaceX to build another huge/expensive Grasshopper vehicle for testing?

BO and SpaceX definitely see each other as competition, but this does not mean that they do not like each other.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars_J on 01/16/2013 05:53 pm
Purely FWIW:
In general, I think that a good number engines is 7 with one central gimballing engine and 6 engines surrounding it. This configuration allows you to have engine-out of any two engines and still be able to perform a propulsive landing with either the central engine or three symmetrically placed peripheral engines.

You still have to deal with deep engine throttling issues. On F9R, the weight difference at takeoff and landing will be extreme enough that even with *9* engines, landing with only one engine is going to push the throttle-ability of the M1D close to the edge.

Now you are suggesting landing with 2 engines out of 7... Doable, but even harder.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Joel on 01/16/2013 06:56 pm
Purely FWIW:
In general, I think that a good number engines is 7 with one central gimballing engine and 6 engines surrounding it. This configuration allows you to have engine-out of any two engines and still be able to perform a propulsive landing with either the central engine or three symmetrically placed peripheral engines.

You still have to deal with deep engine throttling issues. On F9R, the weight difference at takeoff and landing will be extreme enough that even with *9* engines, landing with only one engine is going to push the throttle-ability of the M1D close to the edge.

Now you are suggesting landing with 2 engines out of 7... Doable, but even harder.
Clarification: I suggest to land on 1 engine out of 7 in the nominal case and 3 engines out of 7 if you lose the central engine.

With no central engine, you would most likely have to land with a T/W over 1. I'm not suggesting that this should be the normal mode of operations, but two engine out capability would make it safer.

If you lose your central engine on a 8+1 cluster like F9 1.1, it would be even harder. You would have to land with a even higher T/W or fire three not symmetrically located engines with different throttling.

So with this reasoning, 3+1 engines (with 1 engine out), 6+1 engines (with 2 engines out) or 9+1 engines (with 3 engines out) would make sense. In relation to propulsive landing and possibly abort-to-pad.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: go4mars on 01/16/2013 07:02 pm
A regular octagon has points right across (symmetry). 

Also, IIRC, BO was supersonic on the crash flight.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Joel on 01/16/2013 07:06 pm
A regular octagon has points right across (symmetry). 

OK, but how do you land with two engines without "tipping over"? You would need some additional actuator (thruster?) for controllability. The central engine gets two extra degrees of freedom from the gimballing.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars_J on 01/16/2013 07:11 pm
A regular octagon has points right across (symmetry). 

OK, but how do you land with two engines without "tipping over"? You would need some additional actuator (thruster?) for controllability. The central engine gets two extra degrees of freedom from the gimballing.

All F9 engines gimbal.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Joel on 01/16/2013 07:15 pm
All F9 engines gimbal.

Didn't know that. In that case you can also land on two engines, of course. If you can manage the T/W.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 01/16/2013 08:24 pm
All F9 engines gimbal.

Didn't know that. In that case you can also land on two engines, of course. If you can manage the T/W.

The two engine landing is a recovery from the centre engine failing.  So the Blue Origin will have a higher vertical velocity and be at a lower altitude.  Extra thrust may therefore be needed.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Linze on 01/16/2013 10:43 pm
Who between Bezos and Musk do you think will have a successful supersonic flight first with their demo VTVL reusable rocket??? If Grasshopper crashes and burns, how long will it take SpaceX to build another huge/expensive Grasshopper vehicle for testing?

BO and SpaceX definitely see each other as competition, but this does not mean that they do not like each other.

I don't know about Musk, but Bezos doesn't seem to care about anyone but Bezos.  Musk has suggested that SpaceX only started obtaining patents to protect themselves from -unnamed- patents, likely BO.  No, I don't see it as a friendly rivalry.

One gathers they're both shooting for the same target, Mars.  SpaceX has a significant lead, but BO has a stunningly massive advantage in funding.  Given that BO has yet to put anything in orbit, SpaceX has perhaps a 3 to 5 years head start.  Even if BO has teething problems, they have enough money to keep launching until they get it right.  SpaceX did not, SpaceX almost ended.

When SpaceX gets to the point where their technology is able to carry and land a mars crew, how long will it take them to gather the necessary funding?  Even with fully reusable launchers, the cost of developing a mars transport and habitat infrastructure could be an order of magnitude larger than any of SpaceX expenditures thus far.

That's where BO would seem to have a real chance of taking the lead.  When BO attains the technical capability, they'll go, they'll just GO.  They don't have to wait for backing, they'll have the backing.  By the time they're ready in say, 10 years, Bezos could quite easily be the wealthiest individual on the planet, quite easily.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/16/2013 10:53 pm
SpaceX already has much more revenue than Blue Origin. BO may have a guaranteed funding stream, but SpaceX has the (perhaps subtle) advantage of having to actually get work done to get paid. Considering that SpaceX has already almost caught up with Blue Origin's decade+ of VTVL work (the sheer size of Grasshopper surely counts for something, since it is full-scale), I'm not sure BO has much advantage anymore. As far as fielding a manned, orbital launch system, SpaceX is far ahead. And I'd say SpaceX is ahead on getting a reusable orbital launch vehicle fielded, since they've already got the "orbital launch vehicle" part taken care of quite handily and are about as close to a reusable first stage as BO is. And SpaceX is much closer to a fully reusable launch vehicle (which means a reusable second stage) by virtue of their experience with Dragon vis a vis reentry, etc, and its SuperDraco system currently under development.

That said, I agree with you in that I think that people usually under-estimate Blue Origin and over-estimate SpaceX. SpaceX has only just made a few VTVL hops in Grasshopper while BO has been doing such hops for a decade.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Joel on 01/17/2013 12:29 am
I get the feeling that people here don't think that Blue Origin has a coherent business plan. That it's just Bezos' hobby project since he is bathing in money anyway.

My take is that Blue is betting on space tourism, and that they can very well emerge as the winner since their technical approach appears much more sound than that of their competitors: XCOR, Virgin Galactic etc. SpaceX on the other hand is trying to compete on the commercial and governmental launch market.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/17/2013 12:41 am
I get the feeling that people here don't think that Blue Origin has a coherent business plan. That it's just Bezos' hobby project since he is bathing in money anyway.

My take is that Blue is betting on space tourism, and that they can very well emerge as the winner since their technical approach appears much more sound than that of their competitors: XCOR, Virgin Galactic etc. SpaceX on the
is trying to compete on the commercial and governmental launch market.
I agree their business plans are somewhat orthogonal, except: BO is trying to compete for both suborbital and orbital human spaceflight, at roughly the same time. I think that they're behind XCOR and Virgin on suborbital and SpaceX on orbital. But BO and SpaceX are still going to end up natural competitors, since they're both producing reusable launch vehicles and reusable capsules to put on top of them. SpaceX is going to beat them to first man in orbit, and they may even beat them to first partially reusable launch to orbit.

But SpaceX has less risk tolerance than BO. SpaceX could be bottom up in a year or so, while BO will continue for as long as Bezos wills it.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 01/17/2013 12:46 am
I get the feeling that people here don't think that Blue Origin has a coherent business plan. That it's just Bezos' hobby project since he is bathing in money anyway.

My take is that Blue is betting on space tourism, and that they can very well emerge as the winner since their technical approach appears much more sound than that of their competitors: XCOR, Virgin Galactic etc. SpaceX on the
is trying to compete on the commercial and governmental launch market.
I agree their business plans are somewhat orthogonal, except: BO is trying to compete for both suborbital and orbital human spaceflight, at roughly the same time. I think that they're behind XCOR and Virgin on suborbital and SpaceX on orbital. But BO and SpaceX are still going to end up natural competitors, since they're both producing reusable launch vehicles and reusable capsules to put on top of them. SpaceX is going to beat them to first man in orbit, and they may even beat them to first partially reusable launch to orbit.

But SpaceX has less risk tolerance than BO. SpaceX could be bottom up in a year or so, while BO will continue for as long as Bezos wills it.
I agree with that. I am also wondering how much further BO will take reusability than what they have announced so far. They are using LH2 LOX instead of kerolox... That means that their engines would theoretically have a much higher Isp than the Merlin 1D (even if SpaceX will switch to methane).
But that is of course highly speculative.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: beancounter on 01/17/2013 03:35 am
I get the feeling that people here don't think that Blue Origin has a coherent business plan. That it's just Bezos' hobby project since he is bathing in money anyway.

My take is that Blue is betting on space tourism, and that they can very well emerge as the winner since their technical approach appears much more sound than that of their competitors: XCOR, Virgin Galactic etc. SpaceX on the
is trying to compete on the commercial and governmental launch market.
I agree their business plans are somewhat orthogonal, except: BO is trying to compete for both suborbital and orbital human spaceflight, at roughly the same time. I think that they're behind XCOR and Virgin on suborbital and SpaceX on orbital. But BO and SpaceX are still going to end up natural competitors, since they're both producing reusable launch vehicles and reusable capsules to put on top of them. SpaceX is going to beat them to first man in orbit, and they may even beat them to first partially reusable launch to orbit.

But SpaceX has less risk tolerance than BO. SpaceX could be bottom up in a year or so, while BO will continue for as long as Bezos wills it.
I agree with that. I am also wondering how much further BO will take reusability than what they have announced so far. They are using LH2 LOX instead of kerolox... That means that their engines would theoretically have a much higher Isp than the Merlin 1D (even if SpaceX will switch to methane).
But that is of course highly speculative.

What do you actually mean when you state that 'SpaceX could be bottom up in a year or so, ..'?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/17/2013 03:50 am
I mean that a few launch failures in a row (won't happen, but just a for instance), and they may need to liquidate. That /can't happen/, really, with Blue Origin since they don't have any customers to disappoint. They just have Bezos.

I have no reason to think SpaceX might have problems. Although they kind of need to up their launch rate a bit...
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Linze on 01/17/2013 06:41 am
I mean that a few launch failures in a row (won't happen, but just a for instance), and they may need to liquidate. That /can't happen/, really, with Blue Origin since they don't have any customers to disappoint. They just have Bezos.

I have no reason to think SpaceX might have problems. Although they kind of need to up their launch rate a bit...

I agree. and while very unlikely, were a series of consecutive failures to occur, SpaceX could go under or - more likely, be sold to parties that don't share Musk's goal.  BO just doesn't have that problem. 

In more ways than not, BO is a good half decade behind SpaceX, but a decade from now when they both start to get very serious about Mars, BO's funding should give them a good chance of catching up, even passing Musk.

I will not be at all surprised if Bezos has Bill Gates level of net worth by the time BO is technically capable of Mars.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Afrocle on 01/17/2013 10:19 am
SpaceX has other institutional investors beyond Elon Musk who have bought into Musk's vision of human Mars transport as a market. Musk has already defined that market as ~ $40 Billion, and Musk has already made SpaceX stock worth ~ $3 Billion in private trading, so there will be additional investors supporting Musk's goals in the future.

When SpaceX does an IPO they could raise over $5-Billion in debt and secure this to either their public equity, their contract backlog, or their future speculation of growth. BO does not have any of this.

It is unlikely that Bezos would take the tax hit of liquidating $5 Billion of his personal Amazon.com stock to finance BO in a similar way, and BO lacks the customers and public stock to secure this amount of debt . Bezos could take out a $5-Billion personal loan for BO and secure it to his personal wealth, but that option would look silly for someone as financially sophisticated as Bezos. NASA or some other large customer looking to take BO seriously would not commit Billions of dollar$ in contracts to BO, unless Bezos legally made a binding commitment of Billions of dollar$ in capital to BO versus the $50-Million of annual discretionary funding he provides now.

BO has the money from Bezos to conduct R&D and product development without customers, but it will need paying customers and an expensive business overhead/infrastructure for those customers to be able to pull off the human Mars missions that Musk discusses. BO could spend $2-Billion to build the "right" Mars spaceships, and it still would be short the capital to actually operate these 1-off spaceships over a period of years to do anything sustainable with Mars.

The scenario where Bezos just writes a check to catch up with Musk is probably not realistic, because SpaceX already has a potential enterprise value (i.e. equity + potential debt) of over $5-Billion and SpaceX already has $2-Billion in commercial contracts (mostly from NASA) for human spaceflight. Bezos can't write a check to catch up with that, but he can maybe write a check to build some 1-off hardware comparable to SpaceX.

Remember that SpaceX already has 10 times the employees and production capability of BO, and BO has not produced a working product yet or served a customer yet.

The problem is that BO needs the customers and operations/business infrastructure of SpaceX and not just SpaceX-like vehicles to catch up. Bezos has to do a lot more than write a check to catch up with that.



Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Afrocle on 01/17/2013 10:24 am
The above post also points to the fact that BO will have to compete with SpaceX for customers if BO ever wants to accomplish similar (non-business focused) goals to SpaceX.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Joel on 01/17/2013 02:53 pm
About making money: Is Blue really that far from taking space-tourists on suborbital rides with a fully and rapidly reusable vehicle? And making money from it? I think not.

And when this happens, I for one think that Blue's approach, i.e. hydrolox VTVL, will prove superior to XCOR/Virgin spaceplanes.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars_J on 01/17/2013 03:50 pm
About making money: Is Blue really that far from taking space-tourists on suborbital rides with a fully and rapidly reusable vehicle? And making money from it? I think not.

Well since they clearly aren't making frequent unmanned flights to prove their system.... (see the supersonic breakup of their last vehicle) then NO, I don't think they are that close to manned suborbital (or orbital) flights.

Depending on your definition of "that far", of course. :)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 01/17/2013 03:53 pm

Well since they clearly aren't making frequent unmanned flights to prove their system....
Do we know that? They may be flying a test vehicle right now without us knowing. Noone knew about the test flights of their last vehicle until they released a press release, right?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: daveklingler on 01/25/2013 12:50 am
NASA or some other large customer looking to take BO seriously would not commit Billions of dollar$ in contracts to BO, unless Bezos legally made a binding commitment of Billions of dollar$ in capital to BO versus the $50-Million of annual discretionary funding he provides now.

$50M?  Source?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 01/25/2013 01:44 pm
NASA or some other large customer looking to take BO seriously would not commit Billions of dollar$ in contracts to BO, unless Bezos legally made a binding commitment of Billions of dollar$ in capital to BO versus the $50-Million of annual discretionary funding he provides now.

$50M?  Source?
NASA's CCDev2 selection statement.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/25/2013 07:10 pm
A couple of years ago, it was stated that Bezos injects about $50M per year into Blue Origin.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=10685.msg747827#msg747827

The source for the $50M per year is the document linked above.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: simonbp on 01/25/2013 08:27 pm
And they've been going for, what 5 years now? So about a quarter billion dollars so far?

Isn't the saying that the way to make a small fortune in the space business is to start with a large fortune...
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Zond on 01/25/2013 09:18 pm
And they've been going for, what 5 years now? So about a quarter billion dollars so far?

Isn't the saying that the way to make a small fortune in the space business is to start with a large fortune...
Blue Origin was founded in 2000.
http://www.sos.wa.gov/corps/search_detail.aspx?ubi=602064321 (http://www.sos.wa.gov/corps/search_detail.aspx?ubi=602064321)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: oiorionsbelt on 01/25/2013 10:53 pm
There was a time when the Americas Cup in Yachting was the "pissing contest" for billionaires. It seems that Spaceflight is the new arena.  8)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: AnalogMan on 02/27/2013 07:40 pm
Blue Origin to Complete More Milestones for Spacecraft Development
Wed, 27 Feb 2013 07:52:37 PM UTC

NASA and Blue Origin of Kent, Wash., signed an agreement this week to extend their Commercial Crew Development Round 2 (CCDev2) partnership in an unfunded capacity. Between now and mid-2014, Blue Origin will continue to advance the subsystems of its biconic-shaped spacecraft, putting emphasis on power and actuation systems, in-space propulsion, multiplex avionics and flight mechanics. The company also will progress the spacecraft's guidance, navigation and control systems.

Later this year, Blue Origin will focus on test firing its liquid-oxygen and liquid-hydrogen fueled BE-3 engines, building on the full-scale thrust chamber testing accomplished during the funded portion of its CCDev2 agreement. The test fire will take place at the company's West Texas Launch Site. In the winter, the company will outline the progress it has made toward designing, manufacturing and assembling its subscale booster propellant tank.

This CCDev2 extension will allow NASA to provide expert feedback to Blue Origin as the company works through additional milestones.

http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/commercial/crew/index.html (http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/commercial/crew/index.html)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 02/28/2013 04:16 am
Blue Origin is interested in Shiloh area on KSC property:
http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20130227/SPACE/302270025/Interest-building-Shiloh-area-KSC-property
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 02/28/2013 02:42 pm
Blue Origin is interested in Shiloh area on KSC property:
http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20130227/SPACE/302270025/Interest-building-Shiloh-area-KSC-property (http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20130227/SPACE/302270025/Interest-building-Shiloh-area-KSC-property)
"Blue Origin said it plans about 12 orbital launches a year, on average, but offered no timeframe ."   interesting
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 02/28/2013 03:08 pm
Blue Origin is interested in Shiloh area on KSC property:
http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20130227/SPACE/302270025/Interest-building-Shiloh-area-KSC-property (http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20130227/SPACE/302270025/Interest-building-Shiloh-area-KSC-property)
"Blue Origin said it plans about 12 orbital launches a year, on average, but offered no timeframe ."   interesting

Interesting information indeed. It also suggests that Blue Origin thinks that reuse of the first stage makes sense even if you only fly 12 times per year (on average).

This reafirms what Robotbeat was saying in the other thread (linked below) about  the fact that you need a minimum of about 6 to 8 flights per year for reuse of the first stage to make sense:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31025.msg1009428#msg1009428
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 03/04/2013 02:56 pm
I have been unable to find the updated CCDev2 SAA from Blue Origin in the commercial crew and cargo library below:
http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/commercial/document_library.html
 
However, I noticed that Blue Origin had a number of unfunded optional milestones under its CCDev2 SAA. It's possible that Blue Origin decided to complete some of these optional milestones for free.

See page 34 of this PDF document for the list of CCDev2 optional milestones for Blue Origin:
http://procurement.ksc.nasa.gov/documents/NNK11MS02S_SAA_BlueOrigin_04-18-2011.pdf
http://procurement.ksc.nasa.gov/index.htm
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Zond on 03/23/2013 09:57 am
Google updated the satellite image of the Blue Origin West Texas Launch Site (dated 2013-01-23). There's a fair amount of construction going on.
There is construction going on around the launch pad (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Salt+Flat,+Hudspeth,+Texas&hl=en&ll=31.42284,-104.757031&spn=0.002902,0.004823&client=opera&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest&geocode=Fe9e5AEdiGm8-Q&hnear=Salt+Flat,+Hudspeth,+Texas&t=h&z=18). I guess they are upgrading the launch pad for the new LOX/LH2 suborbital vehicle.
There are also building a complete new set of buildings and structures (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Salt+Flat,+Hudspeth,+Texas&hl=en&ll=31.429647,-104.719934&spn=0.001451,0.002411&client=opera&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest&geocode=Fe9e5AEdiGm8-Q&hnear=Salt+Flat,+Hudspeth,+Texas&t=h&z=19) east of the launch pad. I'm speculating this may be new test stands for the BE-3 engine.
They also build a bunker like structure (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Salt+Flat,+Hudspeth,+Texas&hl=en&ll=31.397763,-104.746495&spn=0.001452,0.002411&client=opera&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest&geocode=Fe9e5AEdiGm8-Q&hnear=Salt+Flat,+Hudspeth,+Texas&t=h&z=19) close to there vehicle assembly building. I'm guessing this is the storage facility for the solid escape motors.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 03/28/2013 01:53 pm
At 52 minutes of the video below, John Spencer says that Jeff Bezos goal is to commercialize the moon. That's news to me.

http://www.scpr.org/events/2013/03/27/next-space-entrepreneurs/
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Zond on 04/09/2013 09:09 pm
Blue Origin has been granted the patent for Launch vehicles with fixed and deployable deceleration surfaces, and/or shaped fuel tanks, and associated systems and methods (http://www.google.com/patents/US8408497)
Apparently the M.I.C.H.E.L.L.E-B (http://space.xprize.org/files/downloads/ansari/tgv.pdf) from TGV rockets (http://www.tgv-rockets.com/) was not seen as prior art.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 04/09/2013 09:33 pm
Blue Origin has been granted the patent for Launch vehicles with fixed and deployable deceleration surfaces, and/or shaped fuel tanks, and associated systems and methods (http://www.google.com/patents/US8408497)
Apparently the M.I.C.H.E.L.L.E-B (http://space.xprize.org/files/downloads/ansari/tgv.pdf) from TGV rockets (http://www.tgv-rockets.com/) was not seen as prior art.
How is that possible? I dont think that this would hold when challenged. TGV would certainly want a word in that.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: D_Dom on 04/09/2013 10:32 pm
Google updated the satellite image of the Blue Origin West Texas Launch Site (dated 2013-01-23). There's a fair amount of construction going on.

I should follow this thread more closely, it looks like a construction crane at this location but I can't see anything interesting within reach.  31.395777,-104.75072
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/23/2013 03:58 am
Thanks to Clark Lindsey (http://www.newspacewatch.com/articles/falcon-production-line-boost-reusable-f9-1st-stage-from-brownsville-spaceport.html) for posting a link to a Yuri's night report at the Seattle Museum of Flight http://www.spacepirations.com/2013/04/past-and-future-of-spaceflight-at.html (http://www.spacepirations.com/2013/04/past-and-future-of-spaceflight-at.html):

Quote
Over the course of the day Erika Wagner, Business Development Manager at Blue Origin, presented recent progress of Jeff Bezos's alter-ego company.

Maddeningly there's no further details about what Erika said! Anyone here have any more info?

Edit: I've found the following write-up but still no details about Blue Origin http://www.seattleastronomy.com/blog1/tag/erika-wagner/ (http://www.seattleastronomy.com/blog1/tag/erika-wagner/)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Patchouli on 04/23/2013 04:13 pm
Blue Origin has been granted the patent for Launch vehicles with fixed and deployable deceleration surfaces, and/or shaped fuel tanks, and associated systems and methods (http://www.google.com/patents/US8408497)
Apparently the M.I.C.H.E.L.L.E-B (http://space.xprize.org/files/downloads/ansari/tgv.pdf) from TGV rockets (http://www.tgv-rockets.com/) was not seen as prior art.
How is that possible? I dont think that this would hold when challenged. TGV would certainly want a word in that.
It you want to bring up prior art the concept of a deployable drag surface actually dates back to 1952 on Von Braun's Ferry Rocket.
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/vonn1952.htm

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/25/2013 06:08 pm
Clark Lindsey has posted details of three patents awarded to Blue Origin. In addition to the one already discussed on this thread are:

US Patent 8424808 - Compensating for wind prior to engaging airborne propulsion devices

US Patent 8408443 - Modular friction welding head and associated systems and methods

More details, include abstracts and figures, are in Clark's posting: http://www.newspacewatch.com/articles/blue-origin-issued-three-patents.html (http://www.newspacewatch.com/articles/blue-origin-issued-three-patents.html)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars_J on 04/25/2013 06:53 pm
Blue Origin - More flying, less patent trolling, please!
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: iamlucky13 on 04/29/2013 06:13 pm
Blue Origin has been granted the patent for Launch vehicles with fixed and deployable deceleration surfaces, and/or shaped fuel tanks, and associated systems and methods (http://www.google.com/patents/US8408497)
Apparently the M.I.C.H.E.L.L.E-B (http://space.xprize.org/files/downloads/ansari/tgv.pdf) from TGV rockets (http://www.tgv-rockets.com/) was not seen as prior art.

Apparently Blue Origin's design has distinctions the USTPO feels merit separate consideration.

Not that I always agree, but do keep in mind that a patent consists of far more than what is conveyed by the title.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: HMXHMX on 04/29/2013 06:54 pm
Blue Origin has been granted the patent for Launch vehicles with fixed and deployable deceleration surfaces, and/or shaped fuel tanks, and associated systems and methods (http://www.google.com/patents/US8408497)
Apparently the M.I.C.H.E.L.L.E-B (http://space.xprize.org/files/downloads/ansari/tgv.pdf) from TGV rockets (http://www.tgv-rockets.com/) was not seen as prior art.

Apparently Blue Origin's design has distinctions the USTPO feels merit separate consideration.

Not that I always agree, but do keep in mind that a patent consists of far more than what is conveyed by the title.

Amusingly (except perhaps for those of us who have designed vehicles for decades with body flaps and drag brakes) you can even find the prior art (from 1988s) on Amazon. 

http://www.amazon.com/Planetary-Explorer-Emigrant-Special-Dynamics/dp/B000EOQTJS

Attached is a cover shot of a book General Dynamics published showing a VTOL lander.  The body flaps of this lander are shown inside the book (which I have but didn't want to scan).  The Blue patent claims them in Figure 4.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars_J on 04/29/2013 06:56 pm
Blue Origin has been granted the patent for Launch vehicles with fixed and deployable deceleration surfaces, and/or shaped fuel tanks, and associated systems and methods (http://www.google.com/patents/US8408497)
Apparently the M.I.C.H.E.L.L.E-B (http://space.xprize.org/files/downloads/ansari/tgv.pdf) from TGV rockets (http://www.tgv-rockets.com/) was not seen as prior art.

Apparently Blue Origin's design has distinctions the USTPO feels merit separate consideration.

Not that I always agree, but do keep in mind that a patent consists of far more than what is conveyed by the title.

The USTPO is far from the final authority on the issue. Patents get challenged all the time, and the USTPO seems to be very under-manned/funded.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 05/02/2013 10:44 pm
Blue Origin's extended CCDev2 SAA with the three new unfunded milestones (to be accomplihed in 2013 and 2014) has now been posted:

Quote from: Amended CCDev2 SAA
Milestone 1.4- SV Subsystem Interim Design Review
Date: March 2014
Unfunded
Description:  Hold a meeting at Blue Origin headquarters in Kent, WA to review Space Vehicle subsystem design progress with emphasis on power and actuation systems, in-space propulsion, multiplex avionics, flight mechanics and GN&C.

Milestone 3.6- BE-3 Engine Test
Date: September 2013
Unfunded
Description: Conduct a test firing of the pump-fed engine at Blue's West Texas Launch Site simulating a subscale booster suborbital mission duty cycle (MDC).

Milestone 3.7- Subscale Propellant Tank Assembly Review
Date: December 2013
Unfunded
Description: Conduct a review of the design, manufacture, and assembly of a subscale booster propellant tank at Blue Origin headquarters in Kent, WA.

http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/document_file_get.cfm?docid=654
http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/page.cfm?ID=42
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/03/2013 06:52 am
Blue Origin's extended CCDev2 SAA with the three new unfunded milestones (to be accomplihed in 2013 and 2014) has now been posted:

Many thanks for the update. Sounds like they're still some way off entering flight test; maybe next year or the year after?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: zaitcev on 05/22/2013 04:36 pm
Google finally updated their Corn Ranch imagery, which includes the vertical engine test stand for hydrogen engines. Only took them 2 years this time, assuming Bing took some time too. My message (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=10685.msg811733#msg811733) was in September 2011.

But this is not all. The Google imagery now includes a hitherto unknown high-bay building far away in the north-east corner. Since Bing updates more often, I have to conclude that it was built in 2012. The building is protected by a berm from an empty spot. My guess is that it has something to do with testing of solid engines, firing horizontally.

Link (to map):
 https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=215231451669260323291.000463e960dc2fc6a2fae&msa=0&ll=31.429304,-104.719985&spn=0.010931,0.013647
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: JBF on 05/22/2013 04:42 pm
The mysterious A shaped tower is a standard tower crane, you are just looking at the shadow.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: zaitcev on 05/22/2013 04:50 pm
Look at this:
 http://n5lp.net/DSC04575.jpg

The thin leg of the "A" stands on some kind of a portal.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: JBF on 05/22/2013 04:57 pm
ok, I retract my comment that is odd.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Zond on 05/22/2013 07:16 pm
Google finally updated their Corn Ranch imagery, which includes the vertical engine test stand for hydrogen engines. Only took them 2 years this time, assuming Bing took some time too. My message (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=10685.msg811733#msg811733) was in September 2011.

But this is not all. The Google imagery now includes a hitherto unknown high-bay building far away in the north-east corner. Since Bing updates more often, I have to conclude that it was built in 2012. The building is protected by a berm from an empty spot. My guess is that it has something to do with testing of solid engines, firing horizontally.

Link (to map):
 https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=215231451669260323291.000463e960dc2fc6a2fae&msa=0&ll=31.429304,-104.719985&spn=0.010931,0.013647

You're two months late:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=10685.msg1029684#msg1029684 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=10685.msg1029684#msg1029684)
I think the new high-bay building and surrounding facilities are new test stands for the BE-3 engine. The solid escape motor was probably tested at Aerojet facilities.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 06/05/2013 04:48 pm
Some info from today's Blue Origin talk at NSRC 2013 by Brett Alexander and Erika Wagner:

Quote
@spacecom: Wagner: Blue Origin founded in 2000, now has over 200 employees mostly in Seattle area, test site in Texas. #NSRC2013

Quote
@spacecom: Wagner: New Shepard can fit three or more people in capsule or equivalent experiment racks. Totally automated, no pilot #NSRC2013

Quote
@jeff_foust: Wagner: previous test vehicle used several peroxide/RP engines. New one will use a single BE-3 LOX/LH2 engine. #NSRC2013

Quote
@jeff_foust: Wagner on Blue Origin's pad escape test last fall: no denying that's a pretty good kick in the pants. #NSRC2013

Quote
@jeff_foust: Wagner: BE-3 engine (so named as it's their third engine): deep throttlable for landings, restartable, reusable. #NSRC2013

Quote
@spacecom: Wagner: first Blue Origin BE3 engine is now on the test stand, did a test firing in March. Showing the video. #NSRC2013

Quote
@phalanx: Wagner: work with NASA accelerated @blueorigin LOX/LH2 engine by about a year. #NSRC2013

Update: further info

Quote
@wikkit: Blue Origin developed their LOX/Hydrogen turbopumps in-house. Bold. Probably the first new hydrogen turbopump in decades. #nsrc2013

Quote
@spacecom: Wagner: Looking at altitudes of 100 km or so w/ 3 or 4 minutes of micro gravity. #NSRC2013

Quote
@jeff_foust: Wagner: "ultimately" plan to have payload specialists flying with experiments; also open to having passengers as expt subjects #NSRC2013

Quote
@jeff_foust: Wagner: we're not a provider for NASA's Flight Opportunities program right now, but plan to be part of it as industry grows. #NSRC2013

Quote
@spacecom: Wagner: we are hiring like gang busters. Lots of open positions on Blue Origin website #NSRC2013

Quote
@spacecom: Wagner: Not marketing tickets to tourists at the moment. Philosophy is to bring out systems when they are ready. #NSRC2013

Quote
@spacecom: Brett Alexander: The only customers Blue Origin has are the three beta experimenters at the time. #NSRC2013

Quote
@spacecom: Alexander: focused initially on doing one flight per day early morning due to wind. Anticipate accommodating higher winds later #NSRC2013

Quote
@jeff_foust: Wagner: will not use the West Texas site for orbital flights; would seek a coastal range for those later vehicles. #NSRC2013
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 06/05/2013 10:22 pm
There is also this summary:
http://www.newspacewatch.com/articles/nsrc-2013-day-3-blue-origin-session.html

Quote
Suborbital vehicle is a close version of the upper stage of orbital system
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 06/05/2013 10:31 pm
Very interesting. Also interesting that they compare the suborbital vehicle to the upper stage of their orbital vehicle.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Zond on 06/29/2013 09:01 pm
Here are some pictures of the new facilities (https://maps.google.be/maps?q=van+horn+tx&hl=en&ll=31.429739,-104.719711&spn=0.002902,0.005198&sll=39.096394,-94.463008&sspn=0.010558,0.020792&hnear=Van+Horn,+Culberson,+Texas,+United+States&t=h&z=18) Blue Origin is building:
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=101342 (http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=101342)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Silmfeanor on 06/29/2013 09:30 pm
Here are some pictures of the new facilities (https://maps.google.be/maps?q=van+horn+tx&hl=en&ll=31.429739,-104.719711&spn=0.002902,0.005198&sll=39.096394,-94.463008&sspn=0.010558,0.020792&hnear=Van+Horn,+Culberson,+Texas,+United+States&t=h&z=18) Blue Origin is building:
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=101342 (http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=101342)
interesting. Any speculation on what we're seeing here? obviously fueling tanks, and the structure looks like it needs to act as a blast shield in case of something bad.
Engine/stage test stand? What purpose are the towers playing? perhaps a take-off/landing pad of some sort?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: R7 on 06/29/2013 11:38 pm
Engine/stage test stand? What purpose are the towers playing?

[speculation]
Engine test stand. Four large beige tilted tanks LH2 storage, large metallic tank LOX storage.

The towers simulate vehicle tanks during tests, propellants preloaded to them from storage tanks. Test area is the grey rectangular area behind blast wall, vacuum insulated propellants lines from storage tanks to it seen partially constructed.

Pink heavily reinforced tank next to hydrogen tanks, the white tanks and beige long one next to them ... pressurants/purge gases He/N2 ? CO2 for fire extinguishing? Which one which beats me.

Big beige fat tower further away, water for sound suppression? Maybe on site prop mfg too...

But what are the numerous grey thingies adjacent to building walls which look like oversize high-tech toilets?!
[/speculation]
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Retired Downrange on 06/29/2013 11:59 pm
Engine/stage test stand? What purpose are the towers playing?

[speculation]

But what are the numerous grey thingies adjacent to building walls which look like oversize high-tech toilets?!
[/speculation]



My guess is they are air conditioning units.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: simonbp on 07/01/2013 07:01 am
Obviously.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 07/19/2013 12:03 pm
Quote
Blue Origin anticipates being ready to perform its own orbital launches by 2018, Meyerson said.

http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20130719/SPACE/307190014/Who-will-launch-from-Kennedy-Space-Center-s-pad-39A-

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Joel on 07/19/2013 05:54 pm
Quote
Blue Origin anticipates being ready to perform its own orbital launches by 2018, Meyerson said.

http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20130719/SPACE/307190014/Who-will-launch-from-Kennedy-Space-Center-s-pad-39A-



Could that be launches with the Space Vehicle, 
but using Atlas V as booster?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Nate_Trost on 07/19/2013 06:26 pm
I have to presume that is using their RBS. Given the progress they've already made in their LH2 engine test program, 2018 seems like a reasonable estimate to begin flying it, that's another 4-5 years depending on how you're counting.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 09/11/2013 03:34 pm
There was a presentation by Brett Alexander of Blue Origin in July on their recent progress (starts at 15 minutes of the video):
http://www.livestream.com/aiaa/video?clipId=pla_ba1e7407-e0e3-402d-838a-0802cd6f88fd&utm_source=lslibrary&utm_medium=ui-thumb
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 09/11/2013 03:47 pm
There was a presentation by Brett Alexander of Blue Origin in July on their recent progress (starts at 15 minutes of the video):
http://www.livestream.com/aiaa/video?clipId=pla_ba1e7407-e0e3-402d-838a-0802cd6f88fd&utm_source=lslibrary&utm_medium=ui-thumb

At 20:40, Brett Alexander says that the suborbital crew capsule will land with parachutes. It will not land with the propulsion module. It will seat 3 or more people to 100 km.  He says that the landing of the propulsion module will be sporty. It will light the engine fairly close to the ground. So from a safety perspective, they decided to separate the propulsion module from the suborbital crew capsule. The orbital capsule seats 7.

During the pad escape test video at 31 minutes, he mentions that there is a cold-gas retro rocket that ignites at the end. He also mentions that there is RCS guiding prior to the parachutes deploying.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/11/2013 04:17 pm
Wonderful! I keep waiting for Blue Origin to come out of hiding with something awesome, either a suborbital manned vehicle or their partially reusable orbital booster. Considering their bid for the launch pad at the Cape, either are possible.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Joel on 10/13/2013 09:37 am
Bezos’ Blue Origin space venture now employs 300 people, gearing up for commercial operations"

http://www.geekwire.com/2013/blue-origin/ (http://www.geekwire.com/2013/blue-origin/)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 10/23/2013 01:14 am
Another article:
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-10-22/jeff-bezoss-blue-origin-will-revamp-space-flight-dot-dot-dot-one-day-dot-dot-dot-soon?campaign_id=yhoo
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 10/23/2013 12:48 pm
Another article:
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-10-22/jeff-bezoss-blue-origin-will-revamp-space-flight-dot-dot-dot-one-day-dot-dot-dot-soon?campaign_id=yhoo

like this quote  "Here’s the near-term future for Blue Origin, Jeff Bezos’s commercial space startup: Any day now, the company will begin making suborbital flights."

 
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars_J on 12/03/2013 05:40 pm
New information about the BE-3 engine?
http://spaceref.biz/2013/12/blue-origin-debuts-the-american-made-be-3-liquid-hydrogen-rocket-engine.html

Quote
...
The test demonstrated a full mission duty cycle, mimicking flight of the New Shepard vehicle by thrusting at 110,000 pounds in a 145-second boost phase, shutting down for approximately four and a half minutes to simulate coast through apogee, then restarting and throttling down to 25,000 pounds thrust to simulate controlled vertical landing. To date, the BE-3 has demonstrated more than 160 starts and 9,100 seconds of operation at Blue Origin's test facility near Van Horn, Texas.
....

EDIT: added video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3r6r0eglKPo
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Lurker Steve on 12/03/2013 06:32 pm
So, 160 starts and 9 or 10K seconds on the test stand. Given those stats, how much farther would you say until they are ready for a production engine, sometime late next year, or 2015 ?
It's not a second stage engine (yet), so they don't have the long 600 second burns like the J-2X, so maybe the number of starts is a better measure of where they are in the testing process, rather than the burn duration ?
 
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: dcporter on 12/03/2013 06:34 pm
So, 160 starts and 9 or 10K seconds on the test stand. Given those stats, how much farther would you say until they are ready for a production engine, sometime late next year, or 2015 ?
It's not a second stage engine (yet), so they don't have the long 600 second burns like the J-2X, so maybe the number of starts is a better measure of where they are in the testing process, rather than the burn duration ?

The video suggests that the test was for exactly the (suborbital) mission profile that they're aiming for, so in terms of duration it sounds like they're already at their (current) goal.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Lurker Steve on 12/03/2013 06:52 pm
So, 160 starts and 9 or 10K seconds on the test stand. Given those stats, how much farther would you say until they are ready for a production engine, sometime late next year, or 2015 ?
It's not a second stage engine (yet), so they don't have the long 600 second burns like the J-2X, so maybe the number of starts is a better measure of where they are in the testing process, rather than the burn duration ?

The video suggests that the test was for exactly the (suborbital) mission profile that they're aiming for, so in terms of duration it sounds like they're already at their (current) goal.
Yes, but the entire test suite for the engine probably goes past the normal mission profile, and there might be more they want to know about the engine. I just have no idea how long a "normal" engine development takes. This is less time than the J-2X had on the test stand, but might be getting close to the amount of time that the first Merlin spent on the test stand.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 12/03/2013 07:24 pm
It's supposed to be a tap off cycle, and it would appear to have two turbopumps. Apparently, the tap off is then dumped through those long pipes on each side. Am I correct in this speculation? Btw, 100%-22% is one amazing level of throttle. Specially for a first stage H2/LOX engine. I wonder if it pays a serious penalty on isp by having a really low expansion ration.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 12/04/2013 12:23 am
It's supposed to be a tap off cycle, and it would appear to have two turbopumps. Apparently, the tap off is then dumped through those long pipes on each side. Am I correct in this speculation? Btw, 100%-22% is one amazing level of throttle. Specially for a first stage H2/LOX engine. I wonder if it pays a serious penalty on isp by having a really low expansion ration.
Would enjoy knowing the engine weight to compare it to the RL-10
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Rabidpanda on 12/04/2013 01:02 am
It's supposed to be a tap off cycle, and it would appear to have two turbopumps. Apparently, the tap off is then dumped through those long pipes on each side. Am I correct in this speculation? Btw, 100%-22% is one amazing level of throttle. Specially for a first stage H2/LOX engine. I wonder if it pays a serious penalty on isp by having a really low expansion ration.

What's the source for it being a tap off cycle?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars_J on 12/04/2013 01:11 am
It's supposed to be a tap off cycle, and it would appear to have two turbopumps. Apparently, the tap off is then dumped through those long pipes on each side. Am I correct in this speculation? Btw, 100%-22% is one amazing level of throttle. Specially for a first stage H2/LOX engine. I wonder if it pays a serious penalty on isp by having a really low expansion ration.

What's the source for it being a tap off cycle?

Read the article I linked to (which is actually a Blue Origin press release): http://spaceref.biz/2013/12/blue-origin-debuts-the-american-made-be-3-liquid-hydrogen-rocket-engine.html
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Blackstar on 12/07/2013 02:56 am
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Alpha Control on 12/09/2013 10:57 pm
Here's another article. This one's from Aviation Week, published today.  The article cites a Q & A held with Rob Meyerson, president and program manager, on Dec. 3rd:

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_12_09_2013_p29-642730.xml&p=1

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 12/10/2013 02:18 pm
Here's another article. This one's from Aviation Week, published today.  The article cites a Q & A held with Rob Meyerson, president and program manager, on Dec. 3rd:

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_12_09_2013_p29-642730.xml&p=1

fine pic of the engine
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Zond on 02/13/2014 05:21 pm
Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment for the Blue Origin West Texas Launch Site (http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/media/Blue_Origin_Supplemental_EA_and_FONSI.pdf)
Quote
The current Proposed Action falls outside the scope of the 2006 EA, because (1) the 2006 EA limited the environmental analysis to the years 2006–2010 and Blue Origin now proposes to continue RLV development operations through 2019 (see Section 2.1.3); (2) the propellants and certain other characteristics of the proposed RLVs are different than the previous versions (see Section 2.1.1); and (3) Blue Origin proposes additional construction activities (see Section 2.1.5).
There isn't much new info in this supplemental EA.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/24/2014 11:17 pm
BO are open to selling the BE3 engine to other launch providers going on quote below.

Now] we're developing this engine for our New Shepard system and our orbital system, but we think it has applicability to both government and other commercial launch systems as well,” Meyerson concludes.

Sounds like a likely candidate for upper stage replacement for RL10. I would surprised if it also wasn't considerably cheaper .
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: docmordrid on 03/25/2014 01:17 am
Source for above quote,

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_12_09_2013_p29-642730.xml&p=3
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 03/25/2014 01:26 am

Sounds like a likely candidate for upper stage replacement for RL10. I would surprised if it also wasn't considerably cheaper

Why would it be cheaper?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Danderman on 03/25/2014 01:26 am
BE3 for Antares could be a strategic move by Orbital to enable Antares to orbit their comsats.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 03/25/2014 01:34 am
BE-3 is a tap off 100klbf engine. That's the thrust of 4 RL10 and the isp is unknown. Its an open cycle, but an extremely efficient one. And being so simple it might have a good T/W ratio. So it might enable Antares to have an H2 upper stage. But definitely not as a first stage engine.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: docmordrid on 03/25/2014 01:35 am
Not that they'd probably do it, but F9/FH could use a higher energy upper stage as well - especially as a reusable.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/25/2014 04:50 am
BE-3 is a tap off 100klbf engine. That's the thrust of 4 RL10 and the isp is unknown. Its an open cycle, but an extremely efficient one. And being so simple it might have a good T/W ratio. So it might enable Antares to have an H2 upper stage. But definitely not as a first stage engine.
Except they showed it as a first stage engine. Five of them. Probably an increased thrust, but still.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 03/25/2014 06:00 am

Sounds like a likely candidate for upper stage replacement for RL10. I would surprised if it also wasn't considerably cheaper

Why would it be cheaper?

We don't know, of course, and it could be more or less expensive, but it was developed by a lean, cost-conscious organization with limited financial resources, so low cost was likely a high priority for them, which would make them more likely to design for low cost at the expense of performance.  In the development of the RL10 cost was probably not as high a priority.

Also, the original RL10 was designed many decades ago and the new BO engine is a modern design.  They have more modern technology available to them to make the design cheaper.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/25/2014 08:15 am
The only pricing I could find on web for RL10 was for $30-$38m. I'm sure BO would like to sell BE3 for this price but I'm guessing their build price would be under $5m.

Merlin 1D would be around $2m. If the F9 is $56m, I expect a build cost of around $30m ie $20M for engines + $10m for LV. 
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 03/25/2014 10:53 am

BE-3 is a tap off 100klbf engine. That's the thrust of 4 RL10 and the isp is unknown. Its an open cycle, but an extremely efficient one. And being so simple it might have a good T/W ratio. So it might enable Antares to have an H2 upper stage. But definitely not as a first stage engine.
Except they showed it as a first stage engine. Five of them. Probably an increased thrust, but still.
First stage engine within the context of the Antares. I Orbital would be to make a first stage based of the BE-3 it would no longer be an Antares.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 03/25/2014 10:59 am

The only pricing I could find on web for RL10 was for $30-$38m. I'm sure BO would like to sell BE3 for this price but I'm guessing their build price would be under $5m.

Merlin 1D would be around $2m. If the F9 is $56m, I expect a build cost of around $30m ie $20M for engines + $10m for LV.
A certain chief designer that writes a lot here talked of something closer to 12M when ordered in quantity for the RL10. The Merlin 1C was assumed to be 1M each and the Merlin 1D is cheaper.
But you have to understand that one thing is the engine at the factory's door, and another is the acceptance, transport, integration and engineering support services. Do you remember all the launch aborts on Falcon 9 and how the engineers were analyzing the telemetry to see if it was safe or not? That's part of the support services and cost money. Even after a successful launch, all relevant data gets analyzed and somebody has to pay for it.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 03/25/2014 12:52 pm

Sounds like a likely candidate for upper stage replacement for RL10. I would surprised if it also wasn't considerably cheaper

Why would it be cheaper?

We don't know, of course, and it could be more or less expensive, but it was developed by a lean, cost-conscious organization with limited financial resources, so low cost was likely a high priority for them, which would make them more likely to design for low cost at the expense of performance.  In the development of the RL10 cost was probably not as high a priority.

Also, the original RL10 was designed many decades ago and the new BO engine is a modern design.  They have more modern technology available to them to make the design cheaper.


It is still a bad assumption
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/25/2014 02:15 pm

BE-3 is a tap off 100klbf engine. That's the thrust of 4 RL10 and the isp is unknown. Its an open cycle, but an extremely efficient one. And being so simple it might have a good T/W ratio. So it might enable Antares to have an H2 upper stage. But definitely not as a first stage engine.
Except they showed it as a first stage engine. Five of them. Probably an increased thrust, but still.
First stage engine within the context of the Antares. I Orbital would be to make a first stage based of the BE-3 it would no longer be an Antares.
Absolutely. I guess I missed that context.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: simonbp on 03/25/2014 02:59 pm
Right now, I'd be dubious that OSC is making *any* long-term plans regarding the Antares first stage (which is built in the Russian-speaking part of Ukraine).

Cygnus is a different story, but there is nothing binding Cygnus to Antares.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 03/25/2014 03:18 pm
BE3 for Antares could be a strategic move by Orbital to enable Antares to orbit their comsats.

Could the engine be used to replace the solid for Cygnus?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/25/2014 07:00 pm
The plan is to use this as upper stage engine and also in their suborbital booster. The article wasn't very clear on a orbital booster.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: simonbp on 03/26/2014 01:34 pm
The plan is to use this as upper stage engine and also in their suborbital booster. The article wasn't very clear on a orbital booster.

You mean the BE-3 engine? Blue Origin themselves call it "well suited for boost, upper-stage and in-space applications on both government and commercial launch systems". That clearly makes it sound like they want to use it as both a first and second stage engine, much like Merlin.

http://www.blueorigin.com/media/press_release/blue-origin-debuts-the-american-made-be-3-liquid-hydrogen-rocket-engine
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 03/26/2014 06:12 pm
The plan is to use this as upper stage engine and also in their suborbital booster. The article wasn't very clear on a orbital booster.

You mean the BE-3 engine? Blue Origin themselves call it "well suited for boost, upper-stage and in-space applications on both government and commercial launch systems". That clearly makes it sound like they want to use it as both a first and second stage engine, much like Merlin.

http://www.blueorigin.com/media/press_release/blue-origin-debuts-the-american-made-be-3-liquid-hydrogen-rocket-engine

Looks like they are in need to hire a few people as well.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Planetaryduality on 03/27/2014 08:15 pm
Seeing as BE-3 has pretty high thrust, and is fuelled by LH2, could it potentially be sold to NASA for use on an SLS upper stage? From what I've read, upper stage design post-ICPS hasnt been finalized, and J-2X appears to be on the outs.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Zond on 04/01/2014 05:17 pm
Blue Origin has received experimental permit 14-009 for the "New Shepard System".
http://www.faa.gov/data_research/commercial_space_data/permits/ (http://www.faa.gov/data_research/commercial_space_data/permits/)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Danderman on 04/02/2014 03:04 am
BE3 for Antares could be a strategic move by Orbital to enable Antares to orbit their comsats.

Could the engine be used to replace the solid for Cygnus?

That would be the optimal configuration, yes.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 04/06/2014 09:43 am
IMHO a BO developed BE3 booster for Antares could be an option. Orbital don't have any problems with subcontractors supplying major components of their LV and space vehicles (eg Cygnus). This would allow BO to fly their LVs and engines without all overheads of having to build launch facility and associated costs that go with it. Plus they would also need a customer base which Orbital already has. There is long term possibility of a reusable LV.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 04/15/2014 08:27 pm

Makes me increasingly think BO is the mystery tenant at Melbourne Airport...

It isn't.  You idea was disproved.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 04/15/2014 09:05 pm
The recent articles on their BE3 engine had them flying suborbital in next couple if years and orbital  around 2018. The big plus they have over Orbital, Boeing & SNC is an in-house built engine.

If they do fly, expect them to be price competitive with SpaceX.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 04/16/2014 05:55 am
The recent articles on their BE3 engine had them flying suborbital in next couple if years and orbital  around 2018. The big plus they have over Orbital, Boeing & SNC is an in-house built engine.

If they do fly, expect them to be price competitive with SpaceX.
Unsubstantiated
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 04/16/2014 06:18 am

Makes me increasingly think BO is the mystery tenant at Melbourne Airport...

It isn't.  You idea was disproved.
No Jim, it wasn't. It still isn't clear who the tenant of the new plant at Melbourne airport is. It isn't Bell Helicopter. The plant for the 525 Relentless turns out to be located at the Rick Husband Amarillo International Airport in Texas.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 04/16/2014 01:52 pm
The recent articles on their BE3 engine had them flying suborbital in next couple if years and orbital  around 2018. The big plus they have over Orbital, Boeing & SNC is an in-house built engine.

If they do fly, expect them to be price competitive with SpaceX.
Unsubstantiated

Why would somebody enter a market if they are not price competitive?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 04/16/2014 02:45 pm
Well, from what I know, their second stage wont be reusable. If they follow a plan outlined in one of their patents (which may not hold), they will land the first stage on a platform downrange. Both things might increase cost. So it is not sure whether they will really be cost competitive.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 04/16/2014 02:57 pm
Well, from what I know, their second stage wont be reusable. If they follow a plan outlined in one of their patents (which may not hold), they will land the first stage on a platform downrange. Both things might increase cost. So it is not sure whether they will really be cost competitive.

Those aren't the only costs that matter. They should be competitive if they have less employees than SpaceX (including sub-contractors).
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: llanitedave on 04/16/2014 03:18 pm
Even if the patent doesn't hold, they could still use the technique.  Doesn't look like anyone else is all that interested in it anyway.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 04/16/2014 05:32 pm
Even if the patent doesn't hold, they could still use the technique.  Doesn't look like anyone else is all that interested in it anyway.
Sure they can use the technique, but I don't think it is cost competitive with RTLS.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 04/17/2014 06:05 am
Well, from what I know, their second stage wont be reusable. If they follow a plan outlined in one of their patents (which may not hold), they will land the first stage on a platform downrange. Both things might increase cost. So it is not sure whether they will really be cost competitive.

Those aren't the only costs that matter. They should be competitive if they have less employees than SpaceX (including sub-contractors).

It's closer to the truth to say they should be competitive if they have fewer employees than SpaceX when they have 50 flights and $4 billion in revenue booked.  Otherwise, you're comparing Blue Origins' development program costs (a development program that is moving much slower than SpaceX's did) to SpaceX's operational program costs, which makes no sense.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Lurker Steve on 04/17/2014 01:19 pm

It's closer to the truth to say they should be competitive if they have fewer employees than SpaceX when they have 50 flights and $4 billion in revenue booked.  Otherwise, you're comparing Blue Origins' development program costs (a development program that is moving much slower than SpaceX's did) to SpaceX's operational program costs, which makes no sense.

The order backlog does not matter when you look at profitability.

The actual launch rate does matter, and how much labor and material is required to prepare for each launch.
Right now, most vendors believe (based on experience) that a non-reusable LV costs less to prepare, given the current launch rates. BO's design may be cost effective at whatever launch volume they are able to muster, but no one knows yet.  They certainly don't need to same sized staff at this point in their development.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 04/17/2014 03:41 pm
Well, from what I know, their second stage wont be reusable. If they follow a plan outlined in one of their patents (which may not hold), they will land the first stage on a platform downrange. Both things might increase cost. So it is not sure whether they will really be cost competitive.

Those aren't the only costs that matter. They should be competitive if they have less employees than SpaceX (including sub-contractors).

Bezos runs a very tight ship.   He knows how to compete.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/19/2014 11:54 pm
BO are still competing for CC.

 http://www.nasa.gov/content/from-wind-tunnel-tests-to-software-reviews-nasas-commercial-crew-partners-continue-to/index.html#.U3qYO2f7Kl1
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: KSC Sage on 06/09/2014 04:59 pm
Scott Henderson, Orbital Launch Pad Director, Blue Origin will be giving a public presentation at the National Space Club luncheon at Cape Canaveral, FL at 11:30amEST, June 10, 2014.  Hopefully he'll provide some new information on Blue Origin's plans.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Star One on 06/09/2014 05:23 pm
Scott Henderson, Orbital Launch Pad Director, Blue Origin will be giving a public presentation at the National Space Club luncheon at Cape Canaveral, FL at 11:30amEST, June 10, 2014.  Hopefully he'll provide some new information on Blue Origin's plans.

I am hoping they are finally going spill some beans about their work & lift that veil of secrecy they've been working behind so far.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Joel on 06/10/2014 07:19 pm
Here is some reporting from the event:
http://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2014/06/10/space-tourism-on-its-way-to-ksc/10287429/ (http://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2014/06/10/space-tourism-on-its-way-to-ksc/10287429/)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: sghill on 06/11/2014 12:56 pm
Here is some reporting from the event:
http://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2014/06/10/space-tourism-on-its-way-to-ksc/10287429/ (http://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2014/06/10/space-tourism-on-its-way-to-ksc/10287429/)

James Dean had some on site Twitter responses at the event too:

https://twitter.com/flatoday_jdean
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 06/26/2014 08:57 pm
This article stated BO were working on a methane engine.

 http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34913.msg1219645.msg#1219645
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 06/27/2014 04:08 am
Here is the specific quote that mentions the LOX-methane engine:

Some tidbits: http://aviationweek.com/awin-only/nasa-s-deep-space-human-spacecraft-push?sf3423415=1

We’re trying to be objective about all of the engines out there,” he says. “We are even looking at some of the LOX-methane work that Blue Origin and others are doing.”
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 06/27/2014 04:16 am
Here's another article. This one's from Aviation Week, published today.  The article cites a Q & A held with Rob Meyerson, president and program manager, on Dec. 3rd:

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_12_09_2013_p29-642730.xml&p=1

This quote is also likely revelant to the LOX-methane engine:

Quote
“We selected the BE-3 as our first orbital launch vehicle engine because it provides us with options to go with an all-hydrogen architecture if we choose to,” he says. “We have ideas. Some things are in development for other engines that we're developing, but we're not ready to discuss those today. Those would provide other options and other architectures.”
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars_J on 07/04/2014 06:04 am
Here is the specific quote that mentions the LOX-methane engine:

Some tidbits: http://aviationweek.com/awin-only/nasa-s-deep-space-human-spacecraft-push?sf3423415=1

We’re trying to be objective about all of the engines out there,” he says. “We are even looking at some of the LOX-methane work that Blue Origin and others are doing.”

I guess Methane is the fashionable propellant choice these days. ;)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 07/04/2014 02:10 pm
Here is the specific quote that mentions the LOX-methane engine:

Some tidbits: http://aviationweek.com/awin-only/nasa-s-deep-space-human-spacecraft-push?sf3423415=1

We’re trying to be objective about all of the engines out there,” he says. “We are even looking at some of the LOX-methane work that Blue Origin and others are doing.”

I guess Methane is the fashionable propellant choice these days. ;)

Yes. In SpaceX's case, it seems that their long-term preference is to only have one type of engine which will be LOX-methane. It's not clear if that's also true for Blue Origin. But I am guessing that Blue Origin's objectives are similar.

Commercial companies tend to make similar choices that are different from the ones made by NASA.  The choice of a LOX-methane engine is one example of this. Another example of this is that Blue Origin and SpaceX have opted for reusability of their first stage while SLS will be expendable. All commercial companies have opted for landing their spacecrafts on land while Orion lands in water. A pusher LAS was adopted by commercial companies for their spacecrafts but Orion has a tractor LAS.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: breadfan on 07/21/2014 10:59 am
I'm pretty sure this is new information - Bezo's total investment in BO may be around $500 million, although it isn't directly stated.

http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/41299bezos-investment-in-blue-origin-exceeds-500-million (http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/41299bezos-investment-in-blue-origin-exceeds-500-million)
Quote
“We got $25 million from the NASA commercial crew program, and that represents less than 5 percent of what our founder has put into the company,” Alexander said.

That would mean Bezos’ investment in Blue Origin is at least $500 million.

Obviously this stuff is neither cheap nor easy.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 07/22/2014 10:05 pm
See below for an update on their patent for their sea going platform:

Incidentally, here is the Blue Origin patent with the sea going platform:
http://www.google.com/patents/US8678321

Granted March 25, 2014!

That's news.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 07/24/2014 02:09 am
It looks like the BE-3 engine is one of the engines that might be considered for the SLS upper stage:
Quote
The SLS program must also procure a new upper stage engine. According to NASA officials, the upper stage engine will be selected based on mission need. Potential competitors include Aerojet Rocketdyne’s J-2X, the Evolved Expandable Launch Vehicle’s RL10, and the BE-3 engine that Blue Origin is developing for the Commercial Crew program, among other options.

Page 27 of the report:

http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/664969.pdf
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 07/24/2014 04:09 am
An update on Blue Origin's efforts:
http://www.satellitetoday.com/technology/2014/07/18/satellite-execs-talk-wicked-cool-space-technology/

Quote
Alexander said New Shepard will undergo tens of suborbital flights starting next year, followed by the testing of an orbital booster. [...]

“We chose hydrogen from an engine technology standpoint because it is the most efficient. It was also the hardest and we’ve proved that we can do that with a very small team at a price point that is probably a tenth of what traditional industry development programs have done,” he said.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Zond on 08/26/2014 07:32 pm
SpaceX seems to be planning to attack Blue Origin's sea landing patent (http://www.google.com/patents/US20110017872):
http://ptolitigationcenter.com/2014/08/pto-litigation-center-report-august-26-2014/ (http://ptolitigationcenter.com/2014/08/pto-litigation-center-report-august-26-2014/)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 08/26/2014 07:36 pm
SpaceX seems to be planning to attack Blue Origin's sea landing patent (http://www.google.com/patents/US20110017872):
http://ptolitigationcenter.com/2014/08/pto-litigation-center-report-august-26-2014/ (http://ptolitigationcenter.com/2014/08/pto-litigation-center-report-august-26-2014/)

Patent trials can be very very expensive.  SpaceX may find licensing the patent is cheaper.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: llanitedave on 08/27/2014 07:33 am
Feeding trolls is only cheaper in the short term. 
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: GalacticIntruder on 09/16/2014 05:55 am
BO Event: 17 September 2014

http://www.press.org/events/igniting-future (http://www.press.org/events/igniting-future)


WSJ Headline:

Quote
Amazon Founder Jeff Bezos's Startup Is Part of Bid to Deliver Astronauts
Space-Exploration Firm Blue Origin Joins Boeing's Team to Build NASA Space Taxi

Body:

Quote
On Wednesday, according to former government and industry officials, Mr. Bezos or a representative is expected to participate in a news conference to announce a preliminary effort to develop a new rocket engine in conjunction with a joint venture composed of industry heavyweights Lockheed Martin Corp.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/amazon-founder-jeff-bezoss-startup-is-part-of-bid-to-deliver-astronauts-1410830472 (http://online.wsj.com/articles/amazon-founder-jeff-bezoss-startup-is-part-of-bid-to-deliver-astronauts-1410830472)

 ???

Headline suggest Commercial Crew, but body suggest ULA Atlas V re-engine, and in this forum we have possible SLS upper stage. Could also be BO updates or DARPA XS1.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Zed_Noir on 09/16/2014 06:09 am
...
Quote
On Wednesday, according to former government and industry officials, Mr. Bezos or a representative is expected to participate in a news conference to announce a preliminary effort to develop a new rocket engine in conjunction with a joint venture composed of industry heavyweights Lockheed Martin Corp.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/amazon-founder-jeff-bezoss-startup-is-part-of-bid-to-deliver-astronauts-1410830472 (http://online.wsj.com/articles/amazon-founder-jeff-bezoss-startup-is-part-of-bid-to-deliver-astronauts-1410830472)
...
Notice the author of the article is one Andy Pasztor, ::) surprise, surprise.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 09/16/2014 06:20 am
17 September 2014

Headline:

Quote
Amazon Founder Jeff Bezos's Startup Is Part of Bid to Deliver Astronauts
Space-Exploration Firm Blue Origin Joins Boeing's Team to Build NASA Space Taxi

Wow, now Andy Pasztor thinks that Boeing is still the most likely to win CCtCap, but only because Blue Origin is coming to rescue their bid?

This is going to be an interesting week of announcements...
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Star One on 09/16/2014 06:26 am
17 September 2014

Headline:

Quote
Amazon Founder Jeff Bezos's Startup Is Part of Bid to Deliver Astronauts
Space-Exploration Firm Blue Origin Joins Boeing's Team to Build NASA Space Taxi

Body:

Quote
On Wednesday, according to former government and industry officials, Mr. Bezos or a representative is expected to participate in a news conference to announce a preliminary effort to develop a new rocket engine in conjunction with a joint venture composed of industry heavyweights Lockheed Martin Corp.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/amazon-founder-jeff-bezoss-startup-is-part-of-bid-to-deliver-astronauts-1410830472 (http://online.wsj.com/articles/amazon-founder-jeff-bezoss-startup-is-part-of-bid-to-deliver-astronauts-1410830472)

http://www.press.org/events/igniting-future (http://www.press.org/events/igniting-future)

 ???

Headline suggest Commercial Crew, but body suggest ULA Atlas V re-engine, and in this forum we have possible SLS upper stage. Could also be BO updates or DARPA XS1.

Unfortunately the first link is behind a paywall & the second leads to a blank page.

Did however find this article about it.

http://m.economictimes.com/news/international/business/boeing-lockheed-venture-said-teaming-with-bezos-on-rocket-engine/articleshow/42601900.cms
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 09/16/2014 06:47 am
17 September 2014

Headline:

Quote
Amazon Founder Jeff Bezos's Startup Is Part of Bid to Deliver Astronauts
Space-Exploration Firm Blue Origin Joins Boeing's Team to Build NASA Space Taxi

Body:

Quote
On Wednesday, according to former government and industry officials, Mr. Bezos or a representative is expected to participate in a news conference to announce a preliminary effort to develop a new rocket engine in conjunction with a joint venture composed of industry heavyweights Lockheed Martin Corp.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/amazon-founder-jeff-bezoss-startup-is-part-of-bid-to-deliver-astronauts-1410830472 (http://online.wsj.com/articles/amazon-founder-jeff-bezoss-startup-is-part-of-bid-to-deliver-astronauts-1410830472)

http://www.press.org/events/igniting-future (http://www.press.org/events/igniting-future)

 ???

Headline suggest Commercial Crew, but body suggest ULA Atlas V re-engine, and in this forum we have possible SLS upper stage. Could also be BO updates or DARPA XS1.

Doubt it is XS1 program as BO is partnered with Boeing, Lockheed were not involved according to press releases.
I'm picking Atlas re-engine, but mentioning Lockheed instead of ULA does raise some doubts.

What ever the project it does show that Boeing and Lockheed are happy to work with BO and XCOR when it comes to engine development. This doesn't bold well for Aerojet long term.

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: docmordrid on 09/16/2014 06:48 am
Also analysis on ParabolicArc

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/09/15/report-blue-origin-joined-boeing-commercial-crew-bid/#more-53437

Quote
Report: Blue Origin Joined Boeing Commercial Crew Bid
>
>
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 09/16/2014 07:05 am
A partnership between BO and ULA should result in a RLV.
Those Unicorns in the engine exhausts are looking more real by the day.

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars-J on 09/16/2014 07:07 am
A BO engine for Atlas V is an interesting proposition - But that would radically alter the vehicle. Unless BO now also is developing a KeroLox engine?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 09/16/2014 07:40 am
A partnership between BO and ULA should result in a RLV.
Those Unicorns in the engine exhausts are looking more real by the day.

That's a huge leap.  The article only suggests ULA is looking to Blue Origin as a possible source of new engines for Atlas V.  It's a pretty long way from re-engining Atlas V, which is very straightforward and just uses existing technology to duplicate the functionality coming from Russian engines, to making an Atlas V-derived reusable launch vehicle.

The unicorns in the flame trench quip was referring to a new Blue-Origin-developed human space transportation system, not Blue Origin engines on Atlas V.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Darkseraph on 09/16/2014 08:15 am
A partnership between BO and ULA should result in a RLV.
Those Unicorns in the engine exhausts are looking more real by the day.

That's a huge leap.  The article only suggests ULA is looking to Blue Origin as a possible source of new engines for Atlas V.  It's a pretty long way from re-engining Atlas V, which is very straightforward and just uses existing technology to duplicate the functionality coming from Russian engines, to making an Atlas V-derived reusable launch vehicle.

The unicorns in the flame trench quip was referring to a new Blue-Origin-developed human space transportation system, not Blue Origin engines on Atlas V.
Oh, maybe they will be getting those unicorns to orbit on trampolines? :D

Blue Origin doing an Atlas engine is the most interesting thing I've heard in a while...even more so than the reveal of the DragonV2 (The only thing that was really news about V2 was the new solar trunk design and fins). Aerojet doing a hydrocarbon engine over 5 years and for billions was not the most inspiring news, admittedly.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 09/16/2014 09:54 am
A partnership between BO and ULA should result in a RLV.
Those Unicorns in the engine exhausts are looking more real by the day.

That's a huge leap.  The article only suggests ULA is looking to Blue Origin as a possible source of new engines for Atlas V.  It's a pretty long way from re-engining Atlas V, which is very straightforward and just uses existing technology to duplicate the functionality coming from Russian engines, to making an Atlas V-derived reusable launch vehicle.

The unicorns in the flame trench quip was referring to a new Blue-Origin-developed human space transportation system, not Blue Origin engines on Atlas V.

ULA made a comment about reusability in regards to them tendering for new engines.
Going from a 110Klb hydrogen engine to large 800-1000Klb hydrocarbon engine is a big jump in technology.
But the quote below does indicate they are developing other engines based on other fuels. I'm guessing methane as it is flavour of the month for reusable engines currently being developed eg Raptor, Firefly. If it is methane then we are looking at a new LV even if it is still called Atlas.

Here is Aviation Week article on BE3

http://aviationweek.com/awin/blue-origin-tests-new-engine

“We selected the BE-3 as our first orbital launch vehicle engine because it provides us with options to go with an all-hydrogen architecture if we choose to,” he says. “We have ideas. Some things are in development for other engines that we're developing, but we're not ready to discuss those today. Those would provide other options and other architectures.”


Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Proponent on 09/16/2014 01:45 pm
Headline suggest Commercial Crew, but body suggest ULA Atlas V re-engine, and in this forum we have possible SLS upper stage. Could also be BO updates or DARPA XS1.

BO's been working with lox/hydrogen, right?  That would be a really weird choice for re-engining the Atlas V.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: arachnitect on 09/16/2014 02:00 pm
Headline suggest Commercial Crew, but body suggest ULA Atlas V re-engine, and in this forum we have possible SLS upper stage. Could also be BO updates or DARPA XS1.

BO's been working with lox/hydrogen, right?  That would be a really weird choice for re-engining the Atlas V.

Almost makes sense as a replacement for 2x RL-10 on the upper stage.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: arachnitect on 09/16/2014 03:49 pm
Quote from: Mike Gruss ‏@Gruss_SN
Source: Jeff Bezos and Tory Bruno, new CEO of United Launch Alliance, will announce Blue Origin-ULA partnership on a new engine tomorrow.

YMMV. Proximity to CCtCap announcement could be a coincidence.

(do we have a general BO thread, or just this one in the CC section?)


found a thread: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35655.0
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/16/2014 03:52 pm
Given the size of the thread, I've made it both discussion and updates.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: cdleonard on 09/16/2014 06:15 pm
Does anyone know what it would take to convert the Atlas 5 to use a Blue Origin methane engine? It sounds more like an "Atlas 6" to me.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: .gif on 09/16/2014 06:21 pm
ULA has been doing studies on using a Delta IV booster core with the blue origin engine.  It's insulated and supposedly wouldnt require much modification.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Nate_Trost on 09/16/2014 06:25 pm
The RS-68/68A development has all been paid at this point, how on earth would an engine replacement for Delta IV make any remote economic sense?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: docmordrid on 09/16/2014 06:44 pm
If the BO engine is cheaper there's your reason.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: arachnitect on 09/16/2014 06:45 pm
The RS-68/68A development has all been paid at this point, how on earth would an engine replacement for Delta IV make any remote economic sense?

Long term planning.

Get everything to the Atlas V pad flow. Add a bigger upperstage and cover the whole payload range with a single core vehicle.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: .gif on 09/16/2014 08:50 pm
The RS-68/68A development has all been paid at this point, how on earth would an engine replacement for Delta IV make any remote economic sense?
the blue origin methane engine on DIV booster core would replace the atlas booster/rd180 combo.  The delta iv with rs68a isnt going anywhere.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: cdleonard on 09/16/2014 08:56 pm
Now that the CCtCAP annoucement is out of the way it's clear that Blue Origin had nothing to do with it.

Is ULA going to announce a new rocket tomorrow? The space business hasn't been been this exciting in decades.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: king1999 on 09/16/2014 09:44 pm
Now that the CCtCAP annoucement is out of the way it's clear that Blue Origin had nothing to do with it.

Is ULA going to announce a new rocket tomorrow? The space business hasn't been been this exciting in decades.
It may weaken the argument that Boeing rely on Russian rocket engines, since they are starting working on a replacement already ......
May have some impact on the selection process, but we don't know until they release the documents.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: PahTo on 09/16/2014 09:50 pm

Sorry to cross-post, but very relevant (from CST 100 thread)

I have a hard time believing a new LV (HR at that) can be functional by 2017.  Keep in mind the Atlas V vehicle envisioned employs a 2 engine Centaur, which in itself would need development time (and big $$), and using engines that are apparently end of life RL10-A4 (going to RL-10C-1. which won't fit on Centaur).  So while FINALLY developing ACES (common 5 meter upper stage) may be in the offing, (and sorry to repeat myself), I have a really hard time believing ULA will take on new core stage development, new upper stage development, and all that comes with it, especially when one considers the action they've shown wrt ACES to date.  Remember, Boeing gets the big pot of money, not ULA/LV.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Borklund on 09/16/2014 10:06 pm
If they can get the US taxpayer to foot the bill, they'll do all of those things.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Star One on 09/16/2014 10:43 pm

If they can get the US taxpayer to foot the bill, they'll do all of those things.

Pure speculation & personal opinion, wait until the actual announcement.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Dunners73 on 09/18/2014 10:24 am
Dont think news release is directly linked here already, hope this is ok to post.

http://www.blueorigin.com/media/press_release/united-launch-alliance-and-blue-origin-announce-partnership-to-develop-new (http://www.blueorigin.com/media/press_release/united-launch-alliance-and-blue-origin-announce-partnership-to-develop-new)

"Sept. 17, 2014 – United Launch Alliance (ULA), the nation’s premier space launch company, and Blue Origin, LLC, a privately-funded aerospace company owned by Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos, announced today that they have entered into an agreement to jointly fund development of the new BE-4 rocket engine by Blue Origin. This new collaboration will allow ULA to maintain the heritage, success and reliability of its rocket families – Atlas and Delta – while addressing the long-term need for a new domestic engine."

..

"The BE-4 is a liquid oxygen, liquefied natural gas (LNG) rocket engine that delivers 550,000-lbf of thrust at sea level. Two BE-4s will power each ULA booster, providing 1,100,000-lbf thrust at liftoff"
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Torbjorn Larsson, OM on 09/18/2014 01:41 pm
This new collaboration will allow ULA to maintain the heritage, success and reliability of its rocket families – Atlas and Delta – while addressing the long-term need for a new domestic engine."

Also this: "The BE-4 will be available for use by ULA and Blue Origin for both companies’ next generation launch systems."

Re BO being in on early CC, unless there is a contractual possibility to swap launchers (assuming it will be ready before the CST-100 missions are done), this is not the launcher you are looking for.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 09/18/2014 01:54 pm
Incidentally, there is another thread that discusses the BE-4 presser:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35655.0
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 09/18/2014 05:37 pm
Jeff stated they flight test the BE3 this year. Last I heard they plan to do suborbital flights with a BE3 (x5?) powered booster. This will refine their VTL, phase two is to fit 2nd stage and do orbital flights around 2018.

If a RLV based on BE4  follow same architecture it will also have 5 engines. This should be capable of 50t as ELV or 30t as RLV.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars-J on 09/18/2014 05:50 pm
Jeff stated they flight test the BE3 this year. Last I heard they plan to do suborbital flights with a BE3 (x5?) powered booster. This will refine their VTL, phase two is to fit 2nd stage and do orbital flights around 2018.

If a RLV based on BE4  follow same architecture it will also have 5 engines. This should be capable of 50t as ELV or 30t as RLV.

Sounds reasonable. But if 2 BE-4's will power the Atlas V replacement, a 5-engine reusable first stage will be quite large. 6-7 m diameter core perhaps?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 09/18/2014 06:55 pm
Jeff stated they flight test the BE3 this year. Last I heard they plan to do suborbital flights with a BE3 (x5?) powered booster. This will refine their VTL, phase two is to fit 2nd stage and do orbital flights around 2018.

If a RLV based on BE4  follow same architecture it will also have 5 engines. This should be capable of 50t as ELV or 30t as RLV.

Sounds reasonable. But if 2 BE-4's will power the Atlas V replacement, a 5-engine reusable first stage will be quite large. 6-7 m diameter core perhaps?
I get that 5.5m will give pretty reasonable width to height ratio. Still have to consider the throttlability of the BE-4, since it will be a reusable vehicle.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Zed_Noir on 09/19/2014 12:32 am
Jeff stated they flight test the BE3 this year. Last I heard they plan to do suborbital flights with a BE3 (x5?) powered booster. This will refine their VTL, phase two is to fit 2nd stage and do orbital flights around 2018.

If a RLV based on BE4  follow same architecture it will also have 5 engines. This should be capable of 50t as ELV or 30t as RLV.

Sounds reasonable. But if 2 BE-4's will power the Atlas V replacement, a 5-engine reusable first stage will be quite large. 6-7 m diameter core perhaps?
I get that 5.5m will give pretty reasonable width to height ratio. Still have to consider the throttlability of the BE-4, since it will be a reusable vehicle.
Also have to consider deliberate cosine lossin thrust if you gimbals the engine outward. Like about 65 degrees from vertical.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars-J on 09/19/2014 01:38 am
Also have to consider deliberate cosine lossin thrust if you gimbals the engine outward. Like about 65 degrees from vertical.

What the heck for? Have you ever heard of a rocket engine with a 65+ degree gimbal range?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 11/01/2014 11:19 am
Blue are also planning to target suborbital market. Last heard something should fly in next 12 months.

Their approach is to use a capsule on a BE3 powered reusable booster. I didn't think it was most eloquent way of doing suborbital compared to Virgin or XCOR but after today's accident I'm having 2nd thoughts.
The one big plus to capsule is having an LAS. I think they will operate something like Dragon V2. Descend using parachutes plus abort engines for soft touch down. Maybe even have the option of powered landing if parachutes fail

In theory there is no reason capsule can't stay attached to booster for the powered descent. Still have the LAS if things start going bad. Only having to refuel booster between launches should keep costs down.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 11/17/2014 03:17 am
Blue Orgin has added three new milestones to its CCDev2 agreement:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/news/releases/2014/release-20141114.html

Quote
Blue Origin conducted an interim design review of the subsystems in development for its Space Vehicle spacecraft designed to carry people into low-Earth orbit. The September review was performed under an unfunded Commercial Crew Development Round 2 (CCDev2) agreement with NASA. In October, NASA and Blue Origin agreed to add three additional unfunded milestones to the agreement to continue the development work and partnership. Those milestones will include further testing of Blue Origin’s propellant tank, BE-3 engine and pusher escape system.

“The team at Blue Origin has made tremendous progress in its design, and we’re excited to extend our partnership to 2016,” said Kathy Lueders, manager of NASA's Commercial Crew Program. “It’s important to keep a pulse on the commercial human spaceflight industry as a whole, and this partnership is a shining example of what works well for both industry and the government.”
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: nimbostratus on 11/17/2014 03:51 am
Blue Orgin has added three new milestones to its CCDev2 agreement:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/news/releases/2014/release-20141114.html

Quote
Blue Origin conducted an interim design review of the subsystems in development for its Space Vehicle spacecraft designed to carry people into low-Earth orbit. The September review was performed under an unfunded Commercial Crew Development Round 2 (CCDev2) agreement with NASA. In October, NASA and Blue Origin agreed to add three additional unfunded milestones to the agreement to continue the development work and partnership. Those milestones will include further testing of Blue Origin’s propellant tank, BE-3 engine and pusher escape system.

“The team at Blue Origin has made tremendous progress in its design, and we’re excited to extend our partnership to 2016,” said Kathy Lueders, manager of NASA's Commercial Crew Program. “It’s important to keep a pulse on the commercial human spaceflight industry as a whole, and this partnership is a shining example of what works well for both industry and the government.”

How was BO involved in CCDeV?
BO was just developing some technology adapted with no real article.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 11/17/2014 01:24 pm
Blue tendered for CC and were accepted for some early milestones, they may still be working through them. NASA will still help them (non financially)  and SNC develop a CC vehicle.


Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 11/17/2014 05:07 pm
Blue Orgin has added three new milestones to its CCDev2 agreement:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/news/releases/2014/release-20141114.html

Quote
Blue Origin conducted an interim design review of the subsystems in development for its Space Vehicle spacecraft designed to carry people into low-Earth orbit. The September review was performed under an unfunded Commercial Crew Development Round 2 (CCDev2) agreement with NASA. In October, NASA and Blue Origin agreed to add three additional unfunded milestones to the agreement to continue the development work and partnership. Those milestones will include further testing of Blue Origin’s propellant tank, BE-3 engine and pusher escape system.

“The team at Blue Origin has made tremendous progress in its design, and we’re excited to extend our partnership to 2016,” said Kathy Lueders, manager of NASA's Commercial Crew Program. “It’s important to keep a pulse on the commercial human spaceflight industry as a whole, and this partnership is a shining example of what works well for both industry and the government.”

How was BO involved in CCDeV?
BO was just developing some technology adapted with no real article.

BO had a funded CCDev2 agreement a couple of years ago. It's funded agreement has ended. But NASA and Blue have extended this agreement on an unfunded basis.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: nimbostratus on 11/18/2014 12:15 am
Blue Orgin has added three new milestones to its CCDev2 agreement:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/news/releases/2014/release-20141114.html

Quote
Blue Origin conducted an interim design review of the subsystems in development for its Space Vehicle spacecraft designed to carry people into low-Earth orbit. The September review was performed under an unfunded Commercial Crew Development Round 2 (CCDev2) agreement with NASA. In October, NASA and Blue Origin agreed to add three additional unfunded milestones to the agreement to continue the development work and partnership. Those milestones will include further testing of Blue Origin’s propellant tank, BE-3 engine and pusher escape system.

“The team at Blue Origin has made tremendous progress in its design, and we’re excited to extend our partnership to 2016,” said Kathy Lueders, manager of NASA's Commercial Crew Program. “It’s important to keep a pulse on the commercial human spaceflight industry as a whole, and this partnership is a shining example of what works well for both industry and the government.”

How was BO involved in CCDeV?
BO was just developing some technology adapted with no real article.

BO had a funded CCDev2 agreement a couple of years ago. It's funded agreement has ended. But NASA and Blue have extended this agreement on an unfunded basis.
I knew that.
But why would NASA fund some technology that went nowhere? I think what NASA needed was something real, even if it was a component. some complete solution.

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 11/18/2014 12:44 am
When CCDev2 was funded, NASA didn't know that Blue Origin would not be one of the winners. Blue still intends to go ahead with its capsule and LV as far as we know.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: nimbostratus on 11/18/2014 03:11 am
When CCDev2 was funded, NASA didn't know that Blue Origin would not be one of the winners. Blue still intends to go ahead with its capsule and LV as far as we know.


I know BO intends to go ahead with its own commercial crew, but it seems to have nothing to do with NASA.

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: nimbostratus on 11/18/2014 03:35 am
When CCDev2 was funded, NASA didn't know that Blue Origin would not be one of the winners. Blue still intends to go ahead with its capsule and LV as far as we know.

And Has BO proposed a complete solution in the CCDeV tender?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 11/18/2014 04:46 am
For Blue to fly passengers they will need some form of certification for their vehicle. The CCdev program with NASA overseeing it will give them this certification.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 11/18/2014 05:20 am
For Blue to fly passengers they will need some form of certification for their vehicle. The CCdev program with NASA overseeing it will give them this certification.

What type of certificate are you talking about????
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: nimbostratus on 11/18/2014 05:32 am
For Blue to fly passengers they will need some form of certification for their vehicle. The CCdev program with NASA overseeing it will give them this certification.

What type of certificate are you talking about????
I think Trevormonty meant commercial crew certificate just as the case of spaceship 2 and xcor lynx.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 11/18/2014 03:20 pm
When CCDev2 was funded, NASA didn't know that Blue Origin would not be one of the winners. Blue still intends to go ahead with its capsule and LV as far as we know.

And Has BO proposed a complete solution in the CCDeV tender?

From what I recall, CCDev2 wasn't about proposing a complete solution, it was about proposing advancements in certain components of a crewed system. A complete solution was only proposed as part of CCtCap. But Blue's intent is to have a complete system.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 11/18/2014 03:24 pm
For Blue to fly passengers they will need some form of certification for their vehicle. The CCdev program with NASA overseeing it will give them this certification.

Not really. Blue doesn't need certification from NASA to fly non-NASA missions. In any event, I don't think that the extension of their CCDev2 agreement directly relates to certification. NASA is open to the idea of unfunded certification agreements for NASA missions. But Blue hasn't reached that level of maturity yet.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 11/18/2014 06:47 pm
For Blue to fly passengers they will need some form of certification for their vehicle. The CCdev program with NASA overseeing it will give them this certification.

Not really. Blue doesn't need certification from NASA to fly non-NASA missions. In any event, I don't think that the extension of their CCDev2 agreement directly relates to certification. NASA is open to the idea of unfunded certification agreements for NASA missions. But Blue hasn't reached that level of maturity yet.
To carry people into space on and orbital flight a vehicle will need some form of certification. It may end up being FAA that provides it but they will need NASA's expertise.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 11/18/2014 06:57 pm
To carry people into space on and orbital flight a vehicle will need some form of certification. It may end up being FAA that provides it but they will need NASA's expertise.

No, it doesn't.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 11/18/2014 11:51 pm
To carry people into space on and orbital flight a vehicle will need some form of certification. It may end up being FAA that provides it but they will need NASA's expertise.

No, it doesn't.

Just to add to it. There is still a moratorium until October 2015. It's not clear if it willl be renewed. If it isn't renewed, it's possible that the FAA could step in and impose certification requirements. But for the time being there is no certification required by the FAA. You need a license to launch and land but I wouldn't call that certification.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 11/19/2014 01:31 am
So there is no certification  required to carry paying passengers into space.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: clongton on 11/19/2014 01:47 am
Not yet
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Zond on 12/20/2014 09:50 pm
Google has updated the satellite image of Blue Origin's West Texas launch site (dated 2014-10-02). No big changes are visible but the construction at the BE-4 test stand (https://maps.google.be/maps?q=Van+Horn,+TX,+USA&ll=31.429688,-104.720009&spn=0.001547,0.002559&client=opera&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest&fb=1&gl=be&ftid=0x86e5e8aea9ce1e61:0xe82d23f4dd52a793&hnear=Van+Horn,+Culberson+County,+Texas,+United+States&t=h&z=19) seems to be pretty much finished and there is still construction going on at the launch pad (https://maps.google.be/maps?q=Van+Horn,+TX,+USA&ll=31.422873,-104.757023&spn=0.001547,0.002559&client=opera&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest&fb=1&gl=be&ftid=0x86e5e8aea9ce1e61:0xe82d23f4dd52a793&hnear=Van+Horn,+Culberson+County,+Texas,+United+States&t=h&z=19). They seem to be constructing a tower (for service/crew access ?).
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/08/2015 01:40 am
Here is an interesting article on the patent dispute between Blue and SpaceX:
https://medium.com/@ipinspace/how-deep-can-a-space-patent-dispute-go-e206c48cdc47
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: SWGlassPit on 01/08/2015 03:00 pm
To carry people into space on and orbital flight a vehicle will need some form of certification. It may end up being FAA that provides it but they will need NASA's expertise.

No, it doesn't.

Just to add to it. There is still a moratorium until October 2015. It's not clear if it willl be renewed. If it isn't renewed, it's possible that the FAA could step in and impose certification requirements. But for the time being there is no certification required by the FAA. You need a license to launch and land but I wouldn't call that certification.
So there is no certification  required to carry paying passengers into space.
Not yet

To clarify some things -- I learned this from a contact I have at the FAA in Houston -- the FAA's current role is to regulate aviation activity specifically as it pertains to the safety of those on the ground.  FAA certification is not based on passenger safety.  It would take a change to their mandate for them to be a certification authority for commercial crewed spacecraft beyond just getting them out of US airspace.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 01/09/2015 02:46 pm
All you wannabe-lawyers out there should spend some serious time here before commenting further ...

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/16/2015 02:57 am
Blue Origin still looking at Shiloh:

Quote from: Twitter
Scott Henderson, Blue Origin: Shiloh commercial launch site "best of both worlds" by being at NASA KSC but outside the gate. Easy access.

Quote from: Twitter
Scott Henderson, Blue Origin: Shiloh could be commercial orbital launch site. Other sites "almost as good." Will announce within 3 months.

https://twitter.com/LaunchFLsFuture/status/555789875849334784

https://twitter.com/LaunchFLsFuture/status/555786006809812992
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Malderi on 04/06/2015 07:46 pm
Jeff Foust reporting that there will be an announcement tomorrow about the BE-3 engine (that's their LH2-LOX engine):

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/585163542426443776

Someone else buying a few? Development completion or some other milestone? We've got a day to wildly speculate.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: abaddon on 04/06/2015 08:40 pm
My (uninformed) guess - selected as upper stage NGLV engine.

Actually, after reading the tweet, that wouldn't be something "about work on the engine".  So yeah some sort of developmental milestone.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars-J on 04/06/2015 09:59 pm
I hope the announcement is vehicle related - that BE-3 will now be used for test flights of a VTVL vehicle.

...because there hasn't been any vehicle news out of BO lately, and I hope they aren't transitioning to just becoming an engine supplier.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 04/07/2015 02:23 am
It is flight certified. Any NGLS use(if any) will be announced on 13th by ULA.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Baranquilla on 04/07/2015 02:34 pm
Press Release about the engine and testing.

http://www.blueorigin.com/media/press_release/blue-origin-completes-acceptance-testing-of-be-3-engine-for-new-shepard-sub
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Beittil on 04/07/2015 02:51 pm
Where are they planning to launch the New Shepard vehicle from anyway?

Are they getting a coastal pad somewhere or are there plans for sub-orbital rides at a place like SP:A like SpaceX is intending?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 04/07/2015 02:56 pm
Press Release about the engine and testing.

http://www.blueorigin.com/media/press_release/blue-origin-completes-acceptance-testing-of-be-3-engine-for-new-shepard-sub

interesting:" The BE‑3 can be continuously throttled between 110,000-lbf and 20,000-lbf thrust, a key capability for vertical takeoff and vertical landing vehicles. The testing profile included multiple mission duty cycles, deep throttling and off-nominal test points.

“Liquid hydrogen is challenging, deep throttling is challenging and reusability is challenging," said Bezos. “This engine has all three. The rewards are highest performance, vertical landing even with a single-engine vehicle and low cost. And, as a future upper stage engine, hydrogen greatly increases payload capabilities.” "

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: RonM on 04/07/2015 02:59 pm
Where are they planning to launch the New Shepard vehicle from anyway?

Are they getting a coastal pad somewhere or are there plans for sub-orbital rides at a place like SP:A like SpaceX is intending?

Their website says West Texas.

Quote
The New Shepard vehicle includes a Crew Capsule carrying three or more astronauts atop a separate rocket-powered Propulsion Module, launched from our West Texas Launch Site.

http://www.blueorigin.com/about (http://www.blueorigin.com/about)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Beittil on 04/07/2015 03:04 pm
I suppose that out there they could, at best, do Grasshopper/F9R-dev1 like launches with a ceiling similar to what Grasshopper/F9R-dev1 had. It will suffice for initial testing I suppose, but eventually they gotta move out to where the rockets won't land on houses in case of failure :P
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: sghill on 04/07/2015 03:31 pm
No need to speculate on BO's Texas site.  Attached is the 2014 FAA EA for the west TX launch site experimental permit with all the things they can and can't do: 

The Cliff's Notes: They can launch (and land) an unlimited number of experimental flights (though the FAA assumed no more than 1 a week) "potentially to altitudes exceeding 66 miles" (page 26).  This EA is a supplemental to the 2006 EA that envisioned flights exceeding 325,000 feet.

BTW, interesting side note, the EA states that the landing pad BO has already constructed is 130ft diameter.

There's tons of -generally impossible to find- good stuff in the report about the proposed Blue Origin rocket's performance for those who want to discuss it.

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: JasonAW3 on 04/07/2015 03:45 pm

     This is going to sound a bit crazy, but I'm beginnning to suspect that BO is getting ready to get into a Race to Mars with SpaceX.  The ULA cooperative agreement would put them in a very good posituion to leverage some disposable rockets to boost the needed equipment into orbit while their capsule design and landing system could be readily adapted to a Mars landing.  (Reshap the top of the capsule a bit for larger Martian parachutes and use their current escape rockets as a throttable landing rocket system).

     I just find it REALLY odd that there is practically NO real chatter from this company, while they do seem to be making some significant progress on orbital flights.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Baranquilla on 04/07/2015 04:17 pm

     This is going to sound a bit crazy, but I'm beginnning to suspect that BO is getting ready to get into a Race to Mars with SpaceX.  The ULA cooperative agreement would put them in a very good posituion to leverage some disposable rockets to boost the needed equipment into orbit while their capsule design and landing system could be readily adapted to a Mars landing.  (Reshap the top of the capsule a bit for larger Martian parachutes and use their current escape rockets as a throttable landing rocket system).

     I just find it REALLY odd that there is practically NO real chatter from this company, while they do seem to be making some significant progress on orbital flights.

This press release only tells me they are 2 years away from the "oh my god the earth is really round and the atmosphere looks blue" suborbital tourism market :).
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 04/07/2015 04:17 pm

     This is going to sound a bit crazy, but I'm beginnning to suspect that BO is getting ready to get into a Race to Mars with SpaceX.  The ULA cooperative agreement would put them in a very good posituion to leverage some disposable rockets to boost the needed equipment into orbit while their capsule design and landing system could be readily adapted to a Mars landing.  (Reshap the top of the capsule a bit for larger Martian parachutes and use their current escape rockets as a throttable landing rocket system).

     I just find it REALLY odd that there is practically NO real chatter from this company, while they do seem to be making some significant progress on orbital flights.
That's because nobody will be taking them really serious until they actually launch something into orbit.
Reminiscent of SpaceX being laughed at until the first succesfull orbital mission of Falcon 1 in september 2008.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: GWH on 04/07/2015 04:25 pm
Pretty tight lipped on information as usual.  110,000 lb thrust, no ISP figure or information on the engine cycle.  Is that an exhaust port for a gas generator in their photo?  They say this engine will be made commercially available but not when. 
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: JasonAW3 on 04/07/2015 04:29 pm

     This is going to sound a bit crazy, but I'm beginnning to suspect that BO is getting ready to get into a Race to Mars with SpaceX.  The ULA cooperative agreement would put them in a very good posituion to leverage some disposable rockets to boost the needed equipment into orbit while their capsule design and landing system could be readily adapted to a Mars landing.  (Reshap the top of the capsule a bit for larger Martian parachutes and use their current escape rockets as a throttable landing rocket system).

     I just find it REALLY odd that there is practically NO real chatter from this company, while they do seem to be making some significant progress on orbital flights.

This press release only tells me they are 2 years away from the "oh my god the earth is really round and the atmosphere looks blue" suborbital tourism market :).

I suspect that they may be a whole lot closer to this than they let on!
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars-J on 04/07/2015 04:44 pm

     This is going to sound a bit crazy, but I'm beginnning to suspect that BO is getting ready to get into a Race to Mars with SpaceX.  The ULA cooperative agreement would put them in a very good posituion to leverage some disposable rockets to boost the needed equipment into orbit while their capsule design and landing system could be readily adapted to a Mars landing.  (Reshap the top of the capsule a bit for larger Martian parachutes and use their current escape rockets as a throttable landing rocket system).

     I just find it REALLY odd that there is practically NO real chatter from this company, while they do seem to be making some significant progress on orbital flights.
That's because nobody will be taking them really serious until they actually launch something into orbit.
Reminiscent of SpaceX being laughed at until the first succesfull orbital mission of Falcon 1 in september 2008.

Exactly. What progress on orbital flights? (other than providing an engine to ULA?)

There is a lot more going on here in FL with them that I'm, frankly, surprised wasn't in today's announcement.  Look up-thread for some pretty solid clues....

Would you mind pointing out these clues? Because otherwise I think the definition of "progress" might differ between many of us here.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 04/07/2015 04:57 pm

     This is going to sound a bit crazy, but I'm beginnning to suspect that BO is getting ready to get into a Race to Mars with SpaceX.  The ULA cooperative agreement would put them in a very good posituion to leverage some disposable rockets to boost the needed equipment into orbit while their capsule design and landing system could be readily adapted to a Mars landing.  (Reshap the top of the capsule a bit for larger Martian parachutes and use their current escape rockets as a throttable landing rocket system).

     I just find it REALLY odd that there is practically NO real chatter from this company, while they do seem to be making some significant progress on orbital flights.
That's because nobody will be taking them really serious until they actually launch something into orbit.
Reminiscent of SpaceX being laughed at until the first succesfull orbital mission of Falcon 1 in september 2008.

Exactly. What progress on orbital flights? (other than providing an engine to ULA?)

There is a lot more going on here in FL with them that I'm, frankly, surprised wasn't in today's announcement.  Look up-thread for some pretty solid clues....

Would you mind pointing out these clues? Because otherwise I think the definition of "progress" might differ between many of us here.
Some clues are in L2. But if those are correct it is a pretty strong clue.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 04/07/2015 04:59 pm

     This is going to sound a bit crazy, but I'm beginnning to suspect that BO is getting ready to get into a Race to Mars with SpaceX.  The ULA cooperative agreement would put them in a very good posituion to leverage some disposable rockets to boost the needed equipment into orbit while their capsule design and landing system could be readily adapted to a Mars landing.  (Reshap the top of the capsule a bit for larger Martian parachutes and use their current escape rockets as a throttable landing rocket system).

     I just find it REALLY odd that there is practically NO real chatter from this company, while they do seem to be making some significant progress on orbital flights.
From the EIA on their West Texas site, their capsule appears to only have a solid rocket LAS and no other propulsive capabilities. I would seriously doubt that they have the means for getting a Zero Boil Off technology on the New Sheppard.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 04/07/2015 05:04 pm
Pretty tight lipped on information as usual.  110,000 lb thrust, no ISP figure or information on the engine cycle.  Is that an exhaust port for a gas generator in their photo?  They say this engine will be made commercially available but not when.
They did stated that it was a tap-off cycle. Basically, they take hot gasses directly from the Main Combustion Chamber and use them to run the turbines on their pumps. From the dual outputs, it would seem that they have a dual turbopump design. Since they would be running fuel rich, and thus most oxidizer is used up in combustion, the metallurgy should be pretty mild. But the MCC temp can't be that high. The J-2S was supposed to use this same cycle (the J-2X is nothing like it). It should have an isp comparable to a good gas generator, I would guess.
The main advantage is that they only have a single ignition event, and a single place where there's a state change (from liquid to gas). So it's probably the most simple design. Not the easiest to design or manufacture, nor certify, but from a mere graph pov, it is the simplest. And restarts must be pretty easy (but must need some serious pressurization system to jump start).
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: simonbp on 04/07/2015 08:17 pm
That's because nobody will be taking them really serious until they actually launch something into orbit.
Reminiscent of SpaceX being laughed at until the first succesfull orbital mission of Falcon 1 in september 2008.

As I remember it, it was the COTS contract that got people to first take SpaceX seriously, which was years before the first working Falcon 1. I think history will treat the ULA contract for BE-4 similarly, as the first outside acknowledgment that they might be on to something.

And we shouldn't forget that Blue Origin actually has flown a subscale version of New Shepard years ago, though they destroyed the vehicle on the second flight.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 04/07/2015 09:14 pm
Not the same. SX back then was "over disclosed" to the public (compared to now), and from the start was touring its factories.

Many expected COTS to be a complete disaster/joke.

BO is an enigma by choice.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 04/07/2015 09:23 pm
If they can get single engine landing with BE3 then vertical landing of 2nd stage should be possible. Add ULA IVF system and they would have a true gas and go reusable 2nd stage.

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 04/08/2015 12:35 am
Jeff Bezos' rocket company to begin suborbital test flights this year:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/07/us-space-blueorigin-idUSKBN0MY1UK20150407
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 04/08/2015 01:15 am
Blue can afford to have a cautious flight test program, unlike Virgin and XCOR, they don't have external investors wanting a quick return.

Two years of test flights without passengers I can understand, but I would expect them to fly paying payloads.

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 04/08/2015 04:18 am
They can also afford to achieve nothing for a decade, like the last decade.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: blazotron on 04/08/2015 04:48 am
Pretty tight lipped on information as usual.  110,000 lb thrust, no ISP figure or information on the engine cycle.  Is that an exhaust port for a gas generator in their photo?  They say this engine will be made commercially available but not when.
They did stated that it was a tap-off cycle. Basically, they take hot gasses directly from the Main Combustion Chamber and use them to run the turbines on their pumps. From the dual outputs, it would seem that they have a dual turbopump design. Since they would be running fuel rich, and thus most oxidizer is used up in combustion, the metallurgy should be pretty mild. But the MCC temp can't be that high. The J-2S was supposed to use this same cycle (the J-2X is nothing like it). It should have an isp comparable to a good gas generator, I would guess.
The main advantage is that they only have a single ignition event, and a single place where there's a state change (from liquid to gas). So it's probably the most simple design. Not the easiest to design or manufacture, nor certify, but from a mere graph pov, it is the simplest. And restarts must be pretty easy (but must need some serious pressurization system to jump start).

You should not assume that the main combustion chamber average temperature is limited to what the turbines can tolerate.  Many engines have injectors that inject more fuel rich mixtures near the chamber wall to prevent overheating while injecting a hotter core such that the average mixture ratio is optimized.  The tapoff can pull gas from the wall region where the mixture ratio is safe for the turbines.  It would also be possible to pull hot gas off the chamber and inject additional fuel in it before it reaches the turbines to reduce the mixture ratio and temperature.   
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: saliva_sweet on 04/08/2015 09:34 am
They can also afford to achieve nothing for a decade, like the last decade.

Not sure they can afford to adhere to their gradatim motto quite as diligently as before. If they continue at the current pace ULA's NGLS will be powered by unicorns and patent applications come 2019. Then Bruno will have to employ his knight templar techniques and get medieval on their asses.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 04/09/2015 01:56 am
Another article:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/blue-origin-preps-for-suborbital-test-flights/
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: sghill on 04/09/2015 05:30 pm
OK.

This is the news I was referring to the other day, but couldn't disclose.  Thanks to the predictably loose-lipped Sen. Nelson, the word's now out.

http://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2015/04/09/blue-origin-eyes-cape-build-launch-rockets/25505063/

The article speaks for itself, so don't assume anything beyond it.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 04/09/2015 06:05 pm
OK.

This is the news I was referring to the other day, but couldn't disclose.  Thanks to the predictably loose-lipped Sen. Nelson, the word's now out.

http://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2015/04/09/blue-origin-eyes-cape-build-launch-rockets/25505063/

The article speaks for itself, so don't assume anything beyond it.
For those with L2 access, I will strongly suggest that you read this and subsequent posts (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36641.msg1341172#msg1341172).
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Kansan52 on 04/09/2015 06:57 pm
For those with L2 access, I will strongly suggest that you read this and subsequent posts (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36641.msg1341172#msg1341172).

Because it forshadows this announcement?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars-J on 04/09/2015 08:31 pm
OK.

This is the news I was referring to the other day, but couldn't disclose.  Thanks to the predictably loose-lipped Sen. Nelson, the word's now out.

http://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2015/04/09/blue-origin-eyes-cape-build-launch-rockets/25505063/

The article speaks for itself, so don't assume anything beyond it.

Loose lipped? Was it confidential information? If so, what was it doing on L2?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: JasonAW3 on 04/09/2015 09:22 pm
Blue can afford to have a cautious flight test program, unlike Virgin and XCOR, they don't have external investors wanting a quick return.

Two years of test flights without passengers I can understand, but I would expect them to fly paying payloads.

Depending on the flight test rate, it could be less than 2 years before they orbit some sort of payload.  If they parallel the testing of the capsule and work on Man rating it, I think they could be ready for a manned flight by the end of next year.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 04/09/2015 11:44 pm
For those with L2 access, I will strongly suggest that you read this and subsequent posts (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36641.msg1341172#msg1341172).

Because it foreshadows this announcement?

Because the L2 posts give additional information that builds on and reinforces the information that's now public in the Florida Today article. 

IMHO, for now put emphasis on the "build" part of that article as the "launch" part is going to remain fluid for a while longer unless some unequivocal announcement is made by both Space Florida and BO regarding LC 36.  The article sums this up nicely.

Still, the announcement of a new rocket factory is exciting news anywhere in the world right!?!

My understanding is that the construction of the rocket factory depends on the manufacturing zoning change which is under review by the Volusia Growth Management Commission.

Quote
Speculation about the company's pursuit of operations at Shiloh and in Volusia County began in February when the owner of a 400-acre property in Oak Hill sought a zoning change to permit manufacturing.[...]

Oak Hill city commissioners approved a first look at the zoning change by a 4-1 vote. But the Florida Audubon Society and Southeast Volusia Audubon Society challenged the decision, and it faces a review this month by the Volusia Growth Management Commission.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: clongton on 04/11/2015 02:42 pm
Loose lipped? Was it confidential information? If so, what was it doing on L2?

Chris is often provided with confidential information that he is allowed to share on L2 only. He does an extremely good job of "keeping a lid on it" while it is on L2 so his many sources continue to think of NSF's L2 area as a safe area. Thank you Chris.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: go4mars on 04/11/2015 10:02 pm
This is going to sound a bit crazy, but I'm beginnning to suspect that BO is getting ready to get into a Race to Mars with SpaceX.  ...
Bezos told one of my friends a couple years ago, framed in the style of a joke; "I'm going to beat Elon to Mars.  Do you know why I know for sure?  Because I'm so much smaller."  The joke was in reference to his small physical stature and requirement for less volume and consumables required. 

It may have just been a joke, but watching the news with the ULA thing, and other things, has made me wonder if he has far larger plans than he won't reveal until the last possible moment.  Sometimes it's better to wait in the tall grass.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: clongton on 04/12/2015 12:29 pm
Sounds like this may be developing into an American version of the Sergio Korolev and Vladimir Chelomei story :)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Kabloona on 04/12/2015 03:44 pm
Sounds like this may be developing into an American version of the Sergio Korolev and Vladimir Chelomei story :)

Edison vs. Tesla also comes to mind. But, fortunately, no elephants are likely to be electrocuted in this rivalry.

Some unicorns may be roasted in flame ducts, however.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: clongton on 04/12/2015 07:19 pm
I am personally very glad to see BO getting things together. Once they start flying I will be rooting for them. I am also rooting for SpaceX and ULA. I would love to see all three competitors going for their piece of the pie.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 04/12/2015 07:50 pm
Jeff Bezos is incredibly creepy at breakfast (http://valleywag.gawker.com/jeff-bezos-is-incredible-creepy-at-breakfast-1595860614)

Captures the Bezo's I've observed as to BO. Perhaps find one for the others?

add:
They can also afford to achieve nothing for a decade, like the last decade.

Not sure they can afford to adhere to their gradatim motto quite as diligently as before. If they continue at the current pace ULA's NGLS will be powered by unicorns and patent applications come 2019. Then Bruno will have to employ his knight templar techniques and get medieval on their asses.

Hard to do this with billionaires, as AF/others found multiple times with Howard Hughes in the past.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Zond on 04/13/2015 07:16 pm
Quote
Issue Date :    April 13, 2015 at 1629 UTC
Location :    FOR VAN HORN, New Mexico near SALT FLAT VORTAC (SFL)
Beginning Date and Time :    April 14, 2015 at 1300 UTC
Ending Date and Time :    April 14, 2015 at 1800 UTC
Reason for NOTAM :    DUE TO ROCKET LAUNCH ACTIVITY WITHIN A 3 NM RADIUS THE SALT FLAT
Type :    Space Operations
Airspace Definition:
      Center:     On the SALT FLAT VORTAC (SFL) 127 degree radial at 24 nautical miles. (Latitude: 31º26'43"N, Longitude: 104º46'48"W)
      Radius:     3 nautical miles
      Altitude:     From the surface up to and including 7500 feet MSL
Effective Date(s):
      From April 14, 2015 at 1300 UTC
      To April 14, 2015 at 1800 UTC
http://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_5_6644.html (http://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_5_6644.html)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: sghill on 04/15/2015 05:26 pm
Does anyone know if they flew yesterday?  Nothing made it into the press, but that's not terribly surprising.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Kabloona on 04/21/2015 03:58 pm
Jeff Foust reporting comments from FAA's George Nield at National Academies' ASEB meeting:

Quote
1h
 Jeff Foust @jeff_foust
Nield: Blue Origin will be flying their suborbital RLV in the next few weeks, “watch the news for that."
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: sanman on 04/21/2015 10:18 pm
So even if suborbital is not the long-term goal, is there any chance that Bezos might seek to monetize New Shepard through suborbital tourist flights, like Virgin Galactic? At least then it gets him on the field of competition, doesn't it?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 04/21/2015 10:46 pm
So even if suborbital is not the long-term goal, is there any chance that Bezos might seek to monetize New Shepard through suborbital tourist flights, like Virgin Galactic? At least then it gets him on the field of competition, doesn't it?

I don't know about tourist flights, but didn't they already release a payload integration guide for suborbital flights?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Kabloona on 04/21/2015 11:58 pm
So even if suborbital is not the long-term goal, is there any chance that Bezos might seek to monetize New Shepard through suborbital tourist flights, like Virgin Galactic? At least then it gets him on the field of competition, doesn't it?

The door seems to be open for tourist flights:

Quote
Customers, either tourists or payload operators, will arrive at the launch site several days in advance for final training and vehicle familiarization.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/blue-origin-preps-for-suborbital-test-flights/

Written by Bill Harwood, who usually knows whereof he speaks.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 04/22/2015 12:32 am
They have long talked about tourist flights on New Shepard.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 04/22/2015 03:29 am
Jeff Foust reporting comments from FAA's George Nield at National Academies' ASEB meeting:

Quote
1h
 Jeff Foust @jeff_foust
Nield: Blue Origin will be flying their suborbital RLV in the next few weeks, “watch the news for that."

Here is the article that goes with that:
http://spacenews.com/blue-origin-to-begin-test-flights-within-weeks/
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: sanman on 04/22/2015 04:55 am
The door seems to be open for tourist flights:

Quote
Customers, either tourists or payload operators, will arrive at the launch site several days in advance for final training and vehicle familiarization.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/blue-origin-preps-for-suborbital-test-flights/

Written by Bill Harwood, who usually knows whereof he speaks.

Wait - so they're going to be sending up paying passengers even during test flights? People are paying to be guinea-pigs?
Otherwise what kind of payload do you send on a suborbital test flight?

EDIT: Oh wait, I should have read the article first:

Quote
The booster, meanwhile, will carry out an autonomous powered descent, using the variable-throttle BE-3 engine to fly back to a vertical touchdown at the company's west Texas launch site for refurbishment and reuse. After an extensive series of test flights, Blue Origin hopes to begin launching people, payloads or both as a commercial endeavor
...
Asked how long the test program might last, when the first human flights might be possible and how much a ticket might cost, Meyerson it was too soon to say.

"We obviously want to complete our test program first," he said. "So we're probably a few years away from selling tickets, at least from flying our first astronaut. We're not releasing prices at this time. But we're getting close, and we're really excited about where we are."
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 04/22/2015 05:14 am
This test flight may not be much more than a 1 metre hop as it is first test flight of a RLV. 
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Zond on 04/22/2015 08:11 pm
Another NOTAM:
Quote
Issue Date :    April 22, 2015 at 1724 UTC
Location :    VAN HORN, Texas near SALT FLAT VORTAC (SFL)
Beginning Date and Time :    April 23, 2015 at 1400 UTC
Ending Date and Time :    April 23, 2015 at 2359 UTC
Reason for NOTAM :    DUE TO SPACE FLIGHT OPERATIONS WITHIN AN AREA DEFINED AS 17NM RADIUS OF 3127N10446W OR THE SALT FLAT
Type :    Space Operations
http://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_5_1252.html (http://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_5_1252.html)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: daveklingler on 04/26/2015 04:19 pm
It may have just been a joke, but watching the news with the ULA thing, and other things, has made me wonder if he has far larger plans than he won't reveal until the last possible moment.  Sometimes it's better to wait in the tall grass.

Yes, well...what does one do with a large upper-stage lox-hydrogen rocket engine?  What to do, what to do...
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: arachnitect on 04/30/2015 05:57 am
https://youtu.be/rEdk-XNoZpA

they flew

edit: go here: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37445.0
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: manboy on 04/30/2015 08:18 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YJhymiZjqc
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: john smith 19 on 04/30/2015 08:59 am
Video
Hmmm.

Intriguing video.

Time will tell if it's any more predictive than SX's version of the same events.  :(

Just to be clear that appears to be showing a VTOVL  SSTO with parachute recovery of a capsule
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: The Amazing Catstronaut on 04/30/2015 09:01 am
I'm pretty sure BO isn't in the SSTO business, luckily.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: kevinof on 04/30/2015 09:20 am
Video
Hmmm.

Intriguing video.

Time will tell if it's any more predictive than SX's version of the same events.  :(

Just to be clear that appears to be showing a VTOVL  SSTO with parachute recovery of a capsule

sub-orbital. Not SSTO.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: mlindner on 04/30/2015 12:03 pm
Parachute touchdown without airbags on to solid ground. That's going to hurt...
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 04/30/2015 12:07 pm
Parachute touchdown without airbags on to solid ground. That's going to hurt...
No, like Soyuz they use retro rockets in the final 5 feet to the ground. Not exactly comfortable either.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Kabloona on 04/30/2015 12:41 pm
So even if suborbital is not the long-term goal, is there any chance that Bezos might seek to monetize New Shepard through suborbital tourist flights, like Virgin Galactic? At least then it gets him on the field of competition, doesn't it?

I don't know about tourist flights, but didn't they already release a payload integration guide for suborbital flights?

And here's the place on their website where you can now sign up for a flight:

https://www.blueorigin.com/interested
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 04/30/2015 12:47 pm
Well, the Very Big Brother appears to have six BE-4, or 14.7MN of thrust (roughly 1,500tnf), probably a 1,250tonne stack, between the ORSC first stage and H2 second stage, I would take a wild guess and say that it should be roughly in the 25tonnes to LEO category as disposable and may be 12 to 16 on reusable. That's roughly a disposable Falcon 9 v1.1 at reusable cost.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Chris Bergin on 04/30/2015 02:02 pm
Article for the test flight:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/04/blue-origins-new-shepard-test-flight/

Dedicated thread:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37445.0
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: AnimatorRob on 04/30/2015 03:56 pm
Nice. Very Big Brother and Falcon 9 are looking like the DC-8 and 707 of launch vehicles.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Patchouli on 04/30/2015 05:03 pm
No, like Soyuz they use retro rockets in the final 5 feet to the ground. Not exactly comfortable either.
You better make sure you're strapped into a reclining seat before landing.
Seat design would be somewhat challenging since it would be impractical to use a custom molded seat like Soyuz.
Maybe go with padding with varying levels of firmness maybe with something like memory foam on the outside and a firm urethane foam in the inner layers with an energy absorbing high density polystyrene as the inner most layer before the frame.

Well, the Very Big Brother appears to have six BE-4, or 14.7MN of thrust (roughly 1,500tnf), probably a 1,250tonne stack, between the ORSC first stage and H2 second stage, I would take a wild guess and say that it should be roughly in the 25tonnes to LEO category as disposable and may be 12 to 16 on reusable. That's roughly a disposable Falcon 9 v1.1 at reusable cost.
With that kind of payload they should look into partnering with SNC as they have a orbital vehicle that's fairly far along.
Dream Chaser on BO's rocket could give Spacex some serious competition.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: GWH on 04/30/2015 05:16 pm
You better make sure your strapped into a reclining seat before landing.
Seat design would be somewhat challenging since it would be impractical to use a custom molded seat like Soyuz.
Maybe go with padding with varying levels of firmness maybe with something like memory foam on the outside and a firm urethane foam in the inner layers with an energy absorbing high density polystyrene as the inner most layer before the frame.

Long stroke air shocks, or a linkage mounted to the seat frame perhaps?

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: GWH on 04/30/2015 05:42 pm
It seems like they have taken a rather tortuous path towards a commercial product in looking at their development to date.
I was surprised to see a single engine given that their original New Shepard vehicle had used 3 - this must have been with the BE-2 (kerosene-peroxide).  They had already tested this in short hops including landing, although a later landing failure resulting in loss of vehicle.
So it appears that they have gone with a complete redesign of their suborbital booster?

Of their developed/in progress engines to date were the BE-1 and BE-2 complete dead ends?
BE-1   peroxide   2,200 lb.
BE-2   kerosene + peroxide   31,000 lb.
BE-3   liquid hydrogen + liquid oxygen   110,000 lb.
BE-4   liquefied natural gas + liquid oxygen   550,000 lb.

What would the potential uses for the BE-1 and BE-2 be at this point?  Lunar lander for the BE-1?

Also, was this the first flight test of their new vehicle/engine combination?  Surprised if they hadn't conducted short hops ala grasshopper of this new engine/rocket combination first.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Kabloona on 04/30/2015 05:55 pm
You'd expect that once they perfected it, it would stick for follow-on. But then, Musk can't quite pull it off yet under worse conditions. Perhaps both have underestimated the challenge / flight envelope?

Meh. BO's hydraulics failed on the way down...echoes of F9 running out of hydraulic fluid...anyway, both BO and SpaceX are oh so close to a soft landing.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: bombyx on 04/30/2015 06:03 pm
Does BE-3 use an ablative nozzle ?   I can't find any informations about this.

An ablative nozzle would explain the yellow color of the exhaust flame.


(Edit: problem solved . No color problem in fact .)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Patchouli on 04/30/2015 06:57 pm
Nice. Very Big Brother and Falcon 9 are looking like the DC-8 and 707 of launch vehicles.

More like the DC-3 and Model-18 of launch vehicles.

Something like Skylon with be a DC-8 or 707.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Kabloona on 04/30/2015 08:19 pm
Rather expensive cigar you're talking about. Musk: "Mine's bigger" ;)

Bezos: "I'm going to ride on mine before you ride on yours."  ;)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: rcoppola on 04/30/2015 08:31 pm
Rather expensive cigar you're talking about. Musk: "Mine's bigger" ;)

Bezos: "I'm going to ride on mine before you ride on yours."  ;)
Ha, ha. This made me think of when the US & USSR met up and shook hands in space. Would be hysterical if one day Musk and Bezos met up in space and did the same.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/01/2015 12:02 am
Well, the Very Big Brother appears to have six BE-4, or 14.7MN of thrust (roughly 1,500tnf), probably a 1,250tonne stack, between the ORSC first stage and H2 second stage, I would take a wild guess and say that it should be roughly in the 25tonnes to LEO category as disposable and may be 12 to 16 on reusable. That's roughly a disposable Falcon 9 v1.1 at reusable cost.
Do you have a better source for that?

The vehicle looks identical to the one they showed for CCDev1/2 presentations. That one used BE-3. I also see no indication that BE-4 would be used for any vehicle other than Vulcan.

I would like for it to be true, but I do not think your reading is most likely. It looks like 6-7 BE-3 engines, so about one-fifth the take-off thrust (although higher Isp, so better than just 1/5 payload). And if it were true that it's BE-4--which it isn't, given that the vehicle would have to be much larger, even including differences in bulk density, payload (expendable) would be closer to 40 tons.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 05/01/2015 12:29 am
Well, the Very Big Brother appears to have six BE-4, or 14.7MN of thrust (roughly 1,500tnf), probably a 1,250tonne stack, between the ORSC first stage and H2 second stage, I would take a wild guess and say that it should be roughly in the 25tonnes to LEO category as disposable and may be 12 to 16 on reusable. That's roughly a disposable Falcon 9 v1.1 at reusable cost.
Do you have a better source for that?

The vehicle looks identical to the one they showed for CCDev1/2 presentations. That one used BE-3. I also see no indication that BE-4 would be used for any vehicle other than Vulcan.

I would like for it to be true, but I do not think your reading is most likely. It looks like 6-7 BE-3 engines, so about one-fifth the take-off thrust (although higher Isp, so better than just 1/5 payload). And if it were true that it's BE-4--which it isn't, given that the vehicle would have to be much larger, even including differences in bulk density, payload (expendable) would be closer to 40 tons.
Look in the last paragraph of the new page: https://www.blueorigin.com/technology

Quote
The BE-4 engine is in testing

We’re developing a more powerful BE-4 engine to power the orbital launch vehicle into space. Powerpack and component testing are underway.

And the BE-3 thrust to 6 x BE-4 thrust is the same ratio as RL10 to 1 x RD-180.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 05/01/2015 02:34 am
Although 1 BE-3U to 6 BE-4s is a plausible vehicle, remember ULA's Vulcan has proposed 1 BE-3U to 2 BE-4s.

A better vehicle would be 2 or 3 BE-3U to a 6 BE-4. Vulcan in its 1BE3/2BE4 version is spouting ~30mt to LEO. A 3 times larger vehicle would be an SLS IIB sized HLV at 90mt to LEO.

Edited: Suddenly were are talking about a second BFR that can compete with SLS at about the same time frame of 2020's for equal or larger payload capabilities and a lot cheaper to launch!!!
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: daveklingler on 05/01/2015 02:39 am
Well, the Very Big Brother appears to have six BE-4, or 14.7MN of thrust (roughly 1,500tnf), probably a 1,250tonne stack, between the ORSC first stage and H2 second stage, I would take a wild guess and say that it should be roughly in the 25tonnes to LEO category as disposable and may be 12 to 16 on reusable. That's roughly a disposable Falcon 9 v1.1 at reusable cost.
Do you have a better source for that?

The vehicle looks identical to the one they showed for CCDev1/2 presentations. That one used BE-3. I also see no indication that BE-4 would be used for any vehicle other than Vulcan.

The BE-4 predates Vulcan by a few years, suggesting that Blue has another reason for developing it.

Temporarily setting aside the model on the website with six engines, let's assume that Blue plans a rocket that will not compete with the Vulcan because they offered the BE-4 to ULA.  That means that the planned rocket will be either smaller or larger than Vulcan.

If it is smaller, it probably has fewer than two BE-4 engines.  It's plausible that the BBR is simply a scaled-up version of New Shepard, with a single engine, which could lift either a party-size capsule suborbital or the current capsule to orbit. 

If it's bigger than Vulcan, I would conjecture that it's much larger than Vulcan's largest variation, which is supposed to be roughly 30 tons to LEO.

Just for fun, I vote to size the rocket and the number of engines according to the size of its upper stage engine, a BE-3, which is approximately the same thrust as a J-2, with better Isp.  The model on the website, with its six engines, would be an appropriate second stage for a large booster if the engines are indeed BE-3s.  Assuming some weight savings from using aluminum and composite materials, 10 BE-4s in the first stage would yield a heavy lift rocket comparable to or slightly better than a Saturn V. 

We'll know in two or three years what Blue's plans really are, but some time in the next few days maybe I'll sit down and build more paper rockets with BE-4s and BE-3s in configurations that don't compete with the Vulcan.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: daveklingler on 05/01/2015 02:39 am
Although 1 BE-3U to 6 BE-4s is a plausible vehicle, remember ULA's Vulcan has proposed 1 BE-3U to 2 BE-4s.

A better vehicle would be 2 or 3 BE-3U to a 6 BE-4. Vulcan in its 1BE3/2BE4 version is spouting ~30mt to LEO. A 3 times larger vehicle would be an SLS IIB sized HLV at 90mt to LEO.

Edited: Suddenly were are talking about a second BFR that can compete with SLS at about the same time frame of 2020's for equal or larger payload capabilities and a lot cheaper to launch!!!

Looks like you had the same thought I did.

Edit: the largest Vulcan configurations do use a lot of solids to get it off the ground.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Danderman on 05/01/2015 02:52 am
The system demonstrated the other day represents a potential very large upper stage for some existing first stage for LEO missions - perhaps a variant of Vulcan optimized for low orbit, large payloads.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 05/01/2015 02:56 am
Although 1 BE-3U to 6 BE-4s is a plausible vehicle, remember ULA's Vulcan has proposed 1 BE-3U to 2 BE-4s.

A better vehicle would be 2 or 3 BE-3U to a 6 BE-4. Vulcan in its 1BE3/2BE4 version is spouting ~30mt to LEO. A 3 times larger vehicle would be an SLS IIB sized HLV at 90mt to LEO.

Edited: Suddenly were are talking about a second BFR that can compete with SLS at about the same time frame of 2020's for equal or larger payload capabilities and a lot cheaper to launch!!!

Looks like you had the same thought I did.

Edit: the largest Vulcan configurations do use a lot of solids to get it off the ground.

Yes something like a 3 core Vulcan with 12 solids (4 per core) and a stretch ACES with a single BE3U.

The only thought I have here is that the SLS with a viable Vulcan 3 core Heavy and SpaceX Raptor based BFR is definitly obsolete. With two possible replacement vehicles from two established companies SLS use beyond mid 2020's is very problematic.

Now add BO and some large single core vehicle with 6-9 BE-4's and 3 BE-3Us on an US having better than a ULA Vulcan 3core heavy makes the life expantancy of SLS even more likely to be short.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 05/01/2015 03:18 am
The system demonstrated the other day represents a potential very large upper stage for some existing first stage for LEO missions - perhaps a variant of Vulcan optimized for low orbit, large payloads.

Yes, the suborbital system would make an excellent US by just replacing the BE-3 with a vacum optimized BE-3U. Hardly any changes necessary.  Now add a 1st stage of 2 BE-4's and you have the equivalent of a Vulcan without the solids capability of ~ an F9 10-13mt to LEO. This would be the right size to make the suborbital manned capsule be made into an orbital manned capsule. An all BO manufactured vehicle.

There are many variations and options around this in that is the 1st stage to be landed like an F9R or just expended or other items that varry capabilities and costs.

BO does seem to be pursuing the same powered landing RTLS or Return-to-Barge as SpaceX is trying to show will work.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: libs0n on 05/01/2015 03:23 am
The picture on the website is probably an out of date graphic using BE-3 engines, since BE-4 engines are pretty big and would graphically look bigger than that.  Final engine count shouldn't be derived from that image although 6 engines are a possibility in the currently unknown engine count of the real vehicle. 

In the commercial crew program submissions, the capsule was to be first launched with an Atlas 5 401, and then later with that semi-RLV.  That would place its payload in similar terms of 10mt or so.  Blue's present day orbital RLV plans featuring BE-4 are unknown and could be changed from that earlier initial vehicle's payload.  Perhaps the switch to BE-4 engines indicates such.

For fun, if we take the image literally, then it could be a tri-propellant first stage with 6 BE-3s and 1 BE-4.  I'd imagine with their high thrust engine they have the expendable hydrogen upper stage having a large propellant load and a disproportionate share of the Delta V mix.  There are some first stage reusage scenarios where the first stage contribution takes a hit I think.  SpaceX has very thin tanks I think which this thing may not have.  Overbuilt and hardy and nearby quick launch site return?

Blue may be developing a vehicle that doesn't penetrate ULA's upper end launch spectrum, thus they are unafraid of it for that reason.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 05/01/2015 03:39 am
The picture on the website is probably an out of date graphic using BE-3 engines, since BE-4 engines are pretty big and would graphically look bigger than that.  Final engine count shouldn't be derived from that image although 6 engines are a possibility in the currently unknown engine count of the real vehicle. 

In the commercial crew program submissions, the capsule was to be first launched with an Atlas 5 401, and then later with that semi-RLV.  That would place its payload in similar terms of 10mt or so.  Blue's present day orbital RLV plans featuring BE-4 are unknown and could be changed from that earlier initial vehicle's payload.  Perhaps the switch to BE-4 engines indicates such.

For fun, if we take the image literally, then it could be a tri-propellant first stage with 6 BE-3s and 1 BE-4.  I'd imagine with their high thrust engine they have the expendable hydrogen upper stage having a large propellant load and a disproportionate share of the Delta V mix.  There are some first stage reusage scenarios where the first stage contribution takes a hit I think.  SpaceX has very thin tanks I think which this thing may not have.  Overbuilt and hardy and nearby quick launch site return?

Blue may be developing a vehicle that doesn't penetrate ULA's upper end launch spectrum, thus they are unafraid of it for that reason.

Probably in that BO's main target payload is their capsule. That would overlap Vulcan in only it's most basic no solids version.

Another point is that BO without NASA and AF technical oversight and insight teams poking around they could test fly their vehicle a year before Vulcan. For the commercial crew transport business, a year could mean survival or not being able to compete at all. (Design teams tend to work faster if they are not spending a lot of time explaining everything to multiple sets of outsiders.)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: daveklingler on 05/01/2015 03:40 am
The system demonstrated the other day represents a potential very large upper stage for some existing first stage for LEO missions - perhaps a variant of Vulcan optimized for low orbit, large payloads.

Yes, the suborbital system would make an excellent US by just replacing the BE-3 with a vacum optimized BE-3U. Hardly any changes necessary.  Now add a 1st stage of 2 BE-4's and you have the equivalent of a Vulcan without the solids capability of ~ an F9 10-13mt to LEO. This would be the right size to make the suborbital manned capsule be made into an orbital manned capsule. An all BO manufactured vehicle.

There are many variations and options around this in that is the 1st stage to be landed like an F9R or just expended or other items that varry capabilities and costs.

BO does seem to be pursuing the same powered landing RTLS or Return-to-Barge as SpaceX is trying to show will work.

Except that the Vulcan will have one or two RL-10s, far less thrust for the upper stage than a single BE-3.  Even just one BE-3 in comparison has a major impact on the throw weight all by itself.  I haven't figured out what all it does in practical terms, other than allow a large third stage or a bigger payload to GEO or beyond.

Another possible effect might be to allow a second-stage retrograde reentry.

I think a first stage might only require one BE-4 to make orbit with a New Shepard second stage.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Danderman on 05/01/2015 03:42 am

BO does seem to be pursuing the same powered landing RTLS or Return-to-Barge as SpaceX is trying to show will work.

It would certainly seem that Blue is considering a Return to Barge landing architecture for their system, at least that is what a patent search would tell us.

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: daveklingler on 05/01/2015 03:43 am

BO does seem to be pursuing the same powered landing RTLS or Return-to-Barge as SpaceX is trying to show will work.

It would certainly seem that Blue is considering a Return to Barge landing architecture for their system, at least that is what a patent search would tell us.

And the defense lawsuit.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: daveklingler on 05/01/2015 03:44 am
Another point is that BO without NASA and AF technical oversight and insight teams poking around they could test fly their vehicle a year before Vulcan. For the commercial crew transport business, a year could mean survival or not being able to compete at all. (Design teams tend to work faster if they are not spending a lot of time explaining everything to multiple sets of outsiders.)

That's an interesting thought.  They should be ready to compete for the second round of Commercial Crew.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 05/01/2015 04:00 am
Another point is that BO without NASA and AF technical oversight and insight teams poking around they could test fly their vehicle a year before Vulcan. For the commercial crew transport business, a year could mean survival or not being able to compete at all. (Design teams tend to work faster if they are not spending a lot of time explaining everything to multiple sets of outsiders.)

That's an interesting thought.  They should be ready to compete for the second round of Commercial Crew.

Yes if they can test their vehicle in 2019 they would be up for competing for CC round 2 award in 2020. Watch out Boeing!!
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: daveklingler on 05/01/2015 05:59 am
Another point is that BO without NASA and AF technical oversight and insight teams poking around they could test fly their vehicle a year before Vulcan. For the commercial crew transport business, a year could mean survival or not being able to compete at all. (Design teams tend to work faster if they are not spending a lot of time explaining everything to multiple sets of outsiders.)

That's an interesting thought.  They should be ready to compete for the second round of Commercial Crew.

Yes if they can test their vehicle in 2019 they would be up for competing for CC round 2 award in 2020. Watch out Boeing!!

They expect to complete testing of BE-4 in 2017.  First flight of Vulcan is NET 2019, but I'm not sure Blue will wait two years for their own vehicle.  This New Shepard flight followed right on the heels of the end of BE-3's testing program, and they've parallelized BE-4's development path.  I think we'll see testing of BE-4 and construction of a new east coast facility this year and next, and new vehicle testing two years from now, two or three months after BE-4 test completion is announced.

If Blue goes orbital in 2017, they should be doing whatever it is they plan to do by 2018, after they have a few flights under their belts.  That's where things get confusing to me.  Where does this new rocket go?  Are they talking right now with Bigelow?  Rockets either launch satellites, in which case they're competing with ULA, or they launch people, in which case said people need a destination...which is currently a blank to be filled.  We know what Blue will be doing for the next three years: developing their suborbital tourist business and standing up their orbital rocket.  There's an end goal which has not been announced yet.

If the destination is Station, then Blue's rocket will be similar to Vulcan.  Very similar.  This solution doesn't make sense.

If the destination is a Bigelow station, then they should be marketing by now, as Bigelow and SpaceX are doing.  But we've heard nothing about that.

If the destination is a Blue station, they've certainly snuck that one by me.  I've looked at their jobs postings many times and not gotten the inkling they were focusing on much other than rocket engines.  They would need to be developing something by now.

If the end goal is the lunar surface, that's the only narrative that fits...unless ULA doesn't mind helping Blue compete against them, or ULA is headed toward a

For my own part, I see a suborbital vehicle that's sized well for a third stage and has landing legs.  We've talked about a vehicle that can launch 50 tons and doesn't compete with Vulcan, and New Shepard is right around 45 tons.  I see an upper stage engine sized for a heavy lifter and a set of circumstantial evidence that seems to point toward a destination further than LEO. 

Huh.  That's 239,000 miles on very little evidence.  The other easy answer is that Blue picks up ULA in four or five years.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Zed_Noir on 05/01/2015 06:41 am

...

If the destination is a Blue station, they've certainly snuck that one by me.  I've looked at their jobs postings many times and not gotten the inkling they were focusing on much other than rocket engines.  They would need to be developing something by now.

....


Why would Blue even bother with developing a station? All Bezos have to do is drop some cash on Bigelow and order up a station. Bezos over the years spend more money on the BE series of engines and the various sub-orbital vehicles than what a Bigelow BA-330 will cost. Including building a test stand for the BE-4 engine. After all Jeff Bezos got a net worth of $34.7B according to Forbes.



Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: tj on 05/01/2015 06:43 am
Are the BE-3 based New Shepard flights advancing ULA's Vulcan ACES (2nd stage)?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: sanman on 05/01/2015 09:44 am
People on the forum have said that SpaceX will likely only need barge landings for Falcon Heavy core (ie. infrequently)
What will Blue Origin's barge landings be for, and will they be more frequent?

Does Jeff Bezos have any aerospace or engineering background? One assumes that he must have some grasp of key technical issues, if he's guiding the enterprise.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: docmordrid on 05/01/2015 11:22 am
People on the forum have said that SpaceX will likely only need barge landings for Falcon Heavy core (ie. infrequently)
What will Blue Origin's barge landings be for, and will they be more frequent?

Does Jeff Bezos have any aerospace or engineering background? One assumes that he must have some grasp of key technical issues, if he's guiding the enterprise.

IMO, as secretive as they are guesses are the word regarding their future  intended barge use.  That they filed the barge patent indicates significant  plans, at least when it was filed.

Bezos doesn't need an aerospace background, he can buy it in bulk. That and it's been reported he has former McDonnell DC-X crewmembers in the team.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: daveklingler on 05/01/2015 02:22 pm
Why would Blue even bother with developing a station?

Just covering all the tea leaves.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Kabloona on 05/01/2015 03:06 pm
Does Jeff Bezos have any aerospace or engineering background? One assumes that he must have some grasp of key technical issues, if he's guiding the enterprise.

He has a BS in Electrical engineering and computer science from Princeton, so he's a pretty sharp guy with a tech background.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Falcon H on 05/01/2015 05:14 pm
The orbital launcher seems to have a very large second stage. Perhaps this makes first stage reusability easier?

Congratulations Blue Origin! I can't wait to see what they have planned for BE-4, it's strangely similar to Raptor. Perhaps Blue Origin has a HLV planned too?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: sanman on 05/02/2015 03:11 am

IMO, as secretive as they are guesses are the word regarding their future  intended barge use.  That they filed the barge patent indicates significant  plans, at least when it was filed.

They also tried to bid for pad 39A didn't they? So if the rocket isn't multicore with crossfeed, then a trajectory that needs to land a stage on a barge seems to imply an upper stage recovery. Does anyone think that BO will achieve upper stage reusability ahead of SpaceX, given its current beeline path to humans-in-LEO?


Quote
Bezos doesn't need an aerospace background, he can buy it in bulk. That and it's been reported he has former McDonnell DC-X crewmembers in the team.

Sure, that's obvious - and Elon Musk and Richard Branson have also hired many engineers. But while for example Branson is an astute businessman, he isn't an engineer - and perhaps that's reflected in the fact that VirginGalactic's SpaceShipOne platform was bought without considering an path to orbit - like the other guys have.


Does Jeff Bezos have any aerospace or engineering background? One assumes that he must have some grasp of key technical issues, if he's guiding the enterprise.

He has a BS in Electrical engineering and computer science from Princeton, so he's a pretty sharp guy with a tech background.

Cool, an EE should be able to digest all the technology/physics aspects and plan accordingly.

Where will Bezos make pitstops along the way to monetize BO's work?
- BE-4 for ULA is one of them
- suborbital manned flights thru New Shepard seems like another
- manned flights to LEO (ISS/CCDEV, and Bigelow?) seems like another
- flights to the Moon?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Comga on 05/02/2015 05:33 am
What fascinates me is the stark diversity in the three approaches.  (besides that the three programs are most succinctly distinguished with the principals' last names.)

Branson can't give up the hybrid engines.  In 11 years his team has managed to switched from rubber to nylon.  He bought what is now not new technology but the original developer is still working on it.
Musk has variants on two engines, turbopump and pressure fed liquid oxygen kerosene and hydrazine - NTO.  He got a head start from the fasttrack engine development
Bezos keeps switching: peroxide, peroxide and kerosene, now liquid hydrogen liquid oxygen, soon liquid oxygen liquid methane.  Plus that little Soyuz style braking rocket just before the crew capsule touches down.  Blue is doing oxygen rich combustion, which some (ULA? Rockedyne?) say requires Russian "secret sauce" metallurgy, but yet here they are.

All have suffered hydraulic failures

Musk starts out with an absolute minimum of moving parts, and no aero surfaces, adding grid fins recently. 
Bezos has moving parts everywhere: moving fins on bottom, pop-out fins on top, deployable air brakes.
Branson's little machine is an airplane.  Nuf' said.

Bransons's plane lands on a runway.
Musk's parachute to the ocean and are trying to hoverslam onto a barge or land.  He proclaims a goal of fully propulsive landings.
Branson's parachute onto land with braking rockets and also wants to land parts propulsively  The videos show very gentle landings but with only one engine that "only" throttles to 20% it will either have to come in screaming for a BPL hoverslam or multiply its dry mass with ballast.


Musk builds a high fineness pencil of a rocket.
Branson builds... well, an airplane.  A Burt Rutan style airplane but an airplane.
Bezos builds..... a flying phallus.  Keep the jokes coming.

Then there's the suborbital, orbital, and sub-orbital as a way to orbital. 

It a great time to be a spaceflight enthusiast.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: sanman on 05/02/2015 08:16 am
What fascinates me is the stark diversity in the three approaches.  (besides that the three programs are most succinctly distinguished with the principals' last names.)

But it's also worth considering the difference in their business strategies, and the relative viability of each.

All 3 are reusable, which makes sense.

Out of all of them, Branson seems the most tourist-ready: SpaceShipTwo is the most fieldable design, even if it's obviously limited to suborbital. It's also the lowest-cost design, with the lowest ticket price, and probably capable of quicker turnaround for higher volume.

SpaceX has the most robust business, in the sense that it's leveraging the most established market of satellite launching, while also continuing a path to manned spaceflight via CCDEV. On the other hand, its higher operating costs would likely make any space tourism still very expensive and low-volume.

Blue Origin seems like it's somewhere between VirginGalactic and Spacex, in the sense that it's focusing on space tourism / manned flight, and its New Shepard vehicle will be cheaper to operate than Falcon because it's only suborbital, and would very likely be higher-volume than Falcon, with a quicker turnaround time.
Meanwhile, Blue Origin is still pursuing a higher path to orbit. But once BO can get people to orbit with its bigger rocket, will it be cost-competitive with SpaceX?

The US govt may not be quite as cost-sensitive as the private sector - especially if it wants to keep multiple service providers alive to have the security of redundancy - but in the wider commercial market for space tourism, bang-for-buck is ultimately going to decide who wins. If Virgin Galactic starts space tourists flights first, then is there a danger that it would eat up the market? After all, the number of rich people who can afford to buy a ticket to space is still going to be limited. There will probably be more takers at the low-cost end of the market than at the higher end. So it seems like Branson could reap the most money from the low-end, thus keeping BO and SpaceX starved for tourist dollars at the high end. SpaceX doesn't need tourist dollars when it has a conventional satellite launch business, and while Blue Origin can only court limited tourist dollars on the high-end for its revenue model (ignoring these occasional side-deals like making engines for ULA, etc), it may still count on Bezos' deep pockets to tide it over.

It seems that once you go beyond orbital space to somewhere like the Moon, then the market appeal jumps again, even if there's a higher cost associated with that. Only BO and SpaceX can go to the Moon, unless Branson somehow reinvests in higher technologies (which will have long development times).

Does anyone think that this latest New Shepard test - which has obviously come out of the blue and caught the attention of many - may force SpaceX to revise its current plans/strategies? Even if BO can't achieve orbital spaceflight until 2020, isn't it still something for SpaceX to have to consider and contend with? After all, it's not like SpaceX can just whip up new solutions in a heartbeat either.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: tea monster on 05/02/2015 11:00 am
If you check out the older youtube video of the booster launch test, it has 3 engines. Not sure if this is due to them switching to the new engine or not.

Also, either on this forum or elsewhere (space.com?) I read that they were currently designing the Shephard's bigger, orbital brother.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Kryten on 05/02/2015 11:15 am
The picture on the website is probably an out of date graphic using BE-3 engines, since BE-4 engines are pretty big and would graphically look bigger than that.  Final engine count shouldn't be derived from that image although 6 engines are a possibility in the currently unknown engine count of the real vehicle. 
It is in fact identical to the image here (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/67/Blue_Origin_Incremental_Development_%28Spacecraft%29.jpg) of the orbital vehicle for CCDEV, from early 2013 or late 2012.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: sanman on 05/02/2015 12:07 pm
From Blue Origin's site:

https://www.blueorigin.com/news/blog/first-developmental-test-flight-of-new-shepard

Quote
We continue to be big fans of the vertical takeoff, vertical landing architecture. We chose VTVL because it’s scalable to very large size. We’re already designing New Shepard’s sibling, her Very Big Brother – an orbital launch vehicle that is many times New Shepard’s size and is powered by our 550,000-lbf thrust liquefied natural gas, liquid oxygen BE-4 engine.

So what else is known about VBB, or can be inferred about it?

Has to be at least 2 stages + capsule, right?
Will it be a single BE-4 powering the first stage?
Will BE-3 power the upper stage, or something all-new? (ie. methane for upper stage as well as lower stage)

Could upper stage perhaps land on barge?

Florida launch point?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Kabloona on 05/02/2015 02:03 pm
So what else is known about VBB, or can be inferred about it?

Has to be at least 2 stages + capsule, right?
Will it be a single BE-4 powering the first stage?
Will BE-3 power the upper stage, or something all-new? (ie. methane for upper stage as well as lower stage)

Could upper stage perhaps land on barge?

Florida launch point?

Read upthread for discussion of number of BE-4 engines. Their graphic appears to show 6. It's definitely not going to be just a single BE-4 engine.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=10685.msg1367178#msg1367178

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Jarnis on 05/02/2015 07:11 pm
The stage may not be a direct drop in as an upper stage, but the engine definitely is. Hydrolox makes a lot of sense there and this engine (with suitable nozzle extension) fits the bill, no?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Stellvia on 05/02/2015 08:13 pm
The stage may not be a direct drop in as an upper stage, but the engine definitely is. Hydrolox makes a lot of sense there and this engine (with suitable nozzle extension) fits the bill, no?


Plus, with routine New Shepard flight operations, you'll have a ground crew with lots of practical experience of hydrolox handling, which will carry over into orbital launch.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: ppb on 05/03/2015 12:33 am
What fascinates me is the stark diversity in the three approaches.  (besides that the three programs are most succinctly distinguished with the principals' last names.)

Branson can't give up the hybrid engines.  In 11 years his team has managed to switched from rubber to nylon.  He bought what is now not new technology but the original developer is still working on it.
Musk has variants on two engines, turbopump and pressure fed liquid oxygen kerosene and hydrazine - NTO.  He got a head start from the fasttrack engine development
Bezos keeps switching: peroxide, peroxide and kerosene, now liquid hydrogen liquid oxygen, soon liquid oxygen liquid methane.  Plus that little Soyuz style braking rocket just before the crew capsule touches down.  Blue is doing oxygen rich combustion, which some (ULA? Rockedyne?) say requires Russian "secret sauce" metallurgy, but yet here they are.

All have suffered hydraulic failures

Musk starts out with an absolute minimum of moving parts, and no aero surfaces, adding grid fins recently. 
Bezos has moving parts everywhere: moving fins on bottom, pop-out fins on top, deployable air brakes.
Branson's little machine is an airplane.  Nuf' said.

Bransons's plane lands on a runway.
Musk's parachute to the ocean and are trying to hoverslam onto a barge or land.  He proclaims a goal of fully propulsive landings.
Branson's parachute onto land with braking rockets and also wants to land parts propulsively  The videos show very gentle landings but with only one engine that "only" throttles to 20% it will either have to come in screaming for a BPL hoverslam or multiply its dry mass with ballast.


Musk builds a high fineness pencil of a rocket.
Branson builds... well, an airplane.  A Burt Rutan style airplane but an airplane.
Bezos builds..... a flying phallus.  Keep the jokes coming.

Then there's the suborbital, orbital, and sub-orbital as a way to orbital. 

It a great time to be a spaceflight enthusiast.
Nice summary
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Zed_Noir on 05/03/2015 02:48 am
Given that this is a "leg obsession site", sort of surprised the lack of comment on the stage just flown legs (below).

And the prior vehicle (below that).

Also, note the differences in propulsion, the sizing of the vehicle/tanks. Prior vehicle has landing struts more like DC-XA and Dragon 2. Current vehicle has legs not unlike Grasshopper/F9R.

...


Take a shot in why the landing gear change between the old and current booster modules.

The new landing gear appears to be mounted externally. So free up internal space for the engine mount and much easier servicing of the landing gear. Also a wider footprint to prevent the module from tipping over.

I could be wrong. The landing gear appears to be gravity deploy after unlocking. So no need for pneumatic, hydraulic or mechanical deployment mechanisms.

The new landing gear kinda reminds me of the rear landing gear on Soviet helicopters and the Sikorsky Skycrane.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: sanman on 05/03/2015 05:02 am
So the advantage of gravity-deployed landing-legs is that it avoids the added complexity of hydraulics, which have been known to fail occasionally. But what are the drawbacks?

Would gravity deploy be affected by affected by landing on a lower-gravitational body like the Moon? (ie. would it be noticeably slower to deploy?)
Would it be affected by high-G hoverslam landings?

When is gravity-deploy better, and when is it not?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/03/2015 05:04 am
Is it merely gravity-deployed? Looks as though retraction is also possible based on the CG video, which suggests pneumatic, hydraulic, or electric.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Falcon H on 05/03/2015 09:14 pm
I wonder why Blue Origin isn't using a cluster of BE-3s for their orbital launcher? Wouldn't using different fuels raise costs? Perhaps they are planning a falcon heavy sized launcher using BE-4s.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Kabloona on 05/03/2015 09:41 pm
I wonder why Blue Origin isn't using a cluster of BE-3s for their orbital launcher? Wouldn't using different fuels raise costs? Perhaps they are planning a falcon heavy sized launcher using BE-4s.

Because LNG is more than 6 times denser than liquid hydrogen, so the tank can be much smaller, and because 100klbf is too little thrust for a Very Big booster engine. They'd need like 30 of them.

If you want to see why hydrogen isn't convenient for a large booster first stage, look at the size of Shuttle's external tank.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Comga on 05/04/2015 03:07 am
So the advantage of gravity-deployed landing-legs is that it avoids the added complexity of hydraulics, which have been known to fail occasionally. But what are the drawbacks?

Would gravity deploy be affected by affected by landing on a lower-gravitational body like the Moon? (ie. would it be noticeably slower to deploy?)
Would it be affected by high-G hoverslam landings?

When is gravity-deploy better, and when is it not?

Check out the CGI video on the Blue Origins website. (https://www.blueorigin.com/)
It shows the legs being test-deployed and retracted before launch.
They are actuated, most likely with hydraulics, which the stage has.  Definitely not "gravity deployed".
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: sanman on 05/04/2015 05:22 am
Ah, thanks for that - so these New Shepard legs seem slightly more articulated (more complex?) than F9R's. Given that we saw one of the F9R legs sort of break/bend during its hoverslam, is there a danger that New Shepard's legs might not hold up if it does a hoverslam?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDF2DQ5rAh0


Given that everything has to be much more mass-optimized for orbital flight, would the planned orbital rocket VeryBigBrother use these same kind of legs?

I'm also wondering what lessons the Blue Origin team may be taking from the SpaceX barge-landing failures, in order to avoid similar problems during landing.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/04/2015 06:35 am
The New Shepard booster could make viable smallsat LV. Replace capsule with shell that contains upper stage. Once in space shell opens and launches upper stage then closes and returns to earth still attached to booster.

Because upper stage is protect by shell it doesn't need to be aerodynamic saving considerable amount of weight.

At 450ISP a wet 2.75t upper stage can deliver 250kg to LEO.

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Comga on 05/04/2015 02:56 pm
The New Shepard booster could make viable smallsat LV. Replace capsule with shell that contains upper stage. Once in space shell opens and launches upper stage then closes and returns to earth still attached to booster.

Because upper stage is protect by shell it doesn't need to be aerodynamic saving considerable amount of weight.

At 450ISP a wet 2.75t upper stage can deliver 250kg to LEO.

Quite possibly, but 450 sec ISP presupposes a mini-BE3 / RL-10 replacement that hasn't been mentioned by Blue for a mission they haven't talked about flying.

Rockets, Legos, yada yada yada. I like the idea, but it's a long shot at best.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: bstrong on 05/04/2015 04:38 pm
Rockets, Legos, yada yada yada.

Quote from: Jeff Bezos
In fact, I love construction toys to this day, and I love them so much that for my fifth wedding anniversary, my wife gave me a huge, 5-foot-tall tool chest filled to the brim with Legos (sic).

I was just noodling LEGO-like applications of New Shepard, as well, and was reminded of the above quote (source (http://www.marketplace.org/topics/business/jeff-bezos-best-gift-hes-ever-received)).

What I was thinking about was the discussions over on the SpaceX threads about how to do a lunar landing with FH. There were a few proposals along the lines of: Launch 5 fully-fueled second stages into orbit. Use #1 to perform TLI on a dragon attached to #2 and #3 (stacked). Use #2 to brake into LLO and then as a crasher stage. Use #3 for the final landing and then again for ascent. Rendezvous with #4 (for which #5 performed TLI), for TEI.

I always loved these schemes, because this is how software people (like me) think the universe ought to work. But they were always dismissed out of hand because a) Rockets Are Not LEGOs (TM), and b) Kerolox stages can't have the required linger time. The second point sounds solid to me, but I'm still not sold on the first.

Now, someone who is known to be obsessed with the moon and (based on the above quote and how he organizes his other businesses) is likely to share my skepticism about the fundamental dissimilarities between LEGOs and rockets has unveiled a stage that, in addition to not having the linger time issues of Kerolox, also appears to have been designed for easy stacking (it looks to me like the business end of one propulsion module would slide right into the cupholder at the top of another).

Excited to see what they have in mind, because I really don't think this system was designed for suborbital joy rides.



Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/04/2015 04:55 pm
Doesn't necessary need to be Blue doing the upper stage, including reusable shell.  Another company could develop it and pay Blue for use of their booster.

From Blue's point of view they would be just another payload customer that only leases booster.

Because the upper stage is orbital it would need to find a new launch site.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 05/04/2015 08:18 pm
Doesn't necessary need to be Blue doing the upper stage, including reusable shell.  Another company could develop it and pay Blue for use of their booster.

From Blue's point of view they would be just another payload customer that only leases booster.

Because the upper stage is orbital it would need to find a new launch site.

The VAFB and CCAF Delta II sites would be a good choice for what would be LEO class payloads. They have LOX capability already. Would just need LH2 tankage and loading GSE. Both pads are in excellent shape being up to this point operational Delta II pads. But with ULA pushing the retirement of Delta II and release of the lease of the pads. these facilities would be a good place for BO to launch orbital even with their own version of a Vulcan 1st stage. I will have to look up the thrust rating of the flame trench for the pads.

Added: Looking at the Delta II 7925 specs. This shows a Liftoff thrust Sustainer + 9 solids of ~1.2Mlbf(GEM 40) - 1.6Mlbf(GEM 46 CCAFB only). So a pair of BE-4 is well within the pads capability.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Zed_Noir on 05/04/2015 10:26 pm


The VAFB and CCAF Delta II sites would be a good choice for what would be LEO class payloads. They have LOX capability already. Would just need LH2 tankage and loading GSE. Both pads are in excellent shape being up to this point operational Delta II pads. But with ULA pushing the retirement of Delta II and release of the lease of the pads. these facilities would be a good place for BO to launch orbital even with their own version of a Vulcan 1st stage. I will have to look up the thrust rating of the flame trench for the pads.

Added: Looking at the Delta II 7925 specs. This shows a Liftoff thrust Sustainer + 9 solids of ~1.2Mlbf(GEM 40) - 1.6Mlbf(GEM 46 CCAFB only). So a pair of BE-4 is well within the pads capability.

The LC-17 complex is not launching any more rockets according to Jim. Encroachment of buildup areas IRRC.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Moe Grills on 05/06/2015 09:56 pm
What surprises me is that they've landed a stage/vehicle before successfully years back. Yet they muffed this one.

You'd expect that once they perfected it, it would stick for follow-on. But then, Musk can't quite pull it off yet under worse conditions. Perhaps both have underestimated the challenge / flight envelope?

Often think of BO these days as "Bezo's Octopus" - he looks like he's devouring it in the cameo! Go Blue!

A glitch here, a variable there can mean the difference between success and failure. Rocket launches and spaceflight attempts are hard.
Repeating success is harder.
Well, the New Shepard almost made the Karman Line on its first try. That says something. Now Virgin Galactic and XCOR have some catching up to do, if they are able.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Kansan52 on 05/06/2015 11:26 pm
I don't understand the negative. They did hit a record altitude for them. The capsule did land properly.

It wasn't a small sounding rocket or an amateur attempt. They succeeded accomplishing a major milestone in their program that promise greater events in the future.

Congratulations Blue!
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 05/06/2015 11:32 pm
I don't understand the negative. They did hit a record altitude for them. The capsule did land properly.

It wasn't a small sounding rocket or an amateur attempt. They succeeded accomplishing a major milestone in their program that promise greater events in the future.

When you tote milestones as undeniable proof that they're now somehow in the lead, you get people like me pointing out the inconvenient details like kaboom.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: RanulfC on 05/07/2015 09:40 pm
Rockets, Legos, yada yada yada.

Quote from: Jeff Bezos
In fact, I love construction toys to this day, and I love them so much that for my fifth wedding anniversary, my wife gave me a huge, 5-foot-tall tool chest filled to the brim with Legos (sic).

I was just noodling LEGO-like applications of New Shepard, as well, and was reminded of the above quote (source (http://www.marketplace.org/topics/business/jeff-bezos-best-gift-hes-ever-received)).

What I was thinking about was the discussions over on the SpaceX threads about how to do a lunar landing with FH. There were a few proposals along the lines of: Launch 5 fully-fueled second stages into orbit. Use #1 to perform TLI on a dragon attached to #2 and #3 (stacked). Use #2 to brake into LLO and then as a crasher stage. Use #3 for the final landing and then again for ascent. Rendezvous with #4 (for which #5 performed TLI), for TEI.

I always loved these schemes, because this is how software people (like me) think the universe ought to work. But they were always dismissed out of hand because a) Rockets Are Not LEGOs (TM), and b) Kerolox stages can't have the required linger time. The second point sounds solid to me, but I'm still not sold on the first.

Now, someone who is known to be obsessed with the moon and (based on the above quote and how he organizes his other businesses) is likely to share my skepticism about the fundamental dissimilarities between LEGOs and rockets has unveiled a stage that, in addition to not having the linger time issues of Kerolox, also appears to have been designed for easy stacking (it looks to me like the business end of one propulsion module would slide right into the cupholder at the top of another).

Excited to see what they have in mind, because I really don't think this system was designed for suborbital joy rides.

Hydrolox stages have MORE, not less linger time issues than kerolox stages just FYI :)

Secondary: I highly doubt the capsule mass' even half as much as the booster, so I'm not seeing it being capable of lofting "itself" AND another booster to altitude. Could be very wrong but nothing I've seen yet indicates such a capability. And "strapping" (ala-FH) several stages together doesn't look possible given the layout of the ring-fin and upper works getting in each others way so I'm going out on a limb and guessing clustering is out as well.

Randy
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: JBF on 05/08/2015 10:35 am
Well, the New Shepard almost made the Karman Line on its first try.

and then went Kaboom.
You're not talking about the deployed parachutes, are you?


Quote from: Moe Grills

That says something.

Yeah, it says they've almost caught up to amateurs from New Zealand.
And how many tourists do those Kiwi amateurs plan to send up?
BTW, while BO has not made space tourism front and center, like XCOR, I'm still waiting for XCOR to roll something out of their hanger MAYBE this year in Mojave to at least show, if not test.
On a side note Blue Origin has come out saying they prefer that people use Blue instead of BO.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: notsorandom on 05/08/2015 01:15 pm
I don't think it is fair to say that the rocket blew up. The evidence points to the primary recovery method of powered decent failing and the use of the backup recovery method of litho-breaking. The capsule and booster preformed correctly up to the point when the boosted didn't return it wasn't an LOC or even an LOM failure.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: sanman on 05/09/2015 05:40 pm
I don't think it is fair to say that the rocket blew up. The evidence points to the primary recovery method of powered decent failing and the use of the backup recovery method of litho-breaking. The capsule and booster preformed correctly up to the point when the boosted didn't return it wasn't an LOC or even an LOM failure.

I guess there's not much difference between "litho-braking" and "litho-breaking" - each seems to involve the other.

But how many test flights does new Shepard require in order to get man-rated?

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: 411rocket on 05/10/2015 01:41 am
On a side note Blue Origin has come out saying they prefer that people use Blue instead of BO.

They probably think, that BO Stinks....... Think in non rocket related terms, for BO.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: daveklingler on 05/10/2015 02:08 am
I don't understand the negative. They did hit a record altitude for them. The capsule did land properly.

It wasn't a small sounding rocket or an amateur attempt. They succeeded accomplishing a major milestone in their program that promise greater events in the future.

When you tote milestones as undeniable proof that they're now somehow in the lead, you get people like me pointing out the inconvenient details like kaboom.

Now, now.  I don't remember anyone saying that Blue is now somehow in the lead, or toting milestones, which sounds unpleasant unless they're small milestones.

It's not a stretch to say that Blue has quietly had some fantastic accomplishments, like developing a robust tap-off hydrolox 110,000 lb-thrust rocket engine and using it to launch a vehicle and large capsule, with the capsule returning safely.  I believe that they're the third private entity to do such a thing, with the first two being SpaceX and Orbital, and Blue's was almost completely funded out of Jeff Bezos' pocket. 

They've also been chosen over Aerojet to build a 500,000 lb RD-180 successor for ULA's next-generation launcher, kind of out of the blue, as it were.  Not too shabby, and they deserve congratulations.  People sing paeans to the RD-180; being impressed that Blue is producing a successor is not unwarranted.

IIRC, they still have a number of unfunded SAA milestones to complete under Commercial Crew, and said agreements effectively keep them in the process for CC's next round in a few years.

And isn't that interesting?

Edit: now that I think about that last flight, it seems likely that had it gone completely successfully, Blue would have been able to claim completion of the remainder of its SAA milestones.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 05/10/2015 02:10 am
Now, now.  I don't remember anyone saying that Blue is now somehow in the lead, or toting milestones, which sounds unpleasant unless they're small milestones.

The comment I was referring to was deleted.

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: daveklingler on 05/10/2015 02:29 am
I think Blue is the second entity to ever develop hydrolox rocket engines without being on some government's dime.  Pratt did significant development on their own dime during the 60's, but I don't know of anyone else to have done so.  Please correct me if I'm wrong.

They would also be one of two entities to ever develop large staged-combustion engines off the taxpayer dime, the other being SpaceX, although I'm not sure what credit should be applied for the AR-1.  It's possible that Aerojet should also be on that list, although certainly they've been agitating for government funding.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/10/2015 02:33 am
I think Blue is the second entity to ever develop hydrolox rocket engines without being on some government's dime. ...
False, Blue Origin got CCDev2 money in part to develop BE-3.

...

They would also be one of two entities to ever develop large staged-combustion engines off the taxpayer dime, the other being SpaceX, although I'm not sure what credit should be applied for the AR-1.  It's possible that Aerojet should also be on that list, although certainly they've been agitating for government funding.
BE-3 is tap-off, not staged combustion.

BE-4 is supposed to be staged combustion, but has not been finished (same with the Raptor).

Aerojet doesn't do pretty much anything without first getting government funding.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: plank on 05/11/2015 11:49 am
Is it merely gravity-deployed? Looks as though retraction is also possible based on the CG video, which suggests pneumatic, hydraulic, or electric.

Where is this CG video can someone point me to the link?

n/m I found it.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Kabloona on 05/11/2015 01:56 pm
Here's a recent article about the secrecy at Blue's test site near Van Horn, TX:

http://www.seattletimes.com/business/rivals-bezos-musk-in-texas-showdown-for-corporate-space-riches/

Security out there sounds like one notch below the Manhattan Project.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: sanman on 05/11/2015 11:03 pm
Why so secretive? Are they afraid that some other billionaire is going to rip off and clone their rocket engine?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Kabloona on 05/11/2015 11:20 pm
Why so secretive? Are they afraid that some other billionaire is going to rip off and clone their rocket engine?

On one level, secrecy means you don't waste manhours and money on PR staff. As Bezos said about Amazon, "We're not secretive, we're just quiet." You can look at Blue's website and almost non-existent PR operation and compare it to SpaceX's and guess who is spending more money on PR. In Blue's case, they have nothing to sell right now, so no need for much PR.

But Bezos is also notoriously worried about Amazon's competitive advantage, and that paranoia probably carries over into Blue. This article sums his attitude up nicely:

Quote
“Our primary approach is, we talk when we have something to say,” Bezos said. “I never think of us as secretive, I think of us as mostly quiet.”

However, he said, there is one exception where the company tries not to say too much.

“We operate in a really competitive environment,” he said. “Retail in general, e-commerce for sure, technology and our devices. We take great care to try and keep our product roadmaps quiet. I would love to know what Apple’s product roadmap is. That would be very helpful to me. They work hard to keep their product roadmaps quiet.”

He added, “When you’re competing against terrific companies — like Apple and Samsung, and in AWS’s case, terrific companies like IBM and Hewlett-Packard, the list goes on — you really need to be cognizant of how your competitors are going to glean useful tidbits from seemingly harmless disclosures.”
.

http://www.geekwire.com/2014/amazons-jeff-bezos-secretive-just-quiet/

Also remember that Blue is now going head-to-head with Virgin Galactic for the entire suborbital tourism market segment, and Bezos is probably paranoid about not leaking any operational details that might help Virgin Galactic.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/12/2015 12:10 am
Of course, the drawback to not going public about things and not setting public timescale goals is that you don't have that pressure to, you know, get stuff done.

By all rights, Blue Origin should be well ahead of SpaceX on VTVL, but they still haven't even broken the Karman Line, and the number of flights (6? 7?) they've done is pretty disappointing considering how many VTVL test vehicles they've built (4, by my count?) and especially the fact that they've been focused on VTVL from the beginning and hired up a bunch of the old DC-X folk and they started this VTVL work in 2000, 2 years before SpaceX was even founded (SpaceX still thought VTVL was a dead-end in 2007).

And just about every vehicle has used a totally different propulsion system. 1st was air-breathing (jet turbines), then I believe peroxide, then I think kerosene/peroxide, and now hydrogen/oxygen.

Blue Origin continues to do cool stuff, but I hope their recent PR blitz with the launch of New Shepard helps focus them on actually developing a platform that can serve customers.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Kabloona on 05/12/2015 12:14 am
Of course, the drawback to not going public about things and not setting public timescale goals is that you don't have that pressure to, you know, get stuff done.

Well, when you're worth $35bn you can proceed at your own pace without any pressure to get the revenue stream going and without caring what the public thinks.

Quote
Blue Origin continues to do cool stuff, but I hope their recent PR blitz with the launch of New Shepard helps focus them on actually developing a platform that can serve customers.

I think you have cause and effect reversed. The PR blitz is a result of the fact that they finally have something to announce, because they *have* been focused on developing New Shepard as a platform that can serve customers.

The fact that they just rolled out the reservation-taking part of their website right after the test flight also suggests they're getting serious.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/12/2015 12:30 am
Of course, the drawback to not going public about things and not setting public timescale goals is that you don't have that pressure to, you know, get stuff done.

Well, when you're worth $35bn you can proceed at your own pace without any pressure to get the revenue stream going and without caring what the public thinks.

Quote
Blue Origin continues to do cool stuff, but I hope their recent PR blitz with the launch of New Shepard helps focus them on actually developing a platform that can serve customers.

I think you have cause and effect reversed. The PR blitz is a result of the fact that they finally have something to announce, because they *have* been focused on developing New Shepard as a platform that can serve customers.
I don't have cause and effect switched, I'm just hoping the PR blitz (which is the effect) will further focus their endeavor.

I can't believe that their pace has been optimal. Part of that meandering and slow pace is not merely the result of being methodical (although obviously it's in their motto) but also the result of being, as QuantumG puts it, essentially Bezos' plaything. Now that Blue Origin's competitive advantage (in VTVL, etc) is under doubt (due to competition), they actually have to step up their pace if they want to be relevant in the future.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Kabloona on 05/12/2015 01:11 am
Now that Blue Origin's competitive advantage (in VTVL, etc) is under doubt (due to competition), they actually have to step up their pace if they want to be relevant in the future.

I understand the frustration with Blue's slow progress. But with Bezos' fortune behind it, they're like an aircraft carrier that has taken a long time to get going, but it's finally gaining momentum and will still be going long after Virgin Galactic has thrown in the towel. Bezos is planning an orbital vehicle and has a ton of money to make it happen, and the path to an orbital vehicle runs right through New Shepard, so I have no doubt New Shepard will succeed and be relevant, because it's a key stepping stone to something bigger.

I'm more worried about Virgin Galactic becoming irrelevant if they don't get their act together soon.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/12/2015 01:30 am
Now that Blue Origin's competitive advantage (in VTVL, etc) is under doubt (due to competition), they actually have to step up their pace if they want to be relevant in the future.

I understand the frustration with Blue's slow progress. But with Bezos' fortune behind it, they're like an aircraft carrier that has taken a long time to get going, but it's finally gaining momentum and will still be going long after Virgin Galactic has thrown in the towel. Bezos is planning an orbital vehicle and has a ton of money to make it happen, and the path to an orbital vehicle runs right through New Shepard, so I have no doubt New Shepard will succeed and be relevant, because it's a key stepping stone to something bigger.

I'm more worried about Virgin Galactic becoming irrelevant if they don't get their act together soon.
I meant relevant in the context of orbital flight. Suborbital is small potatoes. Bezos' fortune or no, at this rate Blue Origin's own (partially expendable!) launch vehicle will be beat into orbit by a fully reusable and far more capable MCT/BFR.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 05/12/2015 01:34 am
Suborbital is small potatoes.

There's still some who think it's the bigger market.

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/12/2015 01:54 am
Suborbital is small potatoes.

There's still some who think it's the bigger market.
The only way that could be true is if you include point-to-point which is essentially orbital anyway.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: The Amazing Catstronaut on 05/12/2015 08:00 am
Suborbital is small potatoes.

There's still some who think it's the bigger market.
The only way that could be true is if you include point-to-point which is essentially orbital anyway.

Suborbital is awfully Naughties in terms of its popularist PR appeal. The average armchair scientist might view space under a lens of cynicism if they believed that the "cutting edge" of space travel, as PR and Popscience was feeding them, was ferrying wealthy people into weightlessness for five minutes.

Regardless, it's good to see that Blue is making tangible progress. They're just not making earth-shattering progress.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/12/2015 10:41 am
Suborbital is small potatoes.

There's still some who think it's the bigger market.
The only way that could be true is if you include point-to-point which is essentially orbital anyway.

Virgin have 700 customers place deposits on a vehicle that was and still is in development, at $250K each that is $175m of business. I don't think a market of a few billion dollars is out of question and that is before ticket prices fall, opening the market up to a lot more customers.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/12/2015 01:09 pm
Suborbital is small potatoes.

There's still some who think it's the bigger market.
The only way that could be true is if you include point-to-point which is essentially orbital anyway.

Virgin have 700 customers place deposits on a vehicle that was and still is in development, at $250K each that is $175m of business. I don't think a market of a few billion dollars is out of question and that is before ticket prices fall, opening the market up to a lot more customers.
I didn't say it was nothing, but it really probably is a lot smaller than the orbital market. Still, suborbital spaceflight is probably my greatest chance of crossing the Karman Line.

But no one really thinks these short suborbital trips are the end-all, be-all. XCOR has strong orbital aspirations, Virgin Galactic is thinking about both orbital and point-to-point, Masten seems pretty interested in lunar landers, and Blue Origin has grand orbital ambitions as well.

Suborbital is a way to whet the public's appetite for space travel, not to sate that appetite.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 05/12/2015 05:19 pm
By all rights, Blue Origin should be well ahead of SpaceX on VTVL, but they still haven't even broken the Karman Line, and the number of flights (6? 7?) they've done is pretty disappointing considering how many VTVL test vehicles they've built (4, by my count?) and especially the fact that they've been focused on VTVL from the beginning and hired up a bunch of the old DC-X folk and they started this VTVL work in 2000, 2 years before SpaceX was even founded (SpaceX still thought VTVL was a dead-end in 2007).
So you don't count Grashopper and F9-Dev1 as VTVL vehicles with 12 successful flights? Haven't SpaceX demonstrated VT, orbital mission and return to a platform on the ocean (landing is just shy of being successful) and you state the Blue is ahead of SpaceX? I don't want to characterize myself as a fanboi, but your posture doesn't seems very fact based.
You could argue that Masten is the one with the most VTVL experience, with some 350s launches under its belt, but only if you restricted yourself to subsonic civil aviation ceiling. But going supersonic and hypersonic, and atmospheric interface at return are the most difficult and risky parts. And SpaceX was the first to achieve that. Blue have just ticked control under supersonic regime, that's it.
Don't get me wrong, I firmly believe that Blue is the leader in the suborbital race. And definitely the second after Space from the New Space companies. But still a far cry from what SpaceX has already achieved even in the VTVL specific area.
Now, they have stated that Mr. Bezos funds the company with 50M/yr, and that might be a reason of their pace. They have to work under a fixed budget. We don't really know how does the ULA's BE-4 contract plays out. It might significantly increase their budget, but may be only from 2019 onwards, and might actually consume a lot of extra resources before that.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: somepitch on 05/12/2015 05:42 pm
By all rights, Blue Origin should be well ahead of SpaceX on VTVL, but they still haven't even broken the Karman Line, and the number of flights (6? 7?) they've done is pretty disappointing considering how many VTVL test vehicles they've built (4, by my count?) and especially the fact that they've been focused on VTVL from the beginning and hired up a bunch of the old DC-X folk and they started this VTVL work in 2000, 2 years before SpaceX was even founded (SpaceX still thought VTVL was a dead-end in 2007).
So you don't count Grashopper and F9-Dev1 as VTVL vehicles with 12 successful flights? Haven't SpaceX demonstrated VT, orbital mission and return to a platform on the ocean (landing is just shy of being successful) and you state the Blue is ahead of SpaceX? I don't want to characterize myself as a fanboi, but your posture doesn't seems very fact based.
You could argue that Masten is the one with the most VTVL experience, with some 350s launches under its belt, but only if you restricted yourself to subsonic civil aviation ceiling. But going supersonic and hypersonic, and atmospheric interface at return are the most difficult and risky parts. And SpaceX was the first to achieve that. Blue have just ticked control under supersonic regime, that's it.
Don't get me wrong, I firmly believe that Blue is the leader in the suborbital race. And definitely the second after Space from the New Space companies. But still a far cry from what SpaceX has already achieved even in the VTVL specific area.
Now, they have stated that Mr. Bezos funds the company with 50M/yr, and that might be a reason of their pace. They have to work under a fixed budget. We don't really know how does the ULA's BE-4 contract plays out. It might significantly increase their budget, but may be only from 2019 onwards, and might actually consume a lot of extra resources before that.

I don't read Robotbeat's post as stating Blue is ahead of SpaceX... Where did you get that from?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/12/2015 05:58 pm
There is no race between SpaceX and Blue Origin. They are both following their own separate businesses plans, lowering cost of access to space by using RLV just happens to be one thing in common.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: The Amazing Catstronaut on 05/12/2015 06:10 pm

So you don't count Grashopper and F9-Dev1 as VTVL vehicles with 12 successful flights? Haven't SpaceX demonstrated VT, orbital mission and return to a platform on the ocean (landing is just shy of being successful) and you state the Blue is ahead of SpaceX? I don't want to characterize myself as a fanboi, but your posture doesn't seems very fact based.

He's agreeing with you - Robobeat is saying that SpaceX ahead of Blue, with more flights + milestones.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 05/12/2015 08:04 pm

So you don't count Grashopper and F9-Dev1 as VTVL vehicles with 12 successful flights? Haven't SpaceX demonstrated VT, orbital mission and return to a platform on the ocean (landing is just shy of being successful) and you state the Blue is ahead of SpaceX? I don't want to characterize myself as a fanboi, but your posture doesn't seems very fact based.

He's agreeing with you - Robobeat is saying that SpaceX ahead of Blue, with more flights + milestones.
I understood that he said that Blue is ahead of SpaceX on VTVL. Obviously behind in the rest. I contend that specific part.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: The Amazing Catstronaut on 05/12/2015 08:44 pm

I understood that he said that Blue is ahead of SpaceX on VTVL. Obviously behind in the rest. I contend that specific part.

I understand where you're coming from, but Robo's wording differs slightly:


By all rights, Blue Origin should be well ahead of SpaceX on VTVL...

I can see how this could be misleading; it's one of those strange situations in English where a sentence that appears to be a positive:"Should be well ahead of SpaceX", actually forms a negative. From what I read, Robo is emphasising the fact that Blue origin "should" be ahead on VTVL, rather than them actually being ahead VTVL, thus meaning that Blue origin is in fact behind SpaceX in VTVL. Within the resources and timescales that Blue has had to work with, they should be ahead of SpaceX.

I'm sure the man himself will clear this up.  :D

Edit: Grammar.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: PahTo on 05/12/2015 09:17 pm

Geez, it's not just enough to be a rocket scientist on this site, you have to be a linguistics expert too!
(actually, well done Catstronaut--I didn't realize felines had such a command of the English language!)
:)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Kabloona on 05/12/2015 09:47 pm
There is no race between SpaceX and Blue Origin. They are both following their own separate businesses plans, lowering cost of access to space by using RLV just happens to be one thing in common.

Well, no and yes. If Blue wants to eventually develop a large partially reusable orbital launcher as they say on their website, then they will be competing with SpaceX and are pretty far behind.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/12/2015 10:48 pm


There is no race between SpaceX and Blue Origin. They are both following their own separate businesses plans, lowering cost of access to space by using RLV just happens to be one thing in common.

Well, no and yes. If Blue wants to eventually develop a large partially reusable orbital launcher as they say on their website, then they will be competing with SpaceX and are pretty far behind.

It doesn't really matter if Blue enter the orbital launch market a few years after SpaceX. If Blue can offer a competitively price service they will grab a market share.

Following SpaceX can actually be an advantage, their lower launch costs should expand the market but it takes time for this to happen. SpaceX should also make market more excepting of RLVs.

When it comes to HSF I think the market will need a few launch providers especially if ticket prices come down <$10m, which partially RLVs should be able to achieve and <$5m for fully RLV.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/13/2015 12:44 am

I understood that he said that Blue is ahead of SpaceX on VTVL. Obviously behind in the rest. I contend that specific part.

I understand where you're coming from, but Robo's wording differs slightly:


By all rights, Blue Origin should be well ahead of SpaceX on VTVL...

I can see how this could be misleading; it's one of those strange situations in English where a sentence that appears to be a positive:"Should be well ahead of SpaceX", actually forms a negative. From what I read, Robo is emphasising the fact that Blue origin "should" be ahead on VTVL, rather than them actually being ahead VTVL, thus meaning that Blue origin is in fact behind SpaceX in VTVL. Within the resources and timescales that Blue has had to work with, they should be ahead of SpaceX.

I'm sure the man himself will clear this up.  :D

Edit: Grammar.
Basically, that's what I meant.


For a long time, Blue Origin was well ahead of SpaceX in VTVL, but they squandered that lead and SpaceX has basically already fielded the partially reusable launch vehicle concept that Blue Origin wanted (still kinks to get worked out, but it's flying and profitably so).
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 05/13/2015 03:16 am

I understood that he said that Blue is ahead of SpaceX on VTVL. Obviously behind in the rest. I contend that specific part.

I understand where you're coming from, but Robo's wording differs slightly:


By all rights, Blue Origin should be well ahead of SpaceX on VTVL...

I can see how this could be misleading; it's one of those strange situations in English where a sentence that appears to be a positive:"Should be well ahead of SpaceX", actually forms a negative. From what I read, Robo is emphasising the fact that Blue origin "should" be ahead on VTVL, rather than them actually being ahead VTVL, thus meaning that Blue origin is in fact behind SpaceX in VTVL. Within the resources and timescales that Blue has had to work with, they should be ahead of SpaceX.

I'm sure the man himself will clear this up.  :D

Edit: Grammar.
Basically, that's what I meant.


For a long time, Blue Origin was well ahead of SpaceX in VTVL, but they squandered that lead and SpaceX has basically already fielded the partially reusable launch vehicle concept that Blue Origin wanted (still kinks to get worked out, but it's flying and profitably so).
Then I'm sorry that my failure to grasp the nuances of the English language made me write that violent agreement to your statement. My apologies.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/13/2015 12:55 pm
No apologies needed. I'm not exactly renowned for my clarity.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: sanman on 05/13/2015 09:11 pm
What sequence of goals is Bezos likely to pursue on his way out from Earth?

manned suborbital => manned orbital => manned lunar missions => manned mars missions?

What other major goals/milestones of note would be seen in between?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/13/2015 11:46 pm
What sequence of goals is Bezos likely to pursue on his way out from Earth?

manned suborbital => manned orbital => manned lunar missions => manned mars missions?

What other major goals/milestones of note would be seen in between?
I'm not sure how much Bezos cares about Mars. Blue Origin's promo video that came out recently didn't mention Mars but instead:

"When our descendants look to the stars, perhaps from a rocky moon or colonies floating in open space, they'll remember this time..."

(emphasis mine)
https://youtu.be/kbT29lA322g
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: daveklingler on 05/14/2015 12:08 am
I think Blue is the second entity to ever develop hydrolox rocket engines without being on some government's dime. ...
False, Blue Origin got CCDev2 money in part to develop BE-3.

Blue didn't get Commercial Crew money to work on a rocket engine.  Blue got money to develop a commercial crew vehicle, specifically the pusher escape system and the composite pressure vessel.

Quote from: Robotbeat
...

They would also be one of two entities to ever develop large staged-combustion engines off the taxpayer dime, the other being SpaceX, although I'm not sure what credit should be applied for the AR-1.  It's possible that Aerojet should also be on that list, although certainly they've been agitating for government funding.
BE-3 is tap-off, not staged combustion.

Yes, my previous post mentioned that BE-3 is tap-off.

Quote from: Robotbeat
BE-4 is supposed to be staged combustion, but has not been finished (same with the Raptor).

Not sure what your point is.  That neither company is finished?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/14/2015 12:22 am
I think Blue is the second entity to ever develop hydrolox rocket engines without being on some government's dime. ...
False, Blue Origin got CCDev2 money in part to develop BE-3.

Blue didn't get Commercial Crew money to work on a rocket engine.  Blue got money to develop a commercial crew vehicle, specifically the pusher escape system and the composite pressure vessel....
They most certainly DID get money to develop their rocket engine! They got over $10 million for their RBS, read here:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/679671main_CCDev2_Public_August2012_508.pdf
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: daveklingler on 05/14/2015 12:23 am
I think it's not useful to say that SpaceX is "ahead" of Blue Origin until we know more about what Blue is doing. 

It's also not useful to protest their lack of "progress" without knowing what their goals are and what their budget is.  It should definitely be remembered that they're funded entirely out of Bezos' pocket.

We do know they have suborbital plans, although it would be strange to say that they're "ahead" of SpaceX in that respect.

From their development of a hydrolox engine that's big enough to lift a lot of mass well beyond LEO, and their mention of it as an upper stage engine, it's probable that they don't plan to limit themselves to suborbital.

We do know that Bezos has a hearty interest in Apollo.  And Gerstenmaier made the observation a while back that whoever gets to the Moon next will probably find Blue quietly waiting for them.  They probably aren't planning to build a rocket that competes with Vulcan, either, and since they can't really go much smaller with the BE-4, they'll most likely go larger.  I'm reasonably sure the Moon is what they have in mind, but only time will tell.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: daveklingler on 05/14/2015 12:24 am
I think Blue is the second entity to ever develop hydrolox rocket engines without being on some government's dime. ...
False, Blue Origin got CCDev2 money in part to develop BE-3.

Blue didn't get Commercial Crew money to work on a rocket engine.  Blue got money to develop a commercial crew vehicle, specifically the pusher escape system and the composite pressure vessel....
They most certainly DID get money to develop their rocket engine! They got over $10 million for their RBS, read here:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/679671main_CCDev2_Public_August2012_508.pdf

That's the pusher LAS.

Edit:  Just noticed the "RBS".  I might stand corrected.  But if so, huh?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: AnalogMan on 05/14/2015 12:27 am
I think Blue is the second entity to ever develop hydrolox rocket engines without being on some government's dime. ...
False, Blue Origin got CCDev2 money in part to develop BE-3.

Blue didn't get Commercial Crew money to work on a rocket engine.  Blue got money to develop a commercial crew vehicle, specifically the pusher escape system and the composite pressure vessel.

From the CCDEV-2 Space Act Agreement:

Accelerating Engine Development

"Blue Origin also proposes to speed development of its Reusable Booster System through
accelerated testing of its 100,000 lbf liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen (LOx/LH2) engine.
Development of Blue Origin's restartable, deep-throttle engine is pacing the entire orbital RBS
program. Under CCDev 2, Blue Origin proposes to test the full-scale thrust chamber at NASA's
Stennis Space Center and, optionally, perform development testing of the engine's fuel and
oxidizer turbopumps."

"Blue Origin requests $10,400,000 in NASA funding for the RBS Engine Risk Reduction Project
with the possibility of an additional $3,000,000 for optional milestones. Partnering with NASA
will not only accelerate the Reusable Booster System; it will also speed development of a low-
cost LOx/LH2 engine suitable for a variety of other upper stage applications and deep-throttling
exploration missions."

http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/CCDev2_BlueOrigin_508.pdf (http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/CCDev2_BlueOrigin_508.pdf)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: daveklingler on 05/14/2015 12:30 am
I think Blue is the second entity to ever develop hydrolox rocket engines without being on some government's dime. ...
False, Blue Origin got CCDev2 money in part to develop BE-3.

Blue didn't get Commercial Crew money to work on a rocket engine.  Blue got money to develop a commercial crew vehicle, specifically the pusher escape system and the composite pressure vessel.

From the CCDEV-2 Space Act Agreement:

Accelerating Engine Development

"Blue Origin also proposes to speed development of its Reusable Booster System through
accelerated testing of its 100,000 lbf liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen (LOx/LH2) engine.
Development of Blue Origin's restartable, deep-throttle engine is pacing the entire orbital RBS
program. Under CCDev 2, Blue Origin proposes to test the full-scale thrust chamber at NASA's
Stennis Space Center and, optionally, perform development testing of the engine's fuel and
oxidizer turbopumps."

"Blue Origin requests $10,400,000 in NASA funding for the RBS Engine Risk Reduction Project
with the possibility of an additional $3,000,000 for optional milestones. Partnering with NASA
will not only accelerate the Reusable Booster System; it will also speed development of a low-
cost LOx/LH2 engine suitable for a variety of other upper stage applications and deep-throttling
exploration missions."

http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/CCDev2_BlueOrigin_508.pdf (http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/CCDev2_BlueOrigin_508.pdf)

Makes you wonder whether $10.4M is a significant part of their BE-3 development budget.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/14/2015 12:30 am
I think it's not useful to say that SpaceX is "ahead" of Blue Origin until we know more about what Blue is doing. 
...
From their development of a hydrolox engine that's big enough to lift a lot of mass well beyond LEO, and their mention of it as an upper stage engine, it's probable that they don't plan to limit themselves to suborbital.
...
...you just basically answered yourself.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: daveklingler on 05/14/2015 12:32 am
I think it's not useful to say that SpaceX is "ahead" of Blue Origin until we know more about what Blue is doing. 
...
From their development of a hydrolox engine that's big enough to lift a lot of mass well beyond LEO, and their mention of it as an upper stage engine, it's probable that they don't plan to limit themselves to suborbital.
...
...you just basically answered yourself.

I don't think "beyond suborbital" is specific enough to say much of anything about their plans.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/14/2015 12:40 am
I think it's not useful to say that SpaceX is "ahead" of Blue Origin until we know more about what Blue is doing. 
...
From their development of a hydrolox engine that's big enough to lift a lot of mass well beyond LEO, and their mention of it as an upper stage engine, it's probable that they don't plan to limit themselves to suborbital.
...
...you just basically answered yourself.

I don't think "beyond suborbital" is specific enough to say much of anything about their plans.
Sure it is. We know Blue Origin wants to build a largely-reusable orbital rocket with a crewed capsule. SpaceX has already largely fielded such a capability.

You can try to imagine some scenario where Blue Origin has a giant moon base already built and just awaiting launch, but that would be absurd. By any reasonable measure (unless, of course, you limit yourself to the suborbital market), SpaceX is ahead. It might not stay that way, but them's the way things are currently. SpaceX has done more VTVL flights and more reflights of the same vehicle and has, of course, done a bunch of orbital flights with F9 and Dragon. SpaceX's pad abort should remove all doubt.

I hope Blue Origin catches up. We can only hope Bezos devotes more energy to Blue Origin.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: daveklingler on 05/14/2015 01:20 am
I think it's not useful to say that SpaceX is "ahead" of Blue Origin until we know more about what Blue is doing. 
...
From their development of a hydrolox engine that's big enough to lift a lot of mass well beyond LEO, and their mention of it as an upper stage engine, it's probable that they don't plan to limit themselves to suborbital.
...
...you just basically answered yourself.

I don't think "beyond suborbital" is specific enough to say much of anything about their plans.
Sure it is. We know Blue Origin wants to build a largely-reusable orbital rocket with a crewed capsule. SpaceX has already largely fielded such a capability.

So, if SpaceX's goal is a successful LEO cargo and crew business with a very long-term plan for Mars, and Blue's goals is a successful suborbital tourism business and something to do with the Moon, then SpaceX is ahead.

Quote from: Robotbeat
I hope Blue Origin catches up. We can only hope Bezos devotes more energy to Blue Origin.

Neither of us knows enough about what they're doing to comment on their state of progress, other than that in another year or two they might start seeing revenue from suborbital, and in a few years they might start seeing revenue from ULA.  For all we know they're already working on two dozen other projects, or none.  All we can do right now is what people have done for the past many years, which is wonder what they're doing.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/14/2015 01:39 am
I think it's not useful to say that SpaceX is "ahead" of Blue Origin until we know more about what Blue is doing. 
...
From their development of a hydrolox engine that's big enough to lift a lot of mass well beyond LEO, and their mention of it as an upper stage engine, it's probable that they don't plan to limit themselves to suborbital.
...
...you just basically answered yourself.

I don't think "beyond suborbital" is specific enough to say much of anything about their plans.
Sure it is. We know Blue Origin wants to build a largely-reusable orbital rocket with a crewed capsule. SpaceX has already largely fielded such a capability.

So, if SpaceX's goal is a successful LEO cargo and crew business with a very long-term plan for Mars, and Blue's goals is a successful suborbital tourism business and something to do with the Moon, then SpaceX is ahead.
...
You basically ignored what I said. Remember that both SpaceX and Blue Origin bid on commercial crew. Such a capability as I described is a mid-term goal for both companies regardless of their far-term goals (which are somewhat related... SpaceX's MCT shouldn't have much problem landing on the Moon, for instance). By that measure, SpaceX is clearly ahead.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: R7 on 05/14/2015 07:32 am
A is flying capsules in orbit and ironing out last quirks from reusable orbital first stage.
B almost broke the Karman line but may have a secret plan bigger than A's.
Therefore B may be ahead of A.

This logic is painful just like the lengthy discussion ensuing from it  ::)

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 05/14/2015 07:46 am
Neither of us knows enough about what they're doing to comment on their state of progress, other than that in another year or two they might start seeing revenue from suborbital, and in a few years they might start seeing revenue from ULA.  For all we know they're already working on two dozen other projects, or none.  All we can do right now is what people have done for the past many years, which is wonder what they're doing.

That's not true.  While we don't know all of what they are doing, we can put some very important bounds on it.

We know for certain they have not reached the Karman line, let alone reached orbit.

That alone is enough to put them far behind SpaceX, no matter what they might be doing on the ground and in the atmosphere.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: sanman on 05/14/2015 01:05 pm
But isn't rocket engine development the single most challenging thing in the development of spacelaunch technologies?

Arguably, Blue Origin has built up expertise in engine development first, contending with this most challenging of areas to establish its primacy there.

Or alternatively, maybe Bezos just isn't as agile as Musk is, and because Blue are operating in a more sheltered environment, they aren't pushing themselves as hard as SpaceX are.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: daveklingler on 05/14/2015 01:29 pm
I think it's not useful to say that SpaceX is "ahead" of Blue Origin until we know more about what Blue is doing. 
...
From their development of a hydrolox engine that's big enough to lift a lot of mass well beyond LEO, and their mention of it as an upper stage engine, it's probable that they don't plan to limit themselves to suborbital.
...
...you just basically answered yourself.

I don't think "beyond suborbital" is specific enough to say much of anything about their plans.
Sure it is. We know Blue Origin wants to build a largely-reusable orbital rocket with a crewed capsule. SpaceX has already largely fielded such a capability.

So, if SpaceX's goal is a successful LEO cargo and crew business with a very long-term plan for Mars, and Blue's goals is a successful suborbital tourism business and something to do with the Moon, then SpaceX is ahead.
...
You basically ignored what I said. Remember that both SpaceX and Blue Origin bid on commercial crew. Such a capability as I described is a mid-term goal for both companies regardless of their far-term goals (which are somewhat related... SpaceX's MCT shouldn't have much problem landing on the Moon, for instance). By that measure, SpaceX is clearly ahead.

Bezos has stated that Blue bid on Commercial Crew to get some experience working with NASA. 

That said, I'm sure that in the general category of "space", SpaceX is way out ahead not only of Blue Origin, but also Space Studies Institute, Orbital Outfitters, NBC, General Mills and Ocean Spray. 
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: daveklingler on 05/14/2015 01:39 pm
A is flying capsules in orbit and ironing out last quirks from reusable orbital first stage.
B almost broke the Karman line but may have a secret plan bigger than A's.
Therefore B may be ahead of A.

This logic is painful just like the lengthy discussion ensuing from it  ::)

You missed the logic entirely.  Third line should read, "Since we don't know what B is trying to do, it's rather silly to put them in the same category and then state that A is ahead."  To quote Jim, every mission is different.

Or, to quote Groucho Marx, "Well, Art is Art, isn't it? Still, on the other hand, water is water. And east is east and west is west and if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does. Now you tell me what you know."

But you've illustrated the utility of this thread.  Until Blue decides to let some other tidbit of information squeak out, it's all speculation.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: sanman on 05/14/2015 02:06 pm
What advantage does Blue Origin gain from all this secrecy? Musk and SpaceX tweet every little thing, down to the tiniest details and musings - and people love it. A huge fan following has been built up from this - one of the more successful examples of corporate social media strategies.

But Bezos and Blue Origin keep everything top secret. What's to be gained from this? It would seem that the only benefit to be had from such secrecy, is if you're going to spring some surprise on potential competitors, and you don't want them to be able to react against you in advance. Steve Jobs famously denied he was developing the iPhone before later springing it on the market.

If they don't have some special secret surprise that they want to keep under wraps, then why the secrecy? But if they do have a special secret surprise, then what might it possibly be?

What was gained from keeping New Shepard so out of view all this time? If Blue Origin or Bezos had been blogging weekly updates, would they have somehow ended up worse off? Or are they just worried about not raising any expectations that they might fail to meet?

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: daveklingler on 05/14/2015 02:11 pm
But isn't rocket engine development the single most challenging thing in the development of spacelaunch technologies?

Arguably, Blue Origin has built up expertise in engine development first, contending with this most challenging of areas to establish its primacy there.

Or alternatively, maybe Bezos just isn't as agile as Musk is, and because Blue are operating in a more sheltered environment, they aren't pushing themselves as hard as SpaceX are.

It's all a bit like the Fried Liver Attack, isn't it?  :)  And indeed, there was a picture of Bezos playing chess in Chess Daily News a while back.  And Amazon has a product called "Mechanical Turk".  We'll know in a few years whether there was even a competition taking place.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: R7 on 05/14/2015 02:53 pm
You missed the logic entirely.  Third line should read, "Since we don't know what B is trying to do, it's rather silly to put them in the same category and then state that A is ahead."  To quote Jim, every mission is different.

Or, to quote Groucho Marx, "Well, Art is Art, isn't it? Still, on the other hand, water is water. And east is east and west is west and if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does. Now you tell me what you know."

But you've illustrated the utility of this thread.  Until Blue decides to let some other tidbit of information squeak out, it's all speculation.

Or, to quote B (https://www.blueorigin.com/technology),

Quote
Orbital spaceflight

We’ve designed our suborbital vehicle to feed directly into our orbital program. With every suborbital launch, we’re reaching toward orbital spaceflight.

B is stating what it is trying to do thus category is clear.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: mr. mark on 05/14/2015 03:03 pm
When SpaceX unveils MCT at the end of the this year, They are going to make All their commercial space competitors and maybe even NASA look like kiddie rides.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Chris Bergin on 05/14/2015 04:52 pm
Everyone resist this....

(https://i.imgflip.com/lhyyy.jpg)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: daveklingler on 05/14/2015 04:52 pm
You missed the logic entirely.  Third line should read, "Since we don't know what B is trying to do, it's rather silly to put them in the same category and then state that A is ahead."  To quote Jim, every mission is different.

Or, to quote Groucho Marx, "Well, Art is Art, isn't it? Still, on the other hand, water is water. And east is east and west is west and if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does. Now you tell me what you know."

But you've illustrated the utility of this thread.  Until Blue decides to let some other tidbit of information squeak out, it's all speculation.

Or, to quote B (https://www.blueorigin.com/technology),

Quote
Orbital spaceflight

We’ve designed our suborbital vehicle to feed directly into our orbital program. With every suborbital launch, we’re reaching toward orbital spaceflight.

B is stating what it is trying to do thus category is clear.

You're right.  "Orbital spaceflight" nails everything down.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/14/2015 05:54 pm
Blue and Bezos PR approach of keeping tight lipped about every thing they are doing my not work be to everybody's likely, but at a net worth of $36B it is definitely working for Bezo.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: daveklingler on 05/14/2015 06:03 pm
So, on a different note, let's talk about Blue.   ;D

Blue has an upper stage hydrolox engine that has accumulated at least 500 minutes of firing time.

Blue is somewhere in the process of developing a 550,000 lb-thrust lower stage methalox engine.  Full engine testing is scheduled to begin in 2016.

Blue is in the process of designing "an orbital launch vehicle that is many times New Shepard’s size and is powered by our 550,000-lbf thrust liquefied natural gas, liquid oxygen BE-4 engine.”

Blue has a crew capsule designed for six (IIRC) people that has now almost, but not quite, gone to space and landed safely.  The LAS was tested successfully in 2012.

Blue has formed a partnership with ULA to power the Vulcan rocket with the BE-4.

The Vulcan rocket may also use the BE-3 later on.

Blue has accumulated a good deal of experience in firing cryogenic engines.

Blue has an interest in landing a booster stage on an ocean platform.

Blue is emphasizing reusability in their vehicle design.

Blue's J-2-sized, high-Isp, restartable upper stage engine would work well for high-mass, beyond LEO missions.

Assumption and speculation:
Blue will probably launch their crew capsule many times annually when they begin doing suborbital tourist launches, depending on how they price their rides.

Because of the unfunded SAA between Blue and NASA, Blue's crew capsule would not need to undergo much qualification before being allowed to compete for a future round of Commercial Crew.

Blue personnel will work closely with ULA personnel to launch missions for the Air Force and other ULA customers.

Blue's orbital rocket will not compete with the Vulcan.

IF Blue's orbital rocket will not compete with the Vulcan, then it will be larger than the Vulcan.

IF Blue's orbital rocket will be larger than the Vulcan, it will carry more than 23 tons to LEO.

Blue's orbital rocket will be launched soon after the BE-4 completes acceptance testing, which would probably be in the 2017 or 2018 timeframe.

That's what I can think of, off the cuff.  So what have I missed?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: spacenut on 05/14/2015 06:25 pm
Well the BE-3 is only about half the thrust of a J2 which was 200,000 lbs.  BE-3 can throttle between 30,000 and 110,000 lbs.  So it would take two to equal J2 and a little less than three to equal J2X.  However, in my opinion that is a good thing.  30,000 lbs matches the RL-10 for small sats etc.  But being able to throttle allows for a second stage to actually land and be recovered.  I would say two-three BE-3's on an ACES type upper stage would be awesome.  Now, if they can get the BE-4 to throttle and put say three or four on a booster, then it could match or beat a Delta IV heavy or the Falcon H and be reusable, then the Vulcan might be out of business and they could give SpaceX a run for the money. 

So much for old space. 
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/14/2015 06:35 pm
The Boeing/Blue XS1 proposal may also yield another Blue powered RLV.

I believe this partnership could also develop a reusable 2 stage based on their XS1 design. With the X37 Boeing have proved they are capable of doing this.

I think 20t would be possible if launched on 5 x BE4 booster.
NB would be limited to LEO missions which is not a problem if supplying fuel depot and doing HSF.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: JasonAW3 on 05/14/2015 06:49 pm
So, does anyone think Blue Origin has any BEO ambitions or are they going to stay strictly Suborbital and LEO?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: sanman on 05/14/2015 07:12 pm
So, does anyone think Blue Origin has any BEO ambitions or are they going to stay strictly Suborbital and LEO?

Well, as per Blue Origin's own video (posted by Robotbeat on prev page) it seems that their very name is meant to define their mission as going ever farther out from Earth (which we will see as our blue origin)

I'm thinking that Bezos' path will be more conventional than Musk's. Blue will go for manned suborbital, then manned orbital, then manned lunar. Mars seems likely farther off, as only Musk is in a rush to get there first, bypassing the Moon.

It seems like if Bezos focuses on getting to the Moon, his business model for space tourism would be more robust. After all, the Moon is lower-hanging fruit and is easier to get to than Mars, as well as potentially offering a much richer tourism experience than LEO.

So Musk may break the bank getting to Mars, and meanwhile Bezos seems likely to take a more conservative approach toward the Moon and reap more space tourism rewards in the medium term.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: JasonAW3 on 05/14/2015 07:39 pm
So, does anyone think Blue Origin has any BEO ambitions or are they going to stay strictly Suborbital and LEO?

Well, as per Blue Origin's own video (posted by Robotbeat on prev page) it seems that their very name is meant to define their mission as going ever farther out from Earth (which we will see as our blue origin)

I'm thinking that Bezos' path will be more conventional than Musk's. Blue will go for manned suborbital, then manned orbital, then manned lunar. Mars seems likely farther off, as only Musk is in a rush to get there first, bypassing the Moon.

It seems like if Bezos focuses on getting to the Moon, his business model for space tourism would be more robust. After all, the Moon is lower-hanging fruit and is easier to get to than Mars, as well as potentially offering a much richer tourism experience than LEO.

So Musk may break the bank getting to Mars, and meanwhile Bezos seems likely to take a more conservative approach toward the Moon and reap more space tourism rewards in the medium term.

I don't know.  I get the feeling that BO will be fine with tourists etc, but I get the feeling that they may excel at being both a cargo lifter and space construction company.  Don't get me wrong, but I kind of see BO acting as, well, more longshore men in LEO and Lunar space, Bigelow providing the habitats modules and SpaceX as acting more of an interplanetary transport and personnel company.  I have NO reasoning for this, but I have a gut feeling that they all will be working together, but also as competators in some areas.

     I get the image that each company will have a specialty that they will eventually excel at, and what I said kind of fits how I feel that it will all shake out.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: sanman on 05/14/2015 08:01 pm
Unlike others, Blue seems primarily (purely?) focused on manned spaceflight, they'll likely have need for a space station than their rivals would. Unless Bezos has some secret hidden project to develop his own space station, he'd be  more likely to tie up with Bigelow as compared to others. Given how Bezos has been willing to do tie-ups when the opportunity arose, such as with ULA on engine development, then it seems that Blue would be more likely to go with Bigelow than invent everything in-house on their own.

Once the Very Big Brother is developed, I wonder if Blue could even use it to launch Bigelow stations in exchange for being able to bring tourist customers to these stations?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: JasonAW3 on 05/14/2015 08:18 pm
Unlike others, Blue seems primarily (purely?) focused on manned spaceflight, they'll likely have need for a space station than their rivals would. Unless Bezos has some secret hidden project to develop his own space station, he'd be  more likely to tie up with Bigelow as compared to others. Given how Bezos has been willing to do tie-ups when the opportunity arose, such as with ULA on engine development, then it seems that Blue would be more likely to go with Bigelow than invent everything in-house on their own.

Once the Very Big Brother is developed, I wonder if Blue could even use it to launch Bigelow stations in exchange for being able to bring tourist customers to these stations?

That was my thoughts exactly.  I suspect that BO will likely be the HL launch company while SpaceX would concentrate on getting people into space. And Bigelow will house them all, at least at first.

I could see SpaceX commissioning BO to launch some heavy laods that they either can't schedule or don't have the lift for.  Bigelow station would be both workshack and storage area for said payloads, While SpaceX and BO crews assemble the MCT Transporter.  BO will also likely be the ones to refine fuel and other materials from asteroids at L-5 as it would be cheaper to deliver to L-1 or LEO than to launch from the moon.  Any return fuel processed for Earth return from the moon, will be processed on the moon.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 05/14/2015 08:28 pm
So, does anyone think Blue Origin has any BEO ambitions or are they going to stay strictly Suborbital and LEO?
Blue is in the permits phase of putting a rocket factory just north of KSC. That, in my book, means BIG diameter cores. I would guess seven to nine BE-4 in the first stage, with full reusability. It is worth nothing that if the latest Elon statement is true (that Raptor would be around 500klbf), then the BE-4 would allow Blue to roughly match anything that SpaceX decides to field. Roughly because the BE-4 will be a less performance engine (single pump stem, only oxidizer rich). And they are also starting with first core reusability. So I would say that yes, you don't go doing big stuff just for LEO.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 05/14/2015 08:32 pm
But isn't rocket engine development the single most challenging thing in the development of spacelaunch technologies?

Arguably, Blue Origin has built up expertise in engine development first, contending with this most challenging of areas to establish its primacy there.

Engine testing on the ground is trumped by engine flight heritage.

SpaceX has had three generations of engines flying on actual orbital launches, Merlin 1A, 1C, and 1D.  They've refined based on what they've learned, making their engines better performing but also more reliable, durable, and easy to manufacture at each point.

Or alternatively, maybe Bezos just isn't as agile as Musk is, and because Blue are operating in a more sheltered environment, they aren't pushing themselves as hard as SpaceX are.

It's certainly plausible that that is a part of it.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 05/14/2015 08:50 pm
Assumption and speculation:

Because of the unfunded SAA between Blue and NASA, Blue's crew capsule would not need to undergo much qualification before being allowed to compete for a future round of Commercial Crew.

I think that speculation is incorrect.  An unfunded SAA means NASA is giving Blue Origin advice and potentially use of some facilities if they are reimbursed for their costs.  It does not mean they won't have to go through the same pain for commercial crew qualification as everyone else.  CST-100 and Dragon 2 had an even closer relationship with NASA through CCiCap but that didn't prevent them from having all the pain of certification for CCtCap.

Blue's orbital rocket will not compete with the Vulcan.

I don't think there's any reason to believe that.  Just because one company supplies another doesn't mean they won't compete.

Samsung has been a key supplier to the iPhone for years even while Samsung have been fiercely competing with the iPhone.

Sometimes, it's in the interests of both companies to cooperate in some ways while fighting vigorously.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: notsorandom on 05/14/2015 08:52 pm
So, does anyone think Blue Origin has any BEO ambitions or are they going to stay strictly Suborbital and LEO?
Blue is in the permits phase of putting a rocket factory just north of KSC. That, in my book, means BIG diameter cores. I would guess seven to nine BE-4 in the first stage, with full reusability. It is worth nothing that if the latest Elon statement is true (that Raptor would be around 500klbf), then the BE-4 would allow Blue to roughly match anything that SpaceX decides to field. Roughly because the BE-4 will be a less performance engine (single pump stem, only oxidizer rich). And they are also starting with first core reusability. So I would say that yes, you don't go doing big stuff just for LEO.
Here is another point about Blue going big. ULA has stated that they will not be competing with Blue by using the BE-4 in the Vulcan. ULA knew that Blue had their own project which required the BE-4. It would be very doubtful for ULA and Blue to have formed this deal without ULA knowing what Blue was going to do with the engine and vise versa. This means that some of the most reliable information on what Blue is up to is that it is not what ULA is doing.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 05/14/2015 08:55 pm
Unlike others, Blue seems primarily (purely?) focused on manned spaceflight, they'll likely have need for a space station than their rivals would. Unless Bezos has some secret hidden project to develop his own space station, he'd be  more likely to tie up with Bigelow as compared to others. Given how Bezos has been willing to do tie-ups when the opportunity arose, such as with ULA on engine development, then it seems that Blue would be more likely to go with Bigelow than invent everything in-house on their own.

Once the Very Big Brother is developed, I wonder if Blue could even use it to launch Bigelow stations in exchange for being able to bring tourist customers to these stations?

Blue Origin doesn't necessarily need any kind of station for its orbital human spaceflight business model.  The shuttle flew for years before ISS existed.  Blue Origin could do something similar -- have a vehicle with enough supplies for a couple of days or a couple of weeks on orbit.  Fly people up for a while, then land them without ever docking with anything else.

It could also potentially fly people around the moon.  Again, there's no need for a station of any kind, just a vehicle big enough to support people for a few days -- which really doesn't need to be that much mass.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: GreenShrike on 05/14/2015 08:56 pm
Well the BE-3 is only about half the thrust of a J2 which was 200,000 lbs.  BE-3 can throttle between 30,000 and 110,000 lbs.  So it would take two to equal J2 and a little less than three to equal J2X.  However, in my opinion that is a good thing.  30,000 lbs matches the RL-10 for small sats etc.  But being able to throttle allows for a second stage to actually land and be recovered.

~15 tonnes is still rather a lot compared to the dry mass of orbital stages. An empty Falcon 9 S2 is, what, a third of that? A Centaur is only around 2t dry, if I'm reading spacelaunchreport.com's Atlas 5 page right. You'd need something almost twice F9 S2's size for the same magnitude of hoverslam as F9 S1 (which I believe is at around a 3:2 thrust-to-weight ratio). Anything smaller on a fully-throttled BE-3 would make for quite a sporty landing indeed. :-)

Unless the orbital stage is truly large, I think landing on verniers or dedicated landing engines is more likely than landing on a main engine, assuming propulsive landing even makes the most sense for recovering upper stages.


A throttled BE-3's 30k lb might sort of match the thrust of RL-10, but it's RL-10's ISP that's the secret to its success. How close can a tap-off cycle engine get to a closed expander cycle's efficiency?


  I would say two-three BE-3's on an ACES type upper stage would be awesome.  Now, if they can get the BE-4 to throttle and put say three or four on a booster, then it could match or beat a Delta IV heavy or the Falcon H and be reusable, then the Vulcan might be out of business and they could give SpaceX a run for the money. 

Falcon Heavy-R can carry pretty much everything being built today, and what FH-R can't a FH-expendable can. A recoverable single-stick in FH-E's class would be impressive, but payloads requiring a Delta IV Heavy are rare as hen's teeth -- let alone a FH-E -- so you'd be looking at competing with a big reusable rocket for payloads a smaller reusable rocket can carry.

What, then, do you carry with an SLS-class rocket, other than whatever the founder personally wants flown? SpaceX is only going after a BFR once it's established a series of smaller rockets bringing in steady revenue. Blue needs to build something that can bring in money if it doesn't want to be forever drip fed by Bezos' bank account, and a BFR is too big to fly today's payloads, and with electric propulsion, tomorrow's payloads are mostly looking smaller not larger.

I'm thinking something a bit smaller for VBB, in FH-R's range but a single-stick. Say 7-8t to GTO, while flying reusable. Then you're competing a reusable single stick against a reusable triple core, with no excessive performance, and still with the possibility of going to a multi-core heavy configuration if you need a super-heavy lifter.

You only need a super-heavy if you shy away from building stacks in-space, but if you build stacks in space you can sent as much as you want wherever you want. And I think a BE-3 would look very spiffy on a Blue tug. ;-)

I'll be looking forward to more information from Blue, but I won't be holding my breath since I figure I'll be quite a few shades past blue before I get it. ;-)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 05/14/2015 09:00 pm
So, does anyone think Blue Origin has any BEO ambitions or are they going to stay strictly Suborbital and LEO?
Blue is in the permits phase of putting a rocket factory just north of KSC. That, in my book, means BIG diameter cores. I would guess seven to nine BE-4 in the first stage, with full reusability. It is worth nothing that if the latest Elon statement is true (that Raptor would be around 500klbf), then the BE-4 would allow Blue to roughly match anything that SpaceX decides to field. Roughly because the BE-4 will be a less performance engine (single pump stem, only oxidizer rich). And they are also starting with first core reusability. So I would say that yes, you don't go doing big stuff just for LEO.
Here is another point about Blue going big. ULA has stated that they will not be competing with Blue by using the BE-4 in the Vulcan. ULA knew that Blue had their own project which required the BE-4. It would be very doubtful for ULA and Blue to have formed this deal without ULA knowing what Blue was going to do with the engine and vise versa. This means that some of the most reliable information on what Blue is up to is that it is not what ULA is doing.

If ULA is concentrating on launching satellites with expendable rockets and Blue Origin is concentrating on launching people on reusable rockets, it's fully plausible that neither company would consider the other to really be competing with it, even if their launchers are about the same size.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: docmordrid on 05/14/2015 09:30 pm
So, does anyone think Blue Origin has any BEO ambitions or are they going to stay strictly Suborbital and LEO?
Blue is in the permits phase of putting a rocket factory just north of KSC. That, in my book, means BIG diameter cores. I would guess seven to nine BE-4 in the first stage, with full reusability.
>

The latest Blue imagery seems to indicate a 7 engine Big Brother layout - a "hexaweb" + center engine.

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: abaddon on 05/14/2015 10:50 pm
Because of the unfunded SAA between Blue and NASA, Blue's crew capsule would not need to undergo much qualification before being allowed to compete for a future round of Commercial Crew.

That is an enormous reach, even forgetting that the capsule is sub-orbital.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: sanman on 05/14/2015 10:56 pm
So hexaweb + center engine means the same gimbaled central engine approach as you-know-who?

I wonder if the laws of physics won't compel various rival designs to converge in the long run.

I wonder what Bezos will name his barge?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/14/2015 10:57 pm
So, does anyone think Blue Origin has any BEO ambitions or are they going to stay strictly Suborbital and LEO?
Blue is in the permits phase of putting a rocket factory just north of KSC. That, in my book, means BIG diameter cores. I would guess seven to nine BE-4 in the first stage, with full reusability. It is worth nothing that if the latest Elon statement is true (that Raptor would be around 500klbf), then the BE-4 would allow Blue to roughly match anything that SpaceX decides to field. Roughly because the BE-4 will be a less performance engine (single pump stem, only oxidizer rich). And they are also starting with first core reusability. So I would say that yes, you don't go doing big stuff just for LEO.
Here is another point about Blue going big. ULA has stated that they will not be competing with Blue by using the BE-4 in the Vulcan. ULA knew that Blue had their own project which required the BE-4. It would be very doubtful for ULA and Blue to have formed this deal without ULA knowing what Blue was going to do with the engine and vise versa. This means that some of the most reliable information on what Blue is up to is that it is not what ULA is doing.

If ULA is concentrating on launching satellites with expendable rockets and Blue Origin is concentrating on launching people on reusable rockets, it's fully plausible that neither company would consider the other to really be competing with it, even if their launchers are about the same size.
If Blue can develop a low reusable launch system eg $1000kg to LEO.
I can see a future where ULA concentrates on BLEO missions using their ACES or OTV with fuel depots supplied by Blue.

LM could specialise in cargo handling using their Jupiter and Exoliner.


Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 05/14/2015 11:52 pm
So, does anyone think Blue Origin has any BEO ambitions or are they going to stay strictly Suborbital and LEO?
Blue is in the permits phase of putting a rocket factory just north of KSC. That, in my book, means BIG diameter cores. I would guess seven to nine BE-4 in the first stage, with full reusability. It is worth nothing that if the latest Elon statement is true (that Raptor would be around 500klbf), then the BE-4 would allow Blue to roughly match anything that SpaceX decides to field. Roughly because the BE-4 will be a less performance engine (single pump stem, only oxidizer rich). And they are also starting with first core reusability. So I would say that yes, you don't go doing big stuff just for LEO.
Here is another point about Blue going big. ULA has stated that they will not be competing with Blue by using the BE-4 in the Vulcan. ULA knew that Blue had their own project which required the BE-4. It would be very doubtful for ULA and Blue to have formed this deal without ULA knowing what Blue was going to do with the engine and vise versa. This means that some of the most reliable information on what Blue is up to is that it is not what ULA is doing.

If ULA is concentrating on launching satellites with expendable rockets and Blue Origin is concentrating on launching people on reusable rockets, it's fully plausible that neither company would consider the other to really be competing with it, even if their launchers are about the same size.

My gut feeling is that this is what will happen - especially as Blue doesn't look like to be advertising its future orbital capability for anything but human spacecraft. That could be a complementary service to ULA's fleet in the market such that the overlap is small.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: daveklingler on 05/15/2015 12:19 am
Well the BE-3 is only about half the thrust of a J2 which was 200,000 lbs.  BE-3 can throttle between 30,000 and 110,000 lbs.  So it would take two to equal J2 and a little less than three to equal J2X.  However, in my opinion that is a good thing.  30,000 lbs matches the RL-10 for small sats etc. 

Actually, sea level thrust for the BE-3 is 110,000, and Wikipedia lists the J-2's sea level thrust at about the same.  I realize that it's not very meaningful to talk about the sea level thrust of an upper stage engine, but I don't have a figure for the vacuum thrust of the BE-2.

Edit: I suspect with an optimized nozzle it's about what the J-2's is, call it 230,000 lbs.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/15/2015 12:48 am
Because of the unfunded SAA between Blue and NASA, Blue's crew capsule would not need to undergo much qualification before being allowed to compete for a future round of Commercial Crew.

That is an enormous reach, even forgetting that the capsule is sub-orbital.

Blue are developing a Orbital capsule/vehicle see link. This is the capsule they probably submitted for CC.
http://www.space.com/15406-blue-origin-private-spacecraft-infographic.html

The requirements of a sub-orbital capsule that only needs to support a crew for minutes and orbital vehicle are totally different.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: daveklingler on 05/15/2015 01:06 am
Because of the unfunded SAA between Blue and NASA, Blue's crew capsule would not need to undergo much qualification before being allowed to compete for a future round of Commercial Crew.

That is an enormous reach, even forgetting that the capsule is sub-orbital.

Blue are developing a Orbital capsule/vehicle see link. This is the capsule they probably submitted for CC.
http://www.space.com/15406-blue-origin-private-spacecraft-infographic.html

The requirements of a sub-orbital capsule that only needs to support a crew for minutes and orbital vehicle are totally different.

Yep, I had forgotten that the orbital capsule is biconic, and Blue referred to it as such.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Astro_Zach on 05/15/2015 01:45 am
Ill post this here too.

Images of the first stage crash VIA Larry Pardue

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=125335
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: daveklingler on 05/15/2015 03:54 am
Because of the unfunded SAA between Blue and NASA, Blue's crew capsule would not need to undergo much qualification before being allowed to compete for a future round of Commercial Crew.

That is an enormous reach, even forgetting that the capsule is sub-orbital.

http://spacenews.com/42584nasa-extends-commercial-crew-agreement-with-blue-origin/

"NASA announced Nov. 14 that it has extended its unfunded agreement with Blue Origin to support to that company’s effort to develop a commercial crew spacecraft, even though the company is not competing for a NASA contract to provide transportation to the international space station."
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/15/2015 05:38 am
So, does anyone think Blue Origin has any BEO ambitions or are they going to stay strictly Suborbital and LEO?
Blue is in the permits phase of putting a rocket factory just north of KSC. That, in my book, means BIG diameter cores. I would guess seven to nine BE-4 in the first stage, with full reusability. It is worth nothing that if the latest Elon statement is true (that Raptor would be around 500klbf), then the BE-4 would allow Blue to roughly match anything that SpaceX decides to field. Roughly because the BE-4 will be a less performance engine (single pump stem, only oxidizer rich). And they are also starting with first core reusability. So I would say that yes, you don't go doing big stuff just for LEO.
Here is another point about Blue going big. ULA has stated that they will not be competing with Blue by using the BE-4 in the Vulcan. ULA knew that Blue had their own project which required the BE-4. It would be very doubtful for ULA and Blue to have formed this deal without ULA knowing what Blue was going to do with the engine and vise versa. This means that some of the most reliable information on what Blue is up to is that it is not what ULA is doing.

If ULA is concentrating on launching satellites with expendable rockets and Blue Origin is concentrating on launching people on reusable rockets, it's fully plausible that neither company would consider the other to really be competing with it, even if their launchers are about the same size.

My gut feeling is that this is what will happen - especially as Blue doesn't look like to be advertising its future orbital capability for anything but human spacecraft. That could be a complementary service to ULA's fleet in the market such that the overlap is small.
I disagree. If Blue Origin is launching people to orbit, they aren't going to be ignoring the lucrative satellite market. If ULA is still basically using largely-expendable rockets by then, I don't expect them to be in business much longer. What makes more sense would be some sort of further partnership with ULA, maybe ULA as the launch processor for Blue Origin vehicles or something like that, or perhaps Blue Origin buying out ULA.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: docmordrid on 05/15/2015 06:17 am


So, does anyone think Blue Origin has any BEO ambitions or are they going to stay strictly Suborbital and LEO?
Blue is in the permits phase of putting a rocket factory just north of KSC. That, in my book, means BIG diameter cores. I would guess seven to nine BE-4 in the first stage, with full reusability. It is worth nothing that if the latest Elon statement is true (that Raptor would be around 500klbf), then the BE-4 would allow Blue to roughly match anything that SpaceX decides to field. Roughly because the BE-4 will be a less performance engine (single pump stem, only oxidizer rich). And they are also starting with first core reusability. So I would say that yes, you don't go doing big stuff just for LEO.
Here is another point about Blue going big. ULA has stated that they will not be competing with Blue by using the BE-4 in the Vulcan. ULA knew that Blue had their own project which required the BE-4. It would be very doubtful for ULA and Blue to have formed this deal without ULA knowing what Blue was going to do with the engine and vise versa. This means that some of the most reliable information on what Blue is up to is that it is not what ULA is doing.

If ULA is concentrating on launching satellites with expendable rockets and Blue Origin is concentrating on launching people on reusable rockets, it's fully plausible that neither company would consider the other to really be competing with it, even if their launchers are about the same size.

My gut feeling is that this is what will happen - especially as Blue doesn't look like to be advertising its future orbital capability for anything but human spacecraft. That could be a complementary service to ULA's fleet in the market such that the overlap is small.
I disagree. If Blue Origin is launching people to orbit, they aren't going to be ignoring the lucrative satellite market. If ULA is still basically using largely-expendable rockets by then, I don't expect them to be in business much longer. What makes more sense would be some sort of further partnership with ULA, maybe ULA as the launch processor for Blue Origin vehicles or something like that, or perhaps Blue Origin buying out ULA.

I see ULA flying two vehicles; the Blue engined Vulcan and a fully Blue Heavy  (Blue's latest artwork showing what looks like a seven BE-4 S1). 

That said, a reusable Blue Heavy could probably do both jobs, and with Boeing's board only funding Vulcan quarterly (per SN) ISTM they're not  all in yet.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 05/15/2015 07:45 am
So, does anyone think Blue Origin has any BEO ambitions or are they going to stay strictly Suborbital and LEO?
Blue is in the permits phase of putting a rocket factory just north of KSC. That, in my book, means BIG diameter cores. I would guess seven to nine BE-4 in the first stage, with full reusability. It is worth nothing that if the latest Elon statement is true (that Raptor would be around 500klbf), then the BE-4 would allow Blue to roughly match anything that SpaceX decides to field. Roughly because the BE-4 will be a less performance engine (single pump stem, only oxidizer rich). And they are also starting with first core reusability. So I would say that yes, you don't go doing big stuff just for LEO.
Here is another point about Blue going big. ULA has stated that they will not be competing with Blue by using the BE-4 in the Vulcan. ULA knew that Blue had their own project which required the BE-4. It would be very doubtful for ULA and Blue to have formed this deal without ULA knowing what Blue was going to do with the engine and vise versa. This means that some of the most reliable information on what Blue is up to is that it is not what ULA is doing.

If ULA is concentrating on launching satellites with expendable rockets and Blue Origin is concentrating on launching people on reusable rockets, it's fully plausible that neither company would consider the other to really be competing with it, even if their launchers are about the same size.

My gut feeling is that this is what will happen - especially as Blue doesn't look like to be advertising its future orbital capability for anything but human spacecraft. That could be a complementary service to ULA's fleet in the market such that the overlap is small.
I disagree. If Blue Origin is launching people to orbit, they aren't going to be ignoring the lucrative satellite market. If ULA is still basically using largely-expendable rockets by then, I don't expect them to be in business much longer. What makes more sense would be some sort of further partnership with ULA, maybe ULA as the launch processor for Blue Origin vehicles or something like that, or perhaps Blue Origin buying out ULA.

Fair enough, that is also a possibility. Reminds me of the 1990-ish Nintendo-Sony partnership in game consoles that went astray if this ultimately happens....  :-X
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: sanman on 05/15/2015 01:16 pm
Blue has posted a new Vine providing a closer view of their recent New Shepard launch:

https://vine.co/v/eKrLYr30wg6

Quote
Our BE-3 roared to life & powered New Shepard's 1st flight with 110,000-lb. of thrust. Astronauts will feel 3 Gs during the climb to space!
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: JamesG123 on 05/15/2015 01:28 pm
I'm interested in seeing one of the boosters' landing.  Not holding my breath...
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: daveklingler on 05/16/2015 05:41 am


So, does anyone think Blue Origin has any BEO ambitions or are they going to stay strictly Suborbital and LEO?
Blue is in the permits phase of putting a rocket factory just north of KSC. That, in my book, means BIG diameter cores. I would guess seven to nine BE-4 in the first stage, with full reusability. It is worth nothing that if the latest Elon statement is true (that Raptor would be around 500klbf), then the BE-4 would allow Blue to roughly match anything that SpaceX decides to field. Roughly because the BE-4 will be a less performance engine (single pump stem, only oxidizer rich). And they are also starting with first core reusability. So I would say that yes, you don't go doing big stuff just for LEO.
Here is another point about Blue going big. ULA has stated that they will not be competing with Blue by using the BE-4 in the Vulcan. ULA knew that Blue had their own project which required the BE-4. It would be very doubtful for ULA and Blue to have formed this deal without ULA knowing what Blue was going to do with the engine and vise versa. This means that some of the most reliable information on what Blue is up to is that it is not what ULA is doing.

If ULA is concentrating on launching satellites with expendable rockets and Blue Origin is concentrating on launching people on reusable rockets, it's fully plausible that neither company would consider the other to really be competing with it, even if their launchers are about the same size.

My gut feeling is that this is what will happen - especially as Blue doesn't look like to be advertising its future orbital capability for anything but human spacecraft. That could be a complementary service to ULA's fleet in the market such that the overlap is small.
I disagree. If Blue Origin is launching people to orbit, they aren't going to be ignoring the lucrative satellite market. If ULA is still basically using largely-expendable rockets by then, I don't expect them to be in business much longer. What makes more sense would be some sort of further partnership with ULA, maybe ULA as the launch processor for Blue Origin vehicles or something like that, or perhaps Blue Origin buying out ULA.

I see ULA flying two vehicles; the Blue engined Vulcan and a fully Blue Heavy  (Blue's latest artwork showing what looks like a seven BE-4 S1). 

That said, a reusable Blue Heavy could probably do both jobs, and with Boeing's board only funding Vulcan quarterly (per SN) ISTM they're not  all in yet.

Three vehicles, counting New Shepard.

But yes, a big highly-efficient lox-methane engine + a big upper stage lox-hydrogen engine = a big rocket suited for BEO missions, at least to me.  BE-3 can't yet be throttled low enough to be useful for lunar landings, so the end goals remain to be seen.

I can see a possible situation a few years out where ULA needs more investment, and Blue steps in some time in the future as an investor.  Whether or not that ever happens, Blue's partnership with ULA gives them a lot of elements they're currently missing, and the ability to work alongside ULA allows them to leverage ULA's deep production launch experience.  ULA gets a partner with deep pockets that can afford to develop the new engines ULA needs to compete, without being held hostage to politics and lobbyists.  They'll lean heavily on each other until Blue becomes more experienced.   

If Blue weren't aiming for NASA business, I don't think they'd bother with the unfunded SAA. I really do believe that in a few years, when Commercial Crew's second round comes up for bid, a Vulcan/Blue crew vehicle combo will be in the mix.

So, speaking of the SAA, if the BE-3 demo for NASA is set to happen by September of this year, that parameterizes Blue's schedule a bit.  We should see another flight some time in the next four months if they haven't been more thrown by the loss of the booster than they've let on.

Likewise, if the pusher escape system is set to be demonstrated for NASA by March of next year, I think that means the biconic capsule will appear again in the next 10 months, unless Blue's decided to go to the more conventional design we just saw.  I don't understand why they'd develop both a suborbital and orbital capsule, when an orbital capsule would suffice for both missions, so maybe that's what happened.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: mme on 05/18/2015 08:29 pm
...  I don't understand why they'd develop both a suborbital and orbital capsule, when an orbital capsule would suffice for both missions, so maybe that's what happened.
Because the suborbital capsule is basically a "room with a view" that is capsule shaped.  I don't mean to be deriding it, I'm just saying that it's purpose is to maximize the tourists experience.  Huge windows and lots of room for playing in microgravity.

See the Blue Origin promotional video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YJhymiZjqc

Edit:  Added video for reference.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Kryten on 05/19/2015 10:34 pm
Quote
Parabolicarc.com @spacecom  ·  39 mins 39 minutes ago
Alexander: will be flying the New Shepard in the next couple of months. #SpaceTechExpo
'Alexander' being Blue's Brett Alexander.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/20/2015 04:10 am
CSF Spaceflight (@csf_spaceflight) tweeted at 10:18 AM on Wed, May 20, 2015:
Alexander: Human spaceflight is the big untapped market for us at Blue Origin.

The great thing about HSF is that is price sensitive and high flight rates mean lower operational costs (seat prices) for RLV.  The other plus of HSF is there is no waiting months- years for the payload to be built.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 05/20/2015 04:15 am
"self-loading carbon payloads"
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 05/20/2015 06:52 am
"self-loading water carbon payloads"
There. Fixed that for ya.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 05/20/2015 07:13 am
"self-loading water carbon payloads"
There. Fixed that for ya.

Thanks. I didn't invent the adage.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: MattMason on 05/20/2015 06:15 pm
CSF Spaceflight (@csf_spaceflight) tweeted at 10:18 AM on Wed, May 20, 2015:
Alexander: Human spaceflight is the big untapped market for us at Blue Origin.

The great thing about HSF is that is price sensitive and high flight rates mean lower operational costs (seat prices) for RLV.  The other plus of HSF is there is no waiting months- years for the payload to be built.

As others have surely said before, the best use of that untapped market seems less for suborbital joyrides and more habitation. But if you can do only one job, why not be really good at that one job?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: sanman on 06/04/2015 05:57 am
There are some articles discussing possible Blue Origin plans for activities in Florida:

http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/missions/commercial/blue-origin-to-launch-from-florida-maybe-maybe-not/

http://www.floridatoday.com/story/news/local/2015/05/16/incentive-sought-employee-aerospace-project/27448133/

http://www.floridatoday.com/story/news/local/2015/05/26/brevard-oks-incentives-two-space-firms/27980835/

http://www.news-journalonline.com/article/20150526/NEWS/150529596

http://www.themanufacturer.com/articles/blue-origin-may-build-new-220m-rocket-factory-in-florida/
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Kryten on 06/04/2015 04:00 pm
 The third article states that Blue would fly from LC-36 in Brevard County rather than the Shiloh site, but doesn't actually give a source for that. Does anyone know where that's coming from and if it's plausible?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: docmordrid on 06/04/2015 06:01 pm
The third article states that Blue would fly from LC-36 in Brevard County rather than the Shiloh site, but doesn't actually give a source for that. Does anyone know where that's coming from and if it's plausible?

Probably based on Space Florida having leased LC's 36, 46 and 47,
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: KSC Sage on 06/08/2015 07:04 pm
The third article states that Blue would fly from LC-36 in Brevard County rather than the Shiloh site, but doesn't actually give a source for that. Does anyone know where that's coming from and if it's plausible?

The source was a leak by FL Sen. Nelson in an interview.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Zond on 06/21/2015 08:01 pm
A nice report about Blue Origin and their plans for space tourism flights in west Texas: Spaceports battle for space tourists (http://krqe.com/2015/06/17/spaceports-battle-for-space-tourists/). There is also some nice aerial footage of the test site at the bottom of the web page: Blue Origin Spaceport Aerial Tour (http://up.anv.bz/latest/anvload.html?key=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)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Star One on 07/30/2015 05:31 pm
With the signing up of Jeremy Clarkson, James May & Richard Hammond to Amazon TV it wouldn't surprise me if one or more of end up taking a suborbital flight on the Blue Origin rocket as it would no doubt be considered good PR.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 08/02/2015 01:48 pm
Blue signed deal with Nanoracks:
http://spacenews.com/nanoracks-and-blue-origin-team-to-fly-suborbital-research-payloads/
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: sghill on 08/04/2015 08:24 pm
With the signing up of Jeremy Clarkson, James May & Richard Hammond to Amazon TV it wouldn't surprise me if one or more of end up taking a suborbital flight on the Blue Origin rocket as it would no doubt be considered good PR.

BO gives less of a tinker's cuss about PR than any company I've ever heard of. VG on the other hand would be a perfect fit for the village idiot and his two friends.  On the gripping hand so would Mythbusters.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Star One on 08/06/2015 06:27 am

With the signing up of Jeremy Clarkson, James May & Richard Hammond to Amazon TV it wouldn't surprise me if one or more of end up taking a suborbital flight on the Blue Origin rocket as it would no doubt be considered good PR.

BO gives less of a tinker's cuss about PR than any company I've ever heard of. VG on the other hand would be a perfect fit for the village idiot and his two friends.  On the gripping hand so would Mythbusters.

They might not care for PR now, but they will do once they are trying to sell seats on actual commercial flights.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 08/16/2015 08:48 am
A nice report about Blue Origin and their plans for space tourism flights in west Texas: Spaceports battle for space tourists (http://krqe.com/2015/06/17/spaceports-battle-for-space-tourists/). There is also some nice aerial footage of the test site at the bottom of the web page: Blue Origin Spaceport Aerial Tour (http://up.anv.bz/latest/anvload.html?key=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)

That video didn't work for me. Here it is on YouTube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRVU8spJEc4
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 08/16/2015 10:49 am
They can't be to far away from having New Shepard No2 ready for flying. Here is hoping it lands successfully.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: jongoff on 08/18/2015 12:08 am
I'm surprised nobody has commented on this tweet yet:

The BE-3 is designed to restart as our New Shepard vehicle returns, slowing the booster to just 5 mph for landing.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CMoKPCOVEAA7DJx.jpg:large

I hadn't commented on this yet (since I saw it on a tour and they make you sign NDAs), but now that there's a picture out, what do people think of the landing gear? Unlike the Masten, Roton, and SpaceX landing gear, it doesn't look like these are designed to take a lot of side loads. I know the Masten guys think they can eventually get the landing accurate enough to ditch landing gear entirely, but do people think landing gear like this will work reliably in real life?

Not trying to back on Blue Origin, just curious what people think.

~Jon
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 08/18/2015 12:22 am
I wasn't following Blue twitter feed till now. Hope this tweet is indication testing is starting again.

I'd expect another video for successful booster landing, a failed landing they may keep quiet about.

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 08/18/2015 12:45 am
I'm surprised nobody has commented on this tweet yet:

The BE-3 is designed to restart as our New Shepard vehicle returns, slowing the booster to just 5 mph for landing.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CMoKPCOVEAA7DJx.jpg:large

I hadn't commented on this yet (since I saw it on a tour and they make you sign NDAs), but now that there's a picture out, what do people think of the landing gear? Unlike the Masten, Roton, and SpaceX landing gear, it doesn't look like these are designed to take a lot of side loads. I know the Masten guys think they can eventually get the landing accurate enough to ditch landing gear entirely, but do people think landing gear like this will work reliably in real life?

Not trying to back on Blue Origin, just curious what people think.

~Jon

The landing had already been shown at 3m10s of this video:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=10685.msg1376081#msg1376081
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: jongoff on 08/18/2015 05:40 pm
I'm surprised nobody has commented on this tweet yet:

The BE-3 is designed to restart as our New Shepard vehicle returns, slowing the booster to just 5 mph for landing.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CMoKPCOVEAA7DJx.jpg:large

I hadn't commented on this yet (since I saw it on a tour and they make you sign NDAs), but now that there's a picture out, what do people think of the landing gear? Unlike the Masten, Roton, and SpaceX landing gear, it doesn't look like these are designed to take a lot of side loads. I know the Masten guys think they can eventually get the landing accurate enough to ditch landing gear entirely, but do people think landing gear like this will work reliably in real life?

Not trying to back on Blue Origin, just curious what people think.

~Jon

The landing had already been shown at 3m10s of this video:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=10685.msg1376081#msg1376081

Oh, I hadn't seen that video.

~Jon
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars-J on 08/18/2015 06:26 pm
I hadn't commented on this yet (since I saw it on a tour and they make you sign NDAs), but now that there's a picture out, what do people think of the landing gear? Unlike the Masten, Roton, and SpaceX landing gear, it doesn't look like these are designed to take a lot of side loads. I know the Masten guys think they can eventually get the landing accurate enough to ditch landing gear entirely, but do people think landing gear like this will work reliably in real life?

Not trying to back on Blue Origin, just curious what people think.

~Jon

The legs do look a bit fragile, but they do have the advantage of being able to be collapsed and extended repeatedly on their own (as shown in the video), potentially enabling fast turnaround.

Now in practice I'm not sure how much benefit there really is to that, since the stage will have to be re-stacked and moved onto the launch pad before it can be loaded again and flown.

If you want a truly reusable gas-n-go vehicle that can handle the load from sitting on its legs fully loaded with propellant, you are going to need something a heck of a LOT sturdier. Short permanent leg/fins may be the only way to accomplish that, but that will require some *very* precise landing.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: adrianwyard on 08/18/2015 08:22 pm
IIUC with an unmanned lander you have the option of decelerating hard and at the last second. This this would go a long way to mitigating wind effects - which in turn means landing gear would not need to handle side loads. Perhaps this is what Blue have in mind for their booster. If so, the '5mph' could be the speed at which the legs touch down, rather than a lengthy descent at 5mph.

The idea is the sideways component from wind remains relatively small if you come down fast, and the quicker you land the less time there is for the wind to change unexpectedly. Propulsive landing in windy conditions is an interesting problem because you have two outlier cases: 1] a lander that comes to a hover (or lingers in 5mph descent) above a landing pad can be blown sideways and then risk toppling when the legs make contact with the ground, 2] but a lander can also gently touch down with zero ground speed in an arbitrarily strong crosswind - assuming it's constant - by reversing into it.

A fast landing comes with two challenges: 1] you have to have faith in the accuracy of your throttle, and 2] to the uninformed it's going to look like a crash landing. It will also likely require a change of underwear if you are onboard.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 08/18/2015 08:34 pm
Am skeptical of the current legs. The prior booster legs seemed more useful for repeated precision landings on a concrete pad.

The current legs have the virtues of being more aerodynamic when retracted, require less precision on landing, can accept greater range of landing situations. A though occurs that perhaps watching F9 landing attempts, they were concerned they'd face similar, perhaps with a pitching/heaving barge, and needed to develop similar capabilities.

Also wonder if economic choices on the payload "penalty" for reuse might become a competition for reusable stages, and what we are seeing is incremental changes towards a future not fully revealed. With both, all of the CONOPs don't yet seem to be locked down.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: sghill on 08/19/2015 01:46 pm
Am skeptical of the current legs. The prior booster legs seemed more useful for repeated precision landings on a concrete pad.

The current legs have the virtues of being more aerodynamic when retracted, require less precision on landing, can accept greater range of landing situations. A though occurs that perhaps watching F9 landing attempts, they were concerned they'd face similar, perhaps with a pitching/heaving barge, and needed to develop similar capabilities.

Also wonder if economic choices on the payload "penalty" for reuse might become a competition for reusable stages, and what we are seeing is incremental changes towards a future not fully revealed. With both, all of the CONOPs don't yet seem to be locked down.

These BO legs do have the tremendous advantage, IMHO, of having the booster's CG under the rotation point because the top attachment point is well above the engine pods.  The F9 is well, tippy...  However, designing the landing ship to pitch and roll less takes away the advantage these legs have over the F9 design, and they just look over-engineered and heavy once you move the stability engineering from the legs to the ship.


Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Kabloona on 08/19/2015 02:09 pm
These BO legs do have the tremendous advantage, IMHO, of having the booster's CG under the rotation point because the top attachment point is well above the engine pods.

Huh? Maybe I'm missing your point, but stability after landing has nothing to do with how high the leg attachment point is. All that matters is the height of the CG and the horizontal distance from the centerline to the line formed by connecting two adjacent feet where they touch the ground (ie the axis around which the vehicle is most likely to tip).

Those two dimensions are all that count for static stability, not how high up the legs attach. Imagine the same vehicle with the same leg radius, but the legs attaching way up high (not mechanically feasible, but just a thought experiment).  Stability would be exactly the same.

If you want to compare with F9, the only relevant comparisons are CG height, and the relative diameters of the circles formed by where the feet touch ground. IIRC that circle diameter is about 60 feet for F9. Of course, CG is higher for F9.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: clongton on 08/19/2015 02:30 pm
I can't run the video that shows the legs from here. Would someone mind posting a .jpg of the LV with legs?
Thanks
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Kabloona on 08/19/2015 02:37 pm
I can't run the video that shows the legs from here. Would someone mind posting a .jpg of the LV with legs?
Thanks

It's in the link jongoff posted above:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CMoKPCOVEAA7DJx.jpg:large
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: clongton on 08/19/2015 04:03 pm
I can't run the video that shows the legs from here. Would someone mind posting a .jpg of the LV with legs?
Thanks

It's in the link jongoff posted above:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CMoKPCOVEAA7DJx.jpg:large

Can't open the site from here. That's why I asked for a .jpg to be posted :)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars-J on 08/19/2015 04:05 pm
I can't run the video that shows the legs from here. Would someone mind posting a .jpg of the LV with legs?
Thanks

It's in the link jongoff posted above:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CMoKPCOVEAA7DJx.jpg:large

Can't open the site from here. That's why I asked for a .jpg to be posted :)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 08/19/2015 06:38 pm
In regards to weight, the New Shepard doesn't have to be ultra lite as the DV requirements a low for suborbital flight. More important is robustness to handle dozens of flights.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: adrianwyard on 08/20/2015 02:11 am
The legs depicted really do look as though they're only designed to deal with loads from a perfectly vertical landing - as in the animation. But picture the booster touching down with some lateral velocity (from wind, or relative barge motion) and they look like they'd snap right off.  That said, what are the chances Blue haven't considered this? Surely zero.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: jongoff on 08/20/2015 05:11 am
I can't run the video that shows the legs from here. Would someone mind posting a .jpg of the LV with legs?
Thanks

It's in the link jongoff posted above:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CMoKPCOVEAA7DJx.jpg:large

Can't open the site from here. That's why I asked for a .jpg to be posted :)

Sorry, I forgot at the time how to attach the image directly. Thanks Lars for posting it.

~Jon
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 08/20/2015 05:06 pm
Blue Florida factory. Things are moving along on their orbital LV.

http://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2015/08/19/space-florida-approves-bonus-pay-plan/32003077/
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Comga on 08/21/2015 05:39 am
The landing had already been shown at 3m10s of this video:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=10685.msg1376081#msg1376081

By that criterion we have also seen the Falcon 9 first stage land gracefully and successfully.
The landing hasn't been shown. It has been visualized. Everything works well in CGI.
Blue Origin has built it so they must have analysis and test results that say this will work, but it looks sketchy.
We shall see. Someday. Or not.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 08/21/2015 04:20 pm
It maybe possible to create a reusable US based on New Shepard booster.
An inflatable heatshield should be able to handle the reentry. After re entry ditch heat shield an let it  parachute to earth for reuse.
The biggest difficulty I can see is transition to vertical (tail first) flight, once tail first the descent and landing should be straight forward, the suborbital version would proven out this part of flight.

Not sure how a BE3U would handle low throttling for landing.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: LastStarFighter on 08/21/2015 04:56 pm
https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/634762821201494017

Blue Origin ‏@blueorigin
Our BE-4 engine technology makes smoke & fire in West Tx. More than 3 years into development, the BE-4 will...

https://vine.co/v/eDg1r0urIwm
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: PahTo on 08/21/2015 05:08 pm
https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/634762821201494017

Blue Origin ‏@blueorigin
Our BE-4 engine technology makes smoke & fire in West Tx. More than 3 years into development, the BE-4 will...

https://vine.co/v/eDg1r0urIwm

Thanks.  jongoff asks a good question--what components were tested there?  I too enjoy mach diamonds!
:)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: arachnitect on 08/21/2015 05:29 pm
https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/634762821201494017

Blue Origin ‏@blueorigin
Our BE-4 engine technology makes smoke & fire in West Tx. More than 3 years into development, the BE-4 will...

https://vine.co/v/eDg1r0urIwm

Thanks.  jongoff asks a good question--what components were tested there?  I too enjoy mach diamonds!
:)

Looks similar to earlier images that were described as sub-scale preburner and main injector tests.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 08/22/2015 02:20 am
https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/634762821201494017

Blue Origin ‏@blueorigin
Our BE-4 engine technology makes smoke & fire in West Tx. More than 3 years into development, the BE-4 will...

https://vine.co/v/eDg1r0urIwm

Thanks.  jongoff asks a good question--what components were tested there?  I too enjoy mach diamonds!
:)

Looks similar to earlier images that were described as sub-scale preburner and main injector tests.

Yes. We don't see the nozzle. We can't guess dimensions. If we could, from the shock diamonds, we'd be able to tell what class of engine we'd be looking at. Does at least seem to be hydrocarbon and likely not a gas generator.

Don't recognize the test stand either.

When BO, SX, or AR ever care to share a more complete test image of large scale engine, then I'll stop my continual concern of not seeing proof of some of the grand engine ambitions we've been told of for a while.

Large scale LRE's are very serious undertakings. Remember the past quite well. Oh, and there are certain reasons methane/LNG wasn't done before for LV - we've still a way to go here.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 08/22/2015 04:52 am
It didn't look like their full up BE4 test stand so I'm going say just a component test. But still any firing of a BE4 component is significant as it shows they are making progress.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 08/23/2015 12:51 am
It didn't look like their full up BE4 test stand so I'm going say just a component test.

That was my guess as well. Was hoping someone who'd visited might care to be conclusive.

Quote
But still any firing of a BE4 component is significant as it shows they are making progress.
Nope.

Just firing the same components doesn't necessarily tell you anything. If they were just repeating same test, it might even indicate lack of progress, e.g. not being able to get by a development issue.

You'll notice the ascending power levels as the test proceeds. And that the combustion does not become unstable at the different power levels. That might be progress.

As I've said before, until you make it to full scale engine, all bets are off as to engine availability for a LV. There have been many programs that never developed past a certain point, and some that had to do a restart with an entirely different approach, and one program in particular that should have started over early on but didn't. Getting past the early stages tells you a lot about the nature of a successful, effective engine and its program.

I have wondered about some of these large scale programs (SX, BO, AR) viability for some time now, if any of them have had to "go back to step one" like I expect they might. Not always a bad thing, but these things can stretch out. Watching Merlin finally make it to full thrust wasn't exactly an overnight occurrence either.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Vultur on 08/23/2015 02:59 am
Oh, and there are certain reasons methane/LNG wasn't done before for LV - we've still a way to go here.

What are those?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 08/23/2015 06:16 am
There is not a lot of Methane rocket engine experience/ knowledge in the industry. This is why most startups use RP1 as there is a large pool of experienced engineers to draw on. If Firefly last payload document is anything to go they have switched from methane to RP1 for first Alpha.

Both the BE4 and Raptor will create a whole new pool of methane expertise which will eventually find its way to other companies like Firefly, Rocket lab and maybe Aerojet.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 08/23/2015 04:35 pm
Oh, and there are certain reasons methane/LNG wasn't done before for LV - we've still a way to go here.

What are those?

No hydrocarbon autogenous pressurization in flight.

Thermal management of hydrocarbon cryogen in flight.

Mass flow of hydrocarbon cryogen in flight.

Altitude combustion and performance of methane.

Stability of combustion in large combustion chambers over firing.

I could go on. These are listed in order precedence of my concerns.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 08/23/2015 05:45 pm
There is not a lot of Methane rocket engine experience/ knowledge in the industry. This is why most startups use RP1 as there is a large pool of experienced engineers to draw on. If Firefly last payload document is anything to go they have switched from methane to RP1 for first Alpha.

Both the BE4 and Raptor will create a whole new pool of methane expertise which will eventually find its way to other companies like Firefly, Rocket lab and maybe Aerojet.

interesting piece of news.  Firefly could go after some Dod Engine development $$ (maybe)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Kryten on 08/24/2015 01:33 pm
Quote
James Dean ‏@flatoday_jdean  18m18 minutes ago
Bezos to visit Cape on Sept. 15 for "significant announcement regarding the emerging commercial launch industry."
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: MattMason on 08/26/2015 04:10 pm
Slight flow in your logic: Bezos' pockets are deep enough to develop and fly his manned spaceships all on his own. Contrary to Musk. His pockets are very much less deep (over 70% less deep). Elon needs NASA. Jeff doesn't.
Bezos may or may not be able to supply the hundreds of millions to billions of necessary dollars to develop a crewed spacecraft and launch vehicle, but he wouldn't be investing money unless he intended to profit from the investment.  The U.S. government is the only customer that can make that happen.

 - Ed Kyle

Moving a conversation from the New Shepard discussion...

Bezo's relationship with NASA was always a strange thing to me. Musk and SpaceX clearly see a strong cooperative relationship with NASA as beneficial in their ultimate goal of reaching Mars and eventually colonizing it. SpaceX also leveraged their NASA/CCAFS cooperation to obtain LC-40 as well as outbid or out-persuade Blue Origin for the use of LC-39A for Falcon Heavy. SpaceX, of course, has and is developing commercial relationships with many others for satellite as well as NASA-sponsored payloads.

Based on what I've read, Bezos relationship with NASA was, up until now, less cooperative. It seems that NASA saw Bezo's and Blue Origin's rocket work as more of a private, hobbyist venture.

In short, while both Blue and SpaceX are homebrewing privately-designed spacecraft, Blue Origin, until now, didn't care to entangle their work with NASA. That might have been for IP reasons (likely) so they would keep their work in secret, I don't fully know. The result seems, however, that Blue has given themselves a harder challenge by forging their own path, rather than utilizing the existing aerospace resources that NASA would now provide any serious spaceflight operation. To keep that secrecy, Bezos foots the entire bill to this day, while Musk only did so initially in SpaceX's first years, correct?

I shouldn't mention SpaceX as much as I should compare Blue to Orbital ATK, which got their own launch pad on Wallops and derived their own LV and cargo craft.

Of course, Blue is developing the New Shepard suborbital LV with its reusable booster. So this announcement is to start the process of an orbital launch platform to support their generically named Space Vehicle, correct?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Kabloona on 08/28/2015 10:06 pm
Quote
In short, while both Blue and SpaceX are homebrewing privately-designed spacecraft, Blue Origin, until now, didn't care to entangle their work with NASA. That might have been for IP reasons (likely) so they would keep their work in secret, I don't fully know. The result seems, however, that Blue has given themselves a harder challenge by forging their own path, rather than utilizing the existing aerospace resources that NASA would now provide any serious spaceflight operation. To keep that secrecy, Bezos foots the entire bill to this day, while Musk only did so initially in SpaceX's first years, correct?

I don't think it's a question of secrecy for Blue as much as a question of autonomy. Musk needed NASA as a customer or SpaceX would have gone bust. Bezos doesn't need a revenue stream, and NASA isn't interested in sending space tourists on suborbital hops, so it's hard to see what benefit Blue could have gotten from any attempt at cooperation with NASA on their New Shepard program.

 And if you're talking about using NASA infrastructure (test facilities, etc) it can slow things way down when you're running a development program under someone else's operating rules and constraints. So I'm not convinced your premise that Blue's path so far has been "harder" without NASA involvement is correct. Bezos has been free to do exactly as he pleases out there in Texas, and I doubt he'd say it would have been easier with NASA involvement.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Kansan52 on 08/28/2015 11:02 pm
I would venture that Blue Origin has no problem with NASA and has used NASA resources as often as they felt it benefited Blue Origin. They have signed onto various NASA Space Act agreements.

They do not seem to need NASA money or the entanglement that entails. But that seems to be pragmatism.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 08/30/2015 02:08 pm
Oh, and there are certain reasons methane/LNG wasn't done before for LV - we've still a way to go here.

What are those?

No hydrocarbon autogenous pressurization in flight.

Thermal management of hydrocarbon cryogen in flight.

Mass flow of hydrocarbon cryogen in flight.

Altitude combustion and performance of methane.

Stability of combustion in large combustion chambers over firing.

I could go on. These are listed in order precedence of my concerns.
Almost all of those apply equally to hydrogen, which is definitely a trickier fuel.

I think the main reason is that the step in performance from kerosene to the cryogenic methane is fairly small unless you're using a fancy combustion cycle that methane allows AND if you're concerned about easier reuse due to methane's lack of coking.... Both of those considerations haven't really been a concern until lately with both Blue Origin and SpaceX developing reusable rockets, so there hasn't been a good reason to use methane rather than stick with kerosene which is easier to store. (Oh, and additionally, kerosene started out life as a rocket fuel when both US and USSR were more trying to build an ICBM than they were an orbital rocket, and an ICBM has a little lower delta-v requirement, which--due to the exponential nature of the rocket equation--helps make kerosene's higher density a bit better in relation to its slightly lower Isp than if you're looking at an orbital rocket.)


(...with the bonus of methane being both cheaper and easier to make on Mars... the latter being the main reason NASA has been interested in it.)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 08/31/2015 08:22 pm
Oh, and there are certain reasons methane/LNG wasn't done before for LV - we've still a way to go here.

What are those?

No hydrocarbon autogenous pressurization in flight.

Thermal management of hydrocarbon cryogen in flight.

Mass flow of hydrocarbon cryogen in flight.

Altitude combustion and performance of methane.

Stability of combustion in large combustion chambers over firing.

I could go on. These are listed in order precedence of my concerns.
Almost all of those apply equally to hydrogen, which is definitely a trickier fuel.

Actually not a question of complexity as much as practical use - finding the surprises before they bite you late in your program. For example, what if there are flight cases where there's a non-linearity in thermal response, possibly causing a pressure spike/slow ramp?

Quote
I think the main reason is that the step in performance from kerosene to the cryogenic methane is fairly small unless you're using a fancy combustion cycle that methane allows AND if you're concerned about easier reuse due to methane's lack of coking.... Both of those considerations haven't really been a concern until lately with both Blue Origin and SpaceX developing reusable rockets, so there hasn't been a good reason to use methane rather than stick with kerosene which is easier to store.

Suggest that the step is "small" for existing launch frequency/volumes, but when you scale up ... it matters. Think of it as a complement to reuse.

Also, for SX longer term ambitions, methalox is "storable enough". Not as exotic as  zero boil off hydrolox.

Quote
(Oh, and additionally, kerosene started out life as a rocket fuel when both US and USSR were more trying to build an ICBM than they were an orbital rocket, and an ICBM has a little lower delta-v requirement, which--due to the exponential nature of the rocket equation--helps make kerosene's higher density a bit better in relation to its slightly lower Isp than if you're looking at an orbital rocket.)

Originally LOX/Alcohol as the first ballistic missiles, upgrading to kerolox as Rocketdyne proved it, moving on to "storable" hypers, and ending up with the original rocket fuel, solids, as being best for munitions. Once propulsion technology improved to a necessary level, the driver became other munitions related needs/concerns.

Different branch for orbital launch - performance, cost, reliability become intimately related, matching the concerns of the market in the moment. In low launch frequencies, operational needs dominate, thus the focus on "good enough for operational requirements" in current technology of that moment. In higher launch frequencies, operational is always sated by market over commitment, thus economic drivers make "good enough" not so.

Net net: Metholox propulsion trumps kerolox (economics here not of prop cost/other, but of  $/kg on orbit (or dV). In the long term.

Back to hydrolox - Shuttle economics implied the future as hydrolox ("the perfect rocket fuel") and solids (share dev/production costs). Everything else was considered a waste. Many policy decisions still reflect this, even though hydrogen's industrial limits have only gotten more expensive with time, and we still don't scale it well.

The so called commercial space sector can't tilt at windmills like policy makers. Painful reality of driving volume up and costs down (note that Ariane can evade this for a while but its a "charmed" existence ...).
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 09/01/2015 08:49 pm
Blue to receive a $8m grant towards the construction of their Florida rocket factory.


http://www.floridatoday.com/story/news/local/2015/09/01/county-approves-incentives-blue-origin-embraer/71511468/


The company, founded by Jeff Bezos, the billionaire chief executive officer of Amazon.com, plans to create 330 jobs with an average wage of $89,000, and would make a capital investment of $205 million to $220 million.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 09/02/2015 04:03 pm
Blue to receive a $8m grant towards the construction of their Florida rocket factory.


http://www.floridatoday.com/story/news/local/2015/09/01/county-approves-incentives-blue-origin-embraer/71511468/


The company, founded by Jeff Bezos, the billionaire chief executive officer of Amazon.com, plans to create 330 jobs with an average wage of $89,000, and would make a capital investment of $205 million to $220 million.

The URL has been updated.

http://www.floridatoday.com/story/news/2015/09/01/county-commissioners-ok-blue-origin-embraer-incentives/71478774/
thx for the linkage

"Blue Origin plans to build rockets on the Space Coast, and launch them from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. The company, founded by Jeff Bezos, the billionaire chief executive officer of Amazon.com, would create 330 jobs with an average wage of $89,000, and plans to make a capital investment of $205 million to $220 million.

The company is being referred to as "Project Panther" in county documents, because Blue Origin has not officially disclosed its plans. Bezos is scheduled to be in Brevard County on Sept. 15 for a major announcement on the commercial space industry."

Impressed (but expected) a sizable investment.   Believe 60mil SpaceX has going to refurbish the pad for FH. Can't wait for the Bezo's announcement.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 09/03/2015 06:19 pm
The county could recover its $6M in taxes in less than 10 years from the $30M payroll for the 330 workers.

If about half of the $200M is for a new pad then the remaining is for all of the tooling for the factory to manufacture the LV's which could even include BE-4 engine manufacture. It is possible only the first stage and its engines would be manufactured here. The upper stage and the BE-3 engines with also the capsule would be manufactured in the current facilities with that tooling.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 09/12/2015 07:05 pm
A good article on Blue.

http://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2015/09/11/bezos-visit-give-cape-blue-streak/72019942/?from=global&sessionKey=&autologin=

“I was really just blown away by their seriousness of effort and scale and capability,” said Garver, who left NASA in 2013.  “Getting to know them was absolutely key to a recognition that commercial space was going forward, with or without NASA.”
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: leaflion on 09/14/2015 05:22 am
What a lovely article.  Someone actually did some reporting, with actual reliable sources, opposed to the major news sources that all have the same articles.

Also that separation video-hot dawg.

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 09/14/2015 05:56 pm
another article

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/go-for-launch/os-jeff-bezos-to-announce-blue-origin-plans-at-cape-canaveral-20150914-post.html

watch the video if you wish a laugh; not sure about this reporter :D
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 09/14/2015 06:07 pm
another article

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/go-for-launch/os-jeff-bezos-to-announce-blue-origin-plans-at-cape-canaveral-20150914-post.html

watch the video if you wish a laugh; not sure about this reporter :D

Really confuse her. Tell her that Blue origin is Amazon.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Beittil on 09/15/2015 11:04 am
Today should be announcement day, do we know a time for the event?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: BrianNH on 09/15/2015 12:44 pm
9:45 AM EST according to a brief news article I just read.

Edit: one hour from the time of this post, for those in other time zones.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: dmgaba on 09/15/2015 12:56 pm
Technically it's 9:45AM EDT (Eastern Daylight Time) not EST as the US is still on Daylight Saving Time (Summer Time)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Beittil on 09/15/2015 01:31 pm
They have made some work of it :D

Quote
Stephen Clark ‏@StephenClark1 6m6 minutes ago

The stage is set for Blue Origin's announcement at Cape Canaveral's Complex 36.

Seems they even plugged a hashtag (#321BlueOrigin), but not every reporter there seems to be picking it up. So I guess putting a search on it wouldn't give complete Twitter coverage.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 09/15/2015 01:47 pm
nasa tv
enter and we go
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 09/15/2015 02:04 pm
Head of Space Fla.
"real space commerce"
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 09/15/2015 02:05 pm
a who's who listing of people.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 09/15/2015 02:08 pm
Rick Scot  speaks..
BO selects Fla as base
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 09/15/2015 02:14 pm
An award
Bezo gives a historical list of this pad
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 09/15/2015 02:16 pm
BE-4 acceptance tested there..
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/15/2015 02:16 pm


Seems they even plugged a hashtag (#321BlueOrigin), but not every reporter there seems to be picking it up.

Hashtags are for girls following boybands. #JourneyToMars

Lots of mutual political clapping going on.

Jeff doesn't say a whole lot. "We WILL do acceptance testing of the BE-4 here"
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 09/15/2015 02:17 pm
disappointed...hoped for a video :(
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 09/15/2015 02:19 pm
Seems they even plugged a hashtag (#321BlueOrigin), but not every reporter there seems to be picking it up.
Lots of mutual political clapping going on.


got that right chris  ::)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/15/2015 02:20 pm
Nelson with the same story about his family roots as he told at the Starliner event.

Mentions SLS ;D
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 09/15/2015 02:29 pm
what is he thinking?  ;D
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/15/2015 02:29 pm
Blog | Sep 15, 2015
COMING TO THE SPACE COAST
Today we announced that we’ll be flying our orbital launch vehicle from Florida. Cape Canaveral has long been a gateway to humankind’s greatest adventures. As a kid, I was inspired by the giant Saturn V missions that roared to life from these shores. Now we are thrilled to be coming to the Sunshine State for a new era of exploration.

Our new home on the Space Coast is anchored by the launch site at Complex 36. During its 43 years of service, 145 launches thundered into space from this site. The Mariner missions – the first U.S. spacecraft to visit other planets – lifted off from Complex 36. So did Pioneer 10, the first spacecraft to travel through the asteroid belt; Surveyor 1, the first U.S. spacecraft to land softly on the Moon; and multiple weather, communications and national defense payloads hopped their rides to space from LC-36. The site saw its last launch in 2005 and the pad has stood silent for more than 10 years – too long. We can’t wait to fix that.

One of the unique things about our Florida operations is that we aren’t just launching here, we’re building here. At Exploration Park, we’ll have a 21st century production facility where we’ll focus on manufacturing our reusable fleet of orbital launchers and readying them for flight again and again. Locating vehicle assembly near our launch site eases the challenge of processing and transporting really big rockets.

We’ll be launching from here later this decade. You will hear us before you see us. Our American-made BE-4 engine – the power behind our orbital launch vehicle – will be acceptance tested here. Our BE-4 engine will also help make history as it powers the first flight of United Launch Alliance’s Vulcan rocket.

Residents of the Space Coast have enjoyed front-row seats to the future for nearly 60 years. Our team’s passion for pioneering is the perfect fit for a community dedicated to forging new frontiers. Keep watching.

Gradatim Ferociter!

Jeff Bezos
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 09/15/2015 02:33 pm
12 states tried for the BO operation.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 09/15/2015 02:37 pm
General Garland
hearing that term "assured access to space" a few times now.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 09/15/2015 02:42 pm
Nasa now
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 09/15/2015 02:44 pm
ISS welcomes BO
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 09/15/2015 02:49 pm
new view great signage ;)
enjoying that blue
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Martin FL on 09/15/2015 02:50 pm
Jesse Panuccio (my boss) from DEO states that 19K total jobs will be supported by BO operations at the Cape.  Not a bad return for the $6 million incentives investment by the state and county.

Those are political nonsense figures. It's 300 or so jobs. That's a lot of money for 300 or so job, but Florida is politically messed up.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/15/2015 02:55 pm
Did he just tempt Bezos to live in Florida because they have "zero income taxes"?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: MarcAlain on 09/15/2015 02:55 pm
Orbital launch vehicle?!??!!

YES!
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/15/2015 02:56 pm
A render!
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 09/15/2015 02:56 pm
He's great.....with the money shot :)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 09/15/2015 02:58 pm
new launcher looks good there
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/15/2015 03:02 pm
Good work Prober!

OK, everyone look out for press releases. Got the Blue Origin "blog" post above, but I'd expect something from NASA etc.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: sghill on 09/15/2015 03:02 pm
Jesse Panuccio (my boss) from DEO states that 19K total jobs will be supported by BO operations at the Cape.  Not a bad return for the $6 million incentives investment by the state and county.

Those are political nonsense figures. It's 300 or so jobs. That's a lot of money for 300 or so job, but Florida is politically messed up.

It's not nonsense.  Factory and engineering jobs create lots of support jobs (including waitresses, shop owners, teachers, etc.).  Job creation multipliers are a very well studied field that, unlike policy changes, can be measured after the fact for validity and reliability.

I'm sure we'll get clearer renders of the launcher soon.  I sized this one up some if you click on it.

Interesting that it's flying inland.... :)

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: funkyjive on 09/15/2015 03:05 pm
From the BlueOrigin.com website (https://www.blueorigin.com/technology).

(https://d3p0rr00ppgdfa.cloudfront.net/themes/site_theme/images/technology/orbital-spaceflight.jpg)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 09/15/2015 03:06 pm
Look for more info on the new launcher.....but think I just figured it out.

BO's new launcher looks like the Vulcan first stage. With a BO 2nd.


Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Dante80 on 09/15/2015 03:08 pm
Quote
Orbital spaceflight
 

 We’ve designed our suborbital vehicle to feed directly into our orbital program. With every suborbital launch, we’re reaching toward orbital spaceflight.
 How it will work
 
 The orbital launch system is comprised of a two-stage rocket and capsule that will carry astronauts and payloads to low-Earth orbit destinations. Similar to our suborbital vehicle, the first stage booster will separate and land back on Earth. An expendable second stage will continue to propel the capsule into orbit, toward scientific research and exploration. At the completion of its flight, the capsule will reenter Earth’s atmosphere and land under parachutes, enabling reuse, improved reliability and lower cost access to space.
 The BE-3 engine is flying
 
 The engine that powers the New Shepard suborbital vehicle today will be upgraded with a larger nozzle to operate in the vacuum of orbital space.
 The BE-4 engine is in testing
 
 We’re developing a more powerful BE-4 engine to power the orbital launch vehicle into space. Powerpack and component testing are underway.

https://www.blueorigin.com/technology
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: MattMason on 09/15/2015 03:15 pm
From the BlueOrigin.com website (https://www.blueorigin.com/technology).

(https://d3p0rr00ppgdfa.cloudfront.net/themes/site_theme/images/technology/orbital-spaceflight.jpg)

That render of the LV suggests landing legs, which isn't surprising. Not much detail otherwise. It's "lipstick IN SPACE" as it's showing now, so I hope to see other renders with the Orbital Vehicle and other payloads.

Welcome to the Cape, Blue. SpaceX and Boeing have left some chocolates for you at the front desk, and NASA has a can of beans waiting for you once OV flies.

It's getting exciting.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/15/2015 03:17 pm
From the BlueOrigin.com website (https://www.blueorigin.com/technology).

(https://d3p0rr00ppgdfa.cloudfront.net/themes/site_theme/images/technology/orbital-spaceflight.jpg)

Cool. I'll get this written up.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 09/15/2015 03:18 pm
Bezos mentionned at the end of the webcast that the orbital LV would use both the BE-3 and the BE-4 engines. He said that they would announce more details about their rocket next year.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Dante80 on 09/15/2015 03:23 pm
Bezos mentionned at the end of the webcast that the orbital LV would use both the BE3 and the BE-4 engines. He said that they would announce more details about their rocket next year.

Its interesting. A metholox first stage, a hydrolox second, and a capsule to boot.

A couple of assumptions/questions..

1. one BE-4 or two?
2. Why show the rocket with a small diameter fairing? It seems like the second stage has the same width as the first (it would make sense too, since both stages are cryogenic, and need the extra diameter).
3. Wouldn't this cut heavily into Vulcans' commercial prospects?
4. Blue entering the commercial crew and cargo program?
5. Isn't BE-3 a little big for a second stage (on the other hand, we do have M-1d vac).
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 09/15/2015 03:25 pm
Jesse Panuccio (my boss) from DEO states that 19K total jobs will be supported by BO operations at the Cape.  Not a bad return for the $6 million incentives investment by the state and county.

Those are political nonsense figures. It's 300 or so jobs. That's a lot of money for 300 or so job, but Florida is politically messed up.

It's not nonsense.  Factory and engineering jobs create lots of support jobs (including waitresses, shop owners, teachers, etc.).  Job creation multipliers are a very well studied field that, unlike policy changes, can be measured after the fact for validity and reliability.

I'm sure we'll get clearer renders of the launcher soon.  I sized this one up some if you click on it.

Interesting that it's flying inland.... :)

I think that they wanted to show LC-36. Incidentally, it seems to be launching from LC-36A. I am guessing that it would land at LC-36B (or is that too close to the launch pad?).
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Comga on 09/15/2015 03:31 pm
From the BlueOrigin.com website (https://www.blueorigin.com/technology (https://www.blueorigin.com/technology)).

(https://d3p0rr00ppgdfa.cloudfront.net/themes/site_theme/images/technology/orbital-spaceflight.jpg)

Does it look like the short white section of the approach road at the bottom right is a hypothetical HIF?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: notsorandom on 09/15/2015 03:43 pm
Bezos mentionned at the end of the webcast that the orbital LV would use both the BE3 and the BE-4 engines. He said that they would announce more details about their rocket next year.

Its interesting. A metholox first stage, a hydrolox second, and a capsule to boot.

A couple of assumptions/questions..

1. one BE-4 or two?
2. Why show the rocket with a small diameter fairing? It seems like the second stage has the same width as the first (it would make sense too, since both stages are cryogenic, and need the extra diameter).
3. Wouldn't this cut heavily into Vulcans' commercial prospects?
4. Blue entering the commercial crew and cargo program?
5. Isn't BE-3 a little big for a second stage (on the other hand, we do have M-1d vac).
Regarding 1 and 5, previous renders of Blue's orbital rocket have shown 4 and even 6 engines. Who knows if that is still the plan but it would mean that the BE-3 is about the right size if the rocket were to be that big. To speculate further, based on the Vulcan we know that 2 BE-4s in combination with an LH2 upper stage can put a crewed capsule in LEO. If Bezos is looking at doing anything more than that he will need a bigger rocket.

Blue is an ego project for Bezos, he is doing this because he has a personal vision he wants to make reality. We don't know what that might be. However it is likely not putting commercial, NASA, and DOD satellites reliably into orbit. That is too mundane to be the end of his dreams. If he lets ULA do all that he gets financial and technical help on his own rocket without having to design his own rocket to meet ULA's mission. That leads me to think Blue's rocket will be bigger, perhaps 2 to 3 times bigger than Vulcan. Also that Blue and ULA don't see thier respective rockets as competing.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: spacenut on 09/15/2015 03:57 pm
I read somewhere that each new industrial/manufacturing job adds up to 7 support jobs.  Like someone said, the workers at a factory or facility must have a place to live, food to eat, doctors, medicine, vehicles and maintenance, power, water, sewer, gas, phones, clothing to buy, etc, etc.  So, why not have no income tax on manufacturers since they provide so many jobs plus support jobs.  The rocket industry is also a high tech industry that is only going to expand in the future, thus higher paying and higher skilled workers required that pays medical insurance etc. 
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 09/15/2015 04:01 pm
Bezos mentionned at the end of the webcast that the orbital LV would use both the BE3 and the BE-4 engines. He said that they would announce more details about their rocket next year.

Its interesting. A metholox first stage, a hydrolox second, and a capsule to boot.

A couple of assumptions/questions..

1. one BE-4 or two?
2. Why show the rocket with a small diameter fairing? It seems like the second stage has the same width as the first (it would make sense too, since both stages are cryogenic, and need the extra diameter).
3. Wouldn't this cut heavily into Vulcans' commercial prospects?
4. Blue entering the commercial crew and cargo program?
5. Isn't BE-3 a little big for a second stage (on the other hand, we do have M-1d vac).
Regarding 1 and 5, previous renders of Blue's orbital rocket have shown 4 and even 6 engines. Who knows if that is still the plan but it would mean that the BE-3 is about the right size if the rocket were to be that big. To speculate further, based on the Vulcan we know that 2 BE-4s in combination with an LH2 upper stage can put a crewed capsule in LEO. If Bezos is looking at doing anything more than that he will need a bigger rocket.

Blue is an ego project for Bezos, he is doing this because he has a personal vision he wants to make reality. We don't know what that might be. However it is likely not putting commercial, NASA, and DOD satellites reliably into orbit. That is too mundane to be the end of his dreams. If he lets ULA do all that he gets financial and technical help on his own rocket without having to design his own rocket to meet ULA's mission. That leads me to think Blue's rocket will be bigger, perhaps 2 to 3 times bigger than Vulcan. Also that Blue and ULA don't see thier respective rockets as competing.

I would think that it would be smaller for the reasons that you mentionned. When I asked George Sowers of ULA if they thought that it was a good idea to cooperate with a potential competitor (Blue). He said that Blue's objective was only transportation of crew. So they didn't see Blue as a competitor.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37295.msg1359705#msg1359705
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: PahTo on 09/15/2015 04:02 pm
...  The rocket industry is also a high tech industry that is only going to expand in the future...

We hope...(at least most of us on NSF hope).
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 09/15/2015 04:04 pm
First article to pop up...

Jeff Bezos just unveiled plans to build a new monster rocket that could give SpaceX a run for its money

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/jeff-bezos-just-unveiled-plans-151746446.html

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Dante80 on 09/15/2015 04:06 pm

Regarding 1 and 5, previous renders of Blue's orbital rocket have shown 4 and even 6 engines. Who knows if that is still the plan but it would mean that the BE-3 is about the right size if the rocket were to be that big. To speculate further, based on the Vulcan we know that 2 BE-4s in combination with an LH2 upper stage can put a crewed capsule in LEO. If Bezos is looking at doing anything more than that he will need a bigger rocket.

Another thing to note is that the first stage is planned to be re-usable. Which means that - even with deep throttling - they might need more than 1-2 engines if they go for BE-4 (which is a big engine btw). One means too much thrust, 2 means no center engine. 3+ makes sense, but then we are talking about a much larger rocket than Vulcan. Interesting..
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: edkyle99 on 09/15/2015 04:27 pm
Get your "tickets"[1] for Canaveral Pier viewing now.  Its been awhile since the public has been able to view launches this "close" (still miles away, but miles closer than SLC 40 and 41). 

 - Ed Kyle

[1] There aren't any real tickets, but there may have to be for Blue viewing.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 09/15/2015 04:27 pm
Did anyone get the size of the bldgs.?

Know the info went by real fast.

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars-J on 09/15/2015 04:34 pm
Get your "tickets"[1] for Canaveral Pier viewing now.  Its been awhile since the public has been able to view launches this "close" (still miles away, but miles closer than SLC 40 and 41). 

 - Ed Kyle

[1] There aren't any real tickets, but there may have to be for Blue viewing.

No, the LC-39 Observation Gantry is the closest viewing site available to the public - Only 2.3 miles to SLC-41, and 3.4 miles to SLC-40. Both are FAR closer than Canaveral Pier would be to SLC-36.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: spacenut on 09/15/2015 04:39 pm
From what I understand the BE-3 can throttle between 30,000 lbs thrust (for landing) to 100,000 lbs thrust.  I assume the BE-4, being designed for 500,000 lb thrust range, could possibly throttle down to 100,000 lbs.  This would be similar to using 4 or 5 Merlin engines per one BE-4.  BE-4 can deep throttle, Merlin can't, but Falcon 9 can use one center Merlin to land, while BE-4 will throttle down to land.  So the New Sheppard will probably have at least three engines to be equivalent to a Falcon 9, if not more if the second stage is to be reusable.  If they get both stages completely reusable, then they will have one upped SpaceX and ULA with Vulcan.     
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars-J on 09/15/2015 04:44 pm
From what I understand the BE-3 can throttle between 30,000 lbs thrust (for landing) to 100,000 lbs thrust.  I assume the BE-4, being designed for 500,000 lb thrust range, could possibly throttle down to 100,000 lbs.  This would be similar to using 4 or 5 Merlin engines per one BE-4.  BE-4 can deep throttle, Merlin can't, but Falcon 9 can use one center Merlin to land, while BE-4 will throttle down to land.  So the New Sheppard will probably have at least three engines to be equivalent to a Falcon 9, if not more if the second stage is to be reusable.  If they get both stages completely reusable, then they will have one upped SpaceX and ULA with Vulcan.     

Yes, but the initial goal - clearly stated on the Blue Origin site - is to have a reusable first stage, and an *expendable* upper stage.

As for deep throttling, the BE-4 throttle range is still unknown. But if they don't have a center engine (which means at least 5 engines), it will indeed have to be very deep throttling - unless they plan on additional smaller landing engines.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: MattMason on 09/15/2015 04:45 pm
First article to pop up...

Jeff Bezos just unveiled plans to build a new monster rocket that could give SpaceX a run for its money

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/jeff-bezos-just-unveiled-plans-151746446.html

Wow. That train-wreck of an article is what an NSF article would look like if Chris B. or G. were writing it while sniffling glue, munching hashish brownies and chugging Everclear, using spell check and grammar checks from WordPerfect 1.0 for DOS.  :P

That said, the article seemed baiting. Not to bring That Other Rocket Company into this thread unnecessarily, but TORC will already have two pads with two LVs in operation before Blue has its first pad up. Competition is coming, sure. But Blue has some work to do first--including getting BE-4 done to fly.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: spacenut on 09/15/2015 04:56 pm
Bezos is making far more money than Musk with Amazon.  IF he put as much money and time into BO percentage wise as Musk, then he would probably already have the New Sheppard launch vehicle.  He has been very busy with Amazon.  Musk is making money launching satellites in order to pour this profit back into SpaceX, thus getting valuable rocket experience.  Bezos and BO do have a lot of catching up to do.  Musk is also trying to get Tesla going big time, as well as trying to get hyperlinks built.  Both are so called cutting edge.  Amazons cutting edge is going to be drones unless he pours more time and money into BO. 
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: notsorandom on 09/15/2015 05:05 pm
I would think that it would be smaller for the reasons that you mentioned. When I asked George Sowers of ULA if they thought that it was a good idea to cooperate with a potential competitor (Blue). He said that Blue's objective was only transportation of crew. So they didn't see Blue as a competitor.
In the press release Bezos said "Locating vehicle assembly near our launch site eases the challenge of processing and transporting really big rockets." I hate to engage in parsing individual sentences for info but when it comes to Blue that is about the only public info. Anyway I don't think he would have said that had he been talking about Falcon and Vulcan sized rockets as those are road and canal deliverable. Also when one says really big rocket they are typically not talking about single stick EELVs.

If Blue will be launching crew then the question is to where? A two BE-4 rocket could get seven maybe a bit more to LEO or ISS. Getting them to a destination beyond will require either a bigger rocket or complex refueling operations in space. If there are any other elements which need to be launched for BEO operations then they might require a bigger rocket as well. I am not thinking that Blue is going for an HLV but more like something Falcon Heavy sized rather than Falcon 9 sized.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Kryten on 09/15/2015 05:17 pm
BO's new launcher looks like the Vulcan first stage. With a BO 2nd.
That would make the fairing too small for the larger end of modern GSO comsats, and would make it very difficult to land. I personally think it's a good bit bigger, probably with 4 or 5 BE-4s for easy boostback margin.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars-J on 09/15/2015 05:22 pm
With SLC-36, it looks like BO will be almost neighbors with SpaceX - their landing pad is at LC-13 - just ~1 mile away.  :)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 09/15/2015 06:10 pm
Am I the only one who think the Blue Origin's orbital launch vehicle will be exclusively used for HSF missions with their crew spacecraft (well, at least for the initial decade or so of its operations), and that their relationship with ULA is similar to Sony's stance with Nintendo on game consoles in the late 1980s?  ::)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars-J on 09/15/2015 06:16 pm
Am I the only one who think the Blue Origin's orbital launch vehicle will be exclusively used for HSF missions with their crew spacecraft (well, at least for the initial decade or so of its operations), and that their relationship with ULA is similar to Sony's stance with Nintendo on game consoles in the late 1980s?  ::)

I don't agree. I think that there is a big chance that if Vulcan goes ahead with BE-4 engines, that the cooperation between ULA and BO will grow. ULA has a lot of space launch expertise that BO could take advantage of. I wouldn't be surprised to see ULA and BO operating this new reusable launch vehicle together in some 'alliance'.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: abaddon on 09/15/2015 06:28 pm
I wouldn't be surprised to see ULA and BO operating this new reusable launch vehicle together in some 'alliance'.
BLUnited Launch Alliance?

You can all thank me later.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/15/2015 06:44 pm
Article for the announcement:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/09/blue-origin-lc-36-cape-canaveral/
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars-J on 09/15/2015 08:05 pm
I'm not sure why this thread is still in this sub-forum. BO is not associated with Commercial Crew efforts anymore, given the past two down-selects. Shouldn't this be in Commercial Space Flight General?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 09/15/2015 08:24 pm
I'm not sure why this thread is still in this sub-forum. BO is not associated with Commercial Crew efforts anymore, given the past two down-selects. Shouldn't this be in Commercial Space Flight General?

Actually, they are still involved with commercial crew but on an unfunded basis (i.e. their CCDev2 contract has been extended on an unfunded basis). Same thing for DC (an unfunded CCiCap milestone was added for DC).
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/15/2015 08:34 pm
We could move the entire thread into Commercial Space? Like this post if a good idea.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Orbiter on 09/15/2015 08:40 pm
This is exciting news. More competition in the commercial LV market is always welcome IMO.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 09/15/2015 08:50 pm
I don't agree. I think that there is a big chance that if Vulcan goes ahead with BE-4 engines, that the cooperation between ULA and BO will grow. ULA has a lot of space launch expertise that BO could take advantage of. I wouldn't be surprised to see ULA and BO operating this new reusable launch vehicle together in some 'alliance'.

Agree with this
ULA decided to stay out of the Delta 2 equivalent market with Vulcan, so a small Blue Origin Orbital LV wouldnt compete.  Blue Origin could also focus on a lighter capsule for "tourist" flights that doesnt need a lot of propellant, consumables ect that would be a logical follow on to their suborbital service. That would explain why Blue Origin decided not to continue with the commercial crew program funding, their vision did not want the mass and requirements of a station taxi.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 09/15/2015 09:02 pm
And here is a screenshot of Exploration Park, would imagine that the blue Origin factory will be in Phase 2

http://www.explorationpark.com/docs/Exploration%20Park%201-Pager.V1.pdf
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: laika_fr on 09/15/2015 09:44 pm
Looks like BO is tapping on both sides of the market :
The conservative ULA approach and a much more aggressive heavy reused commercial offer aiming at tourists. A star tours, sort off.
Hopefully there is enough deep pockets space fans awaiting, to back this business model.
While the regular sat market may be maxed-up or even reaching over-capacity soon (according to several analysts).

Same goes for SpaceX which has yet to pop-up his head on this front.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 09/15/2015 10:28 pm
A 4xBE4 booster should give 40t as ELV, 25-30t partially reusable and 20t fully reusable.

For initial LEO HSF use 1xBE3  expendable upper stage as capsule is not likely to weigh much more than 10t.

The XS1 booster (2x BE3?) if developed offers the basis of a reusable upper stage.

It may actually complement ULA business, by offering a lower cost tanker for distributed launch. The other plus the LVs could launch days apart.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 09/15/2015 10:34 pm
I don't agree. I think that there is a big chance that if Vulcan goes ahead with BE-4 engines, that the cooperation between ULA and BO will grow. ULA has a lot of space launch expertise that BO could take advantage of. I wouldn't be surprised to see ULA and BO operating this new reusable launch vehicle together in some 'alliance'.

Agree with this
ULA decided to stay out of the Delta 2 equivalent market with Vulcan, so a small Blue Origin Orbital LV wouldnt compete.  Blue Origin could also focus on a lighter capsule for "tourist" flights that doesnt need a lot of propellant, consumables ect that would be a logical follow on to their suborbital service. That would explain why Blue Origin decided not to continue with the commercial crew program funding, their vision did not want the mass and requirements of a station taxi.

I'd enjoy being a tourist for just the engine tests  :)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: catdlr on 09/15/2015 10:37 pm
Blue Origin, Coming to the Space Coasty

Published on Sep 15, 2015
During a ceremony on Sept. 15, private spaceflight company Blue Origin unveiled its new facility at Cape Canaveral, Florida, where it plans to build and launch rockets. Blue Origin is moving into Launch Complex 36, a spaceport that was once used to launch Atlas rockets for NASA and the United States Air Force.

https://youtu.be/HTh8tHpN-po
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 09/15/2015 11:03 pm
I don't agree. I think that there is a big chance that if Vulcan goes ahead with BE-4 engines, that the cooperation between ULA and BO will grow. ULA has a lot of space launch expertise that BO could take advantage of. I wouldn't be surprised to see ULA and BO operating this new reusable launch vehicle together in some 'alliance'.

Agree with this
ULA decided to stay out of the Delta 2 equivalent market with Vulcan, so a small Blue Origin Orbital LV wouldnt compete.  Blue Origin could also focus on a lighter capsule for "tourist" flights that doesnt need a lot of propellant, consumables ect that would be a logical follow on to their suborbital service. That would explain why Blue Origin decided not to continue with the commercial crew program funding, their vision did not want the mass and requirements of a station taxi.

Presuming the BO OV is smaller. The graphic depicts a 2x+ Vulcan sized vehicle, judging from scaling the existing BO capsule and hydrolox stage with scaled up nozzle - not a smaller one.

Such a vehicle likely would stage higher and go downrange further, putting a greater demand on the reusable first stage for ascent of a luxury capsule and its low cost hydrolox disposable US (can't believe I typed  those prior five words together) for orbit.

So why would BO be seen as not competing with ULA? What if BO's HSF CONOPs and launch facilities were optimized for its "mission", to the point where other applications that would require more and conflicting operations/facilities that would interfere?

Suggest that another way to not be competitive is to be complementary.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: ArbitraryConstant on 09/15/2015 11:46 pm
So why would BO be seen as not competing with ULA? What if BO's HSF CONOPs and launch facilities were optimized for its "mission", to the point where other applications that would require more and conflicting operations/facilities that would interfere?

Suggest that another way to not be competitive is to be complementary.
What if they're competitive but ULA's situation is such they don't have a whole lot of leverage to get concessions to the contrary?

Eg, "We won't agree to a non-compete agreement, your choices are to compete with us with an engine, or compete with us with no engine."
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: abaddon on 09/15/2015 11:57 pm
We could move the entire thread into Commercial Space? Like this post if a good idea.
Yes, Dream Chaser should also be moved IMHO.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Rocket Surgeon on 09/16/2015 12:16 am
So just to confirm, we have no details of the VBB Rocket other than the following:

1.   It will be partially reusable (first stage boost back)
2.   It will use BE-4(s?) on the first stage
3.   It will use BE-3(s?) on the second stage
4.   It will be capable of launching the Blue Origin Biconic Space Vehicle (payload to LEO ~10t at least, probably more)
5.   It will be ‘big’ – i.e. big enough that they don’t want to have the construction site on the other side of the country (like SpaceX)

Now what does this imply?

To me, (4) implies a diameter greater than 3.5 meters for the first stage. I remember reading somewhere that SpaceX sized their stages for road transport. Possibly 5 meters like the Vulcan?

(1) and (2) imply that either the BE-4 will be very deep throttling (20%-30%) if they intend to land on just one, or the first stage will land on different engines, possibly BE-2s? Not as mass efficient but it would make it easier to design the BE-4’s. Although the RD-191 can throttle down to 27% so it’s not impossibly. If it lands on the BE-4 it will need either 1 or 3+ engines in order to have one at the center.

So that’s my current take away… anything I’ve missed?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 09/16/2015 12:58 am
So just to confirm, we have no details of the VBB Rocket other than the following:

1.   It will be partially reusable (first stage boost back)
2.   It will use BE-4(s?) on the first stage
3.   It will use BE-3(s?) on the second stage
4.   It will be capable of launching the Blue Origin Biconic Space Vehicle (payload to LEO ~10t at least, probably more)
5.   It will be ‘big’ – i.e. big enough that they don’t want to have the construction site on the other side of the country (like SpaceX)

Now what does this imply?

To me, (4) implies a diameter greater than 3.5 meters for the first stage. I remember reading somewhere that SpaceX sized their stages for road transport. Possibly 5 meters like the Vulcan?

(1) and (2) imply that either the BE-4 will be very deep throttling (20%-30%) if they intend to land on just one, or the first stage will land on different engines, possibly BE-2s? Not as mass efficient but it would make it easier to design the BE-4’s. Although the RD-191 can throttle down to 27% so it’s not impossibly. If it lands on the BE-4 it will need either 1 or 3+ engines in order to have one at the center.

So that’s my current take away… anything I’ve missed?

The animation shows a smaller diameter upper stage with capsule, this is likely to be around 3.5 metres. That would make the booster stage 5.4m or greater.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars-J on 09/16/2015 01:00 am
So just to confirm, we have no details of the VBB Rocket other than the following:

1.   It will be partially reusable (first stage boost back)
2.   It will use BE-4(s?) on the first stage
3.   It will use BE-3(s?) on the second stage
4.   It will be capable of launching the Blue Origin Biconic Space Vehicle (payload to LEO ~10t at least, probably more)
5.   It will be ‘big’ – i.e. big enough that they don’t want to have the construction site on the other side of the country (like SpaceX)

Now what does this imply?

To me, (4) implies a diameter greater than 3.5 meters for the first stage. I remember reading somewhere that SpaceX sized their stages for road transport. Possibly 5 meters like the Vulcan?

(1) and (2) imply that either the BE-4 will be very deep throttling (20%-30%) if they intend to land on just one, or the first stage will land on different engines, possibly BE-2s? Not as mass efficient but it would make it easier to design the BE-4’s. Although the RD-191 can throttle down to 27% so it’s not impossibly. If it lands on the BE-4 it will need either 1 or 3+ engines in order to have one at the center.

So that’s my current take away… anything I’ve missed?

The animation shows a smaller diameter upper stage with capsule, this is likely to be around 3.5 metres. That would make the booster stage 5.4m or greater.

Which animation? And using what scale reference?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 09/16/2015 01:27 am
Was thinking about the jobs this project brings back to the area.  Not sure how many former shuttle program people were able to stick around, but this might be a way for some good work for many of them.

Ran into this article from CBS and they got a little more of the fine details. ;)

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bezos-announces-new-booster-florida-rocket-plant/

The manufacturing facility will be a state-of-the-art rocket plant.

"We're talking about bringing raw aluminum and raw carbon fiber here, it'll be milled and formed and friction stir welded here and so on," Bezos said. "Not just final assembly and certainly not just vehicle stacking (for launch). We're talking about ... some pretty deep manufacturing as well."


Bezos said Blue Origin likely will use an off-shore barge of some sort for initial landing attempts with the new orbital launcher.

"You cannot afford to be a space-fairing civilization if you throw the rocket away every time you use it," he said. "We have to be focused on reusability, we have to be focused on lowering the cost of space.

Edit: add more text
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Rocket Surgeon on 09/16/2015 01:46 am
So just to confirm, we have no details of the VBB Rocket other than the following:

1.   It will be partially reusable (first stage boost back)
2.   It will use BE-4(s?) on the first stage
3.   It will use BE-3(s?) on the second stage
4.   It will be capable of launching the Blue Origin Biconic Space Vehicle (payload to LEO ~10t at least, probably more)
5.   It will be ‘big’ – i.e. big enough that they don’t want to have the construction site on the other side of the country (like SpaceX)

Now what does this imply?

To me, (4) implies a diameter greater than 3.5 meters for the first stage. I remember reading somewhere that SpaceX sized their stages for road transport. Possibly 5 meters like the Vulcan?

(1) and (2) imply that either the BE-4 will be very deep throttling (20%-30%) if they intend to land on just one, or the first stage will land on different engines, possibly BE-2s? Not as mass efficient but it would make it easier to design the BE-4’s. Although the RD-191 can throttle down to 27% so it’s not impossibly. If it lands on the BE-4 it will need either 1 or 3+ engines in order to have one at the center.

So that’s my current take away… anything I’ve missed?

The animation shows a smaller diameter upper stage with capsule, this is likely to be around 3.5 metres. That would make the booster stage 5.4m or greater.

Not too sure about that. Attached is where I think the different parts are. Red is the first stage, yellow is the second stage, blue is the payload fairing. Though this is speculation based on an artistic image, so it's essentially point less. One take away would be that the first and second stages will require different tooling because of different fuels anyway, so I'm not sure if there is any economic argument to make them the same diameter like there is for SpaceX. Probably other arguments though.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 09/16/2015 02:05 am
Presuming the BO OV is smaller. The graphic depicts a 2x+ Vulcan sized vehicle, judging from scaling the existing BO capsule and hydrolox stage with scaled up nozzle - not a smaller one.

Where are you getting two engines?  The only thing that is depicted is a smoke trail coming out the end of the booster.

Also I dont see anything that could be used as reference for scale.  The image is a crude rendering for an LV, and considering the fact that we wont see it until the end of the decade will probably change extensively anyhow.

Quote
So why would BO be seen as not competing with ULA? What if BO's HSF CONOPs and launch facilities were optimized for its "mission", to the point where other applications that would require more and conflicting operations/facilities that would interfere?

As has been mentioned in the thread, George sowers clearly stated that Blue Origin's development path did not compete with ULA's development of Vulcan.  Everyone is assuming that Blue Origin will follow the existing field of rockets and aim for the EELV range of payloads.  That field is already full of competitors, as is the nano-sat launching field.  Bezos follows the "blue ocean" model of economics, the Delta 2 range right now really doesnt offer a competitor right now.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: notsorandom on 09/16/2015 02:21 am
 I think the BE-3 might be way to big to use in a Delta 2 class rocket.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: M_Puckett on 09/16/2015 02:24 am
It's a reusable rocket, meaning it will likely have margin for recovery and be on the big side for it's payload class.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: edkyle99 on 09/16/2015 03:13 am
Presuming the BO OV is smaller. The graphic depicts a 2x+ Vulcan sized vehicle, judging from scaling the existing BO capsule and hydrolox stage with scaled up nozzle - not a smaller one.

Where are you getting two engines?  The only thing that is depicted is a smoke trail coming out the end of the booster.

Also I dont see anything that could be used as reference for scale.  The image is a crude rendering for an LV, and considering the fact that we wont see it until the end of the decade will probably change extensively anyhow.
Very much agreed.  For all we know, this could be Falcon 1 size - or (less likely) Saturn V size.  The way Blue does things, we may not know how big it is until it flies - and even then the picture may be incomplete (the way it still is for New Shepard - a rocket we've seen images and videos of in flight).

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: meekGee on 09/16/2015 03:17 am
another article

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/go-for-launch/os-jeff-bezos-to-announce-blue-origin-plans-at-cape-canaveral-20150914-post.html

watch the video if you wish a laugh; not sure about this reporter :D

Quote of the day though:  "I'll go to space before I'll go to Mars, I'll tell you that!"
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: savuporo on 09/16/2015 03:55 am
.. this could be Falcon 1 size - or (less likely) Saturn V size.  The way Blue does things, we may not know how big it is until it flies ..
Gonna be hard to hide Saturn V sized construction at LC-36
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Halidon on 09/16/2015 05:55 am
.. this could be Falcon 1 size - or (less likely) Saturn V size.  The way Blue does things, we may not know how big it is until it flies ..
Gonna be hard to hide Saturn V sized construction at LC-36
If Bezos decides/has decided to hide it, you might be surprised. He's not above going to unreasonable lengths to keep a lid on things.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Dante80 on 09/16/2015 06:15 am
Presuming the BO OV is smaller. The graphic depicts a 2x+ Vulcan sized vehicle, judging from scaling the existing BO capsule and hydrolox stage with scaled up nozzle - not a smaller one.

Where are you getting two engines?  The only thing that is depicted is a smoke trail coming out the end of the booster.

Also I dont see anything that could be used as reference for scale.  The image is a crude rendering for an LV, and considering the fact that we wont see it until the end of the decade will probably change extensively anyhow.
Very much agreed.  For all we know, this could be Falcon 1 size - or (less likely) Saturn V size.  The way Blue does things, we may not know how big it is until it flies - and even then the picture may be incomplete (the way it still is for New Shepard - a rocket we've seen images and videos of in flight).

 - Ed Kyle

This is true, but we can extrapolate some stuff.

For example, we know that the first stage is supposed to use BE-4 engines, and we also know that it is planned to be re-usable. BE-4 is touted as a LNG/LOX ORSC engine of some 2400kN, and we know that the idea for re-usability includes  powered vertical landing similar to the New Shepard suborbital Propulsion Module.

From the above, we can extrapolate that the LV first stage will probably feature a center engine for propulsive landing, and that its mission profile (judging from its orbital spacecrafts' SRR) means it will need at least comparable power to a F9 to make it happen. One engine won't cut it (in power or/and probably in throttling ability for vertical landing), and two engines means there is no center engine for vertical landing.

Which means, at the minimum the first stage will use 3 BE-4 engines, thus bringing it into a category above Vulcan (no SRBs) or/and F9. And I agree, from then on, we have no idea about how big its going to be. But the above assumptions give us a soft limit on the low side of scale I think.

Is that too bold to assume?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: leaflion on 09/16/2015 06:37 am

Which means, at the minimum the first stage will use 3 BE-4 engines, thus bringing it into a category above Vulcan (no SRBs) or/and F9. And I agree, from then on, we have no idea about how big its going to be. But the above assumptions give us a soft limit on the low side of scale I think.

Is that too bold to assume?

Since when are Vulcan and F9 in the same category.  Seeing as Vulcan will be able to handle DIVH flight profiles, its significantly heavier than F9.

I would doubt it would be the same size as F9.  The market for reusable rockets of that size will presumably be filled by the end of the decade.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Dante80 on 09/16/2015 06:43 am
Since when are Vulcan and F9 in the same category.  Seeing as Vulcan will be able to handle DIVH flight profiles, its significantly heavier than F9.

I would doubt it would be the same size as F9.  The market for reusable rockets of that size will presumably be filled by the end of the decade.

I was mainly talking about first stage thrust (and the number of BE-4 engines that Blues' rocket would use). I didn't insinuate that Vulcan is in the same category class as F9.

F9 has a little less than 6000kN thrust, Vulcan 4800kN, and Blues' rocket at least 7200kN.

And I agree (of course), Vulcan is in another category for payloads, both due to the inclusion of SRBs in the design and the fact it has a high energy second stage (Centaur at start, ACES later).
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: symbios on 09/16/2015 11:03 am
That was a lot of political backslapping... They really should ban politicos from doing speeches...  :P

Blue Origin, Coming to the Space Coasty

Published on Sep 15, 2015
During a ceremony on Sept. 15, private spaceflight company Blue Origin unveiled its new facility at Cape Canaveral, Florida, where it plans to build and launch rockets. Blue Origin is moving into Launch Complex 36, a spaceport that was once used to launch Atlas rockets for NASA and the United States Air Force.

https://youtu.be/HTh8tHpN-po
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: MarcAlain on 09/16/2015 01:14 pm
That was a lot of political backslapping... They really should ban politicos from doing speeches...  :P


I always hate when that particular guy gives speeches. He needs to be in a home already.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: notsorandom on 09/16/2015 01:15 pm
It's a reusable rocket, meaning it will likely have margin for recovery and be on the big side for it's payload class.
I'm not sure if this post was in reference to my comment about the size of the BE-3. If not please ignore. The BE-3 is for the upper stage which will not be reused so the extra thrust is not needed for recovery. It has almost five times the thrust of the RL-10.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: edkyle99 on 09/16/2015 01:33 pm
....
Which means, at the minimum the first stage will use 3 BE-4 engines, thus bringing it into a category above Vulcan (no SRBs) or/and F9. And I agree, from then on, we have no idea about how big its going to be. But the above assumptions give us a soft limit on the low side of scale I think.

Is that too bold to assume?
I'm not going to assume anything until I see the launch vehicle standing on its pad or flying.  I'm not expecting to see it until day-of-launch or just before, and even then only fuzzily through long-lenses from miles away.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: RonM on 09/16/2015 01:55 pm
That was a lot of political backslapping... They really should ban politicos from doing speeches...  :P


I always hate when that particular guy gives speeches. He needs to be in a home already.

The politicos are the ones passing favorable laws and regulations, funding projects, and giving tax breaks that allow the aerospace industry to exist. Without government support there would not be a space program. Maybe one day private industry can conduct business in space without the government, but not today.

Senator Bill Nelson is really "bringing home the bacon" for Florida. He has earned the right to speak at these events.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 09/16/2015 03:36 pm
Thanks for the "good news" article Chris. Always great when space jobs come back to the Cape! :)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: KSC Sage on 09/16/2015 04:55 pm
Presuming the BO OV is smaller. The graphic depicts a 2x+ Vulcan sized vehicle, judging from scaling the existing BO capsule and hydrolox stage with scaled up nozzle - not a smaller one.

Where are you getting two engines?  The only thing that is depicted is a smoke trail coming out the end of the booster.

Also I dont see anything that could be used as reference for scale.  The image is a crude rendering for an LV, and considering the fact that we wont see it until the end of the decade will probably change extensively anyhow.
Very much agreed.  For all we know, this could be Falcon 1 size - or (less likely) Saturn V size.  The way Blue does things, we may not know how big it is until it flies - and even then the picture may be incomplete (the way it still is for New Shepard - a rocket we've seen images and videos of in flight).

 - Ed Kyle

This is true, but we can extrapolate some stuff.

For example, we know that the first stage is supposed to use BE-4 engines, and we also know that it is planned to be re-usable. BE-4 is touted as a LNG/LOX ORSC engine of some 2400kN, and we know that the idea for re-usability includes  powered vertical landing similar to the New Shepard suborbital Propulsion Module.

From the above, we can extrapolate that the LV first stage will probably feature a center engine for propulsive landing, and that its mission profile (judging from its orbital spacecrafts' SRR) means it will need at least comparable power to a F9 to make it happen. One engine won't cut it (in power or/and probably in throttling ability for vertical landing), and two engines means there is no center engine for vertical landing.

Which means, at the minimum the first stage will use 3 BE-4 engines, thus bringing it into a category above Vulcan (no SRBs) or/and F9. And I agree, from then on, we have no idea about how big its going to be. But the above assumptions give us a soft limit on the low side of scale I think.

Is that too bold to assume?

Based on an earlier comparative image between the Atlas V and Blue's Orbital LV one could assume four BE-4 engines on the first stage.


Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Kryten on 09/16/2015 04:57 pm
Based on an earlier comparative image between the Atlas V and Blue's Orbital LV one could assume four BE-4 engines on the first stage.
That's a much earlier image though, I wouldn't put much stock into it. It predates the BE-4 reveal by years.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 09/16/2015 05:24 pm
.. this could be Falcon 1 size - or (less likely) Saturn V size.  The way Blue does things, we may not know how big it is until it flies ..
Gonna be hard to hide Saturn V sized construction at LC-36
If Bezos decides/has decided to hide it, you might be surprised. He's not above going to unreasonable lengths to keep a lid on things.

right;  had that meeting yesterday, but how much do we really know now?

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 09/16/2015 05:26 pm
....
Which means, at the minimum the first stage will use 3 BE-4 engines, thus bringing it into a category above Vulcan (no SRBs) or/and F9. And I agree, from then on, we have no idea about how big its going to be. But the above assumptions give us a soft limit on the low side of scale I think.

Is that too bold to assume?
I'm not going to assume anything until I see the launch vehicle standing on its pad or flying.  I'm not expecting to see it until day-of-launch or just before, and even then only fuzzily through long-lenses from miles away.

 - Ed Kyle

I take it you will join the NSF pre-launch party :P
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 09/16/2015 05:49 pm
So why would BO be seen as not competing with ULA? What if BO's HSF CONOPs and launch facilities were optimized for its "mission", to the point where other applications that would require more and conflicting operations/facilities that would interfere?

Suggest that another way to not be competitive is to be complementary.
What if they're competitive but ULA's situation is such they don't have a whole lot of leverage to get concessions to the contrary?

Eg, "We won't agree to a non-compete agreement, your choices are to compete with us with an engine, or compete with us with no engine."

Many ways to put the parts together. The fact that ULA can go in on a joint manufacturing effort to over qualify an engine for BO's use (they likely don't need all that ULA does for BO's business) means that there is enough of a common set of goals that make it harder to shave the agreement to favor sides.

Keep in mind that to keep an engine economic you need continuity of consumption. Even SX with Merlin not in use for half a year must be painful to them, although in their case its consumption economics are driven by volume and potential reuse per a single launch, unlike all others in use today.

By having two LV's using the same engine, potentially you always have one flying, reducing the costs for the other to fly. A co-dependence. RD-180 co-dependence has lasted much longer than I thought it would. Likewise with Zenit.

And OA co-dependence is in the offing to replace it with RD-181. Even the Ukrainians are trying with India for the same right now (BTW, SeaLaunch facilities would work perfect for that reengined Zenit, but of course Russia would rather see it melted down for scrap before they would let that happen).

Economics drive co-dependency. Irrespective of BO's LV success, BE-4 and ULA may become as long lived a co-dependency as has been with RD-180 /  Energomash.

So whats an AR going to do with its half hearted engine with no takers?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: catdlr on 09/16/2015 09:59 pm
post announcement article:

Why space? Battle of billionaires Bezos, Branson and Musk

Short Match Up article:
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-musk-bezos-comparison-20150915-htmlstory.html

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Llian Rhydderch on 09/16/2015 11:59 pm
post announcement article:

Why space? Battle of billionaires Bezos, Branson and Musk


Thanks for posting that.  Decent article.  Not a fan of the headline writer who is endeavoring to turn the news into a personality "battle" as click bait.

Bezos said explicitly yesterday (I believe it was quoted in the CBS News article) he wasn't that into the competitive billionaire thing; that "space is big" and there is room for lots of approaches.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 09/17/2015 12:27 am
A more rounded article by Jeff as expected.

http://spacenews.com/bezos-not-concerned-about-competition-possible-ula-sale/

Bezo made it clear that he will not be going after DOD business, human spaceflight is his passion.

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: JazzFan on 09/17/2015 12:43 am
By having two LV's using the same engine, potentially you always have one flying, reducing the costs for the other to fly. A co-dependence. RD-180 co-dependence has lasted much longer than I thought it would. Likewise with Zenit.

Unless a flight failure is based on that now single sourced engine.  You would be creating a bottleneck.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 09/17/2015 03:49 pm
A more rounded article by Jeff as expected.

http://spacenews.com/bezos-not-concerned-about-competition-possible-ula-sale/

Bezo made it clear that he will not be going after DOD business, human spaceflight is his passion.

From the article:

Quote
He did not specify how much he [Bezos] has invested, but a Blue Origin official said in 2014 that Bezos had put more than $500 million into the company.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 09/17/2015 04:49 pm
A more rounded article by Jeff as expected.

http://spacenews.com/bezos-not-concerned-about-competition-possible-ula-sale/

Bezo made it clear that he will not be going after DOD business, human spaceflight is his passion.

From the article:

Quote
He did not specify how much he [Bezos] has invested, but a Blue Origin official said in 2014 that Bezos had put more than $500 million into the company.

remember reading somewhere that Bezo's put an annual 50 million into the company.  So those numbers are in the ballpark, maybe low at this point.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: notsorandom on 09/17/2015 05:09 pm
Also in Jeff Foust's article is this sentence:
Quote
Bezos declined to discuss the payload capability of his company’s unnamed orbital launch vehicle, but hinted there would be some overlap in performance between that rocket and ULA’s Vulcan.
That makes sense because the thrust of the BE-3 is sort of in the ranger of the 4 RL-10 ACES stage for the Vulcan. In ULA's papers they even mentioned the possibility of using the BE-3 in the ACES stage. I doubt that overlap is at the Vulcan's lower payload range. I'm guessing that the first stage is going to be quite a bit larger than the Vulcan's to both provide an equal or greater impulse and also to allow extra performance for reuse. My bet is six BE-4 engines and no less that four.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 09/17/2015 07:16 pm
Again, with a recoverable non expendable first stage, BO is going for overkill in capability - margin has gone completely out the window here. And the economics of BE-3 are driven not by reuse/performance but by cost.

Contrast this with SX, which is a mixture of expendable/reusable. Margin matters but is allowed to be compromise for reuse/cost.

ULA's two (maybe eventually three) LV's are margin/performance matters most. Why booster engine recovery of 2002 never happened was the slim cost on margin/reliability was too much to accept (likewise still the issue with IVF going forward).

The Bezos mentioned overlap is that he's going for so much reusable capability (at extremely poor ratio of payload to orbit, where you need 2x+ capability to guarantee reuse the way BO wants to do it), that yes he gets Vulcan payload size capability as an overlap, but not that it may work "oranges to oranges" for ULA's Vulcan.

People here are one dimensional. They have a bias of some kind. Want to think there's only one solution and all mimic it. Nonsense.

ULA fits hand in glove its long term stakeholders needs (fills in with some others).

SX contorts to steal payloads to earn out a world wide dominant market share, while pushing a future agenda that favors it over others.

BO gradually builds up a singular focus on its very specific hidden mission, announcing narrow elements as needed and repeatedly cleaving to the narrowest footprint imaginable. This makes sense as Bezos funds it.

All three of the above have "adjacent interests". ULA's includes a Bezos shared "engine(s)/testing source". Bezo's side interests include "suborbital space tourism". SX now includes specific satellite programs.  Note that all of these are highly specific, and they are not "across the board" to all three.

Also, while we now see two families of LV's with legs, the way in which they function as systems is very, very different. For example, to preserve margin (and ELV capability), the launch profile of F9R/FHR is attempting to preserve much margin at the cost of a much harsher (acceleration) in recovery. Expect BO's to be more downrange, more gradual/props expended with less metal fatigue et al. Highly reduced margins.

Just because things/LV's/providers "look alike" somewhat does not mean they are alike. Very different.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Oli on 09/17/2015 10:13 pm
I doubt that overlap is at the Vulcan's lower payload range.

If the second stage has one BE-3, BO's rocket will likely have lower payload since BO's first stage will likely stage at lower velocity.

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: tyrred on 09/18/2015 01:01 am
Space Ghost 1962, you have summed up the differences in the three approaches quite nicely. Much appreciated   :D
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Comga on 09/18/2015 03:44 am
Also in Jeff Foust's article is this sentence:
Quote
Bezos declined to discuss the payload capability of his company’s unnamed orbital launch vehicle, but hinted there would be some overlap in performance between that rocket and ULA’s Vulcan.
That makes sense because the thrust of the BE-3 is sort of in the ranger of the 4 RL-10 ACES stage for the Vulcan. In ULA's papers they even mentioned the possibility of using the BE-3 in the ACES stage. I doubt that overlap is at the Vulcan's lower payload range. I'm guessing that the first stage is going to be quite a bit larger than the Vulcan's to both provide an equal or greater impulse and also to allow extra performance for reuse. My bet is six BE-4 engines and no less that four.
Perhaps Bezos found Musk's original (2003?) arguments persuasive and he will use five BE-4s on the first stage.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars-J on 09/18/2015 07:10 am
Also in Jeff Foust's article is this sentence:
Quote
Bezos declined to discuss the payload capability of his company’s unnamed orbital launch vehicle, but hinted there would be some overlap in performance between that rocket and ULA’s Vulcan.
That makes sense because the thrust of the BE-3 is sort of in the ranger of the 4 RL-10 ACES stage for the Vulcan. In ULA's papers they even mentioned the possibility of using the BE-3 in the ACES stage. I doubt that overlap is at the Vulcan's lower payload range. I'm guessing that the first stage is going to be quite a bit larger than the Vulcan's to both provide an equal or greater impulse and also to allow extra performance for reuse. My bet is six BE-4 engines and no less that four.
Perhaps Bezos found Musk's original (2003?) arguments persuasive and he will use five BE-4s on the first stage.

Yes, if I was a betting man, I would bet on a 5-engine first stage. It would be large(7m diameter?), thus also needing local manufacture. It fits their story. It would seem like BO might be targeting a niche between F9/FH and SpaceX's "BFR" - a smart move.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: notsorandom on 09/18/2015 01:48 pm
I doubt that overlap is at the Vulcan's lower payload range.

If the second stage has one BE-3, BO's rocket will likely have lower payload since BO's first stage will likely stage at lower velocity.
I had thought about that but I think there is some trade space here so its not a given. A lower staging velocity reduces the required performance to get the stage back. However a for a purely propulsive return the only cost for a higher velocity staging is more propellant to slow down. There is the tyranny of the rocket equation but to a certain extent one could just make the first stage bigger. The central core of the Falcon Heavy will be scooting along pretty fast when it stages so I don't think that this recovery method precludes high velocity staging.

The question on what the staging velocity should be to maximize the system's performance is going to be tricky for us internet enthusiasts to guess at (even for named rockets). Blue is developing an LH2 upper stage that is more powerful than any other one currently flying. Depending on what sits under it they will be able to use that thing to put a massive payload in orbit.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 09/18/2015 02:50 pm
Also in Jeff Foust's article is this sentence:
Quote
Bezos declined to discuss the payload capability of his company’s unnamed orbital launch vehicle, but hinted there would be some overlap in performance between that rocket and ULA’s Vulcan.
That makes sense because the thrust of the BE-3 is sort of in the ranger of the 4 RL-10 ACES stage for the Vulcan. In ULA's papers they even mentioned the possibility of using the BE-3 in the ACES stage. I doubt that overlap is at the Vulcan's lower payload range. I'm guessing that the first stage is going to be quite a bit larger than the Vulcan's to both provide an equal or greater impulse and also to allow extra performance for reuse. My bet is six BE-4 engines and no less that four.
Perhaps Bezos found Musk's original (2003?) arguments persuasive and he will use five BE-4s on the first stage.

You talking about the F5? 
let's not sidetrack this thread however.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: MattMason on 09/18/2015 08:23 pm
A more rounded article by Jeff as expected.

http://spacenews.com/bezos-not-concerned-about-competition-possible-ula-sale/

Bezo made it clear that he will not be going after DOD business, human spaceflight is his passion.

Someone may have already touched on it here, but that key phrase I bolded above seems to hint in big honking green lights at Blue Origin's goals for LC-36.

I'm probably writing this from my mosquito-netted cot in my tent at Camp Well-Duh, but it's clear that, if Bezos isn't trying to get government contracts or isn't interested in satellite launches per se, he's directly orienting his business to commercial human spaceflight for the masses. Not professionals. Us.

That's clear enough with the New Shepard suborbital joyride. But to where in LEO?

That's where I'd like to be the fly on several walls to hear phone conversations between Bezos and those who could make space hotels, homes, businesses, in LEO or to the moon. Bezos would provide the means to build it all and get back and forth.

This fits Bezo's style and explains his secrecy since a true commercial venture can be quickly exploited. And most of the other ideas (government contracts by ULA, Mars funding through anything by SpaceX, BEO-only thoughts by NASA and SLS) are taken, so this seems the only one not directly addressed.

And from the way that Amazon makes cash, I'm beginning to believe Bezos can pull it off. The market laughed at him when he launched Amazon.

Some may be laughing now. They should know better.

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 09/18/2015 08:30 pm
A more rounded article by Jeff as expected.

http://spacenews.com/bezos-not-concerned-about-competition-possible-ula-sale/

Bezo made it clear that he will not be going after DOD business, human spaceflight is his passion.

Someone may have already touched on it here, but that key phrase I bolded above seems to hint in big honking green lights at Blue Origin's goals for LC-36.

I'm probably writing this from my mosquito-netted cot in my tent at Camp Well-Duh, but it's clear that, if Bezos isn't trying to get government contracts or isn't interested in satellite launches per se, he's directly orienting his business to commercial human spaceflight for the masses. Not professionals. Us.

That's clear enough with the New Shepard suborbital joyride. But to where in LEO?

That's where I'd like to be the fly on several walls to hear phone conversations between Bezos and those who could make space hotels, homes, businesses, in LEO or to the moon. Bezos would provide the means to build it all and get back and forth.

This fits Bezo's style and explains his secrecy since a true commercial venture can be quickly exploited. And most of the other ideas (government contracts by ULA, Mars funding through anything by SpaceX, BEO-only thoughts by NASA and SLS) are taken, so this seems the only one not directly addressed.

And from the way that Amazon makes cash, I beginning to believe Bezos can pull it off. The market laughed at him when he launched Amazon.

Some may be laughing now. They should know better.
Bezos hasn't said no to commercial satellites or cargo. Needs to prove the orbital LV with some payload.

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: MattMason on 09/18/2015 08:32 pm
A more rounded article by Jeff as expected.

http://spacenews.com/bezos-not-concerned-about-competition-possible-ula-sale/

Bezo made it clear that he will not be going after DOD business, human spaceflight is his passion.

Someone may have already touched on it here, but that key phrase I bolded above seems to hint in big honking green lights at Blue Origin's goals for LC-36.

I'm probably writing this from my mosquito-netted cot in my tent at Camp Well-Duh, but it's clear that, if Bezos isn't trying to get government contracts or isn't interested in satellite launches per se, he's directly orienting his business to commercial human spaceflight for the masses. Not professionals. Us.

That's clear enough with the New Shepard suborbital joyride. But to where in LEO?

That's where I'd like to be the fly on several walls to hear phone conversations between Bezos and those who could make space hotels, homes, businesses, in LEO or to the moon. Bezos would provide the means to build it all and get back and forth.

This fits Bezo's style and explains his secrecy since a true commercial venture can be quickly exploited. And most of the other ideas (government contracts by ULA, Mars funding through anything by SpaceX, BEO-only thoughts by NASA and SLS) are taken, so this seems the only one not directly addressed.

And from the way that Amazon makes cash, I beginning to believe Bezos can pull it off. The market laughed at him when he launched Amazon.

Some may be laughing now. They should know better.
Bezos hasn't said no to commercial satellites or cargo. Needs to prove the orbital LV with some payload.

Makes sense, too, since any dreams of human habitation is going to need those services more often than any competitors might offer since they're so spread out in their interests. If Blue concentrates on HSF the way SpaceX is concentrating on Mars, this is going to be a really fun couple of decades.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 09/18/2015 11:29 pm
Some real numbers in the article..

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/os-blue-origin-jobs-space-coast-20150918-story.html

Blue Origin positions are expected to include heavy and advanced manufacturing, and some product design and engineering
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Bob Shaw on 09/18/2015 11:38 pm
Both for BO and SpaceX, I'd like to know who their first payload providers will be; I smell a certain commercial space station provider who needs to get some destinations upstairs.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Zed_Noir on 09/19/2015 12:36 am
So what are the chances that Blue will set up a couple of launch pads at the LC-36 complex like it was in the Atlas era?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: docmordrid on 09/19/2015 04:51 am
Speaking of which, anyone know the thrust limits of LC-36's trench(s)?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 09/19/2015 12:27 pm
Speaking of which, anyone know the thrust limits of LC-36's trench(s)?

LC-36 is just a location.  There is no infrastructure remaining from Altas except for the blockhouse.

https://www.google.com/maps/@28.4691311,-80.5406049,894m/data=!3m1!1e3
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: nadreck on 09/19/2015 04:37 pm
Both for BO and SpaceX, I'd like to know who their first payload providers will be; I smell a certain commercial space station provider who needs to get some destinations upstairs.

Just how realistic is it if Bigelow were offered a cut rate initial price, even if it were free lift of the station modules, how much would Bigelow have to pay to put a couple of BA330's into orbit along with a service module to perform station keeping?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 09/19/2015 06:47 pm
Both for BO and SpaceX, I'd like to know who their first payload providers will be; I smell a certain commercial space station provider who needs to get some destinations upstairs.

Just how realistic is it if Bigelow were offered a cut rate initial price, even if it were free lift of the station modules, how much would Bigelow have to pay to put a couple of BA330's into orbit along with a service module to perform station keeping?

The paperwork alone is going to be a killer :o
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Oli on 09/19/2015 07:37 pm
There is the tyranny of the rocket equation but to a certain extent one could just make the first stage bigger. The central core of the Falcon Heavy will be scooting along pretty fast when it stages so I don't think that this recovery method precludes high velocity staging.

Vulcan first stage is likely going to stage at Mach 15+. Unless BO's first stage doesn't brake propulsively there's no way it will stage at such velocities.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 09/21/2015 12:46 am
So what are the chances that Blue will set up a couple of launch pads at the LC-36 complex like it was in the Atlas era?

In the press conference, Bezos mentioned an engine testing area for the BE-4. That and landing area doesnt leave too much space for more than one pad.

I wonder if the priority right now is on developing the BE-4 infrastructure for ULA. Seems logical since both ULA and Blue Origin need the engine.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 09/21/2015 05:03 pm
So what are the chances that Blue will set up a couple of launch pads at the LC-36 complex like it was in the Atlas era?

In the press conference, Bezos mentioned an engine testing area for the BE-4. That and landing area doesnt leave too much space for more than one pad.

I wonder if the priority right now is on developing the BE-4 infrastructure for ULA. Seems logical since both ULA and Blue Origin need the engine.
If they locate the infrastructure elements needed for both engine testing and launch between the two (tank farm and other equipment like water deluge system), then they can save significant funds on capital equipment costs for the pad by using the infrastructure put in for engine testing.

Edit added:
BTW the test/launch control room can also be shared, another cost savings. By only needing one set instead of two the total capital equipment/facilities costs are reduce by making the equipment needed for engine test a near 0 increase over the cost for this pad equipment.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Patchouli on 09/22/2015 03:21 am

If the second stage has one BE-3, BO's rocket will likely have lower payload since BO's first stage will likely stage at lower velocity.



I wonder if BO's rocket will be optimized for LEO payloads vs the GTO payloads which would put it in a different market then Vulcan.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: symbios on 09/22/2015 12:13 pm

If the second stage has one BE-3, BO's rocket will likely have lower payload since BO's first stage will likely stage at lower velocity.



I wonder if BO's rocket will be optimized for LEO payloads vs the GTO payloads which would put it in a different market then Vulcan.

I always thought mr Bezos was aiming for the moon. Would he not optimize for this goal from the beginning?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 09/22/2015 02:54 pm

If the second stage has one BE-3, BO's rocket will likely have lower payload since BO's first stage will likely stage at lower velocity.



I wonder if BO's rocket will be optimized for LEO payloads vs the GTO payloads which would put it in a different market then Vulcan.

I always thought mr Bezos was aiming for the moon. Would he not optimize for this goal from the beginning?
From the web site:
Driven by our company motto, Gradatim Ferociter or “step by step, ferociously,” our incremental development process builds upon each success as we develop ground-breaking spaceflight systems.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: spacenut on 09/22/2015 03:05 pm
I do not think they would have trouble with either LEO or the moon with the BE-3 being a hydrogen variable thrust engine.  It can go from 30,000 lbs thrust to 110,000 lbs thrust.  This gives them flexibility with various payloads.  LEO for Bigelow stations, and TMI burns. 
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 09/22/2015 08:59 pm

If the second stage has one BE-3, BO's rocket will likely have lower payload since BO's first stage will likely stage at lower velocity.



I wonder if BO's rocket will be optimized for LEO payloads vs the GTO payloads which would put it in a different market then Vulcan.

I always thought mr Bezos was aiming for the moon. Would he not optimize for this goal from the beginning?
From the web site:
Driven by our company motto, Gradatim Ferociter or “step by step, ferociously,” our incremental development process builds upon each success as we develop ground-breaking spaceflight systems.
For cislunar HSF you either build a big rocket eg SLS or use ULA distributed launch approach. If Blue Origin develop a RLV in 40-60t range (20-30t fully reusable) combined with ULA distributed launch, lunar HSF becomes a lot more affordable.

The other essential item for any lunar mission is a reusable lander. Here again ULA can help. Xeus may just be a powerpoint lander but a lot of technology/HW to make it happen exists.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: tp1024 on 09/23/2015 12:14 pm
Very much agreed.  For all we know, this could be Falcon 1 size - or (less likely) Saturn V size.  The way Blue does things, we may not know how big it is until it flies - and even then the picture may be incomplete (the way it still is for New Shepard - a rocket we've seen images and videos of in flight).

 - Ed Kyle

This is true, but we can extrapolate some stuff.

For example, we know that the first stage is supposed to use BE-4 engines, and we also know that it is planned to be re-usable. BE-4 is touted as a LNG/LOX ORSC engine of some 2400kN, and we know that the idea for re-usability includes  powered vertical landing similar to the New Shepard suborbital Propulsion Module.

From the above, we can extrapolate that the LV first stage will probably feature a center engine for propulsive landing, and that its mission profile (judging from its orbital spacecrafts' SRR) means it will need at least comparable power to a F9 to make it happen. One engine won't cut it (in power or/and probably in throttling ability for vertical landing), and two engines means there is no center engine for vertical landing.

Which means, at the minimum the first stage will use 3 BE-4 engines, thus bringing it into a category above Vulcan (no SRBs) or/and F9. And I agree, from then on, we have no idea about how big its going to be. But the above assumptions give us a soft limit on the low side of scale I think.

Is that too bold to assume?

Well, if BO could use two BE-4 engines, if they can modify the BE-3 to run on methane. It would have just the right kind of thrust to land a 20t rocket stage. A BE-4 has 72t thrust even at 30% throttle which is way too high unless you want to build a monster rocket. The setup would be similar to the original Atlas with booster and sustainer engines, though without the throwing-away-the-engines bit.

Or they might go to the trouble of including a smallish hydrogen tank in the first stage to run a BE-3 during the landing maneuver.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: spacenut on 09/23/2015 01:10 pm
I was under the impression that BO was going to use 4 BE-4 engines on their first stage.  This would allow landing.  Then they were to use one BE-3 on their second stage and it too was supposed to land. 
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Dante80 on 09/23/2015 02:58 pm
I was under the impression that BO was going to use 4 BE-4 engines on their first stage.  This would allow landing.  Then they were to use one BE-3 on their second stage and it too was supposed to land.

Where did you get the quote for 4 BE-4 on the first stage?
Also, from their website, they state that the second stage (we are talking about their orbital LV) is expendable.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: spacenut on 09/23/2015 03:07 pm
A while back they said both their stages would be reusable, was it not New Sheppard, their launch vehicle?  Maybe they changed their minds and are going expendable.  I also though their landing pad at their Cape launch facility was barely going to fit their property. 
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Kryten on 09/23/2015 03:22 pm
A while back they said both their stages would be reusable, was it not New Sheppard, their launch vehicle?  Maybe they changed their minds and are going expendable.
New Sheppard is the suborbital vehicle, with reusable booster and capsule.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 09/23/2015 06:45 pm
The orbital vehicle will have expandable BE3 upper stage initially, long term I would expect Blue to develop a reusable version.

The 4xBE4 on booster comes from us forum members and is only a guess. Maybe more engines but I doubt it will be less.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 09/23/2015 10:39 pm
With on-site manufacture and RTLS or barge landing there is no diameter limitations on the 1st stage. So it could have anywhere from 1 to 4 engines easily. The only thing is to plan ahead for the pad infrastructure to handle whatever final version (4 engines say) for such things as the flame trench prop storage tanks and water deluge. They could start with just 1 engine and then introduce an upgraded LV that has 4 engines (to carry a fully reusable US and to also increase payload (double) from the intro 1 engine vehicle.

A note on Vulcan since it uses legacy transport and manufacturing infrastructure is limited to 5m diameter and 2 engines.

A 7m core would handle 4 engines (1 in the center and the other three at 120 degree spacing) as well as having twice the volume for the same height.

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: spacenut on 09/23/2015 11:10 pm
A three or 4 engine vehicle would be a good launcher, especially if the middle engine can throttle for landing. 
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 09/23/2015 11:49 pm
The long term plan is full reusability which means roughly 5t (10t as ELV) to LEO per engine. 4 x BE4 would give 20t which is about minimum for HSF. Especially if they need to supply fuel depots for BLEO missions.

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: notsorandom on 09/24/2015 12:37 am
I don't think there is really a need for a center engine to enable reuse. with a six or four engine configuration using an opposed pair of engines would still give balanced thrust. There is the difficulty in lighting two engines instead of just one. But if you can't reliably light an engine this is not going to be a fun business for you anyway.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 09/24/2015 01:27 am
I don't think there is really a need for a center engine to enable reuse. with a six or four engine configuration using an opposed pair of engines would still give balanced thrust. There is the difficulty in lighting two engines instead of just one. But if you can't reliably light an engine this is not going to be a fun business for you anyway.
Using 2 opposing engines has a few pluses over 1 central engine.

1)Smaller core diameter is possible. 4 x BE4 only.
2) Even wear on engines.
3) If there is a engine failure or fail to start during recovery stage booster can switch to another pair of engines.

Here some core diameters based on engine diameter 2metre.
3 in line = 6m
 4 in square  = <5m
4 with centre engine = 6m
5 = 6m. Central engine only option as opposing engines will be off centre.
6 evenly spaced (hexagon) 6m. NB it is possible to fit a 7th engine in middle.

A 4x BE4 using opposed engine pairs for landing could possibly fit in 5.4m core. Every other combination up 7 engines will need >6m core.

Using >6m core allows for 3-7 engine combinations.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Rocket Surgeon on 09/24/2015 03:44 am
I don't think there is really a need for a center engine to enable reuse. with a six or four engine configuration using an opposed pair of engines would still give balanced thrust. There is the difficulty in lighting two engines instead of just one. But if you can't reliably light an engine this is not going to be a fun business for you anyway.

Or they could just have dedicated landing rockets. BE-2's have safe, storeable fuels, and are the right size if you have 4 of them to handle a 30t stage.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 09/25/2015 03:21 am

Here is a little information on Blue Biconic Space Vehicle/capsule.
It has a high lift to drag ratio than a capsule plus  more interior room and more surface area for heat shield. This design also looks like it would scale well. 

http://www.wired.com/2012/04/commercial-space-shuttle-wind-tunnel-testing/

NB Blue's design and the ESA are almost identical.

http://pics-about.space/biconic-space-vehicle?p=1#
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: MarcAlain on 09/30/2015 07:05 pm
Blue Origin Completes More Than 100 Staged-Combustion Tests in Development of BE-4 Engine

https://www.blueorigin.com/news/news/blue-origin-completes-more-than-100-staged-combustion-tests-in-development
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Kansan52 on 09/30/2015 07:43 pm
Blue Origin Completes More Than 100 Staged-Combustion Tests in Development of BE-4 Engine

https://www.blueorigin.com/news/news/blue-origin-completes-more-than-100-staged-combustion-tests-in-development

The test article in the photo seems small. Is it fair to say this is a small test article?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: PahTo on 09/30/2015 08:12 pm
The test article in the photo seems small. Is it fair to say this is a small test article?

Per discussion upthread (at least I think this thread) the device in the photo is either an injector element or pre-burner.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Kansan52 on 09/30/2015 10:25 pm
Thanks!
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: leaflion on 10/01/2015 04:37 am
"The staged-combustion testing configuration included a representative BE-4 preburner and regeneratively cooled thrust chamber using multiple full-scale injector elements."

I'm going to go with a "regeneratively cooled thrust chamber,"  but that's just wild speculation.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Kabloona on 10/01/2015 06:04 pm
Blue Origin Completes More Than 100 Staged-Combustion Tests in Development of BE-4 Engine

https://www.blueorigin.com/news/news/blue-origin-completes-more-than-100-staged-combustion-tests-in-development

The test article in the photo seems small. Is it fair to say this is a small test article?

Probably fair to say it is in fact a "small" test article. Notice they mention testing "multiple" full scale injectors, but probably not the full number of injectors that would be used in a full-scale engine. So the photo may be showing a subscale preburner, and subscale regeneratively cooled combustion chamber using some full-scale injectors.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 10/01/2015 06:48 pm
Large (full) scale combustion chamber tests could be where you find if all the presumptions (including performance!) come together (or not). Could likely be the case that design thrust isn't reachable for many connected factors, that will be teased apart as a prototype full scale engine happens. How much additional work it will take might be set by how great the shortfall is and what it redesign/rework may take to remedy it.

Looks like we are still on the early side of things. Still, they are making noises about full scale components which is confidence in design process. This is beyond single/subscale component level which appears to be where AR-1 stood.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 10/01/2015 09:36 pm
Large (full) scale combustion chamber tests could be where you find if all the presumptions (including performance!) come together (or not). Could likely be the case that design thrust isn't reachable for many connected factors, that will be teased apart as a prototype full scale engine happens. How much additional work it will take might be set by how great the shortfall is and what it redesign/rework may take to remedy it.

Looks like we are still on the early side of things. Still, they are making noises about full scale components which is confidence in design process. This is beyond single/subscale component level which appears to be where AR-1 stood.
Blue Origin make extensive use of rocket engine simulation SW . These tests would help verify and improve this simulation software.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 10/02/2015 02:00 am
Large (full) scale combustion chamber tests could be where you find if all the presumptions (including performance!) come together (or not). Could likely be the case that design thrust isn't reachable for many connected factors, that will be teased apart as a prototype full scale engine happens. How much additional work it will take might be set by how great the shortfall is and what it redesign/rework may take to remedy it.

Looks like we are still on the early side of things. Still, they are making noises about full scale components which is confidence in design process. This is beyond single/subscale component level which appears to be where AR-1 stood.
Blue Origin make extensive use of rocket engine simulation SW . These tests would help verify and improve this simulation software.
Nope.

Doesn't replace development, test stands, runs, ..., experience. Explains results. Revise quicker/better. Takes time.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Patchouli on 10/02/2015 03:45 am


I always thought mr Bezos was aiming for the moon. Would he not optimize for this goal from the beginning?
Depends on the architecture he chooses if he decides to use LEO assembly and staging of the lunar missions then a LEO optimized LV would be desirable.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Kryten on 10/07/2015 04:52 pm
Quote
Jeff Foust ‏@jeff_foust  9m9 minutes ago
Meyerson: next New Shepard test flight next the end of this year. Want to get through test program before starting to sell tix. #ispcs
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 10/07/2015 06:59 pm
Does anybody know where New Shepard is built.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Kryten on 10/07/2015 07:35 pm
Does anybody know where New Shepard is built.
Presumably their facilities in Kent, WA, given there's only test infrastructure at Van Horn.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 10/07/2015 08:01 pm
Does anybody know where New Shepard is built.
Presumably their facilities in Kent, WA, given there's only test infrastructure at Van Horn.
Thanks Kryten.

Another tweet of Jeff said they had 500 staff, mainly Washington and Texas, with another 300 to come for Florida factory and orbital launch site.

That is a lot of wages for Bezos to carry. The cashflow from suborbital business would make a huge difference. Based on Virgins prices and customer base, the New Shepard could fly twice a week at $1.5m flight ($250k seat), earning $150m a year.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: savuporo on 10/07/2015 08:18 pm
That is a lot of wages for Bezos to carry. The cashflow from suborbital business would make a huge difference. Based on Virgins prices and customer base, the New Shepard could fly twice a week at $1.5m flight ($250k seat), earning $150m a year.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/katevinton/2015/07/23/jeff-bezos-just-gained-7-billion-in-an-hour-to-become-worlds-fifth-richest/

$7B in an hour. I think he is quite okay with hiring enough talented people and give them enough time and funds to do this right. As opposed to some other suborbital ventures.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Moe Grills on 10/11/2015 09:43 pm
So it has been close to 1/2 a year since the first reasonably successful suborbital launch of a New Shepard spacecraft. Doesn't seem possible that Blue Origin can accelerate launch-rates to once every 2 weeks.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 10/12/2015 05:36 am
So it has been close to 1/2 a year since the first reasonably successful suborbital launch of a New Shepard spacecraft. Doesn't seem possible that Blue Origin can accelerate launch-rates to once every 2 weeks.

Why not?

A pause of half a year shouldn't be surprising.  They're in the development phase.  Things are found in that phase, and changes have to be made.

Remember, the booster for that flight crashed.  At the least, they have to manufacture a whole new booster, which they had been hoping to reuse.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: MattMason on 10/12/2015 12:25 pm
So it has been close to 1/2 a year since the first reasonably successful suborbital launch of a New Shepard spacecraft. Doesn't seem possible that Blue Origin can accelerate launch-rates to once every 2 weeks.

Why not?

A pause of half a year shouldn't be surprising.  They're in the development phase.  Things are found in that phase, and changes have to be made.

Remember, the booster for that flight crashed.  At the least, they have to manufacture a whole new booster, which they had been hoping to reuse.

And, unlike other private companies, Blue Origin has a clear tendency to be secretive and, frankly, take their sweet time in development. They don't feel pressured as yet to release any news they don't want to release. They may have built a new booster and tested it by now. But Blue maintains a pretty tight security level so we may never know this for weeks, months or ever if they so choose.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 10/12/2015 01:37 pm
After crash in April Blue said boosters No2 &3 were not far away from completion with a No4 and 5 under construction. They could be flying No2 and maybe No3 by now.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 10/12/2015 02:48 pm
After crash in April Blue said boosters No2 &3 were not far away from completion with a No4 and 5 under construction. They could be flying No2 and maybe No3 by now.
You are making an ill-informed assumption here.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: edkyle99 on 10/12/2015 03:10 pm
So it has been close to 1/2 a year since the first reasonably successful suborbital launch of a New Shepard spacecraft. Doesn't seem possible that Blue Origin can accelerate launch-rates to once every 2 weeks.

Why not?

A pause of half a year shouldn't be surprising.  They're in the development phase.  Things are found in that phase, and changes have to be made.

Remember, the booster for that flight crashed.  At the least, they have to manufacture a whole new booster, which they had been hoping to reuse.

Yes.  They also have to solve whatever problem prevented the BE-3 engine from restarting.  That could involve many months of re-design and testing, etc.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 10/12/2015 08:33 pm
So it has been close to 1/2 a year since the first reasonably successful suborbital launch of a New Shepard spacecraft. Doesn't seem possible that Blue Origin can accelerate launch-rates to once every 2 weeks.
A pause of half a year shouldn't be surprising.  They're in the development phase.  Things are found in that phase, and changes have to be made.
Yes.  They also have to solve whatever problem prevented the BE-3 engine from restarting.  That could involve many months of re-design and testing, etc.
They aren't funded by revenues, but by a fixed annual stipend. No acceleration, just eventual, incremental progress. "Gradatim ferociter".

Engines hold surprises. Finding/fixing/proving/certifying BE3/4 not like tuning up your truck's V8 with a timing light ;)

Relax, it will all happen in the fullness of time.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: sublimemarsupial on 10/13/2015 03:51 am
So it has been close to 1/2 a year since the first reasonably successful suborbital launch of a New Shepard spacecraft. Doesn't seem possible that Blue Origin can accelerate launch-rates to once every 2 weeks.
A pause of half a year shouldn't be surprising.  They're in the development phase.  Things are found in that phase, and changes have to be made.
Yes.  They also have to solve whatever problem prevented the BE-3 engine from restarting.  That could involve many months of re-design and testing, etc.
They aren't funded by revenues, but by a fixed annual stipend. No acceleration, just eventual, incremental progress. "Gradatim ferociter".

Engines hold surprises. Finding/fixing/proving/certifying BE3/4 not like tuning up your truck's V8 with a timing light ;)

Relax, it will all happen in the fullness of time.

From what I recall, the issue was in the hydraulic system powering the multitude of flaps and fins that the vehicles has, leading to aerodynamic failure, nothing to do with the engine failing to restart.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: jongoff on 10/13/2015 06:04 am
The next 12-18 months are going to be really interesting for Blue Origin. If they successfully get back to flight this year, and manage to land both halves of the vehicle successfully this time, I think people will be surprised at how much progress they make before the end of 2016. This wasn't the case until recently, but they're now my odds-on favorite for being the first sRLV company to enter operational service with 100km flights. Even if they do prang another booster, I still give them better than 75% chance of getting successful landing attempt in before the end of next year.

~Jon
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 10/13/2015 06:28 am
The next 12-18 months are going to be really interesting for Blue Origin. If they successfully get back to flight this year, and manage to land both halves of the vehicle successfully this time, I think people will be surprised at how much progress they make before the end of 2016. This wasn't the case until recently, but they're now my odds-on favorite for being the first sRLV company to enter operational service with 100km flights. Even if they do prang another booster, I still give them better than 75% chance of getting successful landing attempt in before the end of next year.

Agreed.  Now the next interesting questions are how much it will cost them to run the service on a regular basis, how much they charge passengers, and what the steady-state demand for suborbital tourist flights really is.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: MattMason on 10/13/2015 12:20 pm
The next 12-18 months are going to be really interesting for Blue Origin. If they successfully get back to flight this year, and manage to land both halves of the vehicle successfully this time, I think people will be surprised at how much progress they make before the end of 2016. This wasn't the case until recently, but they're now my odds-on favorite for being the first sRLV company to enter operational service with 100km flights. Even if they do prang another booster, I still give them better than 75% chance of getting successful landing attempt in before the end of next year.

Agreed.  Now the next interesting questions are how much it will cost them to run the service on a regular basis, how much they charge passengers, and what the steady-state demand for suborbital tourist flights really is.

I concur. It should be noted that there have been many private spacecraft firms that have come and gone (and are still about to go) with great ideas but lack funding, initiative, or a realistic plan. While I'm not a fan of Bezos personally, his group has built a viable vehicle. His group is also tasked with a new engine needed for ULA (who can't afford to sink cash in "speculative ideas"). NASA and CCAFS have allowed his team to use a launch pad facility. Doesn't sound like experimental stuff like DC-X, Conastoga, XCOR, SpaceShipOne or Moonspike to me.

I don't want to say that the ends justify the means because that would imply that Blue is doing something unseemly. They aren't. They just keep their cards close to their chest and, so far, have played their hand well enough--for what we've seen of it.

Musk, Bezos, Bigelow, Bruno, Bolden, and many more names are puzzle pieces fitting (or trying to fit) together in a way never seen in history. They're also influencing other spaceflight groups worldwide to rethink traditional space vehicles and uses.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 10/13/2015 02:49 pm
The next 12-18 months are going to be really interesting for Blue Origin.
~Jon

Expect more interesting news in the 6-18 month period. :)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 10/14/2015 05:50 pm
Sorry but I'm not as upbeat. Organizations like this in the development stage usually focus on 1-3 projects, work them to success, then take another set and drive those forward. This "serial chaining" is cost effective but causes the schedule to stretch out.

You either focus on finishing suborbital vehicle, setting up for a follow on of operations to build a revenue producing suborbital business, or ... you finish your JV BE4 engine so you enable the successful business of your partner that you participate with.

If either of these development projects make it to the next level (booster and capsule land successfully, full scale BE4 on test stand), that would exceed my expectations for the year from BO. And a year later, going into business on either.

For them to do more, they'd need much more people, much more expenditures. Has this happened?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: MattMason on 10/14/2015 06:53 pm
Sorry but I'm not as upbeat. Organizations like this in the development stage usually focus on 1-3 projects, work them to success, then take another set and drive those forward. This "serial chaining" is cost effective but causes the schedule to stretch out.

You either focus on finishing suborbital vehicle, setting up for a follow on of operations to build a revenue producing suborbital business, or ... you finish your JV BE4 engine so you enable the successful business of your partner that you participate with.

If either of these development projects make it to the next level (booster and capsule land successfully, full scale BE4 on test stand), that would exceed my expectations for the year from BO. And a year later, going into business on either.

For them to do more, they'd need much more people, much more expenditures. Has this happened?

That's a good point, at the risk of playing devil's advocate with my last comments. We're not talking a mom-and-pop business. We've seen the limits in launch vehicle development when budget, cooperation, or other factors creep in. And while Bezos is a shrewd businessman, that differs from being a rocket scientist. One could argue the same for Musk and certainly Branson. It helps to surround yourself with rocket scientists, perhaps, as well as not reinventing the wheel and having a clear, even public, state of objectives.

In this case, Bezos unusual but not impractical suborbital reusable booster should be fine. However, cooperation and more funding may bring it to fruition faster than its current state. "Branson's Folly," as I'll call the SS2 project, seems regrettably built on an experimental design that needed more refinements for safe flight than simply "cloning" it into a more aircraft-like design. (They just went back to a rubberized motor again. (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35117.msg1435135#msg1435135)) Musk is using conventional designs, is wholly cooperative with NASA but is using a less expensive construction process or contractor(s) that might have bit him on the butt with CRS-7.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: savuporo on 10/14/2015 07:28 pm
For them to do more, they'd need much more people, much more expenditures. Has this happened?
BO has around 450 or more people in the team total, if not more.

This is from Sept, 2015
Quote
Blue Origin, founded in 2000, has about 400 employees in Kent, Washington, mostly engineers. The Cape Canaveral facility will create 330 jobs, and Bezos said he expects to launch a rocket from the site by the end of the decade.

They said 300 2 years ago, and Linkedin shows about 350 right now.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Star One on 10/14/2015 08:26 pm
For them to do more, they'd need much more people, much more expenditures. Has this happened?
BO has around 450 or more people in the team total, if not more.

This is from Sept, 2015
Quote
Blue Origin, founded in 2000, has about 400 employees in Kent, Washington, mostly engineers. The Cape Canaveral facility will create 330 jobs, and Bezos said he expects to launch a rocket from the site by the end of the decade.

They said 300 2 years ago, and Linkedin shows about 350 right now.

Yes I found the comment about the lack of staff to be curious at the very least. Also I doubt that BO lacks for funding either. Bezos might be new to industry but he has an large business empire to back up his ambitions and he has proved himself to be a canny businessman. Those doubting his ability in this area need to be careful of their words less they find themselves eating them.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: M_Puckett on 10/14/2015 08:33 pm
Sorry but I'm not as upbeat. Organizations like this in the development stage usually focus on 1-3 projects, work them to success, then take another set and drive those forward. This "serial chaining" is cost effective but causes the schedule to stretch out.

You either focus on finishing suborbital vehicle, setting up for a follow on of operations to build a revenue producing suborbital business, or ... you finish your JV BE4 engine so you enable the successful business of your partner that you participate with.

If either of these development projects make it to the next level (booster and capsule land successfully, full scale BE4 on test stand), that would exceed my expectations for the year from BO. And a year later, going into business on either.

For them to do more, they'd need much more people, much more expenditures. Has this happened?

Bezos is worth more than 50 BILLION dollars, this gives him options that most mortal businesses can only dream of.  I don't think the usual rules exactly apply to him.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 10/14/2015 09:18 pm
Quote from: Andrew Martonik
Amazon posts $544 million operating loss in Q3, takes $170 million write-down on Fire Phone. Amazon just announced its Q3 2014 earnings, showing the largest operating loss in company history of $544 million for the quarter.Oct 23, 2014
He also makes big mistakes. And, on this one, watched them personally screw the pooch, knowingly. And he's still not corrected fundamental issues, due to "ideological" disputes with hard reality. Which is dangerous, especially in spaceflight. Musk also has had a few arguments with physics that have not gone well.

No one denies he's smart. Or has money - he could buy all the launch providers at once in the world. Isn't. A one.

Being smart and rich guarantees ... nothing. Its how you use those (and other) assets. Rate limited.

He knows this too. Gradatim ferociter. Fixed annual stipend is all I've heard is the finance. He's built a full scale test facility for engines. He's got time on government stands. So we can see/hear of big things, and trust me, they do leak out. There are issues, and they are being worked. That's it, space cadets. Fullness of time.

So what's SX/ULA at for people each? Few thousand each? What were both doing when they were at the same size?

You need experience in launch/spacecraft systems before you operate/scale. Where is that?

Mark my predictions for the year. And I'll be the first to applaud when there's a successful flight with BOTH booster and capsule recovered, and a full scale keroloxmethalox engine on a test stand.

edit:
Boneheaded error due to doing too many things too fast. Thank you for catching that leaflion!
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: savuporo on 10/14/2015 09:24 pm
So what's SX/ULA at for people each? Few thousand each? What were both doing when they were at the same size?

SpaceX :
Quote
The company has grown rapidly since it was founded in 2002, growing from 160 employees in November 2005 to more than 500 by July 2008, to over 1,100 in 2010

Falcon-1 first launch attempt was 24 March 2006, guessing 200ish at that time.  By 2008 they finally got it to fly straight.

It is worth noting that the total available talent in a specific field in a given time and location is ultimately finite. And in aerospace, at least in US, you cannot import from elsewhere either.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Star One on 10/14/2015 09:27 pm
Quote from: Andrew Martonik
Amazon posts $544 million operating loss in Q3, takes $170 million write-down on Fire Phone. Amazon just announced its Q3 2014 earnings, showing the largest operating loss in company history of $544 million for the quarter.Oct 23, 2014
He also makes big mistakes. And, on this one, watched them personally screw the pooch, knowingly. And he's still not corrected fundamental issues, due to "ideological" disputes with hard reality. Which is dangerous, especially in spaceflight. Musk also has had a few arguments with physics that have not gone well.

No one denies he's smart. Or has money - he could buy all the launch providers at once in the world. Isn't. A one.

Being smart and rich guarantees ... nothing. Its how you use those (and other) assets. Rate limited.

He knows this too. Gradatim ferociter. Fixed annual stipend is all I've heard is the finance. He's built a full scale test facility for engines. He's got time on government stands. So we can see/hear of big things, and trust me, they do leak out. There are issues, and they are being worked. That's it, space cadets. Fullness of time.

So what's SX/ULA at for people each? Few thousand each? What were both doing when they were at the same size?

You need experience in launch/spacecraft systems before you operate/scale. Where is that?

Mark my predictions for the year. And I'll be the first to applaud when there's a successful flight with BOTH booster and capsule recovered, and a full scale kerolox engine on a test stand.

Scepticism is good but becomes less useful when it crosses a line into negativism.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 10/15/2015 12:26 am
Quote from: Andrew Martonik
Amazon posts $544 million operating loss in Q3, takes $170 million write-down on Fire Phone. Amazon just announced its Q3 2014 earnings, showing the largest operating loss in company history of $544 million for the quarter.Oct 23, 2014
He also makes big mistakes. And, on this one, watched them personally screw the pooch, knowingly. And he's still not corrected fundamental issues, due to "ideological" disputes with hard reality. Which is dangerous, especially in spaceflight. Musk also has had a few arguments with physics that have not gone well.

No one denies he's smart. Or has money - he could buy all the launch providers at once in the world. Isn't. A one.

Being smart and rich guarantees ... nothing. Its how you use those (and other) assets. Rate limited.

He knows this too. Gradatim ferociter. Fixed annual stipend is all I've heard is the finance. He's built a full scale test facility for engines. He's got time on government stands. So we can see/hear of big things, and trust me, they do leak out. There are issues, and they are being worked. That's it, space cadets. Fullness of time.

So what's SX/ULA at for people each? Few thousand each? What were both doing when they were at the same size?

You need experience in launch/spacecraft systems before you operate/scale. Where is that?

Mark my predictions for the year. And I'll be the first to applaud when there's a successful flight with BOTH booster and capsule recovered, and a full scale kerolox engine on a test stand.

Scepticism is good but becomes less useful when it crosses a line into negativism.
When is considerate pragmatism "negativism"?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: leaflion on 10/15/2015 04:22 am

Mark my predictions for the year. And I'll be the first to applaud when there's a successful flight with BOTH booster and capsule recovered, and a full scale kerolox engine on a test stand.

Since when is Blue working on a Keralox engine?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 10/15/2015 05:02 am

Mark my predictions for the year. And I'll be the first to applaud when there's a successful flight with BOTH booster and capsule recovered, and a full scale kerolox engine on a test stand.

Since when is Blue working on a Keralox engine?

Thank you for finding my boneheaded error leaflion! Corrected.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Star One on 10/15/2015 06:27 am

Quote from: Andrew Martonik
Amazon posts $544 million operating loss in Q3, takes $170 million write-down on Fire Phone. Amazon just announced its Q3 2014 earnings, showing the largest operating loss in company history of $544 million for the quarter.Oct 23, 2014
He also makes big mistakes. And, on this one, watched them personally screw the pooch, knowingly. And he's still not corrected fundamental issues, due to "ideological" disputes with hard reality. Which is dangerous, especially in spaceflight. Musk also has had a few arguments with physics that have not gone well.

No one denies he's smart. Or has money - he could buy all the launch providers at once in the world. Isn't. A one.

Being smart and rich guarantees ... nothing. Its how you use those (and other) assets. Rate limited.

He knows this too. Gradatim ferociter. Fixed annual stipend is all I've heard is the finance. He's built a full scale test facility for engines. He's got time on government stands. So we can see/hear of big things, and trust me, they do leak out. There are issues, and they are being worked. That's it, space cadets. Fullness of time.

So what's SX/ULA at for people each? Few thousand each? What were both doing when they were at the same size?

You need experience in launch/spacecraft systems before you operate/scale. Where is that?

Mark my predictions for the year. And I'll be the first to applaud when there's a successful flight with BOTH booster and capsule recovered, and a full scale kerolox engine on a test stand.

Scepticism is good but becomes less useful when it crosses a line into negativism.
When is considerate pragmatism "negativism"?

Obviously some people's definition of pragmatism is different to others.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Oli on 10/16/2015 07:24 pm
The next 12-18 months are going to be really interesting for Blue Origin. If they successfully get back to flight this year, and manage to land both halves of the vehicle successfully this time, I think people will be surprised at how much progress they make before the end of 2016. This wasn't the case until recently, but they're now my odds-on favorite for being the first sRLV company to enter operational service with 100km flights. Even if they do prang another booster, I still give them better than 75% chance of getting successful landing attempt in before the end of next year.

~Jon

SpaceShipTwo had done 54 test flights. I imagine BO must conduct a similarly rigorous test campaign.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 10/16/2015 09:30 pm
The next 12-18 months are going to be really interesting for Blue Origin. If they successfully get back to flight this year, and manage to land both halves of the vehicle successfully this time, I think people will be surprised at how much progress they make before the end of 2016. This wasn't the case until recently, but they're now my odds-on favorite for being the first sRLV company to enter operational service with 100km flights. Even if they do prang another booster, I still give them better than 75% chance of getting successful landing attempt in before the end of next year.

~Jon

SpaceShipTwo had done 54 test flights. I imagine BO must conduct a similarly rigorous test campaign.

Not necessarily.  Number of test flights is not necessarily a good proxy for how rigorous a test campaign is.

For example, SpaceShipTwo has done zero flights that actually went into space.  Since that vehicle is an air-launched plane, there are a lot of things to test having to do with unpowered flight, captive carry, etc.  They also might have been dragging out the test program because of engine issues -- they knew the engine they had at the time wasn't ready for flights to space.

Also, SpaceShipTwo requires a pilot on board for all flights, while Blue Origin's vehicles can be flown without any humans aboard.  That means Blue Origin can jump straight ahead to full-mission flights with less intermediate testing and still not risk human lives.

If Blue Origin doesn't have engine issues, they might skip those 54 not-to-space test flights and go directly or almost directly to flights that test the full mission profile.  In that case, they would likely need far fewer flights to be considered "similarly rigorous" to SpaceShipTwo.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: jongoff on 10/16/2015 10:51 pm
The next 12-18 months are going to be really interesting for Blue Origin. If they successfully get back to flight this year, and manage to land both halves of the vehicle successfully this time, I think people will be surprised at how much progress they make before the end of 2016. This wasn't the case until recently, but they're now my odds-on favorite for being the first sRLV company to enter operational service with 100km flights. Even if they do prang another booster, I still give them better than 75% chance of getting successful landing attempt in before the end of next year.

~Jon

SpaceShipTwo had done 54 test flights. I imagine BO must conduct a similarly rigorous test campaign.

Not necessarily.  Number of test flights is not necessarily a good proxy for how rigorous a test campaign is.

For example, SpaceShipTwo has done zero flights that actually went into space.  Since that vehicle is an air-launched plane, there are a lot of things to test having to do with unpowered flight, captive carry, etc.  They also might have been dragging out the test program because of engine issues -- they knew the engine they had at the time wasn't ready for flights to space.

Also, SpaceShipTwo requires a pilot on board for all flights, while Blue Origin's vehicles can be flown without any humans aboard.  That means Blue Origin can jump straight ahead to full-mission flights with less intermediate testing and still not risk human lives.

If Blue Origin doesn't have engine issues, they might skip those 54 not-to-space test flights and go directly or almost directly to flights that test the full mission profile.  In that case, they would likely need far fewer flights to be considered "similarly rigorous" to SpaceShipTwo.

Oli--I agree with Chris here.

A lot also depends on whether your payload is the self-installing, two-legged variety. Unmanned zero-g experiments might not take as much of a track record to be worth trying, if the price is right. For a company like Blue that's interested in both passenger flights as well as unmanned science flights, I wouldn't be surprised if they offered the science flights a lot earlier in the process. As odd as it is having them separate their capsule from booster for separate recovery, that also allows them to do other flight tests on paying unmanned flights that you'd never want to do if you were flying a vehicle that always had to have a pilot on-board.

Not saying their approach is superior or inferior, just different from SS2.

~Jon
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Kryten on 10/16/2015 10:57 pm
If Blue Origin doesn't have engine issues, they might skip those 54 not-to-space test flights and go directly or almost directly to flights that test the full mission profile.  In that case, they would likely need far fewer flights to be considered "similarly rigorous" to SpaceShipTwo.
Surely we already know that's what they're doing, given the test flight they've done was to near space?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: JamesG123 on 10/17/2015 12:13 am
When is considerate pragmatism "negativism"?

When it disagrees with someone else's opinion or perception.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: leaflion on 10/17/2015 01:45 am
If Blue Origin doesn't have engine issues, they might skip those 54 not-to-space test flights and go directly or almost directly to flights that test the full mission profile.  In that case, they would likely need far fewer flights to be considered "similarly rigorous" to SpaceShipTwo.

I'm curious, how many flights (in a row) would you want to see before you would fly on their rocket?
What about if the capsule lands and the booster crashes sometimes?
What about if the capsule escapes and the crew is OK?

For that matter, same question for Lynx & SS2.

Historically, that number has been (frighteningly?) low for manned spaceflight.  Shuttle was zero.  So was SS2 and will be Lynx.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/17/2015 02:45 am
Blue Origin has the advantage in that regard of flying unmanned. Like the other 2, they are fully reusable, but unlike the other 2, they can fly as many full missions as they want without endangering humans. Both SS2 and Lynx, on the other hand, have to be extremely careful with envelope expansion, having to do lots of non-space flights before they do full space-flights. Thus for the same number of attempted flights, Blue Origin can afford to do more of them to a full mission profile.

And like Jon said, Blue Origin can also start revenue service with unmanned payloads, allowing them to actually get paid for some of those "test flights" before they risk a single passenger or pilot.

In either case, I think that 100 test flights (could be unmanned payload flights, too) to a near or full mission profile is a good number. If that's too expensive, your system overall is too expensive for mass space tourism. You should be capable of doing that in about a month if your system can do multiple flights per day (about what's needed for affordable space tourism operations).
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Bob Shaw on 10/18/2015 12:22 am
Bezos will buy as a going concern, or purchase the bankrupt assets of, Bigelow. Problem solved for both parties...
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: savuporo on 10/18/2015 12:27 am
I'm curious, how many flights (in a row) would you want to see before you would fly on their rocket?
...
Historically, that number has been (frighteningly?) low for manned spaceflight.  Shuttle was zero.  So was SS2 and will be Lynx.
To be fair, historically, that figure has been close to zero for most of the history of aviation.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 10/18/2015 07:19 pm
Bezos will buy as a going concern, or purchase the bankrupt assets of, Bigelow. Problem solved for both parties...
Unlikely.

Perhaps you meant "could" in place of "will".

BO "could have" bought various firms/technologies to accelerate agenda. Didn't.

Suggest that like SX, BO's incrementalism means that it is more effective to import ideas and concepts that are implemented in house as part of existing systems, then to rework existing hardware.

Besides, Bezo's history of acquisitions is that he buys revenue producers that can't grow, and attempts to restructure them so that they can grow. ULA might fit that model, but little else.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: leaflion on 10/19/2015 04:23 am
I'm curious, how many flights (in a row) would you want to see before you would fly on their rocket?
...
Historically, that number has been (frighteningly?) low for manned spaceflight.  Shuttle was zero.  So was SS2 and will be Lynx.
To be fair, historically, that figure has been close to zero for most of the history of aviation.

So are you saying you would ride on the next flight?

We did a lot of things in history that we wouldn't do now.  People tested parachutes for the first time manned.  They didn't live very long though...

Personally, I wouldn't.  But I have a hard time putting a number on it.  Certialy more than 1, but probably less than 20.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: savuporo on 10/19/2015 05:20 am
So are you saying you would ride on the next flight?

We did a lot of things in history that we wouldn't do now.  People tested parachutes for the first time manned
I might, i'd need much more information to decide. I'm not a test pilot by occupation so i probably wouldn't add much value there, although i am a recreational skydiver. FYI, most if not all new airplanes still have their first flights manned, this has not changed - except for UAVs.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: leaflion on 10/19/2015 05:46 am
I am aware, but the failure modes of most airplanes can be mitigated with a good parachute or ejection seat.  Once you get above a certain altitude (say, ~75kft) that's no longer an option, even with a pressure suit, so this isn't quite the same.

They're capsule does have an escape system, although its only been tested as a system once, and from the ground.  Certainly adds some confidence, although I'm not aware of an spacecraft escape system ever being used in flight, although its entirely possible it has happened on Soyuz and I just don't know.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 10/19/2015 06:33 am
I am aware, but the failure modes of most airplanes can be mitigated with a good parachute or ejection seat.  Once you get above a certain altitude (say, ~75kft) that's no longer an option, even with a pressure suit, so this isn't quite the same.

They're capsule does have an escape system, although its only been tested as a system once, and from the ground.  Certainly adds some confidence, although I'm not aware of an spacecraft escape system ever being used in flight, although its entirely possible it has happened on Soyuz and I just don't know.
Soyuz has put theirs to test at least once with a pad fire, it worked.

The New Shepard's LAS is a big plus from safety point of view. 

With Virgin and XCOR, the passengers have no escape if their vehicle has problems with the tons of rocket fuel it is carry.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: savuporo on 10/19/2015 08:18 am
I am aware, but the failure modes of most airplanes can be mitigated with a good parachute or ejection seat.  Once you get above a certain altitude (say, ~75kft) that's no longer an option, even with a pressure suit, so this isn't quite the same.

They're capsule does have an escape system, although its only been tested as a system once, and from the ground.  Certainly adds some confidence, although I'm not aware of an spacecraft escape system ever being used in flight, although its entirely possible it has happened on Soyuz and I just don't know.

See the attached illustrations. Also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Eustace#Stratosphere_jump
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: nadreck on 10/19/2015 10:51 pm
So are you saying you would ride on the next flight?

We did a lot of things in history that we wouldn't do now.  People tested parachutes for the first time manned
I might, i'd need much more information to decide. I'm not a test pilot by occupation so i probably wouldn't add much value there, although i am a recreational skydiver. FYI, most if not all new airplanes still have their first flights manned, this has not changed - except for UAVs.

If I knew nothing of the engineering and subsystems testing of a hypothetical spacecraft I would want 2 or 3 successful whole system tests before thinking about going on board. If I was privy to all the design and subsystems tests and full flight test details the answer could be zero to infinity.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: leaflion on 10/20/2015 07:19 am
@Savuporo:

Not sure your point,  but I'm assuming you're proving me wrong by showing that people have jumped from balloons higher than 75kft.  This is true.  That is a very controlled environment.

Try ejecting from a rocket at 75kft.  You'll probably die very quickly.  If not, consider that you are going about Mach 2.  Still not quite dead yet?  Consider that by the time you decelerate to a stop you'll have gained another ~75kft, so now you're up to what old Mr. Alan's height.

So I maintain that anything above 75ft ejecting is not an option.  If that was what you were disagreeing with...
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 10/20/2015 02:56 pm
@Savuporo:

Not sure your point,  but I'm assuming you're proving me wrong by showing that people have jumped from balloons higher than 75kft.  This is true.  That is a very controlled environment.

Try ejecting from a rocket at 75kft.  You'll probably die very quickly.  If not, consider that you are going about Mach 2.  Still not quite dead yet?  Consider that by the time you decelerate to a stop you'll have gained another ~75kft, so now you're up to what old Mr. Alan's height.

So I maintain that anything above 75ft ejecting is not an option.  If that was what you were disagreeing with...
Soviet shuttle Buran's K-36RB ejection seats were designed fro 30~35km of altitude and Mach 3~3.5 of speed. 75kft is doable and survivable. BTW, the Soviets went as far as actually ejecting crash test dummies from Progress-M launches at said speed/altitude to get actual performance data.
Shuttle's were 24km (78kft) and Mach 2.7. So either both STS and Buran's designers didn't knew what they were doing, or you are wrong.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Kansan52 on 10/20/2015 03:00 pm
How about the Gemini and SR-71 profiles? Just curious.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: JasonAW3 on 10/20/2015 05:24 pm
How about the Gemini and SR-71 profiles? Just curious.

I don't know about Gemini, but as I understand it, there has been one successful ejection at about Mach 3 at about 100Kft.  Happened when a two seater SR-71 had a catastrophic structural failure and both crew ejected, but only one survived.  As I remember, the other guy was caught in the explosion of the craft.  As the SR-71 was still highly classified, he had to tell the farmer in whose field he had landed that he was flying an F-101 that had blown up.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Kansan52 on 10/20/2015 05:36 pm
How about the Gemini and SR-71 profiles? Just curious.

I don't know about Gemini, but as I understand it, there has been one successful ejection at about Mach 3 at about 100Kft.  Happened when a two seater SR-71 had a catastrophic structural failure and both crew ejected, but only one survived.  As I remember, the other guy was caught in the explosion of the craft.  As the SR-71 was still highly classified, he had to tell the farmer in whose field he had landed that he was flying an F-101 that had blown up.

You are correct. Heard that pilot talk about that mission.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: notsorandom on 10/20/2015 05:39 pm
How about the Gemini and SR-71 profiles? Just curious.

I don't know about Gemini, but as I understand it, there has been one successful ejection at about Mach 3 at about 100Kft.  Happened when a two seater SR-71 had a catastrophic structural failure and both crew ejected, but only one survived.  As I remember, the other guy was caught in the explosion of the craft.  As the SR-71 was still highly classified, he had to tell the farmer in whose field he had landed that he was flying an F-101 that had blown up.
You may be talking about the disintegration of the SR-71 Bill Weaver was piloting. The plane broke up around him before they had a chance to pull the ejection handle. Jim Zwayer, the other crew member, sadly died due to injuries caused by the plane's break up. The event was very similar to SS2's breakup nearly a year ago. Bill Weaver ended up flying the L-1011 that drops the Pegasus LV.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Bob Shaw on 10/20/2015 07:03 pm
I am aware, but the failure modes of most airplanes can be mitigated with a good parachute or ejection seat.  Once you get above a certain altitude (say, ~75kft) that's no longer an option, even with a pressure suit, so this isn't quite the same.

They're capsule does have an escape system, although its only been tested as a system once, and from the ground.  Certainly adds some confidence, although I'm not aware of an spacecraft escape system ever being used in flight, although its entirely possible it has happened on Soyuz and I just don't know.
Soyuz has put theirs to test at least once with a pad fire, it worked.

The New Shepard's LAS is a big plus from safety point of view. 

With Virgin and XCOR, the passengers have no escape if their vehicle has problems with the tons of rocket fuel it is carry.

Soyuz did the whole 'halfway to orbit' abort thing just prior to ASTP - it was a great success, though rough on the crew. The Pad Abort left one of the cosmonauts with long-term injuries, IIRC. All in all, not a good day for the crew on Soyuz, but much better than it could have been!

Don't start me on Shuttle.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: leaflion on 10/21/2015 07:56 am

Don't start me on Shuttle.

Firepole anyone?   While it might technically be possible to survive with an ejection seat in a few cases if you're lucky, its pretty clear to me that the only way to ensure safety is a full capsule escape capability.  Especially after reading about Soyuz 18A.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: savuporo on 10/21/2015 07:54 pm
Try ejecting from a rocket at 75kft.  You'll probably die very quickly.
I probably would, as the survival rate from aircraft ejections isn't that high in the first place. That is also why these things are last resort. SpaceShip2 broke apart at 55kft at Mach 1.2, with 50% survival rate.

Quote
So I maintain that anything above 75ft ejecting is not an option.  If that was what you were disagreeing with...
Ejection is always an option if the aircraft is designed with an ejection system, and mostly it works out better than alternative. As others noted, there are examples of high altitude ejection systems, even all the way to the orbit with MOOSE (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOOSE). I disagree that ejection at high altitudes is an impossibility - although its obvious that the higher and faster you go the more complicated your individual support system becomes.  Both Baumgartner and Eustace wore highly complex suits that were more individual spacecraft than suits.

In any case, if i were to go up on a rocket like that i'd prefer to have both my own parachute ( but not a pressure suit) and a BRS on the craft.


Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: leaflion on 10/22/2015 06:21 am
Try ejecting from a rocket at 75kft.  You'll probably die very quickly.
I probably would, as the survival rate from aircraft ejections isn't that high in the first place. That is also why these things are last resort. SpaceShip2 broke apart at 55kft at Mach 1.2, with 50% survival rate.

Quote
So I maintain that anything above 75ft ejecting is not an option.  If that was what you were disagreeing with...
Ejection is always an option if the aircraft is designed with an ejection system, and mostly it works out better than alternative. As others noted, there are examples of high altitude ejection systems, even all the way to the orbit with MOOSE (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOOSE). I disagree that ejection at high altitudes is an impossibility - although its obvious that the higher and faster you go the more complicated your individual support system becomes.  Both Baumgartner and Eustace wore highly complex suits that were more individual spacecraft than suits.

In any case, if i were to go up on a rocket like that i'd prefer to have both my own parachute ( but not a pressure suit) and a BRS on the craft.

I think you hit the nail on the head when you said "highly complex suits that were more individual spacecraft than suits."  As you increase in altitude, the minimum required to survive ejecting becomes more and more like full capsule escape, like MOOSE.  It is a continuum.

Let me clarify my belief:  At anything above 75kft a traditional ejection seat is not a practical option.  Yes, if you've got nothing else then might as well try.  But it isn't something you rely on.

To get slightly more on topic, if your passengers are tourists, then you probably don't want them able to eject if they get frightened.  To that end, how do you balance personal responsibility with liability.  If you had an ejection seat and failed to use it (assuming you could have), who is at fault for your death? 
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 10/23/2015 11:32 am
Here's a little update on pad 36 and the factory.

http://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2015/10/21/space-florida-approve-pad-land-blue-origin/74319126/

139 acres is a lot of land!

Little update on Bezos: Thursday evening, making him the third-wealthiest person in the United States and the fifth world wide.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/10/22/amazons-bezos--third-richest-america-bloomberg-billionaire-index/74424514/

No Bucks No Buck Rogers is still in force, the future will be interesting.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: simonbp on 10/23/2015 10:54 pm
And like Jon said, Blue Origin can also start revenue service with unmanned payloads, allowing them to actually get paid for some of those "test flights" before they risk a single passenger or pilot.

And that's a not a hypothetical; Blue quietly sold a number of uncrewed suborbital flights several years ago. Once they get the recovery system down, those will be the first revenue flights.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Bob Shaw on 10/23/2015 11:09 pm
Passenger aircraft fly with no real personal protection or survival gear for the passengers. You're just as dead if you fall from 3,000 feet as 300,000 feet.

How many people have those silly little lifevests ever saved, and how much has it cost to have those daft masks and all their plumbing hidden up in the ceiling?

Just about the only *real* aircraft life-saving technology I've ever heard of are those nifty tractor rocket-fired parachutes for light aircraft, which actually seem to work. As for the rest? Buy life insurance.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 10/24/2015 01:40 am
And like Jon said, Blue Origin can also start revenue service with unmanned payloads, allowing them to actually get paid for some of those "test flights" before they risk a single passenger or pilot.

And that's a not a hypothetical; Blue quietly sold a number of uncrewed suborbital flights several years ago. Once they get the recovery system down, those will be the first revenue flights.

They have some deal going with Nanoracks. I think payload customers will deal direct with Nanoracks in much same way as they do for ISS payloads. This would remove Blue of a lot of the headaches associated with dealing with individual customers and their unique payloads.


Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 10/24/2015 07:57 am
If Blue Origin doesn't have engine issues, they might skip those 54 not-to-space test flights and go directly or almost directly to flights that test the full mission profile.  In that case, they would likely need far fewer flights to be considered "similarly rigorous" to SpaceShipTwo.

I'm curious, how many flights (in a row) would you want to see before you would fly on their rocket?

The point is that the number that counts is the total number of full-mission flights.  I would be more impressed by 10 full-mission flights than 100 flights if only 8 of the 100 were full-mission flights and the other 92 were far short of reaching space, as all 54 of the Space Ship Two flights we were discussing have been.

What about if the capsule lands and the booster crashes sometimes?

It depends on the nature of the crashes.  If the crashes happened during development testing due to design flaws and those design flaws were fixed, it wouldn't bother me.  If there were crashes after it was declared operational, then I would be far more hesitant about it.

What about if the capsule escapes and the crew is OK?

For that matter, same question for Lynx & SS2.

The answer would be the same.

Historically, that number has been (frighteningly?) low for manned spaceflight.  Shuttle was zero.  So was SS2 and will be Lynx.

You're talking about the number of test flights before some person flew on the vehicle.  The same is true of nearly every airplane.  But that's different than the number of flights before members of the general public fly on the vehicle.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 10/24/2015 08:44 am
How many people have those silly little lifevests ever saved,

Wikipedia has a list of 20 incidents in which a passenger airliner ditched in the water.  How many of the survivors would have died without the lifevests isn't analyzed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_landing
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 10/24/2015 03:11 pm
How many people have those silly little lifevests ever saved,

Wikipedia has a list of 20 incidents in which a passenger airliner ditched in the water.  How many of the survivors would have died without the lifevests isn't analyzed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_landing
I'll add Chris that in some cases life vests actually contributed to passenger drowning due to inflation while still in the cabin trapping them.
The most recent usefulness that comes to mind was Cactus 1549 on the Hudson where there was controlled water landing due to pilot's great skill. Not all had time to don them however...
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 10/25/2015 07:52 pm
And like Jon said, Blue Origin can also start revenue service with unmanned payloads, allowing them to actually get paid for some of those "test flights" before they risk a single passenger or pilot.

And that's a not a hypothetical; Blue quietly sold a number of uncrewed suborbital flights several years ago. Once they get the recovery system down, those will be the first revenue flights.

Beg to differ. They might get a few to fly, reworking systems in between. Does not mean a revenue stream.

SX is closest to having a revenue stream you can borrow(leverage). They've been flying orbital missions for years, and with RTF the 6 month "hiccup" is a big hit to them. Even ULA frets about consistent revenue with 100+ perfect missions. It's a hard business.

Waiting for consistency with BO on any revenue source will be the next step beyond the annual stipend.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 11/12/2015 10:57 pm
New Shepard expected to fly again by end of year. Assuming no mishaps(craters) we should see it fly regularly.

http://spacenews.com/blue-origin-plans-to-begin-commercial-suborbital-research-flights-in-2016/
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 11/13/2015 01:07 am
New Shepard expected to fly again by end of year. Assuming no mishaps(craters) we should see it fly regularly.

http://spacenews.com/blue-origin-plans-to-begin-commercial-suborbital-research-flights-in-2016/

From the article:

Quote
Erika Wagner, business development manager for Blue Origin, said the company was making plans for another test flight of its New Shepard vehicle by the end of this year which, if successful, would keep the company on track for commercial flights of payloads, but not people, in 2016. “We’re aiming for the second quarter of next year,” she said [...]
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 11/20/2015 01:30 am
Bezos ‘ready and excited’ for Blue Origin’s next steps
http://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/bezos-ready-and-excited-for-blue-origins-next-steps/

decent article, takeaway Bezos is a real space guy ;)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 11/20/2015 01:49 am
Quote
No one has yet managed to land and re-use a launch rocket — seen as the key to making space travel more routine and affordable — though both Elon Musk’s SpaceX and Blue Origin seem to be close.

It will be interesting to see which company manages to land its first stage first: Blue or SpaceX.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 11/20/2015 02:14 am
Quote
No one has yet managed to land and re-use a launch rocket — seen as the key to making space travel more routine and affordable — though both Elon Musk’s SpaceX and Blue Origin seem to be close.

It will be interesting to see which company manages to land its first stage first: Blue or SpaceX.
DC-X :P

Or Early Blue Origin or Masten or Armadillo Aerospace or...
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 11/20/2015 04:50 am
Quote
No one has yet managed to land and re-use a launch rocket — seen as the key to making space travel more routine and affordable — though both Elon Musk’s SpaceX and Blue Origin seem to be close.

It will be interesting to see which company manages to land its first stage first: Blue or SpaceX.
DC-X :P

Or Early Blue Origin or Masten or Armadillo Aerospace or...

These rockets/spacecrafts didn't make it to space.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Zed_Noir on 11/20/2015 03:21 pm
Quote
No one has yet managed to land and re-use a launch rocket — seen as the key to making space travel more routine and affordable — though both Elon Musk’s SpaceX and Blue Origin seem to be close.

It will be interesting to see which company manages to land its first stage first: Blue or SpaceX.
DC-X :P

Or Early Blue Origin or Masten or Armadillo Aerospace or...

These rockets/spacecrafts didn't make it to space.

AIUI the Blue Origin core for the New Sheppard is a sub-orbital or trans-atmospheric vehicle. :-\
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 11/20/2015 05:07 pm
I meant space as including sub-orbital space.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 11/21/2015 12:29 am
I meant space as including sub-orbital space.
Well, Stig made it to some definition of space.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: leaflion on 11/24/2015 02:29 pm
Just landed their booster: https://www.blueorigin.com/news/news/blue-origin-makes-historic-rocket-landing


AWESOME!
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: AnalogMan on 11/24/2015 03:16 pm
Just landed their booster: https://www.blueorigin.com/news/news/blue-origin-makes-historic-rocket-landing (https://www.blueorigin.com/news/news/blue-origin-makes-historic-rocket-landing)


AWESOME!

Full coverage of this event can be found here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38873.50 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38873.50)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Chris Bergin on 11/24/2015 06:20 pm
Our article on this....nothing you don't already know, but has to be done to mark the milestone.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/11/blue-origin-latest-milestone-resuable-rocket-aspiration/
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars-J on 11/24/2015 10:46 pm
Small observation - GNC on re-ignition has very carefully chosen pitch/yaw/roll momentum "dumps", with very little overcorrection. In contrast, Falcon/Grasshopper landings are much less well controlled. Also, the throttle variance seems to have a fast feedback term and a slow one - this seems to also matter for landing.

I don't disagree with the rest, but *this*? Did we watch the same video? Right after re-light (which looked spectacular), it seemed to be over-correcting quite a bit. (see gif below)

Sure, size and inertia makes a difference in how stable something might look, but I think your have some bias if you consider this to have "very carefully chosen pitch/yaw/roll momentum dumps". IMO. See your quote:

And IMHO Bezo's has far better GNC software people than Musk. I've never been fond of the SX software people, they remind me too much of Paypal's third iteration software team after he fired the prior two (possibly more). Don't think much of Tesla's either.
:-X
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Kansan52 on 11/24/2015 11:02 pm
For me, with no experience in the field, it is balancing a bowling ball on the tip of a pencil (not a pencil, a sharpened pencil). It's amazing that they did it it.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 11/24/2015 11:02 pm
Our article on this....nothing you don't already know, but has to be done to mark the milestone.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/11/blue-origin-latest-milestone-resuable-rocket-aspiration/

Most detailed and accurate report of the many I've read. Congrats to Blue Origin.

Here is the most significant item missed by all. They completed all mission objectives perfectly with the vehicle as  described/designed. They claim they did this on serial number #2.


After crash or SN#1 Bezo said  #2, #3, #4 and #5? were being assembled. Good to know there are few spares in pipeline, which allows for the odd crash without delaying the test program by 6 months again. 
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: mfck on 11/24/2015 11:29 pm
Our article on this....nothing you don't already know, but has to be done to mark the milestone.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/11/blue-origin-latest-milestone-resuable-rocket-aspiration/

(...)

Bezo's is closer to his than Musk is. And IMHO Bezo's has far better GNC software people than Musk. I've never been fond of the SX software people, they remind me too much of Paypal's third iteration software team after he fired the prior two (possibly more). Don't think much of Tesla's either.

When BO GNC Software Team lands a 24t booster from an orbital launch on a >200m^2 pad, then you'll have any ground to your comparison. The margins and the restrictions are incomparable.

And yes, that's why Bezos is closer to his. Because his is smaller.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: savuporo on 11/24/2015 11:33 pm
When BO GNC Software Team lands a 24t booster from an orbital launch on a >200m^2 pad, then you'll have any ground to your comparison.
Who has landed a 24t booster from orbit on a 200m^ pad ? I'd like to see that comparison
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: mfck on 11/24/2015 11:34 pm


When BO GNC Software Team lands a 24t booster from an orbital launch on a >200m^2 pad, then you'll have any ground to your comparison.
Who has landed a 24t booster from orbit on a 200m^ pad ? I'd like to see that comparison

From orbital launch, I stand corrected. No one yet.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: spacenut on 11/24/2015 11:36 pm
Maybe this is not the proper thread, but a 550k thrust hydrolox engine that can throttle would make a great upper stage for the SLS would it not?  It could really heavy lift to LEO, or with low throttle take a fairly large probe to deep space. 
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: mfck on 11/24/2015 11:55 pm
Keep calm and whatch the webcast
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: leaflion on 11/24/2015 11:56 pm
Small observation - GNC on re-ignition has very carefully chosen pitch/yaw/roll momentum "dumps", with very little overcorrection. In contrast, Falcon/Grasshopper landings are much less well controlled. Also, the throttle variance seems to have a fast feedback term and a slow one - this seems to also matter for landing.

I don't disagree with the rest, but *this*? Did we watch the same video? Right after re-light (which looked spectacular), it seemed to be over-correcting quite a bit. (see gif below)

Sure, size and inertia makes a difference in how stable something might look, but I think your have some bias if you consider this to have "very carefully chosen pitch/yaw/roll momentum dumps". IMO. See your quote:

And IMHO Bezo's has far better GNC software people than Musk. I've never been fond of the SX software people, they remind me too much of Paypal's third iteration software team after he fired the prior two (possibly more). Don't think much of Tesla's either.
:-X

Looks more like its translating its position there:

Relight
Tilt
build lateral speed
tilt other way
null lateral speed

That's the only way to steer one of these things.  To the untrained eye it looks like over correction.

Allow me to ask this question:  What is more complex, F9 stage 1 or BO's booster?

I see way more moving parts on BO's booster.  Also, hydrolox is more difficult than Kerolox.  They both have to separate something after MECO, and then aim and land.  I would think that its not much harder to do that from orbital boost velocity than suborbit, you just need heavier heat shields.  You actually have a lot longer to do large scale aiming in the upper atmosphere. 
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars-J on 11/24/2015 11:59 pm
And BTW, I still ask them the question now and then, waiting for a change in response ... ah pride ...

I hope you see the stunning irony in your sentence there... But enough about you. You've been around, you've solved all these issues. Why can't they just do it your way?  ;)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 11/25/2015 12:03 am
Maybe this is not the proper thread, but a 550k thrust hydrolox engine that can throttle would make a great upper stage for the SLS would it not?  It could really heavy lift to LEO, or with low throttle take a fairly large probe to deep space.

BE-4 is 550klbf methalox.  BE-3 is 110klbf hydrolox.  I expect we would see BE-3 (or similar) as the upper stage engine on BO's orbital LV.  Whether it is used on another LV is anyone's guess.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: spacenut on 11/25/2015 12:09 am
I realize now that the BE-4 is the 550klbf methalox and the Be-3 is the 100klbf hydrolox.  Sorry, I read an article on the news services that said 550 for the BE-3.  They had it wrong.  Still this would make a great second stage for Falcon Heavy if the two could work together. 
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: RotoSequence on 11/25/2015 12:13 am
I just want to see the F9 landing as promised, that's all. Just once.

So say we all. I have a good feeling about SpaceX's return to flight and the future of reusable boosters and the competition that should follow.  ;D
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: mme on 11/25/2015 12:29 am
...
When BO GNC Software Team lands a 24t booster from an orbital launch on a >200m^2 pad, then you'll have any ground to your comparison.
Who has landed a 24t booster from orbit on a 200m^ pad ? I'd like to see that comparison

Me too!

Musk is still playing in the margins with a open ended experimental program. He's got a great series of excuses. So do others like Bezo's has (mind you this is still a one-off).

I just want to see the F9 landing as promised, that's all. Just once.

It feels like an apples to oranges comparison to me.  It's awesome that Blue did this.  I can't wait to see what they do next.  SpaceX choose to use the open ended experimental approach so they'd have a profitable business to fund the "open ended experiments."  Bezos was able to fund it all without having a profitable business.

Maybe SpaceX will never succeed at re-flying an F9, but that seems unlikely to me.  Bezos money allows him to run Blue at a loss until they have a viable rocket and can develop a profitable business.  Musk's model lets them keep running the landing experiments until they succeed.  As long as he doesn't annoy the customers too much.

Different financial constraints lead to different approaches.

Anyway, congratulations to Blue Origin.  Well done!
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Darkseraph on 11/25/2015 12:44 am
Awesome news. I was taken by surprise at this announcement this morning.

I am used to waiting for SpaceX pre-hype a test only for it to dramatically fail with dashed hopes and so on. I think this is a real huge feather in their cap.


...Although on another note, Jeff Bezos for some reason secretly reminds me a lot of the villain Yellowjacket as depicted in the recent Ant-Man film. (Musk is already compared to Iron Man, so why not...) :D
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 11/25/2015 12:50 am
...
I am used to waiting for SpaceX pre-hype a test only for it to dramatically fail with dashed hopes and so on. I think this is a real huge feather in their cap.
...
Probably because Blue Origin has the benefit of a huge buffer of private land around their property. And, you know, they aren't really flying any customers' payloads yet, and so they're able to keep quiet about it.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 11/25/2015 12:56 am
Maybe this is not the proper thread, but a 550k thrust hydrolox engine that can throttle would make a great upper stage for the SLS would it not?  It could really heavy lift to LEO, or with low throttle take a fairly large probe to deep space.

BE-4 is 550klbf methalox.  BE-3 is 110klbf hydrolox.  I expect we would see BE-3 (or similar) as the upper stage engine on BO's orbital LV.  Whether it is used on another LV is anyone's guess.
The upper stage version of BE-3 (BE-3U) is supposed to have 150klbf, and is in the running for ULA's next upper stage engine.

It wouldn't be a bad engine for SLS's upper stage. Half the thrust of J-2X (you could use 2 of them, or just save some mass and eat the gravity losses) but still 6 times the thrust of RL-10. It would also surely be dirt cheap in comparison to J-2X.


...actually, BE-3U's high thrust might cause Blue Origin's orbital vehicle to tilt toward a higher upperstage:lowerstage mass ratio than is typically found on a launch vehicle. That could allow them to use a single BE-4 engine on a pop-up first stage not unlike New Shepard.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: guckyfan on 11/25/2015 07:32 am
...actually, BE-3U's high thrust might cause Blue Origin's orbital vehicle to tilt toward a higher upperstage:lowerstage mass ratio than is typically found on a launch vehicle. That could allow them to use a single BE-4 engine on a pop-up first stage not unlike New Shepard.

Do we expect the BE-4 to throttle as deep as the BE-3? Can they land a launch vehicle with a single BE-4, if not whith hover but a hover slam? That would still need very impressive throttling capability, especially as they cannot afford to make the first stage heavy on an orbital vehicle.

I doubt they will build an expendable first stage. They are going for reusability from the beginning.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 11/25/2015 01:26 pm
I don’t see the controversy here. The two companies have two different primary mission. Blue sub-orbital tourism and SpaceX satellite deployment and crew/cargo resupply. Landing the Falcon stage is secondary at this point. I do enjoy the one-upmanship however. “I’ll see your 50km and raise you…” ;D
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: cscott on 11/25/2015 02:18 pm
From my perspective, BO is winning the reusability race while SpaceX is winning the "sustainable business model" race.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 11/25/2015 02:39 pm
I don’t see the controversy here. The two companies have two different primary mission. Blue sub-orbital tourism and SpaceX satellite deployment and crew/cargo resupply. Landing the Falcon stage is secondary at this point. I do enjoy the one-upmanship however. “I’ll see your 50km and raise you…” ;D

Blue's objective is also orbital (that is what LC-36 is for). They started with sub-orbital because they thought that was the most logical way of doing it. Even yesterday, they emphasized that they will essentially scale up their suborbital rocket for the orbital one.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: HMXHMX on 11/25/2015 02:45 pm
If Blue wanted to, with the likely mass ratio that is easily achievable for this stage (call it MR = 5, and PMF = 0.80) and even assuming a low Isp figure for a short nozzle, they should be able to attain 5-6 kms (call it 18K fps) if they flew downrange with no payload.  (They are likely ballasting the suborbital flights since the required delta-v is only ~6K fps.)

This means if they wanted to, they could conduct  downrange suborbital launch that goes as fast as or faster than F9's first stage.  Note also the design of their boat-tail...it certainly looks like attention has been paid to aero and heating issues resulting from a high velocity entry, similar to what you'd see from orbital entry.  Yes, it lacks TPS, but I wonder if a high velocity flight might be in their future R&D plans.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 11/25/2015 03:20 pm
...actually, BE-3U's high thrust might cause Blue Origin's orbital vehicle to tilt toward a higher upperstage:lowerstage mass ratio than is typically found on a launch vehicle. That could allow them to use a single BE-4 engine on a pop-up first stage not unlike New Shepard.

Do we expect the BE-4 to throttle as deep as the BE-3? Can they land a launch vehicle with a single BE-4, if not whith hover but a hover slam? That would still need very impressive throttling capability, especially as they cannot afford to make the first stage heavy on an orbital vehicle.

I doubt they will build an expendable first stage. They are going for reusability from the beginning.

http://www.geekwire.com/2015/jeff-bezos-blue-origin-space-trips-cant-wait-amazon-213986/

"As for what it means for our orbital vehicle, one of the reasons I love the vertical-takeoff, vertical-landing architecture is that it’s so scalable. We’re going to take the same architecture we just validated with New Shepard, but at larger scale with our BE-4 engines, and have a completely reusable vertical-landing booster for the orbital vehicle that we’re going to fly out of Cape Canaveral."

I now believe the much talked about "new look" of the ULA Be-4 is refined for Vulcan.  Think 2 versions of the BE-4 one w/deep throttling capability for Blue & one version with ULA specs.

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 11/25/2015 03:39 pm
Our article on this....nothing you don't already know, but has to be done to mark the milestone.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/11/blue-origin-latest-milestone-resuable-rocket-aspiration/

(...)

Bezo's is closer to his than Musk is. And IMHO Bezo's has far better GNC software people than Musk. I've never been fond of the SX software people, they remind me too much of Paypal's third iteration software team after he fired the prior two (possibly more). Don't think much of Tesla's either.

When BO GNC Software Team lands a 24t booster from an orbital launch on a >200m^2 pad, then you'll have any ground to your comparison. The margins and the restrictions are incomparable.

And yes, that's why Bezos is closer to his. Because his is smaller.

Found this statement ;)

http://www.geekwire.com/2015/jeff-bezos-blue-origin-space-trips-cant-wait-amazon-213986/

"Q: There’s been a lot of buzz over the past couple of hours. SpaceX’s Elon Musk has sent along some tweets, [talking about the difference between suborbital and orbital when it comes to launches and landings].

A: Well, I don’t how to characterize it. The basic Falcon 9 booster is a suborbital stage. In fact, they do a deceleration burn in space that lowers their re-entry conditions. Our re-entry conditions are probably harsher than theirs because of that in-space deceleration burn. They’re not trying to make their orbital stage reusable. They’re working on making their suborbital stage reusable. And that’s what we just did."

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: te_atl on 11/25/2015 04:52 pm

A: Well, I don’t how to characterize it. The basic Falcon 9 booster is a suborbital stage. In fact, they do a deceleration burn in space that lowers their re-entry conditions. Our re-entry conditions are probably harsher than theirs because of that in-space deceleration burn. They’re not trying to make their orbital stage reusable. They’re working on making their suborbital stage reusable. And that’s what we just did."

One thing about this quote that bothered me when I read it on Geekwire.   Isn't the flight profile of New Shepard basically straight up, straight down?  If so, since its not doing an engine burn downwards, they would coast up until velocity = 0 then fall back and never exceed terminal velocity on the way down.  They also have very little lateral velocity to worry about shedding.   

F9 on the other hand is going at about Mach 10, a good portion of which if not most of which is in a lateral direction.  It doesn't have the luxury of a gravity coast to stop, its still moving very fast laterally when it re-enters, well above terminal velocity.   

To my mind, that makes the exact opposite argument then what is said in the Geekwire article.  The re-entry regime is much harsher on the F9.   Or am I missing something here.

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: mfck on 11/25/2015 06:00 pm
Our article on this....nothing you don't already know, but has to be done to mark the milestone.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/11/blue-origin-latest-milestone-resuable-rocket-aspiration/

(...)

Bezo's is closer to his than Musk is. And IMHO Bezo's has far better GNC software people than Musk. I've never been fond of the SX software people, they remind me too much of Paypal's third iteration software team after he fired the prior two (possibly more). Don't think much of Tesla's either.

When BO GNC Software Team lands a 24t booster from an orbital launch on a >200m^2 pad, then you'll have any ground to your comparison. The margins and the restrictions are incomparable.

And yes, that's why Bezos is closer to his. Because his is smaller.

Found this statement ;)

http://www.geekwire.com/2015/jeff-bezos-blue-origin-space-trips-cant-wait-amazon-213986/

"Q: There’s been a lot of buzz over the past couple of hours. SpaceX’s Elon Musk has sent along some tweets, [talking about the difference between suborbital and orbital when it comes to launches and landings].

A: Well, I don’t how to characterize it. The basic Falcon 9 booster is a suborbital stage. In fact, they do a deceleration burn in space that lowers their re-entry conditions. Our re-entry conditions are probably harsher than theirs because of that in-space deceleration burn. They’re not trying to make their orbital stage reusable. They’re working on making their suborbital stage reusable. And that’s what we just did."
That is exactly what I am talking about. The guy is good with money and he is good at pitching things to people. When he sees a bunch of people lacking context to catch him twisting the facts it's an Opportunity.

He has lots of money (because bunches of people lacking context is such a common phenomenon), so he can hire good engineers, who can design and build to spec. Kudos to them. The spec is nowhere near what SX does. The margins are nowhere near, and neither the significance. So, when it comes to presentation and seeing himself in the right perspective he's in Branson's league, not Musk's, and pathetic statements like that video and the one you just quoted, are a recent proof of that.

'nuff said

Edit: spelling
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: LastStarFighter on 11/25/2015 06:19 pm

That is exactly what I am talking about. The guy is good with money and he is good at pitching things to people. When he sees a bunch of people lacking context to catch him twisting the facts it's an Opportunity.

He has lots of money (because bunches of people lacking context is such a common phenomenon), so he can hire good engineers, who can design and build to spec. Kudos to them. The spec is nowhere near what SX does. The margins are nowhere near, and neither the significance. So, when it comes to presentation and seeing himself in the right perspective he's in Branson's league, not Musk's, and pathetic statements like that video and the one you just quoted, are a recent proof of that.

'nuff said

Edit: spelling

I honestly thought you were talking about Elon Musk right up until you started talking about the spec not being close to SpaceX. If you ask me Musk is the master of spinning facts. He's done it plenty in his challenge to ULA.  And now that someone else is playing his game it seems a little pathetic to see his response.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Oli on 11/25/2015 06:31 pm

A: Well, I don’t how to characterize it. The basic Falcon 9 booster is a suborbital stage. In fact, they do a deceleration burn in space that lowers their re-entry conditions. Our re-entry conditions are probably harsher than theirs because of that in-space deceleration burn. They’re not trying to make their orbital stage reusable. They’re working on making their suborbital stage reusable. And that’s what we just did."

One thing about this quote that bothered me when I read it on Geekwire.   Isn't the flight profile of New Shepard basically straight up, straight down?  If so, since its not doing an engine burn downwards, they would coast up until velocity = 0 then fall back and never exceed terminal velocity on the way down.  They also have very little lateral velocity to worry about shedding.   

F9 on the other hand is going at about Mach 10, a good portion of which if not most of which is in a lateral direction.  It doesn't have the luxury of a gravity coast to stop, its still moving very fast laterally when it re-enters, well above terminal velocity.   

To my mind, that makes the exact opposite argument then what is said in the Geekwire article.  The re-entry regime is much harsher on the F9.   Or am I missing something here.

F9 goes to Mach 6 when it does a RTLS maneuver, and it eliminates most lateral speed with in-space burns. Those are arguably not particularly difficult, as long as your engine can handle it. New Shepard falls down from 100km, which gives it a reentry speed at 30km of about Mach 3.5. Bezos thinks that's faster than F9 because F9 does a deceleration burn before reentry. That's possible of course. I think overall the reentry profiles of both are probably similar.

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 11/25/2015 06:49 pm

A: Well, I don’t how to characterize it. The basic Falcon 9 booster is a suborbital stage. In fact, they do a deceleration burn in space that lowers their re-entry conditions. Our re-entry conditions are probably harsher than theirs because of that in-space deceleration burn. They’re not trying to make their orbital stage reusable. They’re working on making their suborbital stage reusable. And that’s what we just did."

One thing about this quote that bothered me when I read it on Geekwire.   Isn't the flight profile of New Shepard basically straight up, straight down?  If so, since its not doing an engine burn downwards, they would coast up until velocity = 0 then fall back and never exceed terminal velocity on the way down.  They also have very little lateral velocity to worry about shedding.   

F9 on the other hand is going at about Mach 10, a good portion of which if not most of which is in a lateral direction.  It doesn't have the luxury of a gravity coast to stop, its still moving very fast laterally when it re-enters, well above terminal velocity.   

To my mind, that makes the exact opposite argument then what is said in the Geekwire article.  The re-entry regime is much harsher on the F9.   Or am I missing something here.

F9 goes to Mach 6 when it does a RTLS maneuver, and it eliminates most lateral speed with in-space burns. Those are arguably not particularly difficult, as long as your engine can handle it. New Shepard falls down from 100km, which gives it a reentry speed at 30km of about Mach 3.5. Bezos thinks that's faster than F9 because F9 does a deceleration burn before reentry. That's possible of course. I think overall the reentry profiles of both are probably similar.

This "who's harsher" war is on yahoo now..
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/jeff-bezos-rocket-company-blue-172132999.html

guess this is the main sticking point.

The real dig comes next:

"If anything, the Blue Origin booster may be the one that flies through the harsher re-entry environment."

It's hard to test whether this claim is true. But if New Shepard booster is falling faster at reentry, then it might, indeed, experience a harsher reentry.

Why you would deliberately expose your booster to a harsher environment is anyone's guess."

Frankly I could care less.  :o ::)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: MP99 on 11/25/2015 06:52 pm
F9 goes to Mach 6 when it does a RTLS maneuver, and it eliminates most lateral speed with in-space burns. Those are arguably not particularly difficult, as long as your engine can handle it. New Shepard falls down from 100km, which gives it a reentry speed at 30km of about Mach 3.5. Bezos thinks that's faster than F9 because F9 does a deceleration burn before reentry. That's possible of course. I think overall the reentry profiles of both are probably similar.

AFAICT, it doesn't matter whether you fly vertically or diagonally, if the majority of your trajectory is above the atmosphere you will approach reentry with a speed similar to your net dV.

Cheers, Martin

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: LastStarFighter on 11/25/2015 06:53 pm

A: Well, I don’t how to characterize it. The basic Falcon 9 booster is a suborbital stage. In fact, they do a deceleration burn in space that lowers their re-entry conditions. Our re-entry conditions are probably harsher than theirs because of that in-space deceleration burn. They’re not trying to make their orbital stage reusable. They’re working on making their suborbital stage reusable. And that’s what we just did."

One thing about this quote that bothered me when I read it on Geekwire.   Isn't the flight profile of New Shepard basically straight up, straight down?  If so, since its not doing an engine burn downwards, they would coast up until velocity = 0 then fall back and never exceed terminal velocity on the way down.  They also have very little lateral velocity to worry about shedding.   

F9 on the other hand is going at about Mach 10, a good portion of which if not most of which is in a lateral direction.  It doesn't have the luxury of a gravity coast to stop, its still moving very fast laterally when it re-enters, well above terminal velocity.   

To my mind, that makes the exact opposite argument then what is said in the Geekwire article.  The re-entry regime is much harsher on the F9.   Or am I missing something here.

F9 goes to Mach 6 when it does a RTLS maneuver, and it eliminates most lateral speed with in-space burns. Those are arguably not particularly difficult, as long as your engine can handle it. New Shepard falls down from 100km, which gives it a reentry speed at 30km of about Mach 3.5. Bezos thinks that's faster than F9 because F9 does a deceleration burn before reentry. That's possible of course. I think overall the reentry profiles of both are probably similar.

This "who's harsher" war is on yahoo now..
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/jeff-bezos-rocket-company-blue-172132999.html

guess this is the main sticking point.

The real dig comes next:

"If anything, the Blue Origin booster may be the one that flies through the harsher re-entry environment."

It's hard to test whether this claim is true. But if New Shepard booster is falling faster at reentry, then it might, indeed, experience a harsher reentry.

Why you would deliberately expose your booster to a harsher environment is anyone's guess."

Frankly I could care less.  :o ::)

Frankly I 100% agree with you ;-) we've reached a huge milestone (landing from above the atmosphere)... It's a huge day for spaceflight and let's enjoy it and just be happy we've got to this point. Onwards (and upwards!) I say. Let's go for the next milestone and keep this advancement going!
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: spacefairer on 11/25/2015 06:56 pm

A: Well, I don’t how to characterize it. The basic Falcon 9 booster is a suborbital stage. In fact, they do a deceleration burn in space that lowers their re-entry conditions. Our re-entry conditions are probably harsher than theirs because of that in-space deceleration burn. They’re not trying to make their orbital stage reusable. They’re working on making their suborbital stage reusable. And that’s what we just did."

One thing about this quote that bothered me when I read it on Geekwire.   Isn't the flight profile of New Shepard basically straight up, straight down?  If so, since its not doing an engine burn downwards, they would coast up until velocity = 0 then fall back and never exceed terminal velocity on the way down.  They also have very little lateral velocity to worry about shedding.   

F9 on the other hand is going at about Mach 10, a good portion of which if not most of which is in a lateral direction.  It doesn't have the luxury of a gravity coast to stop, its still moving very fast laterally when it re-enters, well above terminal velocity.   

To my mind, that makes the exact opposite argument then what is said in the Geekwire article.  The re-entry regime is much harsher on the F9.   Or am I missing something here.

F9 goes to Mach 6 when it does a RTLS maneuver, and it eliminates most lateral speed with in-space burns. Those are arguably not particularly difficult, as long as your engine can handle it. New Shepard falls down from 100km, which gives it a reentry speed at 30km of about Mach 3.5. Bezos thinks that's faster than F9 because F9 does a deceleration burn before reentry. That's possible of course. I think overall the reentry profiles of both are probably similar.

This "who's harsher" war is on yahoo now..
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/jeff-bezos-rocket-company-blue-172132999.html

guess this is the main sticking point.

The real dig comes next:

"If anything, the Blue Origin booster may be the one that flies through the harsher re-entry environment."

It's hard to test whether this claim is true. But if New Shepard booster is falling faster at reentry, then it might, indeed, experience a harsher reentry.

Why you would deliberately expose your booster to a harsher environment is anyone's guess."

Frankly I could care less.  :o ::)

Its more efficient to not do a slowdown burn and instead use drag brakes like blue does.  As long as you can handle reentry, you end up at the same terminal velocity before engine restart, so instead you can make your rocket smaller and cheaper. Fewer engine restarts probably extends engine life too.

I'm curious if the booster or the engine can be reused more.  They would have the option of saving the engine when then retire a vehicle (non-destructively) and putting it in the next one.   most expensive part... 
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: notsorandom on 11/25/2015 07:19 pm
I have to wonder if in space post separation burns like what the Falcon does are not a feature of Blue's designs. Both companies' boosters come down pretty vertically. As Elon said being like belly flopping. Its a tricky environment to maintain control in. Blue's solution for their orbital launcher's first stage might just be to deal with it aerodynamically just like the New Shepard does. Their PM-2 vehicle was lost in this part of flight and this second New Shepard has a lot more aerodynamic control surfaces. It looks like they have learned how to "fly" though this part of entry. SpaceX on the other hand conducts additional burns, one before entry, and one during entry to slow the Falcon down and provide control. The grid fins were only added later when they realized they needed finer control.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 11/30/2015 07:45 pm
Hope someone is watching out for NOTAMs  :P
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: CyndyC on 12/01/2015 12:05 am
I have to wonder if in space post separation burns like what the Falcon does are not a feature of Blue's designs. Both companies' boosters come down pretty vertically. As Elon said being like belly flopping. Its a tricky environment to maintain control in. Blue's solution for their orbital launcher's first stage might just be to deal with it aerodynamically just like the New Shepard does. Their PM-2 vehicle was lost in this part of flight and this second New Shepard has a lot more aerodynamic control surfaces. It looks like they have learned how to "fly" though this part of entry. SpaceX on the other hand conducts additional burns, one before entry, and one during entry to slow the Falcon down and provide control. The grid fins were only added later when they realized they needed finer control.

How are you thinking an orbital launcher could be slowed down aerodynamically instead of by additional burns? 
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: LastStarFighter on 12/01/2015 12:23 am
I have to wonder if in space post separation burns like what the Falcon does are not a feature of Blue's designs. Both companies' boosters come down pretty vertically. As Elon said being like belly flopping. Its a tricky environment to maintain control in. Blue's solution for their orbital launcher's first stage might just be to deal with it aerodynamically just like the New Shepard does. Their PM-2 vehicle was lost in this part of flight and this second New Shepard has a lot more aerodynamic control surfaces. It looks like they have learned how to "fly" though this part of entry. SpaceX on the other hand conducts additional burns, one before entry, and one during entry to slow the Falcon down and provide control. The grid fins were only added later when they realized they needed finer control.

How are you thinking an orbital launcher could be slowed down aerodynamically instead of by additional burns?

The first stage is never orbital... It always comes back into the atmosphere. The first stage is only built to withstand a certain amount of abuse when hitting the atmosphere. If you're going to fast you slow down until it's acceptable. That's what those extra burns are for that Falcon does. They are slowing down (and redirecting) to get back the the more benign reentry conditions. So in the end Falcon and New Shepard experience very similar reentry environments. Otherwise they could be damaged. If I had to guess... When Blue builds their larger, orbital rocket. The first stage will do the same burns we see SpaceX doing to slow down the stage and reenter/land similarly to New Shepard.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: CyndyC on 12/01/2015 12:50 am
The first stage is never orbital... It always comes back into the atmosphere. The first stage is only built to withstand a certain amount of abuse when hitting the atmosphere. If you're going to fast you slow down until it's acceptable. That's what those extra burns are for that Falcon does. They are slowing down (and redirecting) to get back the the more benign reentry conditions. So in the end Falcon and New Shepard experience very similar reentry environments. Otherwise they could be damaged. If I had to guess... When Blue builds their larger, orbital rocket. The first stage will do the same burns we see SpaceX doing to slow down the stage and reenter/land similarly to New Shepard.

The New Shepherd that landed reached the Karman line at 100k but did not go past it. When the Falcon launches payloads to orbit, stage 1 still has enough speed to go past the Karman line after 2nd stage separation, up to 140k according to Spaceflight101.com. I'm just curious what aerodynamics notsorandom thinks Blue Origin could use to slow down their future payload launch stage 1s before re-entry.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: notsorandom on 12/01/2015 03:53 pm
The first stage is never orbital... It always comes back into the atmosphere. The first stage is only built to withstand a certain amount of abuse when hitting the atmosphere. If you're going to fast you slow down until it's acceptable. That's what those extra burns are for that Falcon does. They are slowing down (and redirecting) to get back the the more benign reentry conditions. So in the end Falcon and New Shepard experience very similar reentry environments. Otherwise they could be damaged. If I had to guess... When Blue builds their larger, orbital rocket. The first stage will do the same burns we see SpaceX doing to slow down the stage and reenter/land similarly to New Shepard.

The New Shepherd that landed reached the Karman line at 100k but did not go past it. When the Falcon launches payloads to orbit, stage 1 still has enough speed to go past the Karman line after 2nd stage separation, up to 140k according to Spaceflight101.com. I'm just curious what aerodynamics notsorandom thinks Blue Origin could use to slow down their future payload launch stage 1s before re-entry.
Drag, there isn't an inherent need to slow down prior to atmospheric interface. A craft just needs to be able to maintain attitude ie keep the right end pointed forward and manage the thermal loads. SpaceX's Falcon uses two burns before the final landing to control the attitude and thermal loads by slowing down. The fins were added later to help dial in the aim point, CASSIOPE's Falcon made it through this regime without legs or fins. Blue's New Shepard maintains control aerodynamically and is able to tolerate the thermal loads that come with slowing down via drag. It has shed most of it's velocity by the time the engine relights. Assuming that Blue's orbital vehicle stages around Mach 6 like the Falcon the booster may still work the same way. As Space Ghost 1962 points out the posterior of the New Shepard is streamlined and it wouldn't be difficult to fit a TPS there. Based on Blue's patent for barge landing and the questions about supersonic retro-propulsion (now retired thanks to SpaceX) as New Shepard was being built I wouldn't be surprised if Blue designed their orbital vehicle's booster to not conduct any other burns prior to the final landing burn. There is no need to boost back with a barge down range, the vehicle can slow down via drag, and aim using its control surfaces.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars-J on 12/01/2015 06:03 pm
Based on Blue's patent for barge landing and the questions about supersonic retro-propulsion (now retired thanks to SpaceX) as New Shepard was being built I wouldn't be surprised if Blue designed their orbital vehicle's booster to not conduct any other burns prior to the final landing burn. There is no need to boost back with a barge down range, the vehicle can slow down via drag, and aim using its control surfaces.

I wouldn't be so sure... An orbital first stage (like F9) will have a lot more velocity/energy than New Shepard experienced. We'll just have to wait and see.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: notsorandom on 12/01/2015 07:55 pm
Based on Blue's patent for barge landing and the questions about supersonic retro-propulsion (now retired thanks to SpaceX) as New Shepard was being built I wouldn't be surprised if Blue designed their orbital vehicle's booster to not conduct any other burns prior to the final landing burn. There is no need to boost back with a barge down range, the vehicle can slow down via drag, and aim using its control surfaces.

I wouldn't be so sure... An orbital first stage (like F9) will have a lot more velocity/energy than New Shepard experienced. We'll just have to wait and see.
When it comes to Blue the most one can do is try and read the tea leaves. They don't talk much. Decelerating from mach six to mach three via drag is doable, every crewed vehicle has done so. We know Blue can do mach 3 to 0. An orbital booster, depending on the trajectory, may have an advantage because it comes in at an angle rather than straight down. That means more time to spend slowing down and less intense thermal heating and deceleration forces.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: a_langwich on 12/01/2015 08:04 pm
An orbital booster, depending on the trajectory, may have an advantage because it comes in at an angle rather than straight down. That means more time to spend slowing down and less intense thermal heating and deceleration forces.

Hmm, the physics I've had would suggest coming in at an angle will have the same forces as coming straight down (because gravity will produce the same work input in both cases), plus the vector addition of the forces and velocity parallel to the ground.  Can only be more, if that velocity component is nonzero.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: a_langwich on 12/01/2015 08:15 pm
Decelerating from mach six to mach three via drag is doable, every crewed vehicle has done so.

Quite easy with a thick heatshield, but doing that on a first stage where the mass fraction must be high?  Not so easy.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: LastStarFighter on 12/01/2015 08:34 pm
Decelerating from mach six to mach three via drag is doable, every crewed vehicle has done so.

Quite easy with a thick heatshield, but doing that on a first stage where the mass fraction must be high?  Not so easy.

The faster you go the more heat shield you would need. Plus you would have to have engines sticking out of this heat shield into a hot and supersonic airstream. That makes it very difficult. If you're stage (and engines) can't take it. You have to decelerate. Which is the point of the hypersonic retro deceleration burn SpaceX does. It slows it down and protects the engines until it gets to the same conditions Blue is at. When Blue starts going faster they will more than likely use the same thing. Just my opinion though.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Kabloona on 12/01/2015 08:38 pm
Hmm, the physics I've had would suggest coming in at an angle will have the same forces as coming straight down (because gravity will produce the same work input in both cases), plus the vector addition of the forces and velocity parallel to the ground.

Good thing you weren't piloting Apollo 13 for re-entry.  ;)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: notsorandom on 12/01/2015 08:48 pm
An orbital booster, depending on the trajectory, may have an advantage because it comes in at an angle rather than straight down. That means more time to spend slowing down and less intense thermal heating and deceleration forces.

Hmm, the physics I've had would suggest coming in at an angle will have the same forces as coming straight down (because gravity will produce the same work input in both cases), plus the vector addition of the forces and velocity parallel to the ground.  Can only be more, if that velocity component is nonzero.
Basically coming in at an angle means that the craft slows down over a longer time. The craft still comes in at mach six and the gravitational energy will still contributes the same velocity component. However, the total distance traveled and the time take to reach ground will be longer. The craft gets to encounter the atmosphere in a more gradual fashion. So while the same amount of energy is dissipated it does so over a longer time meaning lower Gs and peak heating. I'm not assuming lift here just a different ballistic trajectory. The same principal in involved in those infamous black zones from a few years back.
Decelerating from mach six to mach three via drag is doable, every crewed vehicle has done so.
Quite easy with a thick heatshield, but doing that on a first stage where the mass fraction must be high?  Not so easy.
The X-15 and other uncrewed vehicles have spent a comparatively long time at mach 6 and its TPS wasn't onerously heavy. While heating at those speeds is certainly a concern the TPS was still quite manageable.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: notsorandom on 12/01/2015 08:52 pm
The faster you go the more heat shield you would need. Plus you would have to have engines sticking out of this heat shield into a hot and supersonic airstream. That makes it very difficult. If you're stage (and engines) can't take it. You have to decelerate. Which is the point of the hypersonic retro deceleration burn SpaceX does. It slows it down and protects the engines until it gets to the same conditions Blue is at. When Blue starts going faster they will more than likely use the same thing. Just my opinion though.
Some of the VTVL SSTO proposals have kept the engines cool by flowing cryogenic propellant through them. A regeneratively cooled engine is already designed to do that while it is burning to remain cool.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: CyndyC on 12/01/2015 10:44 pm
Hmm, the physics I've had would suggest coming in at an angle will have the same forces as coming straight down (because gravity will produce the same work input in both cases), plus the vector addition of the forces and velocity parallel to the ground.

Good thing you weren't piloting Apollo 13 for re-entry.  ;)

Mr. Lovell?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Kabloona on 12/01/2015 11:29 pm
Hmm, the physics I've had would suggest coming in at an angle will have the same forces as coming straight down (because gravity will produce the same work input in both cases), plus the vector addition of the forces and velocity parallel to the ground.

Good thing you weren't piloting Apollo 13 for re-entry.  ;)

Mr. Lovell?

Who, me? I wish. No, just pointing out that there's a reason for not coming "straight down."
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: pdjb on 12/05/2015 06:54 am
I haven't seen anyone mention how awesome the pre-launch fin and landing gear system checkouts are! Appears to be a pretty slick system.

Any ideas on how the landing gear works? Is it hydraulic?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Zond on 12/26/2015 10:09 pm
Blue Origin has started the application process for the construction of their manufacturing facility at KSC.
http://www.saj.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory/PublicNotices/tabid/6072/Article/631324/saj-2015-02725-sp-jsc.aspx (http://www.saj.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory/PublicNotices/tabid/6072/Article/631324/saj-2015-02725-sp-jsc.aspx)
http://www.saj.usace.army.mil/Portals/44/docs/regulatory/Public%20Notices/2015%2011%20November/20151125-SAJ-2015-02725-Brevard-1216-JSC.pdf (http://www.saj.usace.army.mil/Portals/44/docs/regulatory/Public%20Notices/2015%2011%20November/20151125-SAJ-2015-02725-Brevard-1216-JSC.pdf)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Dante80 on 12/27/2015 07:12 am
W00t!, its happening..C:

Here is a google maps view I quickly made for the location.

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 12/27/2015 08:47 pm
Unfortunately the environment study takes 6mo to a year to be completed. So construction would not start until approval and there may be limitations and facility design considerations added that will delay construction start until an approved design for the facility is obtained. Expect construction start NET Jan 2017. But that also means that LV and engine production could start as early as a year latter Jan 2018.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: JBF on 12/28/2015 01:10 pm
Unfortunately the environment study takes 6mo to a year to be completed. So construction would not start until approval and there may be limitations and facility design considerations added that will delay construction start until an approved design for the facility is obtained. Expect construction start NET Jan 2017. But that also means that LV and engine production could start as early as a year latter Jan 2018.

From what I read that area is phase 2 so a 6mo to a year delay shouldn't be an issue.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Darkseraph on 01/13/2016 05:01 am
The New Shepard Booster has been knocked in the media for being lilliputian compared to the towering landed Falcon 9. But surely if these Hydrolox rockets can be flown repeatedly without too much maintenance it has some bearing on future lunar landers using in situ propellants?

Not that you would put the New Shepard itself on the Moon but some of the technologies on it could be integrated into a future lunar shuttle.  Any concepts for one I have read use hydrogen as their fuel and are generally smaller than NS.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 01/18/2016 08:59 am
Jeff and Blues engineers will be very happy with the successful SOFT touch down of F9 booster on barge. (RUD is separate issue). Blue Origin now know a barge landing in heavy seas is an achievable goal.

Now where is that flight of New Shepard booster, it is long overdue.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Danderman on 01/18/2016 02:24 pm
But surely if these Hydrolox rockets can be flown repeatedly without too much maintenance it has some bearing on future lunar landers using in situ propellants?

The "Hydrolox rockets can be flown repeatedly without too much maintenance" part has been performed by DC-X.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: c3infinity on 01/19/2016 03:24 pm
Third flight coming soon? Tomorrow through Friday, it looks like.
 
Quote
FDC 6/4629 ZAB NM..AIRSPACE VAN HORN, TX..TEMPORARY FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS DUE TO SPACE FLIGHT OPERATIONS WITHIN AN AREA DEFINED AS 17NM RADIUS OF 3127N10446W OR THE SALT FLAT /SFL/ VORTAC 125 DEGREE RADIAL AT 24NM, SFC TO UNL. PURSUANT TO 14CFR SECTION 91.143 TEMPORARY FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS ARE IN EFFECT. AUDREY POWERS, TELEPHONE 432-207-2132, IS IN CHARGE OF OPERATION. ALBUQUERQUE ARTCC /ZAB/, TELEPHONE 505-856-4500, IS THE FAA COORDINATION FACILITY. DLY 1300-2100 1601201300-1601222100
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: KSC Sage on 01/22/2016 02:08 pm
Third flight coming soon? Tomorrow through Friday, it looks like.
 
Quote
FDC 6/4629 ZAB NM..AIRSPACE VAN HORN, TX..TEMPORARY FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS DUE TO SPACE FLIGHT OPERATIONS WITHIN AN AREA DEFINED AS 17NM RADIUS OF 3127N10446W OR THE SALT FLAT /SFL/ VORTAC 125 DEGREE RADIAL AT 24NM, SFC TO UNL. PURSUANT TO 14CFR SECTION 91.143 TEMPORARY FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS ARE IN EFFECT. AUDREY POWERS, TELEPHONE 432-207-2132, IS IN CHARGE OF OPERATION. ALBUQUERQUE ARTCC /ZAB/, TELEPHONE 505-856-4500, IS THE FAA COORDINATION FACILITY. DLY 1300-2100 1601201300-1601222100

I've been told the next test flight is scheduled in February.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Kryten on 01/22/2016 06:51 pm
Some chatter on Twitter that BO flew today!?  Any updates whether this was a reuse of New Shephard?  Oh brother!
Here's the picture that's been floating around and the original source (https://twitter.com/phhbrown/status/690601166594449408);
Quote
Patrick Brown
‏@phhbrown
.@blueorigin View of the West Texas sky this morning. #blueorigin
Second ever tweet from that account, but google reverse image search doesn't pick up use of that image anywhere else. The tweet's also been liked by none other than Tory Bruno, read into that what you will.
EDIT: Alan Boyle at Geekwire got a statement out of Blue, and it's not a denial;
Quote
Alan Boyle ‏@b0yle  5m5 minutes ago
Not much info from @blueorigin so far on flight test buzz: "Unfortunately, Blue Origin doesn't have anything to contribute at this time."
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: cscott on 01/22/2016 08:12 pm
Lots of axial rotation on that ascent, or is that just wind shear?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 01/22/2016 08:45 pm
Lots of axial rotation on that ascent, or is that just wind shear?
Strangest wind shear I've ever seen.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: abaddon on 01/22/2016 08:50 pm
Huh, weird-looking contrail + no confirmation OR denial from Blue.  Hope nothing went wrong, assuming this was indeed a reflight test by Blue.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Kansan52 on 01/22/2016 08:53 pm
Typical out here on the plains. Wind direction and speed can be very different at different altitudes. Seen similar at high power rocketry events. Nothing appears out of the ordinary. Hopefully we will have confirmation that everything is fine.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: cscott on 01/22/2016 08:55 pm
Seems like a staging event at the top, too.  Which would be odd for New Shepard.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: atomic on 01/22/2016 09:04 pm
If a vehicle would have flown such a trajectory it would have disintegrated pretty fast. ;) Looks like a good ascend to me.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Darkseraph on 01/22/2016 09:52 pm
In their previous November landing video, the trail behind the booster has that helical pattern, albeit viewed from a different angle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pillaOxGCo at the 1:07 mark.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Kabloona on 01/22/2016 10:01 pm
Lots of axial rotation on that ascent, or is that just wind shear?
Strangest wind shear I've ever seen.

They also have that funky aero ring at the top, which may be causing some vorticity that does strange things to the contrail.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: RocketmanUS on 01/22/2016 10:21 pm
In their previous November landing video, the trail behind the booster has that helical pattern, albeit viewed from a different angle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pillaOxGCo at the 1:07 mark.
Could that trail patten be from the engine gimbaling? Seems to be from the video.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: jamesh9000 on 01/22/2016 10:44 pm
Last time we had to wait until a day after the test, so that they could announce the results by way of a huge youtube brofist. If it's all gone successfully that's probably what their graphic designers are doing right now.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Star One on 01/23/2016 02:09 am

Last time we had to wait until a day after the test, so that they could announce the results by way of a huge youtube brofist. If it's all gone successfully that's probably what their graphic designers are doing right now.

What's a brofist, sounds Roman?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Chris Bergin on 01/23/2016 02:10 am
Brofist time! ;D

https://www.blueorigin.com/news
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Chris Bergin on 01/23/2016 02:15 am
Dedicated thread:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39402.0
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: sanman on 01/23/2016 02:35 am
The latest new video (Jan 22):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74tyedGkoUc
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Jarnis on 01/23/2016 06:32 am
Quote
"We’re already more than three years into development of our first orbital vehicle. Though it will be the small vehicle in our orbital family, it’s still many times larger than New Shepard. I hope to share details about this first orbital vehicle this year."

Interesting times ahead.

Inevitable "size comparisons" ahead when Blue rolls out details on the orbital rocket and SpaceX rolls out details on something... bigger. Much... bigger :)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 01/23/2016 07:55 am
Congratulations to Blue Origin for successfully launching and landing New Shepherd for the second time. From what the video shows, the software changes have improved the landing a lot (much shorter landing burn). The best of luck changing both suborbital and orbital spaceflight.
I can't wait to read about BlueOrigin's (Boeing) system for Darpa XS-1. And the rocket that is planned to launch from LC-36.

I wander, what would the capabilities be of a LOx-Methane powered rocket the size of New Shepherd.   
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Dante80 on 01/23/2016 09:45 am
I wander, what would the capabilities be of a LOx-Methane powered rocket the size of New Shepherd.

Its New Shepard. And, it would probably be less capable, as long as we are still talking about a sub-orbital concept (where the needed mass to weight ratios are mostly irrelevant).
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: sanman on 01/23/2016 09:16 pm
Is Blue Origin going to get their own sub-forum board, eventually? Because even though they keep much of their work under wraps, they still have more activity visibly going on than many other launch companies. It sounds like 2016 is going to be a significantly more active year for them, and it's only going to increase from there.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/24/2016 04:12 am
I was just about to suggest a Blue forum section. There's at least as much news and content related to Blue Origin as there is SNC's Dream Chaser, and we can expect Blue Origin to continue to grow.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars-J on 01/24/2016 04:16 pm
Unless they reduce their layer of extreme secrecy, what is the point? There isn't much to discuss, if all they do is release a small video every few months.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Comga on 01/24/2016 04:46 pm
Unless they reduce their layer of extreme secrecy, what is the point? There isn't much to discuss, if all they do is release a small video every few months.
I agree, and any thread that has a hiatus of news wanders off topic. 
If they start commercial service, and people post photos and videos, or Blue starts posting engine test images regularly, then it might warrant it's own, but I doubt it.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Borklund on 01/24/2016 05:09 pm
Unless they reduce their layer of extreme secrecy, what is the point? There isn't much to discuss, if all they do is release a small video every few months.
But then where are people supposed to post numerous poll threads and west Texas landing bingo threads..?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/25/2016 12:45 am
We have a rule that if you can get, what, 30 threads on the topic that a new subforum is considered, right? Just have to find 30 Blue Origin threads. I think we can definitely do that.

...remember, Blue Origin is also making engines. They will also be flying suborbital payloads soon and passengers soon after that. Even if Blue Origin is fairly tight-lipped, their customers won't be.


Heck, if Virgin starts flying suborbital passengers and orbital payloads, it'd probably make sense to have a subforum for them, too.

...and they said it'd be boring after Shuttle! :D
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Borklund on 01/25/2016 01:28 am
They will also be flying suborbital payloads soon and passengers soon after that. Even if Blue Origin is fairly tight-lipped, their customers won't be.
Depends on the contract. Wouldn't surprise me if there's a substantial NDA involved, given the secretive nature of Blue Origins operations so far, at least for people who sign on before flights start to happen.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/25/2016 02:35 am
Blue has said in the past that they would start being more talkative once there is something to talk about. To a certain extent that has happenned already. They have had more press conferences recently. Jeff Bezos has started tweeting, etc.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: sanman on 01/25/2016 08:26 am
They've said they'll be flying more frequently now, which will offer up more events for discussion. Then there's the upcoming orbital rocket to be revealed later this year, and of course the major engines under development.

But even when information isn't communicated as frequently, then all the more reason for more 'Kremlinology' discussion to parse meaning from what they do say - somebody's got to figure out what's going on. When there's already an over-abundance of topics produced in relation to SpaceX, then there won't likely be any dearth of discussion on Blue Origin.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Akhenaten on 01/25/2016 09:26 am
Some comments on Twiiter/Facebook have charged Blue with fakery, as in the "Moon Landing Hoax" . Of course, we can discount these as the usual nutcases. However, more reasonably, some have said that the two months gap between Dec 23 2015 and Jan 22 2016  suggests that there was more refurbishment needed than we are led to believe- ie that, yes, the New Shepard has flown twice- but at what cost in returning it to flight?

For a first such re-use, Two months seems pretty good to me- but we can dispense with "Kremlinology" ; we now have a yardstick.
Mr Bezos states clearly that he wants as many flights with New Shepard asap to build up his experience and win business - also, to push forward with BE 4 for a first stage.

A simple test applies; if Mission no 3 is also two months down the road, then there are probably serious issues being worked, and his timetable looks like being harder than he implies.

However, if New Shepard's  flight no 3 occurs in less than 4 weeks- eg mid Feb or sooner, then he is clearly on track, and we could expect weekly flights within a few weeks, and so on
Any bets or comments? Whatever "Blue" puts out as info, there are, or ought to be, measurable yardsticks soon based on actual achievements or not, as the case may be!

Weekly flights would dispose once and for all the idea that re-usability is going to be unachievable or if so only at great cost. Hopefully, 2016 will be the year...
What an interesting dilemma for conventional rocketeers, many of whom must be hoping for failure...They have at best a year to make major decisions- or bets, if you will!
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: EgorBotts on 01/25/2016 09:51 am
Some comments on Twiiter/Facebook have charged Blue with fakery, as in the "Moon Landing Hoax" . Of course, we can discount these as the usual nutcases. However, more reasonably, some have said that the two months gap between Dec 23 2015 and Jan 22 2016  suggests that there was more refurbishment needed than we are led to believe- ie that, yes, the New Shepard has flown twice- but at what cost in returning it to flight?

For a first such re-use, Two months seems pretty good to me- but we can dispense with "Kremlinology" ; we now have a yardstick.
Mr Bezos states clearly that he wants as many flights with New Shepard asap to build up his experience and win business - also, to push forward with BE 4 for a first stage.

A simple test applies; if Mission no 3 is also two months down the road, then there are probably serious issues being worked, and his timetable looks like being harder than he implies.

However, if New Shepard's  flight no 3 occurs in less than 4 weeks- eg mid Feb or sooner, then he is clearly on track, and we could expect weekly flights within a few weeks, and so on
Any bets or comments? Whatever "Blue" puts out as info, there are, or ought to be, measurable yardsticks soon based on actual achievements or not, as the case may be!

Weekly flights would dispose once and for all the idea that re-usability is going to be unachievable or if so only at great cost. Hopefully, 2016 will be the year...
What an interesting dilemma for conventional rocketeers, many of whom must be hoping for failure...They have at best a year to make major decisions- or bets, if you will!

Well, Mr Bezos said that the team worked on serious software changes. As the results of these changes are not as straightforward as adding or removing a few lines, this is in my opinion a valid reason of the 2 months turnaround. Identifying the code that has to be changed, implement the new solution, test it, simulate it, putting it into hardware and maybe in-situ testing... All these take time, especially if you consider the team was in vacation for the Christmas days!
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: sanman on 01/25/2016 11:18 am
Since this was Blue's first attempt at re-flight, it's likely that they were extra diligent on inspections, and so that might have been part of the reason for the 2-month turnaround time. It seems likely that their intervals between re-flights will shorten as they streamline their procedures.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: cscott on 01/25/2016 01:30 pm
Blue doesn't have significant manufacturing capabilities (unlike ULA or SpaceX).  I find it difficult to believe that they could substantially rebuild the vehicle in two months.

You could estimate their manufacturing capacity by looking at the gap between their "first flight" failure (April 29, 2015) and the first flight of their new vehicle (Nov 23, 2015).  That's seven months, even given that they must have expected a failure at some point in their test program and therefore to have already begun work on the second vehicle.

So alleging that the reflight vehicle was substantially rebuilt would imply that manufacturing times have sped up by a factor of more than 3x.  I don't find that credible.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: edkyle99 on 01/25/2016 02:06 pm
Blue doesn't have significant manufacturing capabilities (unlike ULA or SpaceX).  I find it difficult to believe that they could substantially rebuild the vehicle in two months.
I haven't seen any images or details about Blue's production facility, have you?  (Except for a few hints here:  https://www.blueorigin.com/careers ).  It is supposed to be somewhere near Seattle, Washington, apparently in Kent, Washington.  They aren't building those engines, stages, and capsules in a barn in Texas. 

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 01/25/2016 02:49 pm
We have a rule that if you can get, what, 30 threads on the topic that a new subforum is considered, right? Just have to find 30 Blue Origin threads. I think we can definitely do that.

...remember, Blue Origin is also making engines. They will also be flying suborbital payloads soon and passengers soon after that. Even if Blue Origin is fairly tight-lipped, their customers won't be.


Heck, if Virgin starts flying suborbital passengers and orbital payloads, it'd probably make sense to have a subforum for them, too.

...and they said it'd be boring after Shuttle! :D

we also could do a cape building thread 8)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: cscott on 01/25/2016 02:57 pm
I haven't seen any images or details about Blue's production facility, have you?  (Except for a few hints here:  https://www.blueorigin.com/careers ).  It is supposed to be somewhere near Seattle, Washington, apparently in Kent, Washington.  They aren't building those engines, stages, and capsules in a barn in Texas.
And indeed, their reflight video includes a clip of the rocket arriving on a truck, indicating that they did move it to some facility elsewhere.

I agree that details of that "elsewhere" are murky, which is why I suggested calibrating their manufacturing capacity by the time it took to build their "first landing" booster after the loss of their "first flight" booster.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: llanitedave on 01/25/2016 05:45 pm
However, more reasonably, some have said that the two months gap between Dec 23 2015 and Jan 22 2016  suggests that there was more refurbishment needed than we are led to believe- ie that, yes, the New Shepard has flown twice- but at what cost in returning it to flight?


No one else seems to have pointed out that the time span between Dec 23 2015 and Jan 22 2016 is only one month, not two.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars-J on 01/25/2016 05:47 pm
However, more reasonably, some have said that the two months gap between Dec 23 2015 and Jan 22 2016  suggests that there was more refurbishment needed than we are led to believe- ie that, yes, the New Shepard has flown twice- but at what cost in returning it to flight?


No one else seems to have pointed out that the time span between Dec 23 2015 and Jan 22 2016 is only one month, not two.

The first flight of this New Shepard vehicle was Nov 23, not Dec 23.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: sanman on 01/25/2016 06:57 pm
So given the specs of Blue's engines, are we likely to see anything like multi-core down the road? Or would single-core be the conservative and more efficient way to go?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: bunker9603 on 01/25/2016 08:55 pm
However, more reasonably, some have said that the two months gap between Dec 23 2015 and Jan 22 2016  suggests that there was more refurbishment needed than we are led to believe- ie that, yes, the New Shepard has flown twice- but at what cost in returning it to flight?


No one else seems to have pointed out that the time span between Dec 23 2015 and Jan 22 2016 is only one month, not two.

The first flight of this New Shepard vehicle was Nov 23, not Dec 23.


They also had to work around 3 holidays; Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Years. So counting holidays and weekends that is a total of 22 days down time, plus it took several more days to ship it from the launch site, back to the factory and then back to the launch site again.


I think 30 days give or take, is quite reasonable for the first reflight.

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 01/25/2016 09:30 pm
So given the specs of Blue's engines, are we likely to see anything like multi-core down the road? Or would single-core be the conservative and more efficient way to go?
For suborbital a single New Shepard is it for now.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: sanman on 01/25/2016 09:55 pm
Actually, I was referring to Bezos' stated long term plans for a "greater family" of orbital launch vehicles. Will these necessitate development of even newer engines, or will BE-4 be a basic building block for all of them? I'm assuming the latter - but will Blue skip making a "Falcon Heavy" and instead go for their version of BFR?

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Dante80 on 01/25/2016 10:01 pm
Some comments on Twiiter/Facebook have charged Blue with fakery, as in the "Moon Landing Hoax" . Of course, we can discount these as the usual nutcases. However, more reasonably, some have said that the two months gap between Dec 23 2015 and Jan 22 2016  suggests that there was more refurbishment needed than we are led to believe- ie that, yes, the New Shepard has flown twice- but at what cost in returning it to flight?

For a first such re-use, Two months seems pretty good to me- but we can dispense with "Kremlinology" ; we now have a yardstick.
Mr Bezos states clearly that he wants as many flights with New Shepard asap to build up his experience and win business - also, to push forward with BE 4 for a first stage.

A simple test applies; if Mission no 3 is also two months down the road, then there are probably serious issues being worked, and his timetable looks like being harder than he implies.

However, if New Shepard's  flight no 3 occurs in less than 4 weeks- eg mid Feb or sooner, then he is clearly on track, and we could expect weekly flights within a few weeks, and so on
Any bets or comments? Whatever "Blue" puts out as info, there are, or ought to be, measurable yardsticks soon based on actual achievements or not, as the case may be!

Weekly flights would dispose once and for all the idea that re-usability is going to be unachievable or if so only at great cost. Hopefully, 2016 will be the year...
What an interesting dilemma for conventional rocketeers, many of whom must be hoping for failure...They have at best a year to make major decisions- or bets, if you will!

Well...

Blue Origin to ramp up New Shepard tests (http://spacenews.com/blue-origin-to-ramp-up-new-shepard-tests/)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: JazzFan on 01/26/2016 12:26 am
I keep reading pretty big expectations here for a vehicle that is still in testing.  IMO, Blue Origin will continue at a pace that they feel is practical and prudent to achieving their goal of safe manned commercial flights.  Their rate of communication or marketing strategy doesn't bother me.  Maybe I am too conservative, but I would rather have a man-rated and safe vehicle. 
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: pippin on 01/26/2016 01:10 am

Blue doesn't have significant manufacturing capabilities (unlike ULA or SpaceX).  I find it difficult to believe that they could substantially rebuild the vehicle in two months.

You could estimate their manufacturing capacity by looking at the gap between their "first flight" failure (April 29, 2015) and the first flight of their new vehicle (Nov 23, 2015).  That's seven months, even given that they must have expected a failure at some point in their test program and therefore to have already begun work on the second vehicle.

So alleging that the reflight vehicle was substantially rebuilt would imply that manufacturing times have sped up by a factor of more than 3x.  I don't find that credible.

No, you can estimate it based on that because after the April crash BO mentioned that their second vehicle was already completed.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars-J on 01/26/2016 03:26 am
So given the specs of Blue's engines, are we likely to see anything like multi-core down the road? Or would single-core be the conservative and more efficient way to go?

With the BE-4, they have plenty of room to grow by adding more engines. I suspect that they will build larger cores with more engines instead of going multi-core. A 3, 4, or 5 engine core with be quite the competitor to F9 and FH. It is just more practical to be single core.

You might be helpful to think of their planned BE-4 powered LV as "their Falcon 1" - as in a learning tool before they build better and bigger things.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: jongoff on 01/26/2016 05:18 am
Blue doesn't have significant manufacturing capabilities (unlike ULA or SpaceX).  I find it difficult to believe that they could substantially rebuild the vehicle in two months.

You could estimate their manufacturing capacity by looking at the gap between their "first flight" failure (April 29, 2015) and the first flight of their new vehicle (Nov 23, 2015).  That's seven months, even given that they must have expected a failure at some point in their test program and therefore to have already begun work on the second vehicle.

So alleging that the reflight vehicle was substantially rebuilt would imply that manufacturing times have sped up by a factor of more than 3x.  I don't find that credible.

Having seen the inside of their factory once (briefly), I have to chuckle a little at your claim that they don't have significant manufacturing capabilities...  They're obviously still scaling up staff and operations, but anyone who see's their setup and doesn't come away impressed deserves having a corner cut off their nerd card.

~Jon
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Stan-1967 on 01/26/2016 05:40 am
So given the specs of Blue's engines, are we likely to see anything like multi-core down the road? Or would single-core be the conservative and more efficient way to go?

With the BE-4, they have plenty of room to grow by adding more engines. I suspect that they will build larger cores with more engines instead of going multi-core. A 3, 4, or 5 engine core with be quite the competitor to F9 and FH. It is just more practical to be single core.

You might be helpful to think of their planned BE-4 powered LV as "their Falcon 1" - as in a learning tool before they build better and bigger things.

I could see them starting with a short/squatty first stage that has a single BE-4, but also the core size they wish to scale up with 2, 3, or 4 BE-4's while increasing the length.  Similar to how SpaceX moved from F5 to F9.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Comga on 01/26/2016 05:56 am
So given the specs of Blue's engines, are we likely to see anything like multi-core down the road? Or would single-core be the conservative and more efficient way to go?

With the BE-4, they have plenty of room to grow by adding more engines. I suspect that they will build larger cores with more engines instead of going multi-core. A 3, 4, or 5 engine core with be quite the competitor to F9 and FH. It is just more practical to be single core.

You might be helpful to think of their planned BE-4 powered LV as "their Falcon 1" - as in a learning tool before they build better and bigger things.

I could see them starting with a short/squatty first stage that has a single BE-4, but also the core size they wish to scale up with 2, 3, or 4 BE-4's while increasing the length.  Similar to how SpaceX moved from F5 to F9.

Umm...
"SpaceX moved from F5 to F9" on paper.  There was never any hardware shown for the F5, was there?
(I still remember the SpaceX Update that announced the Falcon 9, with that photo of a still quite young Musk shaking hands with some middle aged guy from NASA, complete with white shirt and tie.)
We really have no idea what Bezos will do until he tells us. 
However, my guess is heavily against multi cores or incremental engine installation and stage length.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: sanman on 01/26/2016 01:40 pm
Well...

Blue Origin to ramp up New Shepard tests (http://spacenews.com/blue-origin-to-ramp-up-new-shepard-tests/)


This was a very interesting article:

Quote
Meyerson said the company plans to shorten the time between future test flights.

“We expect to shorten that turnaround time over time this year, and fly this vehicle again and again,” he said.
...
Meyerson said the company still plans to perform “dozens” of test flights of New Shepard over the next couple of years before the company is ready to carry people on the vehicle. “It really depends on how the flight test program goes,” he said. “It could be a little faster than that, or it could be a little longer than that, depending on what we learn.”

So it seems their intention is to fly more frequently than every couple of months.
Gonna be a whole lotta flyin' goin' on
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Fan Boi on 01/26/2016 01:53 pm
Quote
I could see them starting with a short/squatty first stage that has a single BE-4, but also the core size they wish to scale up with 2, 3, or 4 BE-4's while increasing the length.  Similar to how SpaceX moved from F5 to F9.

Don't they need a single center motor for landing? I know their motors throttle really well but not well enough to light two for landing, correct? Need an arrangement with one center motor unless I am missing something.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: meberbs on 01/26/2016 02:01 pm
Blue doesn't have significant manufacturing capabilities (unlike ULA or SpaceX).  I find it difficult to believe that they could substantially rebuild the vehicle in two months.

You could estimate their manufacturing capacity by looking at the gap between their "first flight" failure (April 29, 2015) and the first flight of their new vehicle (Nov 23, 2015).  That's seven months, even given that they must have expected a failure at some point in their test program and therefore to have already begun work on the second vehicle.

So alleging that the reflight vehicle was substantially rebuilt would imply that manufacturing times have sped up by a factor of more than 3x.  I don't find that credible.

Having seen the inside of their factory once (briefly), I have to chuckle a little at your claim that they don't have significant manufacturing capabilities...  They're obviously still scaling up staff and operations, but anyone who see's their setup and doesn't come away impressed deserves having a corner cut off their nerd card.

~Jon

Yes, they do have good capabilities, without talking about the specifics details, they build a rocket stage including the engine, a crew capsule, and are developing a new engine. You can't be doing all of that at once without significant capabilities.

As someone familiar with software development, the software change is almost certainly the long pole that drove the time between the launches. Especially when you consider the holidays, determining what change to make, making the change, and then running Monte Carlo analysis to test the change (plus maybe another round of iteration). I don't see any reason to think that they did any more re-work to the stage than what they said, plus some non-destructive inspections since this is their first recovered hardware.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: DJPledger on 01/26/2016 07:30 pm
Actually, I was referring to Bezos' stated long term plans for a "greater family" of orbital launch vehicles. Will these necessitate development of even newer engines, or will BE-4 be a basic building block for all of them? I'm assuming the latter - but will Blue skip making a "Falcon Heavy" and instead go for their version of BFR?
Depends on how many engines Bezos wants on his version of BFR. He has the funds to dev. an even larger engine after the BE-4 for his BFR. Also depends on how large he wants Blue's largest vehicle to be. I don't think that Bezos wants to dev. Blue's version of the N-1 so I think that if he wants to dev. a vehicle in the class of the SLS or SpaceX's BFR he will dev. the follow on to the BE-4 for it. Don't be surprised if Blue gets to work on an F-1 class or larger engine for their big vehicle sometime in the next decade.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: GreenShrike on 01/26/2016 08:28 pm
I don't think that Bezos wants to dev. Blue's version of the N-1

There was nothing inherently wrong with the N1's design except for the Soviets' inability to test fire either the NK-15s or the individual N1 stages before attempting a fully integrated launch. Using the NK-15 meant that an incredible amount of untested hardware had to work correctly the first time for the launch to work. The fact that it didn't is unsurprising.

Any modern engine will be designed for multiple firings -- and as Blue is designing theirs for reusability, "multiple firings" is likely putting it quite mildly -- so lack of testing will not be an issue.

so I think that if he wants to dev. a vehicle in the class of the SLS or SpaceX's BFR he will dev. the follow on to the BE-4 for it. Don't be surprised if Blue gets to work on an F-1 class or larger engine for their big vehicle sometime in the next decade.

Such a large engine will have to produce significant benefits over the BE-4 to justify its enormous R&D expenses, the associated capital costs in setting up manufacturing and testing facilities, and the lack of mass manufacturing cost reductions fewer large engines would have relative to simply using many BE-4s.

I'd be surprised if they didn't just design an octaweb++, build in engine-out capability like a certain other prospective reusable space launch provider, and call it a day.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: sanman on 01/27/2016 01:22 am
I find it ironic that SpaceX is doing methalox for upper stage as Raptor, while Blue is doing methalox for lower stage with BE-4. I guess there's no point in giving rise to BE-4U, since BE-3U's hydrolox is already better for ISP. But would BE-4 later be improved to make it FFSC like Raptor is going to be? Would that require a cleansheet design, or could BE-4 be evolved towards that goal?

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 01/27/2016 01:57 am
Quote
I could see them starting with a short/squatty first stage that has a single BE-4, but also the core size they wish to scale up with 2, 3, or 4 BE-4's while increasing the length.  Similar to how SpaceX moved from F5 to F9.

Don't they need a single center motor for landing? I know their motors throttle really well but not well enough to light two for landing, correct? Need an arrangement with one center motor unless I am missing something.
I assumed the same about a centre engine, but if Tory Bruno comment about a 1x BE4 booster is correct, the BE4 should be able to match NS BE3 throttle range.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: edkyle99 on 01/27/2016 02:44 am
Blue doesn't have significant manufacturing capabilities (unlike ULA or SpaceX).  I find it difficult to believe that they could substantially rebuild the vehicle in two months.

You could estimate their manufacturing capacity by looking at the gap between their "first flight" failure (April 29, 2015) and the first flight of their new vehicle (Nov 23, 2015).  That's seven months, even given that they must have expected a failure at some point in their test program and therefore to have already begun work on the second vehicle.

So alleging that the reflight vehicle was substantially rebuilt would imply that manufacturing times have sped up by a factor of more than 3x.  I don't find that credible.

Having seen the inside of their factory once (briefly), I have to chuckle a little at your claim that they don't have significant manufacturing capabilities...  They're obviously still scaling up staff and operations, but anyone who see's their setup and doesn't come away impressed deserves having a corner cut off their nerd card.

~Jon
Looks like Blue's current production may be at this site:  21218 76th Ave S, Kent, WA 98032  (47.410426, -122.237142).

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Dante80 on 01/27/2016 02:46 am
I find it ironic that SpaceX is doing methalox for upper stage as Raptor, while Blue is doing methalox for lower stage with BE-4. I guess there's no point in giving rise to BE-4U, since BE-3U's hydrolox is already better for ISP. But would BE-4 later be improved to make it FFSC like Raptor is going to be? Would that require a cleansheet design, or could BE-4 be evolved towards that goal?

I don't see anything ironic about that really. A BE-4U does not make sense at this point in time, since Blue is focusing on a much smaller LV, and they already have the BE-3.

Regarding the engine cycle, an ORSC BE-4 is a different engine than a FFSC BE-4. You cannot easily evolve one into the other.


I assumed the same about a centre engine, but if Tory Bruno comment about a 1x BE4 booster is correct, the BE4 should be able to match NS BE3 throttle range.

It should, it won't be enough though. An orbital first stage will need a propellant mass fraction of 0.90+, and @20% throttle the single BE-4 will be too powerful for it. We will have to see what Blue comes up with to enable propulsive landing for that (just blowing up the New Shepard architecture won't do).
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: GWH on 01/27/2016 03:05 am
Blue did develop the BE-2 as well, 31,000lb peroxide/kerosene engine. 2 of those work out to 11% of the full thrust of a BE-4 and could be used for the final landing burn.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: sanman on 01/27/2016 05:01 am
I assume from Bezos' statements about not wanting to throw the hardware away, that he'd like to go as far as a fully reusable launch stack. But while Musk says he doesn't feel 2nd-stage reusability makes sense because the delta-v is too great, then how would Blue Origin overcome that challenge?

Anyone who can crack the 2nd-stage-reusability problem without sacrificing too much payload could achieve a competitive advantage.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars-J on 01/27/2016 05:09 am
I assume from Bezos' statements about not wanting to throw the hardware away, that he'd like to go as far as a fully reusable launch stack. But while Musk says he doesn't feel 2nd-stage reusability makes sense because the delta-v is too great, then how would Blue Origin overcome that challenge?

Anyone who can crack the 2nd-stage-reusability problem without sacrificing too much payload could achieve a competitive advantage.

No, initially they are doing the same as SpaceX for the first orbital launch vehcile - an expendable 2nd stage: https://www.blueorigin.com/technology

Quote
Similar to our suborbital vehicle, the first stage booster will separate and land back on Earth. An expendable second stage will continue to propel the capsule into orbit, toward scientific research and exploration.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: dror on 01/27/2016 05:31 am
I assume from Bezos' statements about not wanting to throw the hardware away, that he'd like to go as far as a fully reusable launch stack. But while Musk says he doesn't feel 2nd-stage reusability makes sense because the delta-v is too great, then how would Blue Origin overcome that challenge?

Anyone who can crack the 2nd-stage-reusability problem without sacrificing too much payload could achieve a competitive advantage.
Musk didn't say that.
He said (at MIT IIRC) that S2 reusability doesn't make sence with RP1 but will with higher isp.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: sanman on 01/27/2016 05:31 am
So it sounds like the 2nd-stage reusability problem isn't easily solvable, and serves to set a price floor under launch costs.

At least we'll see both companies compete on just how reusable their rockets are - ie. number of reflights before failure, and turnaround time.

Musk didn't say that.
He said (at MIT IIRC) that S2 reusability doesn't make sence with RP1 but will with higher isp.

But Musk said he wouldn't do a Raptor for F9R, nor make F9R stack fully reusable.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: dror on 01/27/2016 06:00 am

Musk didn't say that.
He said (at MIT IIRC) that S2 reusability doesn't make sence with RP1 but will with higher isp.

But Musk said he wouldn't do a Raptor for F9R, nor make F9R stack fully reusable.

Well, he said at MIT:
[What about the second stage?] "The next generation vehicles after the Falcon architecture will be designed for full reusability. I don't expect the Falcon 9 to have a reusable upper stage, just because the - with a kerosene-based system, the specific impulse isn't really high enough to do that, and a lot of the missions we do for commercial satellite deployment are geostationary missions. So, we're really going very far out. These are high delta-velocity missions, so to try to get something back from that is really difficult. But, with the next generation of vehicles, which is going to be a sub-cooled methane/oxygen system where the propellants are cooled close to their freezing temperature to increase the density, we could definitely do full reusability "

But the air force statement changes all of that because now a raptor stage 2 is an option so F9 full reusability is an option.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Lar on 01/27/2016 10:39 am
Let's get back on topic. F9 Raptor S2 is discussed elsewhere.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 01/27/2016 12:00 pm
Here a snapshot of BlueOrigins van Horn Texus test and launch site. (It is rotated 90deg clockwise)
At the left site on the image (south) is the entry gate to the facility and a vertical horizontal preparation facility. In the middel is the launch site and at the right site (north) is the landing site. I think the truck, with New Shepard on top, drove from the processing area to the launch site. I don't think any other facilities were involved during the re-flight preparations of New Shepard.

I posted in another tread that I wandered what the performance of a LOxLCH4 New Sheperd would be. Someone posted that it would have less capabilities than the current new Shepard, I disagree.

The New Shepard is rumored to be 14 meters tall and 3m in diameter (the capsule has 3,4m diameter), I think the propellant tanks on New Shepard are 12 meters tall. With the equation V=0,25Pi*D2*L the tank volume is roughly 85 cubic meter. Wiki gives a bulk density and Ve (ISP*G0=9.81m/s) for first stages as:
LOx-LH2   290 kg/m3 (0,29 mT/m3) and 3816m/s (/ 9,81m/s = 389s)
LOx-LCH4 820 kg/m3  and 3034m/s (309s)
The Tsiolkovsky Rocket equation gives the delta V the rocket(stage) can reach: dV=Ve*ln(M0/Me)
I estimate the capsule weight of New Shepherd at about 5mT (~10 000Pound) and I think the stage weights roughly the same. So Me=10mT (~20 000pounds) or 15mT for the methane variant because the Propelant are much heavier. The fuel weight can be calculated by multiplying the tank volume by the bulk density. gives LH: 24,65mT; LCH4 69,7mT lets take 25 and 70mT. Gives M0= LH: 35mT (76 000 pounds); LCH4 80 or 85mT.
The Tsiolkovsky equation gives dV's of : LH  4781 m/s ; LCH4:  (6309) 5263 m/s.
So the dV of the Methane system is 482m/s (1528) higher. 10-30% higher.
The equetion doesn't take into account Drag losses and gravity loses. The Drag losses are the same (same shape) the gravity loses are higher for the methane system (if i'm not mistaken). So I think an increase of 5-15% of dV can be reached. The Methane engine needs 200 000-250 000 Trust level, in between of BE-3 and BE-4.

For other engines besides BE-1; -2; -3 and -4 I think a 2000 000lb. 10 000kN HTP-RP1 liquid engine might be BE-5. This is a replacement for the SLS solid rocket boosters. And for in flight electric propulsion.

If I'm not mistaken BlueOrigin is working already at four different launch vehicles:
1) New Shepherd, single stage 5mT suborbitol >100km. Take off weight G0 <40mT; 90 000lb
2) With Boeing XS-1 3000-5000 lb (1335-2225kg) to LEO most likely the BE-4 (or BE-3) first stage with a BE-2 second stage. G0 40-120mT (100 000 - 300 000 lb) (most likely to the upper bound of this margin)
3) BlueOrigin's Orbital launcher, two stage with a reusable first stage BE-4; BE-3U two single stages with about the same capability of Delta-II and Antares ~6mT (13 500lb) to LEO, G0 ~200mT (500 000lb)
4) With ULA (also boeing and a bit Lockheed) Vulcan, 2 two stage with 0-6 solid strap-on boosters 2xBE-4 (expendable), BE-3U or 1-4xRL-10 (1x EU 180kN Vince). G0 1-2,5 million lb (450-1100mT);
payload (2% G0) 20 000 - 80 000lb (9-35mT). The first stage might be upgraded to a reusable version.

If a very large rocket would be required in the future (with i doubt, I think 40mT ; 90 000lb should be the maximum payload and at least three launchers with this capability are required),
Blue can make a reusable first stage with 3-5 BE-4's and a BE-3 of BE-4 second stage (2-2,5 million lb G0) [2% payload = 40-50 k.lb] so G0 900-1100mT; payload 17,5-22,5 mT. With BE-5 boosters this can get the same capability as SLS more than 100mT to LEO, G0 is than more than 5000mT (10 mln lb)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 01/27/2016 03:22 pm
Actually, I was referring to Bezos' stated long term plans for a "greater family" of orbital launch vehicles. Will these necessitate development of even newer engines, or will BE-4 be a basic building block for all of them? I'm assuming the latter - but will Blue skip making a "Falcon Heavy" and instead go for their version of BFR?
Depends on how many engines Bezos wants on his version of BFR. He has the funds to dev. an even larger engine after the BE-4 for his BFR. Also depends on how large he wants Blue's largest vehicle to be. I don't think that Bezos wants to dev. Blue's version of the N-1 so I think that if he wants to dev. a vehicle in the class of the SLS or SpaceX's BFR he will dev. the follow on to the BE-4 for it. Don't be surprised if Blue gets to work on an F-1 class or larger engine for their big vehicle sometime in the next decade.


there might be a much larger launcher from Blue or McCain doesn't know what he's being lobbied about?
just watched this mess
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39393.msg1483819#msg1483819


McCain is going to call up all the new players before congress.  Jeff Bezo's and Elon Musk both before congress what a show that might become. ;D

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 01/27/2016 03:29 pm
Blue did develop the BE-2 as well, 31,000lb peroxide/kerosene engine. 2 of those work out to 11% of the full thrust of a BE-4 and could be used for the final landing burn.


wasn't the BE-2 a peroxide/kerosene version of the Fastrac Engine (early Merlin)?   Blue was very secret at the time about the BE-2 so there's not alot out there on it.

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 01/27/2016 03:51 pm
Rik
You can add an BE3 upper stage for OrbitalATK Next LV to projects Blue are working on.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 01/27/2016 10:36 pm
For our number crunchers ;)

http://www.wired.com/2016/01/how-fast-did-blue-origins-rocket-accelerate-on-launch/

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: RanulfC on 01/28/2016 04:49 pm
Blue did develop the BE-2 as well, 31,000lb peroxide/kerosene engine. 2 of those work out to 11% of the full thrust of a BE-4 and could be used for the final landing burn.


wasn't the BE-2 a peroxide/kerosene version of the Fastrac Engine (early Merlin)?   Blue was very secret at the time about the BE-2 so there's not alot out there on it.

I've actually never seen any good figures for the HTP/Kerosene engines BO originally used :) I'd originally hoped that it was based on the RMI LR-40 (http://www.hydrogen-peroxide.us/history-US-Reaction-Motors/AIAA-2001-3838_History_of_RMI_Super_Performance_90_Percent_H2O2-Kerosene_LR-40_RE-pitch.pdf) which "someone" paid General Kinetics to reverse engineer but that's only a bit over 10,000lbs thrust per engine, nowhere near the 31,000lbs you state so I guess that's out.

Could have been based on one of the Beal engines I suppose?

Randy
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 01/28/2016 07:25 pm
Blue did develop the BE-2 as well, 31,000lb peroxide/kerosene engine. 2 of those work out to 11% of the full thrust of a BE-4 and could be used for the final landing burn.


wasn't the BE-2 a peroxide/kerosene version of the Fastrac Engine (early Merlin)?   Blue was very secret at the time about the BE-2 so there's not alot out there on it.

I've actually never seen any good figures for the HTP/Kerosene engines BO originally used :) I'd originally hoped that it was based on the RMI LR-40 (http://www.hydrogen-peroxide.us/history-US-Reaction-Motors/AIAA-2001-3838_History_of_RMI_Super_Performance_90_Percent_H2O2-Kerosene_LR-40_RE-pitch.pdf (http://www.hydrogen-peroxide.us/history-US-Reaction-Motors/AIAA-2001-3838_History_of_RMI_Super_Performance_90_Percent_H2O2-Kerosene_LR-40_RE-pitch.pdf)) which "someone" paid General Kinetics to reverse engineer but that's only a bit over 10,000lbs thrust per engine, nowhere near the 31,000lbs you state so I guess that's out.

Could have been based on one of the Beal engines I suppose?

Randy
the AR2-3 in that paper was brought back in the late 90's early 2000's by Boeing when they owned Rocketdyne use for X37-B, then killed off.

the Beal were higher thrust, so don't think so.

research starting here
http://www.barber-nichols.com/products/rocket-engine-turbopumps (http://www.barber-nichols.com/products/rocket-engine-turbopumps)

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: DJPledger on 01/28/2016 07:27 pm
I bet that a BE-5 if Blue develops it would be a SC LOX/LCH4 engine rather than a HTP/RP-1 one. Blue may even go for FFSC for the BE-5 for max. reusability while retaining high performance. Needs full and rapid reusability to fulfill Blue's long term ambitions. Blue has already done HTP/RP-1 with the BE-2 and has moved away from that prop. combo to higher performance LOX/LH2 and LOX/LCH4 for the BE-3 and BE-4 respectively.

I reckon Bezos has the money to dev. an ORSC or FFSC ~10MN engine for Blue's super heavy vehicle.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: RanulfC on 01/28/2016 09:10 pm
the AR2-3 in that paper was brought back in the late 90's early 2000's by Boeing when they owned Rocketdyne use for X37-B, then killed off.
the Beal were higher thrust, so don't think so.
research starting here
http://www.barber-nichols.com/products/rocket-engine-turbopumps

Beal had some smaller engines they tested when they were developing their bigger engines but not much on any of them either.

My understanding is that the pintle-type engine isn't what you want for a good keroxide engine so that's why I doubt it was the basis for the "BE-2". Like the cited LR-40 you want to decompose the peroxide first and then inject kerosene into the flow, but since there's so little information on the actual engine who knows?

Randy
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 01/29/2016 12:12 am
Engines to enable New Shepard capsule to land propulsively like Dragon 2, maybe next project. The engines would need non toxic fuel. Not having to repack parachutes after each flight would allow for rapid turnaround and precision landing. At present the capsule is at mercy of wind.

In regards to BE2 comments above it does produce 32klbs has per their website. BE1 was 11,000
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: KSC Sage on 01/29/2016 01:33 pm
Rik
You can add an BE3 upper stage for OrbitalATK Next LV to projects Blue are working on.

I also wouldn't be surprised to see SpaceX use the BE-3 for an upper stage engine in the future.  ;)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Comga on 01/29/2016 03:36 pm
Rik
You can add an BE3 upper stage for OrbitalATK Next LV to projects Blue are working on.
I also wouldn't be surprised to see SpaceX use the BE-3 for an upper stage engine in the future.  ;)

If that post was from a general member of the population it cold be dismissed as silly, but not coming from you.
Given the new AF contract for Raptor as un upper stage engine for F9 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39310.msg1474455#msg1474455), are you serious about a third engine and fuel type?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: sanman on 01/29/2016 04:21 pm
Rik
You can add an BE3 upper stage for OrbitalATK Next LV to projects Blue are working on.
I also wouldn't be surprised to see SpaceX use the BE-3 for an upper stage engine in the future.  ;)

If that post was from a general member of the population it cold be dismissed as silly, but not coming from you.
Given the new AF contract for Raptor as un upper stage engine for F9 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39310.msg1474455#msg1474455), are you serious about a third engine and fuel type?

How is it conceivable that SpaceX would use any of Blue's hardware for anything?
Does the US govt have a vested interest in seeing that some interoperability exists between rival launch companies?

And how come Blue isn't getting any engine development contracts from the US govt, like SpaceX is?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 01/29/2016 04:54 pm
Seriously  ;) made clear to me it KSC Sage made a joke.
On OrbitalATK and BE-3, is it not more like: ATK is collaborating with Blue on the development of BE-3U. They are developing the nozzle extension.
I think there isn't a market place for a large Solid-solid-liquid rocket, because of higher launch loads, and to meany systems that have a mode benign launch. But we'll see if OrbilalATK is going to provide this solid system.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 01/29/2016 06:13 pm
Rik
You can add an BE3 upper stage for OrbitalATK Next LV to projects Blue are working on.
I also wouldn't be surprised to see SpaceX use the BE-3 for an upper stage engine in the future.  ;)

If that post was from a general member of the population it cold be dismissed as silly, but not coming from you.
Given the new AF contract for Raptor as un upper stage engine for F9 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39310.msg1474455#msg1474455), are you serious about a third engine and fuel type?

How is it conceivable that SpaceX would use any of Blue's hardware for anything?
Does the US govt have a vested interest in seeing that some interoperability exists between rival launch companies?

And how come Blue isn't getting any engine development contracts from the US govt, like SpaceX is?


It doesn't work that way, but also there is no "free lunch".  Taking DOD monies does come with more responsibilities.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: notsorandom on 01/29/2016 06:24 pm
Engines to enable New Shepard capsule to land propulsively like Dragon 2, maybe next project. The engines would need non toxic fuel. Not having to repack parachutes after each flight would allow for rapid turnaround and precision landing. At present the capsule is at mercy of wind.

In regards to BE2 comments above it does produce 32klbs has per their website. BE1 was 11,000
If I recall correctly the LES Blue tested was meant to be reflown many times without inspection. Nothing needed to be done to it before the capsule's next flight. The motors and the solid propellant within them are dead weight since they wouldn't be used at all in flight. However they return with the capsule and nothing needs to be done with them. So hauling them around pays because there is no fuss in getting the LES ready for the next flight.

Parachutes can still get the capsule pretty close. The Dragon routinely lands not far from its aim point. Not good enough if you are trying to land at a concrete pad but good enough to land in the desert. I wouldn't be surprised to see a parafoil with their bi-conic orbital capsule. It will be interesting to see what launch cadence they get to with the New Shepard. It might turn out they can fly quickly enough while repacking or replacing parachutes between launches.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: sghill on 01/29/2016 07:31 pm
Per the Space Florida Board of Directors meeting I was at yesterday: 

"Blue" (their language, not mine) is taking over all of Pad 36 with launch and also some manufacturing.  They are potentially negotiating directly with the Air Force for a lease and not with Space Florida.  The Board didn't discuss why, but it all sounded very friendly.  If Blue leases from the Air Force directly, then Space Florida stated that it (Space Florida) will take a back seat until Blue's lease with the AF ends, and then it will resume its lease of the pad from the Air Force.

Moon Express will be moving out.  James Dean is tweeting that they are going to Pad 17/18.

I was going to ask about ME at the meeting yesterday, as it made little sense for them to remain there long term, but the discussions answered my question for me.  It also opens the door for BO rockets to land on the pad right next to where they took off only moments before for their tourist flights on New Shepherd.

From the discussions, Blue is clearly moving from development to manufacturing and operations.  There was extended briefing about the Phase 1 manufacturing and construction contract and leaseback for Blue at Pad 36 and an additional Phase 2 construction and leaseback from Space Florida to Blue.  Phase 1 will include manufacturing and launch facilities at Pad 36.  Phase 2 will be in Exploration Park.

No discussion of Blue's technology plans or engines was had at the Board meeting.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars-J on 02/02/2016 04:01 pm
Blue Origin tweeted an image of a BE-4 nozzle forge/mold: https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/694562259775819776

Quote
Blue Origin ‏@blueorigin
BE-4 forgings, assemble!  Full engine testing later this year to support @ulalaunch Vulcan 1st flight in 2019.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: b0objunior on 02/02/2016 04:52 pm
Blue Origin tweeted an image of a BE-4 nozzle forge/mold: https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/694562259775819776

Quote
Blue Origin ‏@blueorigin
BE-4 forgings, assemble!  Full engine testing later this year to support @ulalaunch Vulcan 1st flight in 2019.

Looks good, I like the color of it even if I know it's going to change for oblivious reasons. But I wonder, is it made entirely out of copper?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: russianhalo117 on 02/02/2016 05:13 pm
Blue Origin tweeted an image of a BE-4 nozzle forge/mold: https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/694562259775819776

Quote
Blue Origin ‏@blueorigin
BE-4 forgings, assemble!  Full engine testing later this year to support @ulalaunch Vulcan 1st flight in 2019.

Looks good, I like the color of it even if I know it's going to change for oblivious reasons. But I wonder, is it made entirely out of copper?
typically there is inside layer of copper and/or chrome and and different material on outside layer. hence why the inside of engines nozzle on Soyuz is copper and outside skin is aircraft stainless steel or similar metal alloy.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: b0objunior on 02/02/2016 05:31 pm
Blue Origin tweeted an image of a BE-4 nozzle forge/mold: https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/694562259775819776

Quote
Blue Origin ‏@blueorigin
BE-4 forgings, assemble!  Full engine testing later this year to support @ulalaunch Vulcan 1st flight in 2019.

Looks good, I like the color of it even if I know it's going to change for oblivious reasons. But I wonder, is it made entirely out of copper?
typically there is inside layer of copper and/or chrome and and different material on outside layer. hence why the inside of engines nozzle on Soyuz is copper and outside skin is aircraft stainless steel or similar metal alloy.

I wonder what is the chosen method for the cooling of the regen nozzle? I don't think it's going to be tubular walls, but what then?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: abaddon on 02/02/2016 05:58 pm
Nice photo, nice looking bell.  Hope this a sign of a more open Blue Origin than we have been used to!
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: mheney on 02/02/2016 06:12 pm
Now we need to know how tall the woman in the photo is, so we can figure out the size of the bell...
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: russianhalo117 on 02/02/2016 06:39 pm
Now we need to know how tall the woman in the photo is, so we can figure out the size of the bell...

In the twitter comments of the post BO states that the ULA test version of the nozzle extension shown is 6 feet and given that data and their previous tweets infographic places estimated length around 12-16 feet
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Kansan52 on 02/02/2016 06:49 pm
So she's about 5' 5".
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: russianhalo117 on 02/02/2016 07:00 pm
So she's about 5' 5".
see my amended post now with the latest attached infographic
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Kansan52 on 02/02/2016 07:47 pm
So she's about 5' 5".
see my amended post now with the latest attached infographic

Sorry, poor attempt at humor.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: russianhalo117 on 02/02/2016 07:50 pm
So she's about 5' 5".
see my amended post now with the latest attached infographic

Sorry, poor attempt at humor.
I got it
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Dante80 on 02/03/2016 01:13 pm
Great nozzle picture..C:

A couple of questions.

1. Is that greenish layer near the bottom oxidization? (I assume the material is copper).
2. Can we speculate that the placing of the indents has something to do with the regenerative cooling walls?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: russianhalo117 on 02/03/2016 06:26 pm
Great nozzle picture..C:

A couple of questions.

1. Is that greenish layer near the bottom oxidization? (I assume the material is copper).
2. Can we speculate that the placing of the indents has something to do with the regenerative cooling walls?
1) yes and yes
2) its the plate seam of the copper rings those will go away during the next dteps and brazing process
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: DatUser14 on 02/06/2016 01:32 am
Blue origin has a Vine account, some interesting clips on their page. View of the reflight landing from the booster (a view I don't think was in the Launch.Land.Repeat video) and a clip of the feather getting painted on, with scissor lifts that might give a sense of scale, among others. Link to the page:https://vine.co/BlueOrigin
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 02/06/2016 04:11 pm
Blue origin has a Vine account, some interesting clips on their page. View of the reflight landing from the booster (a view I don't think was in the Launch.Land.Repeat video) and a clip of the feather getting painted on, with scissor lifts that might give a sense of scale, among others. Link to the page:https://vine.co/BlueOrigin


excellent find.....amazing the NS rotates just before landing :)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: GWH on 02/09/2016 03:25 pm
It also opens the door for BO rockets to land on the pad right next to where they took off only moments before for their tourist flights on New Shepherd.

Is this confirmed? 
Current design for New Shepherd capsule is to use retro rockets for a parachute and soft touch down on land.  I can't imagine them wanting to do a splashdown and ocean recovery, nor would I think they could consistently target a clear area close to the pad.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 02/09/2016 03:27 pm
It also opens the door for BO rockets to land on the pad right next to where they took off only moments before for their tourist flights on New Shepherd.

Is this confirmed? 
Current design for New Shepherd capsule is to use retro rockets for a parachute and soft touch down on land.  I can't imagine them wanting to do a splashdown and ocean recovery, nor would I think they could consistently target a clear area close to the pad.
I assume this is in reference to the booster and not the capsule...
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: GWH on 02/09/2016 03:52 pm
If they are flying tourist flights out of the cape then the capsule will need to land somewhere regardless. 
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Zed_Noir on 02/09/2016 08:31 pm
If they are flying tourist flights out of the cape then the capsule will need to land somewhere regardless.

Rent out LZ-1 for the occasion. ;D
Likely after hell have freeze over
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Beittil on 02/11/2016 11:41 am
To be honest, for their future orbital vehicle it really woulnd't be that bad an idea. Would give Elon a nice oppertunity to make a jab like 'Even BO needs an X to mark the landing spot!'
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Jarnis on 02/11/2016 11:52 am
If they are flying tourist flights out of the cape then the capsule will need to land somewhere regardless.

I would imagine suborbital tourism flights to be somewhere else...

Maybe they are waiting for the day when they can buy off Spaceport America for pennies :)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: 411rocket on 02/11/2016 11:54 am
If they are flying tourist flights out of the cape then the capsule will need to land somewhere regardless.

Rent out LZ-1 for the occasion. ;D
Likely after hell have freeze over

You forgot the other likely condition, which is Toronto WINNING the Stanley Cup........

Those two conditions, usually go hand in hand.  ;D
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Zed_Noir on 02/11/2016 10:29 pm
If they are flying tourist flights out of the cape then the capsule will need to land somewhere regardless.

Rent out LZ-1 for the occasion. ;D
Likely after hell have freeze over

You forgot the other likely condition, which is Toronto WINNING the Stanley Cup........

Those two conditions, usually go hand in hand.  ;D

As a Hab fan. :P The Maple leafs forgoing their annual spring golfing rites. :o Inconceivable.

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: sanman on 02/12/2016 06:36 am
Article on Blue Origin's plans for manufacturing facility, with comment clip from launch site director Scott Henderson:


http://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2016/02/09/blue-origin-ready-build-space-coast/79699818/


So when he talks about targeting first launch in 2019, does he mean their future orbital rocket powered by BE-4?

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Beittil on 02/12/2016 07:59 am
The description of the video does label him as 'orbital launch site director'.

Offtopic: What an extremely annoying website btw, that Florida Today page, popup and banner galore :S
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: KSC Sage on 02/12/2016 01:01 pm
Article on Blue Origin's plans for manufacturing facility, with comment clip from launch site director Scott Henderson:


http://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2016/02/09/blue-origin-ready-build-space-coast/79699818/


So when he talks about targeting first launch in 2019, does he mean their future orbital rocket powered by BE-4?


Yes, they're targeting a first flight of their Orbital Launch Vehicle in 2019 from Pad-36.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 02/12/2016 04:40 pm
The description of the video does label him as 'orbital launch site director'.

Offtopic: What an extremely annoying website btw, that Florida Today page, popup and banner galore :S


agree with you 100% on that one.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: MechE31 on 02/15/2016 08:00 pm
Note that this is the same Scott Henderson that was previously the director of mission assurance and frequent spokesperson for SpaceX.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Hauerg on 02/15/2016 08:14 pm
Well, this all is about building a broad industrial base after all.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: sanman on 02/15/2016 10:09 pm
Note that this is the same Scott Henderson that was previously the director of mission assurance and frequent spokesperson for SpaceX.

So there are people who cross over from SpaceX to Blue, and likely vice-versa. I wonder if either have brought in no-compete clauses into contracts since then.

Musk has said that SpaceX doesn't like to patent stuff, because that only tips off competitors like the Chinese who aren't restricted by IP constraints anyway. But on the other hand, if you have people leaving and taking their knowledge with them, then what's to prevent blatant plagiarism from happening?

And yet perhaps this is good in some way, because it will allow ideas to cross-pollinate more rapidly.


Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 02/15/2016 10:22 pm
So there are people who cross over from SpaceX to Blue, and likely vice-versa. I wonder if either have brought in no-compete clauses into contracts since then.

California and Washington, couldn't you find two states more opposed to non-competes?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/16/2016 12:25 am
...But on the other hand, if you have people leaving and taking their knowledge with them, then what's to prevent blatant plagiarism from happening?
...
Trade secret law (NDAs and such) are still in force even if you don't patent something. It might be harder to enforce than patents, but patents can be hard to enforce if your opponent is China or Russia.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 02/25/2016 01:08 pm
Sorry for making a duplicate thread, I'll post my massage again here. You'll understand I think this topic is in the wrong location.

Blue Origin updated their website with a section about BE-4. Link (https://www.blueorigin.com/be4)

Is it known when Blue will launch the New Shepard for the fourth time. Are they hold up by FAA licence approval because they want to take payloads on the fourth flight. Or did they discover something that has to be adjusted/ modified before the fourth flight. It has been more than a month since the third flight took place, and it looked like a perfect executed flight, so I don't get what is preventing other flights. (impatient).
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: notsorandom on 02/25/2016 02:06 pm
Some goodies in there:
Quote
Save taxpayer money
The BE-4 saves taxpayers an additional $3 billion in national security launch costs over 20 years by providing higher thrust – 1.1 million pounds versus 860,000 pounds for the RD-180 – which enables a greater payload capability and allows for the removal of a solid rocket motor at more than $10 million per flight for comparable missions.
Vulcan has 2 BE-4 engines so it is likely that they mean a pair of BE-4s offer 1.1 million pounds of thrust. Does an SRM really cost over $10 million?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 02/25/2016 03:00 pm
Some goodies in there:
Quote
Save taxpayer money
The BE-4 saves taxpayers an additional $3 billion in national security launch costs over 20 years by providing higher thrust – 1.1 million pounds versus 860,000 pounds for the RD-180 – which enables a greater payload capability and allows for the removal of a solid rocket motor at more than $10 million per flight for comparable missions.
Vulcan has 2 BE-4 engines so it is likely that they mean a pair of BE-4s offer 1.1 million pounds of thrust. Does an SRM really cost over $10 million?
The New Worlds Observatory mission had each SRB on an Atlas V 5x1 as an 10M additional cost. This was 2007 dollars, I believe. But, apparently, OrbitalATK got ULA a significant cost reduction. This is final user cost, not OrbitalATK price.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 02/26/2016 12:33 am
This another BE-3?

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: leaflion on 02/26/2016 01:44 am
Yes.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Stan-1967 on 02/26/2016 01:59 am
Some goodies in there:
Quote
Save taxpayer money
The BE-4 saves taxpayers an additional $3 billion in national security launch costs over 20 years by providing higher thrust – 1.1 million pounds versus 860,000 pounds for the RD-180 – which enables a greater payload capability and allows for the removal of a solid rocket motor at more than $10 million per flight for comparable missions.
Vulcan has 2 BE-4 engines so it is likely that they mean a pair of BE-4s offer 1.1 million pounds of thrust. Does an SRM really cost over $10 million?
The New Worlds Observatory mission had each SRB on an Atlas V 5x1 as an 10M additional cost. This was 2007 dollars, I believe. But, apparently, OrbitalATK got ULA a significant cost reduction. This is final user cost, not OrbitalATK price.

I was looking at an L2 presentation from Airbus/Safran regarding pricing of Ariane 6-2 vs. 6-4 configuration.   The difference was 15M Euro.   The difference in vehicle configuration is the addition 2 P120 SRB's. That works out to around $8M USD for each SRB.  Sounds about right if ATK has been able to reduce cost below Aerojet.

It would seem rational for BO to design a vehicle with excess margin and avoid the use of SRB's just as SpaceX has done.   
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Lar on 02/26/2016 10:07 am
Some goodies in there:
Quote
Save taxpayer money
The BE-4 saves taxpayers an additional $3 billion in national security launch costs over 20 years by providing higher thrust – 1.1 million pounds versus 860,000 pounds for the RD-180 – which enables a greater payload capability and allows for the removal of a solid rocket motor at more than $10 million per flight for comparable missions.
Vulcan has 2 BE-4 engines so it is likely that they mean a pair of BE-4s offer 1.1 million pounds of thrust. Does an SRM really cost over $10 million?
Who is this message targeted at? Congress?  That's kind of how it reads to me...
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: edkyle99 on 02/26/2016 02:09 pm
Who is this message targeted at? Congress?  That's kind of how it reads to me...
Pentagon decision makers and Congress, likely.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: spacenut on 02/26/2016 02:22 pm
What does two BE-4's cost relative to one RD-180 and a solid?  Does anyone know?  3 billion over 20 years is about $150 million a year.  Then how many launches a year?  Are they factoring in reuse over this period of time also?  Opens a lot of questions for me. 
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Kabloona on 02/26/2016 02:40 pm
What does two BE-4's cost relative to one RD-180 and a solid?  Does anyone know?

Does Blue Origin even know, given (1) they aren't even in production yet, and (2) cost per unit will depend on volume, which is also unknown?

Maybe a reasonable cost estimate could be made by taking SpaceX's stated cost for M1D (IIRC they said something like $2M) and scaling by thrust. But it's a different fuel operating on a different cycle, so even that cost scale-up may be invalid.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 02/26/2016 03:24 pm
From different saving figures ULA and Blue have mentioned, I say around $15M for a pair. Which is about $10M cheaper than RD180,  plus 1xSRB less required.

BE4 supports autogenous pressurization which eliminates expensive He systems. A more knowledgeable member maybe able to guess how much this would save.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: ethan829 on 02/26/2016 03:54 pm
What does two BE-4's cost relative to one RD-180 and a solid?  Does anyone know?

Does Blue Origin even know, given (1) they aren't even in production yet, and (2) cost per unit will depend on volume, which is also unknown?

Maybe a reasonable cost estimate could be made by taking SpaceX's stated cost for M1D (IIRC they said something like $2M) and scaling by thrust. But it's a different fuel operating on a different cycle, so even that cost scale-up may be invalid.


Tory Bruno has mentioned on reddit that Blue Origin agreed to ULA's target cost for BE-4, although no mention of any specific number.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ula/comments/43v33x/be4_forgings_assemble_full_engine_testing_later/czq86eb (https://www.reddit.com/r/ula/comments/43v33x/be4_forgings_assemble_full_engine_testing_later/czq86eb)
Quote
BE4 is our primary path because it started first, is fully funded, and Blue has signed up to our target cost. AR1 is our back up because engines are complicated, risky, and BE4 will be the largest methane engine ever built (so there's technical risk). I plan to downselect after BE4's full scale static testing in about a year. That's when we'll know if the technology will work and can be on schedule.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Kabloona on 02/26/2016 04:12 pm
Quote
Tory Bruno has mentioned on reddit that Blue Origin agreed to ULA's target cost for BE-4

Probably not a guaranteed price to ULA, since Blue can't know yet what it will cost them to produce. So if it's not guaranteed, it can change. In other words, "we think we can hit $10M per engine and we'll do our best to get there, but we won't really know until the design is finalized and we go into production."

Which is functionally equivalent to "we don't really know yet." Or am I being too cynical/realistic?

Not a criticism, just saying I don't think anyone really knows what the cost will be yet, targets or no targets.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: ethan829 on 02/26/2016 04:27 pm
Probably not a guaranteed price to ULA, since Blue can't know yet what it will cost them to produce. So if it's not guaranteed, it can change. In other words, "we think we can hit $10M per engine and we'll do our best to get there, but we won't really know until the design is finalized and we go into production."

Which is functionally equivalent to "we don't really know yet." Or am I being too cynical/realistic?

Not a criticism, just saying I don't think anyone really knows what the cost will be yet, targets or no targets.

You're probably right to be skeptical, I'd be shocked if Blue could exactly meet the target cost given that they've never developed an engine on this scale or using this technology before.

Although in the interest of speculation, Mr. Bruno also posted this 20 minutes ago, which claims that two BE-4s will cost less than a single RD-180:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ula/comments/47jsfy/new_be4_information_page_from_blue_origin/d0erahf (https://www.reddit.com/r/ula/comments/47jsfy/new_be4_information_page_from_blue_origin/d0erahf)
Quote
However, as a pair, BE4 or AR1 will offer around 30% more thrust than a single RD180. The pair will cost less than a single RD180 and with increased tank size, there will be fewer SRMs for the same mission.

Again, that's a target and could easily change, but it's nice to know the ballpark figures.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Kabloona on 02/26/2016 04:43 pm
Based on what SpaceX has said about their M1D production cost, if I had to take a WAG, I'd guess
Blue's BE-4 cost target was $10M per engine, so $20M per pair, and $5M less than an RD-180.

Doesn't sound unreasonable judging from what SpaceX has been able to accomplish on M1D with 3-D printing, etc.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 03/03/2016 01:16 am
Quote from: Jeff Foust
McAlister: unfunded CCDev space act agreement with Blue Origin set to end this month; could be extended again.

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/705107802637774848
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Eric Hedman on 03/09/2016 02:32 am
A new article in the Washington Post on Blue Origin:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/03/08/why-jeff-bezos-is-finally-ready-to-talk-about-taking-people-to-space/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_blue-origin-730pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/03/08/why-jeff-bezos-is-finally-ready-to-talk-about-taking-people-to-space/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_blue-origin-730pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory)

Since it is his newspaper I'm shocked they got this story :o
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: sanman on 03/09/2016 04:46 pm
More on the latest from Blue:

http://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/bezoss-blue-origin-reveals-a-mix-of-serious-tech-and-space-fan-fun/

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/03/09/science/space/jeff-bezos-lifts-veil-on-his-rocket-company-blue-origin.html

http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/03/behind-the-curtain-ars-goes-inside-blue-origins-secretive-rocket-factory/

Gee, this logo (coat-of-arms?) seems like a story in itself:

(http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/blue-origin-logo.jpg)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: GreenShrike on 03/09/2016 04:51 pm
Some tidbits from the Ars Technica article:

BE-4 chamber pressure is 1950 psi, and it's aimed at being reusable for 25 missions.

BE-4 was originally 400 klbs of thrust but ULA wanted a bigger engine, so Blue re-scoped the engine to 550 klbs.

Orbital ATK is working with Blue to develop engines for its upper stage.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: kch on 03/09/2016 04:59 pm
A new article in the Washington Post on Blue Origin:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/03/08/why-jeff-bezos-is-finally-ready-to-talk-about-taking-people-to-space/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_blue-origin-730pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/03/08/why-jeff-bezos-is-finally-ready-to-talk-about-taking-people-to-space/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_blue-origin-730pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory)

Since it is his newspaper I'm shocked they got this story :o

Why are you shocked?  If he's ready to talk, why wouldn't he talk to his own people & have the article published in (as the article noted) his own paper?  Seems sensible to me.  :)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: cscott on 03/09/2016 05:49 pm
A new article in the Washington Post on Blue Origin:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/03/08/why-jeff-bezos-is-finally-ready-to-talk-about-taking-people-to-space/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_blue-origin-730pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/03/08/why-jeff-bezos-is-finally-ready-to-talk-about-taking-people-to-space/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_blue-origin-730pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory)

Since it is his newspaper I'm shocked they got this story :o

Why are you shocked?  If he's ready to talk, why wouldn't he talk to his own people & have the article published in (as the article noted) his own paper?  Seems sensible to me.  :)
Perhaps we need to standardize a "sarcasm" smiley.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Lar on 03/09/2016 07:05 pm
What does two BE-4's cost relative to one RD-180 and a solid?  Does anyone know?

Does Blue Origin even know, given (1) they aren't even in production yet, and (2) cost per unit will depend on volume, which is also unknown?

Maybe a reasonable cost estimate could be made by taking SpaceX's stated cost for M1D (IIRC they said something like $2M) and scaling by thrust. But it's a different fuel operating on a different cycle, so even that cost scale-up may be invalid.
Another way to do it is using Activity Based Costing. This is a fairly good way to estimate development costs as well as manufacturing costs... it requires some data on what things cost and how they scale... it can be a bit more accurate than just saying "M1D * 1.25" level estimating but it really hinges on how good your data is. You sometimes can get this by benchmarking competitors, if they will let you, or by deriving data.  Guessing in other words, but in a framework that makes the guesses a bit more rigorous.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activity-based_costing
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: NovaSilisko on 03/10/2016 03:27 am
http://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/bezoss-blue-origin-reveals-a-mix-of-serious-tech-and-space-fan-fun/

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/03/09/science/space/jeff-bezos-lifts-veil-on-his-rocket-company-blue-origin.html

http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/03/behind-the-curtain-ars-goes-inside-blue-origins-secretive-rocket-factory/

Hmm. Looks like they brought in a small group of people on a day when the factory was empty (or nearly so) for the photo shoot or something. Those are very... stock-photo-y pictures, and you can see the same people showing up in different places in the wide shots vs the narrow shots. You'd expect more background activity and things like ID tags/lanyards/walkie-talkies on a regular work day.


edit: Also, which vehicle is this up on the mural? I can't recall.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Lar on 03/10/2016 03:49 am
edit: Also, which vehicle is this up on the mural? I can't recall.

DC-X ?? (Many DC-X folk went to Blue as I understand it...) The image is perhaps somewhat stylised. Compare
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-X#/media/File:Delta_Clipper_DC-X_first_flight.jpg similar but not QUITE the same (right down to the coloration)

image taken from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-X
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 03/10/2016 03:57 am
That's Goddard which flew on 13 November 2006. I believe it used a hydrogen peroxide engine, the BE-1.

https://www.blueorigin.com/news/blog/flight-test-goddard-low-altitude-mission
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: funkyjive on 03/10/2016 03:59 am
http://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/bezoss-blue-origin-reveals-a-mix-of-serious-tech-and-space-fan-fun/

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/03/09/science/space/jeff-bezos-lifts-veil-on-his-rocket-company-blue-origin.html

http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/03/behind-the-curtain-ars-goes-inside-blue-origins-secretive-rocket-factory/

Hmm. Looks like they brought in a small group of people on a day when the factory was empty (or nearly so) for the photo shoot or something. Those are very... stock-photo-y pictures, and you can see the same people showing up in different places in the wide shots vs the narrow shots. You'd expect more background activity and things like ID tags/lanyards/walkie-talkies.


edit: Also, which vehicle is this up on the mural? I can't recall.
https://youtu.be/TgjIYVUfkE4 (https://youtu.be/TgjIYVUfkE4)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: NovaSilisko on 03/10/2016 04:09 am
Thank you funkyjive and Steven, I had totally forgotten about Goddard.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: kch on 03/10/2016 04:26 am
A new article in the Washington Post on Blue Origin:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/03/08/why-jeff-bezos-is-finally-ready-to-talk-about-taking-people-to-space/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_blue-origin-730pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/03/08/why-jeff-bezos-is-finally-ready-to-talk-about-taking-people-to-space/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_blue-origin-730pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory)

Since it is his newspaper I'm shocked they got this story :o

Why are you shocked?  If he's ready to talk, why wouldn't he talk to his own people & have the article published in (as the article noted) his own paper?  Seems sensible to me.  :)

Perhaps we need to standardize a "sarcasm" smiley.

There ya go!  That would help -- it can be difficult to discern at times.  In the interim, there's always the pseudo-HTML "sarc" tag-pair:

[sarc]
... yada-yada-yada ...
[/sarc]

:D
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: leaflion on 03/10/2016 04:53 am
100 flights a year is their eventual target, according to http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/jeff-bezos-expects-manned-blue-origin-missions-by-2017/ (http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/jeff-bezos-expects-manned-blue-origin-missions-by-2017/)

That's 2X a week.  With a fleet of 4 vehicles, that gives you 14 days to prep between launches.  That actually seems like it could happen, although it will probably be half that. 

[sarc]Sounds boring...[/sarc]
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/10/2016 12:54 pm
100 flights a year is their eventual target, according to http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/jeff-bezos-expects-manned-blue-origin-missions-by-2017/ (http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/jeff-bezos-expects-manned-blue-origin-missions-by-2017/)

That's 2X a week.  With a fleet of 4 vehicles, that gives you 14 days to prep between launches.  That actually seems like it could happen, although it will probably be half that. 

[sarc]Sounds boring...[/sarc]
At Virgins $250k a ticket that is $1.5m a flight or $150m (600 passengers) a year.  Bezos said refurbishment costs <$50k so assume a flight costs of < $500k.
 
At these flights rates Blue will be making >$100M in profit.

Bezos said there was 1000s of  people registering on website. A lot will be tire kickers but going off Virgin 700 book customers, well over a 1000 will be genuine customers willing to pay $250K a flight.

This is before dropping price and operating out of multipe launch sites.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: RanulfC on 03/10/2016 05:22 pm
100 flights a year is their eventual target, according to http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/jeff-bezos-expects-manned-blue-origin-missions-by-2017/ (http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/jeff-bezos-expects-manned-blue-origin-missions-by-2017/)

That's 2X a week.  With a fleet of 4 vehicles, that gives you 14 days to prep between launches.  That actually seems like it could happen, although it will probably be half that. 

[sarc]Sounds boring...[/sarc]
At Virgins $250k a ticket that is $1.5m a flight or $150m (600 passengers) a year.  Bezos said refurbishment costs <$50k so assume a flight costs of < $500k.
 
At these flights rates Blue will be making >$100M in profit.

Bezos said there was 1000s of  people registering on website. A lot will be tire kickers but going off Virgin 700 book customers, well over a 1000 will be genuine customers willing to pay $250K a flight.

This is before dropping price and operating out of multipe launch sites.

That depends. What's the "Package" going to be? VG's is what amounts to a two-week luxury vacation resort stay with the "flight" as the culmination event of the trip but LOTS of ancillary stuff piled on-top. XCOR on the other hand is planning operations as an just an available "event" or "activity" based at a tourist resort so does not include much else other than some rudimentary "training" and briefings. The $250K is VG's all-inclusive price where as XCOR's price is expected to be a VERY, very much less per flight/passenger. Since BO has hinted at either price or package there's no real data to work from to make those assumptions.

The suggested <500K "flight" cost per flight is probably low-ball as there are much more than refurbishment costs and as I noted the $250K per passenger is inclusive of a two-week stay at a resort hotel and all that entails. If BO doesn't offer similar service then they won't be charging a similar price. That's both bad AND good. The former because (obviously) overall profits will be lower, but the latter because there will be more incentive/interest with a lower per-ticket price. But only to a point.

Ticket price (and operations plan) is going to determine how many of the "1000s" of people actually purchase tickets, (most are, as noted, probably "tire-kickers" and won't actually purchase a ticket no matter how much it costs so it's a doubtful metric for estimation but it "looks" good which is why it keeps getting brought up) and there's something to note about the number of flights given combined with the possible passenger numbers. (Along with the main key work "eventual" target which could be many years down the road from the start. Just saying. :) )

VG's 700 passengers comes out to @117 flights for either VG or BO. (XCOR is only one so figure literally "one-to-one") That's a little over a year and a quarter to fly off the "solid" list with one vehicle, operating once per week. Even if you assume a "solid" 1000 possible passengers and the suggested 4 vehicles, with twice weekly flights adds up to them all having taken a trip by then end of one (1) year. 100 flights a year comes out to a 6000 passenger-per-year throughput and all evidence suggests that's an incredibly unlikely number of people for sub-orbital space flight "joy" rides at the given price point. The only study numbers I can recall were the Futron study. Which pretty much boils down to there is a small segment of the population that are willing to pay 100K-200K for a suborbital ride which increases somewhat if a more "inclusive" experience is involved (VG model) with increasing participation only if the price is significantly less.

How significantly less? Less than $10K seems to be a generally cited number as this is around the average spent on 'vacation' type activities. Single large 'discretionary' purchases were found possible up to $50K but that required significant initial "net-worth" to begin with. "Assuming" an initial price tag of $100K for a suborbital flight with a reduction by 1/2 within the first five years to $50K the estimate didn't show passenger throughput reaching 6000 passengers until at least 12 years after initial commercial operations begin. (For those interested that would work out that if BO begins commercial operation in 2018 the MARKET will reach enough passengers to require 100 flights a year sometime around 2039 or so)

Main point is that the price per passenger has to drop to around $50K just to get the base market to begin expanding. The closer to $10K per ticket the better. $250K or even $100K per ticket won't generate a sustainable market, even if there were only two providers flying once a month (12 passengers per month) it they would fly off the entire market (1000 possible passengers) in a little under 3 years. Two vehicles makes it a year and a half, and toss in more operators and/or vehicles and...

Randy
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 03/11/2016 07:21 am
100 flights a year comes out to a 6000 passenger-per-year throughput...

Not sure I understand your maths here. 100 flights at 6 passengers per flight works out to 600 passengers.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Garrett on 03/11/2016 07:31 am
Hmm. Looks like they brought in a small group of people on a day when the factory was empty (or nearly so) for the photo shoot or something. Those are very... stock-photo-y pictures, and you can see the same people showing up in different places in the wide shots vs the narrow shots. You'd expect more background activity and things like ID tags/lanyards/walkie-talkies on a regular work day.
The photos are all credited to Blue Origin, i.e. none of the reporters took photos and they were not necessarily taken on the same day.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: mfck on 03/13/2016 04:03 pm


...

Gee, this logo (coat-of-arms?) seems like a story in itself:

(http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/blue-origin-logo.jpg)

Yeah, a Story of two Ferocious Turtles: Lack of Taste and Lack of Humility.

 
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Oli on 03/13/2016 06:48 pm


...

Gee, this logo (coat-of-arms?) seems like a story in itself:

(http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/blue-origin-logo.jpg)

Yeah, a Story of two Ferocious Turtles: Lack of Taste and Lack of Humility.

It's hilarious. Bezos must have a good sense humor.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yoram on 03/13/2016 07:16 pm
One tidbit I found interesting from the WP story was that Blue originally spent several years looking at "non rocket" options for making space cheaper, before concluding that rockets are the best option. It would be fascinating if they could publish a summary of these negative results on the other options, including what they examined and why it wouldn't work.

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/13/2016 11:31 pm
One tidbit I found interesting from the WP story was that Blue originally spent several years looking at "non rocket" options for making space cheaper, before concluding that rockets are the best option. It would be fascinating if they could publish a summary of these negative results on the other options, including what they examined and why it wouldn't work.
Very interesting! Well, they did have Charon, they're jet-engine-based VTVL test platform. Maybe they were thinking of using a supersonic jet engine based first stage?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: sanman on 03/14/2016 12:54 am
Yeah, a Story of two Ferocious Turtles: Lack of Taste and Lack of Humility.

They remind me of the punchline for that joke: "Very funny, young man - but it's turtles all the way down!"

But regarding the shield they're pawing between them - what's the writing on that shield? Something related to various key velocities?

They read as follows:

20 km/s
19 km/s
13 km/s
9.5 km/s
3.6 km/s


What do these values refer to?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 03/14/2016 03:51 am
3.6 km/s is suborbital, as shown in the line drawing, but 1 km/s is sufficient for a suborbital flight to 100 km.

9.5 km/s is about the delta-V required to get to orbit.

13 km/s will get you to a high Lunar orbit. 15.5 km/s will get you to the Lunar surface.

19 km/s is the equivalent delta-V to get you to the surface of Mars (9.5 km/s LEO + 4 km/s TMI + 5.5 km/s for Mars orbit insertion and landing). However, you only need 14 km/s in propulsive delta-V to get the surface of Mars if you use aerobraking.

20 km/s. I don't know what that is. Somewhere beyond Mars I would think. To escape the Solar System is 18 km/s (if may calculations are correct).
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 03/14/2016 04:54 am
3.6km/s sound like suborbital.
9.5 is probably LEO considering gravity losses.
13km/s should be Earth Escape (again, including gravity and aero losses).
19, is too much for Mars.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Proponent on 03/14/2016 09:08 am
They remind me of the punchline for that joke: "Very funny, young man - but it's turtles all the way down!"

Joke?  I thought that's simply what an elderly lady said to American philosopher Henry James after he had delivered a lecture on the structure of the Universe.  She expounded to him her own theory, in which Earth rested on an infinite regression of successively larger turtles, hence "it's turtles all the way down."

Is it possible that the turtles are actually tortoises?  Maybe there's a hare-and-tortoise element to the shield, SpaceX possibly being the hare.

EDIT:  Fixed attribution of quote.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Proponent on 03/14/2016 09:10 am
3.6km/s sound like suborbital.
9.5 is probably LEO considering gravity losses.
13km/s should be Earth Escape (again, including gravity and aero losses).
19, is too much for Mars.

Maybe it's allowing for a braking burn on arrival at Mars?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Kabloona on 03/14/2016 09:30 am
They remind me of the punchline for that joke: "Very funny, young man - but it's turtles all the way down!"

Joke?  I thought that's simply what an elderly lady said to American philosopher Henry James after he had delivered a lecture on the structure of the Universe.  She expounded to him her own theory, in which Earth rested on an infinite regression of successively larger turtles, hence "it's turtles all the way down."

Is it possible that the turtles are actually tortoises?  Maybe there's a hare-and-tortoise element to the shield, SpaceX possibly being the hare.

More about the turtles:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

I'd never heard that saying before. Thanks NSF for another interesting bit of trivia from your erudite members.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 03/14/2016 12:26 pm
Awesome, this turtle story and the Image made of it.
I think the numbers are for:
3,6 km/s    Atmosphere escape (suborbital)
9,5 km/s    Permanent atmosphere escape (LEO)
13 km/s     Earth Gravity well escape
19 km/s     ? Martian surface ?
19 km/s 20 km/s  Sun gravity well escape
20 km/s    Milky way system gravity well escape. 
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 03/14/2016 01:21 pm
Oh! Yes. That must be it. But Milky Way escape is so low?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Nomadd on 03/14/2016 01:27 pm
Oh! Yes. That must be it. But Milky Way escape is so low?
You need to go slow so you won't hit the energy barrier surrounding the galaxy at too high a speed.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: edkyle99 on 03/14/2016 02:58 pm
Gee, this logo (coat-of-arms?) seems like a story in itself:
The logo rocket is interesting. 

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: NovaSilisko on 03/14/2016 05:17 pm
Is it possible that the turtles are actually tortoises?  Maybe there's a hare-and-tortoise element to the shield, SpaceX possibly being the hare.

I thought that was obvious. SpaceX wasn't really as a big a player when Blue Origin started so I doubt the hare in the analogy refers to them, but still.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: jsgirald on 03/14/2016 05:32 pm
Gee, this logo (coat-of-arms?) seems like a story in itself:
The logo rocket is interesting. 

 - Ed Kyle

A rocket with tiny wings?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Proponent on 03/14/2016 05:59 pm
Oh! Yes. That must be it. But Milky Way escape is so low?

Indeed, no -- escape speed from the Milky Way at the sun's distance is hundreds of kilometers per second.

If losses of 1.5 km/s are allowed for in each of the figures, then 20 km/s have you escaping the solar system with a asymptotic speed of 6 km/s....
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: notsorandom on 03/14/2016 07:04 pm
Oh! Yes. That must be it. But Milky Way escape is so low?

Indeed, no -- escape speed from the Milky Way at the sun's distance is hundreds of kilometers per second.

If losses of 1.5 km/s are allowed for in each of the figures, then 20 km/s have you escaping the solar system with a asymptotic speed of 6 km/s....
It would only take something like 22,000 years to get to Proxima Centauri at that speed!
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/14/2016 10:55 pm
Is it possible that the turtles are actually tortoises?  Maybe there's a hare-and-tortoise element to the shield, SpaceX possibly being the hare.

I thought that was obvious. SpaceX wasn't really as a big a player when Blue Origin started so I doubt the hare in the analogy refers to them, but still.
Blue Origin started before SpaceX.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: kch on 03/15/2016 12:13 am
Gee, this logo (coat-of-arms?) seems like a story in itself:
The logo rocket is interesting. 

 - Ed Kyle

It resembles an X-15 on the side of a Navaho G-38 booster ... ;)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: NovaSilisko on 03/15/2016 12:50 am
Is it possible that the turtles are actually tortoises?  Maybe there's a hare-and-tortoise element to the shield, SpaceX possibly being the hare.

I thought that was obvious. SpaceX wasn't really as a big a player when Blue Origin started so I doubt the hare in the analogy refers to them, but still.
Blue Origin started before SpaceX.

Well, I wasn't wrong then  :)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: RanulfC on 03/15/2016 04:46 pm
100 flights a year comes out to a 6000 passenger-per-year throughput...

Not sure I understand your maths here. 100 flights at 6 passengers per flight works out to 600 passengers.

One to many zero's and confusion with the data point in the study :)

600 is correct and I conflated it with the 6000 data point I was working towards. Thanks.

Randy
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: RanulfC on 03/15/2016 07:03 pm
One tidbit I found interesting from the WP story was that Blue originally spent several years looking at "non rocket" options for making space cheaper, before concluding that rockets are the best option. It would be fascinating if they could publish a summary of these negative results on the other options, including what they examined and why it wouldn't work.
Very interesting! Well, they did have Charon, they're jet-engine-based VTVL test platform. Maybe they were thinking of using a supersonic jet engine based first stage?

(BTW it was the Ars Technica article not the WP one)

I'd also like to see that information but I'll point out it should be clear that the "non-rocket" options were for actual space/orbital flight rather than sub-orbital flight so we're talking tethers, linear accelerators, cannon and all that. I highly suspect that in most "non-rocket" options it's not actually that rockets are better or cheaper on an operational basis but the up-front cost has always been high for anything OTHER than rockets.

And the other factor is his vision which is obvious from the logo. His vision is the stars for mankind which I can get behind :)

Speaking of the logo that thing is BUSY, (which would give some heralds I know heart failure trying to describe :) ) IIRC the cited velocities are actually required delta-v expended for each "level" as (depending on the factors you use) 3.6km/s comes out to between Mach-10 and a little over 12 and so on.

Randy

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/15/2016 10:56 pm
...or the jets are the first stage for an orbital vehicle.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: fthomassy on 03/16/2016 01:49 pm

Gee, this logo (coat-of-arms?) seems like a story in itself:

(http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/blue-origin-logo.jpg)

It occurs to me that Gamera is pretty ferocious :D
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: mfck on 03/16/2016 07:42 pm

Gee, this logo (coat-of-arms?) seems like a story in itself:

(http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/blue-origin-logo.jpg)

It occurs to me that Gamera is pretty ferocious :D

Proganochelys and Odontochelys, then?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: leaflion on 03/17/2016 01:55 am
http://spacenews.com/ula-chief-disavows-his-head-engineers-take-on-vulcan-engine-competition/

Sounds like BE-4 might be a bit further ahead than AR-1 than we thought.  Or maybe not.  Tobey is clearly a bit of a looney.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: LastStarFighter on 03/17/2016 02:51 am
http://spacenews.com/ula-chief-disavows-his-head-engineers-take-on-vulcan-engine-competition/

Sounds like BE-4 might be a bit further ahead than AR-1 than we thought.  Or maybe not.  Tobey is clearly a bit of a looney.

They've always said Blue was ahead I thought.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/17/2016 02:55 am
http://spacenews.com/ula-chief-disavows-his-head-engineers-take-on-vulcan-engine-competition/

Sounds like BE-4 might be a bit further ahead than AR-1 than we thought.  Or maybe not.  Tobey is clearly a bit of a looney.

They've always said Blue was ahead I thought.
2years ahead if all goes to plan. BE4 flight ready in 2017 while AR1 will be flight ready in 2019.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: meberbs on 03/18/2016 12:54 am
Cross-posting this link to Commercial Crew status. since it includes some Blue Origin SAA milestones:

http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/4-CCP-Status-McAlister.pdf

The bullets are:
MS# 3.9 - Flight Demo of Subscale Propellant Tank Assy
MS# 3.8 - Flight Demonstration of BE-3 Engine
MS#2.7-Pusher Escape In-Flight Escape Demo Data Review
Dev2 Semi Annual Review

They don't seem to have had a "semi-annual review" since last April, so I am thinking it is more of an annual at this point. The BE-3 has flown 3 times now, so I expect that will be checked off at the next review. One of the recent articles mentioned expecting to lose the current New Shepard booster during a future escape test, so that explains the in-flight escape bullet. I am wondering what the subscale propellant tank assembly demo could refer to.

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Archibald on 03/22/2016 07:22 am
July 1982: Bezos was 18 and he already great (space) expectations
I forgot to put in a short link so I wrecked the page format (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:lhmZ8H2vQucJ:www.palmettohighalumni.org/news/Jeff%2520Bezos_%2520A%2520rocket%2520launched%2520from%2520Miami%25E2%2580%2599s%2520Palmetto%2520High%2520-%252008_05_2013%2520_%2520MiamiHerald.pdf+&cd=1&hl=fr&ct=clnk&gl=fr)

Edit/Lar: Shortened link... the original poster probably will want to change the link text :)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 03/24/2016 11:53 pm
Here is another article on Blue:

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2949/1
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Star One on 03/30/2016 06:38 pm
Jeff Foust
Jeff Foust –  ‏@jeff_foust

Steven Collicott, Purdue: expecting to fly a research payload on a Blue Origin New Shepard suborbital test flight this spring or summer.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: c3infinity on 04/01/2016 04:42 pm
There a new TFR for Van Horn, April 2 through 5 for spaceflight operations. Looks like another test flight soon.

Quote
FDC 6/3595 ZAB NM..AIRSPACE VAN HORN, TX..TEMPORARY FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS DUE TO SPACE FLIGHT OPERATIONS WI AN AREA DEFINED AS 17NM RADIUS OF 3127N10446W OR THE SALT FLAT /SFL/ VORTAC 125 DEGREE RADIAL AT 24NM, SFC-UNL. PURSUANT TO 14CFR SECTION 91.143 TEMPORARY FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS ARE IN EFFECT. ROBERT MILLMAN, TELEPHONE 432-207-2132, IS IN CHARGE OF OPERATION. ALBUQUERQUE ARTCC /ZAB/, TELEPHONE 505-856-4500, IS THE FAA COORDINATION FACILITY. DLY 1300-2100 1604021300-1604052100.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Jarnis on 04/02/2016 10:14 am
Stories cropping up that there will be a flight on Saturday. No livestream, but at least they said when they'll fly it, so I'd imagine someone might show up with a camera :)

http://www.engadget.com/2016/04/01/jeff-bezos-blue-origin-will-launch-its-rocket-a-third-time/

Apparently they plan on restarting the engine at a lower altitude than before.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Jarnis on 04/02/2016 10:17 am
Videos of the two experiments flying aboard:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVKBj4LmOm4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dugpPEp2y78
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: MattMason on 04/02/2016 04:55 pm
Blue Origin completed a successful 4th launch and landing of the New Shepard suborbital rocket, which included an experiment, while also successfully completing a faster booster landing profile.

http://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2016/04/01/blue-origin-targeting-third-new-shepard-launch/82533348/ (http://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2016/04/01/blue-origin-targeting-third-new-shepard-launch/82533348/)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: meekGee on 04/02/2016 08:43 pm
Blue Origin completed a successful 4th launch and landing of the New Shepard suborbital rocket, which included an experiment, while also successfully completing a faster booster landing profile.

http://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2016/04/01/blue-origin-targeting-third-new-shepard-launch/82533348/ (http://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2016/04/01/blue-origin-targeting-third-new-shepard-launch/82533348/)

Awesome.

To me, this is another vindication of the VTVL philosophy and of vertical integration - contradicting how traditional (not to say "old") space looked at things.

Both SpaceX and BO are making good progress, even though their approaches are different (orbital first vs. re-use first) and their funding model is different (deep pockets vs. revenue).

Look at what they have in common, and you can infer what the industry has been doing wrong till now.

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: mme on 04/02/2016 09:00 pm
...
Yeah, a Story of two Ferocious Turtles: Lack of Taste and Lack of Humility.
I've said it about Musk and I'll say it about Bezos.  Humble people don't start rocket companies intent on spreading humanity beyond Earth.  I think that in this case, a lack of humility is a feature not a bug.

As for taste, I think it's awesome so we'll have to agree to disagree.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: sanman on 04/06/2016 07:50 pm
...
Yeah, a Story of two Ferocious Turtles: Lack of Taste and Lack of Humility.
I've said it about Musk and I'll say it about Bezos.  Humble people don't start rocket companies intent on spreading humanity beyond Earth.  I think that in this case, a lack of humility is a feature not a bug.

As for taste, I think it's awesome so we'll have to agree to disagree.

Haha, since Musk has already made an appearance in the Marvel Cinematic Universe and drawn comparisons with Tony Stark, then DC Comics needs to get Bezos to do a supervillain cameo. ;)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Zed_Noir on 04/08/2016 12:32 am

Haha, since Musk has already made an appearance in the Marvel Cinematic Universe and drawn comparisons with Tony Stark, then DC Comics needs to get Bezos to do a supervillain cameo. ;)

 ;D Mr. Mxyzptlk  ;D
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Darkseraph on 04/08/2016 05:05 am
...
Yeah, a Story of two Ferocious Turtles: Lack of Taste and Lack of Humility.
I've said it about Musk and I'll say it about Bezos.  Humble people don't start rocket companies intent on spreading humanity beyond Earth.  I think that in this case, a lack of humility is a feature not a bug.

As for taste, I think it's awesome so we'll have to agree to disagree.

Haha, since Musk has already made an appearance in the Marvel Cinematic Universe and drawn comparisons with Tony Stark, then DC Comics needs to get Bezos to do a supervillain cameo. ;)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGENtWbwlEI

Marvel are way ahead of you there! :O :D
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: MattMason on 04/08/2016 06:04 pm
http://spacenews.com/ula-chief-disavows-his-head-engineers-take-on-vulcan-engine-competition/

Sounds like BE-4 might be a bit further ahead than AR-1 than we thought.  Or maybe not.  Tobey is clearly a bit of a looney.

They've always said Blue was ahead I thought.
2years ahead if all goes to plan. BE4 flight ready in 2017 while AR1 will be flight ready in 2019.

The Vulcan rocket will be designed around BE-4, correct? Let's say if BE-4 had an anomaly and they had to use the AR-1 instead, what would be some of the repercussions?

Far too early to field that kind of speculation, and it might be fruitless to try.

There were no other engines that could fly the Saturn V other than the F-1 that I'm aware of in aerospace history.

There were no alternative engines for the RS-25, formerly the Space Shuttle Main Engine.

And I don't believe SpaceX has a backup engine family for the Merlin.

Engine design technology has apparently evolved very well since the Saturn days. It seems more likely that BE-4 will become a workhorse engine, thanks to history and tools that make it far easier for development. The BE-3 does its thing (and well), and ULA isn't into speculative investments, I think.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 04/09/2016 02:09 am
This presentation was made in the Fall of 2015 but it was only posted a couple of weeks ago on the ISPCS' YouTube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwTvlgu-Z7Q
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/09/2016 07:53 am
Slides from the presentation are attached, although I may have seen them before.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 04/09/2016 06:40 pm
Maybe I'm ready to much into the statement at 8:30 about he parachute a right technology for t

Sent from my ALCATEL ONE TOUCH 6030X using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 04/09/2016 06:46 pm
Maybe I'm reading to much into the statement at 8:30 about parachutes. It suggests they are a quick near term solution till something better is developed, retropulsion landing engines?.

.

Sent from my ALCATEL ONE TOUCH 6030X using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: sanman on 04/11/2016 10:30 pm
Maybe I'm reading to much into the statement at 8:30 about parachutes. It suggests they are a quick near term solution till something better is developed, retropulsion landing engines?

Perhaps the laws of physics and economics will compel all players to converge towards the same optimal design solution - with retropropulsion being part of that. Besides, parachutes seem so last century.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 04/14/2016 01:29 am
Interview with Jeff Bezos about Blue and space:

http://www.geekwire.com/2016/interview-jeff-bezos/
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: muazcatalyst on 04/14/2016 11:04 am
Interview with Jeff Bezos about Blue and space:

http://www.geekwire.com/2016/interview-jeff-bezos/

Hats off to Jeff Bezos, that was a classy response to the space ecosystem question.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 04/15/2016 12:18 am
Quote from: Jeff Foust
Meyerson: significant testing of BE-4 components is underway. Full engine tests starting in the 4th quarter this year.

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/720725856243429376

Quote from: Jeff Foust
Rob Meyerson of Blue Origin calls the BE-4 “America’s new booster engine that will replace the RD-180.

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/720725192914313216
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Kryten on 04/25/2016 06:03 pm
Quote from: Jeff Foust
George Nield, FAA/AST: expect Blue Origin to fly a dozen or so additional test flights of their New Shepard vehicle in year ahead.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: jongoff on 05/26/2016 03:46 pm
http://www.floridatoday.com/story/news/local/2016/03/12/jeff-bezos-blue-origin-amazon-space-exploration-brevard-county-florida/81649214/

Another article with some tidbits on what they're up to. With Jeff Bezos once again stating that he doesn't think the DoD market is really that interesting or big. I actually agree with them, that going after the DoD market would be a bad idea for them, but a lot of others on this forum seem to disagree.

~Jon
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: The Amazing Catstronaut on 05/26/2016 04:08 pm
http://www.floridatoday.com/story/news/local/2016/03/12/jeff-bezos-blue-origin-amazon-space-exploration-brevard-county-florida/81649214/

Another article with some tidbits on what they're up to. With Jeff Bezos once again stating that he doesn't think the DoD market is really that interesting or big. I actually agree with them, that going after the DoD market would be a bad idea for them, but a lot of others on this forum seem to disagree.

~Jon

I'm with you Jon. The DoD market already has enough providers, and considering the market is likely set to downsize it doesn't seem entirely practical or economic for anyone involved (DoD or Blue) to bring in another provider. Blue already has a possible alternate payload (and thus, revenue) source to the commercial sat market, the commercial tourist market.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Lar on 05/26/2016 04:14 pm
DOD is so lucrative but also so hard to do well.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 05/26/2016 04:56 pm
DOD is so lucrative but also so hard to do well.
SpaceX decided to do commercial first (even CRS in reference to launch was commercial sale to NASA because the payload was SpaceX's and not NASA's). From the standpoint of what is easier to accomplish a commercial launcher/sale or a US DOD launcher /sale, the two are orders of magnitude in difference in managerial / paperwork / restrictions / requirements. So the right think fro BO is to do commercial first. The market is larger and far less "interference" in the doing of new things.

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Star One on 05/26/2016 05:13 pm
DOD is so lucrative but also so hard to do well.
SpaceX decided to do commercial first (even CRS in reference to launch was commercial sale to NASA because the payload was SpaceX's and not NASA's). From the standpoint of what is easier to accomplish a commercial launcher/sale or a US DOD launcher /sale, the two are orders of magnitude in difference in managerial / paperwork / restrictions / requirements. So the right think fro BO is to do commercial first. The market is larger and far less "interference" in the doing of new things.

You call it interference I call it national security.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: jongoff on 05/26/2016 05:33 pm
DOD is so lucrative but also so hard to do well.
SpaceX decided to do commercial first (even CRS in reference to launch was commercial sale to NASA because the payload was SpaceX's and not NASA's). From the standpoint of what is easier to accomplish a commercial launcher/sale or a US DOD launcher /sale, the two are orders of magnitude in difference in managerial / paperwork / restrictions / requirements. So the right think fro BO is to do commercial first. The market is larger and far less "interference" in the doing of new things.

The interesting thing is that I don't think Blue is focused on commercial satellite launch either. While that is where most of the revenue and experience is today, the launch demand from just satellites isn't really sufficient for a healthy industry with multiple providers. RLVs really want new markets, and those new markets are likely going to have very different requirements from traditional satellites.

~Jon
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Lar on 05/26/2016 07:17 pm
The interesting thing is that I don't think Blue is focused on commercial satellite launch either. While that is where most of the revenue and experience is today, the launch demand from just satellites isn't really sufficient for a healthy industry with multiple providers. RLVs really want new markets, and those new markets are likely going to have very different requirements from traditional satellites.
Yes.

They may eat ULA's lunch "by accident" as sort of an afterthought rather than a deliberate plan. :)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 05/26/2016 08:09 pm
I don't think BO orbital will take away DoD market share from Vulcan. I think those two make a nice two member launch family. Vulcan the heavy launch vehicle and Blue Origin Orbital Launcher 1 the medium launch vehicle. Possibly using the same engines but different stage diameters. A new Delta II & IV family, that will use LOxLNG on the first stage and LOxLH2 on the second stage. A small BO launcher could use a BE-2 HTP-cathalist RP-1 engine.
Landing first stages and you have a really nice reusable family that covers the complete launch market.
I think Blue Origin will let ULA do all the DoD work.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: The Amazing Catstronaut on 05/26/2016 08:34 pm
Yes.

They may eat ULA's lunch "by accident" as sort of an afterthought rather than a deliberate plan. :)

Isn't that also pretty much what SpaceX did? Nobody can say F9 was designed with national security launch requirements in mind.

Moral of this story is: if your LV can lift it, gun for it.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Kryten on 05/26/2016 08:44 pm
A small BO launcher could use a BE-2 HTP-cathalist RP-1 engine.
Bezos has said Blue aren't planning any vehicles smaller than the the Be-4/Be-3 one they're working on now.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: sanman on 05/27/2016 01:39 am
The interesting thing is that I don't think Blue is focused on commercial satellite launch either. While that is where most of the revenue and experience is today, the launch demand from just satellites isn't really sufficient for a healthy industry with multiple providers. RLVs really want new markets, and those new markets are likely going to have very different requirements from traditional satellites.

~Jon

It seems like Blue Origin is focused on human spaceflight first - ie. space tourism - because they did their capsule first, before anything else. They were even willing to launch that capsule on other people's rockets.

Everything they've done so far seems to have a human-centric angle. Even if they're able to exploit some incidental opportunities for microgravity payloads along the way, it's not taking away from their fixation with first taking humans towards space.

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: mfck on 05/28/2016 05:08 pm
The interesting thing is that I don't think Blue is focused on commercial satellite launch either. While that is where most of the revenue and experience is today, the launch demand from just satellites isn't really sufficient for a healthy industry with multiple providers. RLVs really want new markets, and those new markets are likely going to have very different requirements from traditional satellites.

~Jon

It seems like Blue Origin is focused on human spaceflight first - ie. space tourism - because they did their capsule first, before anything else. They were even willing to launch that capsule on other people's rockets.

Everything they've done so far seems to have a human-centric angle. Even if they're able to exploit some incidental opportunities for microgravity payloads along the way, it's not taking away from their fixation with first taking humans towards space.
Their 'fixation' on HSF is a necessity. Playing the game of Commercial Space means fighting for public attention, among other things. Even pockets as deep as Bezos has won't spare you that. By now there has been not much left by SX for the other players to grab, public attention wise. Commercial HSF still has some low hanging PA dividends. Not for long though...
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Eric Hedman on 05/28/2016 06:24 pm
An article in The Verge:

http://www.theverge.com/2016/5/26/11790762/blue-origin-spaceship-crash-test-landing-new-shephard-parachute (http://www.theverge.com/2016/5/26/11790762/blue-origin-spaceship-crash-test-landing-new-shephard-parachute)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: jongoff on 05/28/2016 08:38 pm
Isn't that also pretty much what SpaceX did? Nobody can say F9 was designed with national security launch requirements in mind.

Not to drag SpaceX into yet another non-SpaceX thread, but this is factually incorrect. Info about the Falcon 9 was first leaked by a USAF friend of mine on his blog. At the time SpaceX had been focused on Falcon 5, but someone at USAF/AFRL asked them if they could add more engines to the first stage, to develop a launch vehicle big enough to launch a payload they were planning. After they got far enough along with Falcon 9, they ended up dropping Falcon 5, but to say that Falcon 9 wasn't designed with DoD payloads in mind is exactly incorrect.

~Jon
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: jongoff on 05/28/2016 08:45 pm
The interesting thing is that I don't think Blue is focused on commercial satellite launch either. While that is where most of the revenue and experience is today, the launch demand from just satellites isn't really sufficient for a healthy industry with multiple providers. RLVs really want new markets, and those new markets are likely going to have very different requirements from traditional satellites.

~Jon

It seems like Blue Origin is focused on human spaceflight first - ie. space tourism - because they did their capsule first, before anything else. They were even willing to launch that capsule on other people's rockets.

Everything they've done so far seems to have a human-centric angle. Even if they're able to exploit some incidental opportunities for microgravity payloads along the way, it's not taking away from their fixation with first taking humans towards space.
Their 'fixation' on HSF is a necessity. Playing the game of Commercial Space means fighting for public attention, among other things. Even pockets as deep as Bezos has won't spare you that. By now there has been not much left by SX for the other players to grab, public attention wise. Commercial HSF still has some low hanging PA dividends. Not for long though...

It's more than that. If you're designing an RLV, you ideally want enough demand to justify a big enough fleet for some redundancy. If you need 50 flights per airframe per year to make sense, you probably want a market that's at least big enough for three times that (so you can have a five vehicle fleet with three flying at any time). And really you want a market that doesn't require you to own 100% of the demand to get that flight rate. So for full RLVs, you probably need hundreds of flights per year worth of demand. You're not going to get that with traditional commsats.

People, propellant, provisions, parts for in-space manufacturing of big spacecraft, etc. are markets that are more amenable to creating that kind of flight rate. If you're trying to change the world, and have the money to build it and let the market adapt, Bezos's approach isn't a bad way of doing things. Commsats have grown up in a world where launch is rare, complicated, and crazy expensive. As such, a lot of the traditions and requirements for spacecraft are not super compatible with high flight rates.

~Jon
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: mfck on 05/28/2016 10:51 pm
I wonder if the amount of collaboration and data exchange between NASA and SX is comparable to that between the agency and Blue Origin or does BO has a kind of knowledge handicap which they need to close by themselves?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 05/29/2016 11:11 am
@Jongoff
You are really assuming a fast turnaround time and high usage number.
If I'm not mistaken BlueOrigin wants to launch a new shepard each week. I expect them to need two to four new shepard systems at their van Horn facility. I think L2 contains detailed info about this, but I can't verify.
I think 50 launches annualy on a system for two or three years is the abslute maximum achievable.
The XS-1 vehicles are not even likely to achieve this. 10 launches in 10 days is very unlikely to happen. If it happens, I expect they will need to replace the launcher or they will need at least a month to inspect and repaire the system. And after 40 launches I expect the system to be completely worn out.

BlueOrigin has used their second new shepard vehicle three times now, and the fourth launch is upcoming.  Between the flights have been periods longer than two months, possibly they will get this down to a month. Only Masten has proved to be able to launch their vehicles without revision in between flights and for up to 200 times. But have they reached altitudes above 30,000ft (10km)?
Some amateur rockets are reusable,  but very few can launch two flights during a weekend.
The space-shuttle engines had to be disassembled completely,  and also the RSRB's took months to refurbish.
 SpaceX has landed four stages now, only two (second and the last one still on the barge) might be reused. The second one has been in examination and refurbishment for over two months now. The engines have been removed from the stage, shipped back to SpaceX LA factory for thorough inspection. After the inspection they have to be brought back to florida, connected to the stage again. Tested on LC-39A, and after all this might be used for a second flight.
If I'm not mistaken,  rocket engines can run for a certain number of times and for a certain duration. A inspection and revision might prolong the service live of an engine.
If a VTVL reusable rocket flies ten times, it's engine will ignite at least 20 times, an it will run for more then half an hour. If I'm not mistaken there is no engine developed yet that can do this without revision process during the flight phase. If i'm correct turbofan engines have to be re-certified after 5000 starts or 10,000 running hours. (I could be high with these numbers) And rocket engines have a much more stressing operational condition then turbofans.

edit: I expect the new shapard capsule, if i'm not mistaken it has flown all four flights, to have it's last use this coming flight. I think it has reached it's live limit, also when it would land on all three parachutes. That's most likely one of the reasons to use it to prove landing with two parachutes also is safe.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/29/2016 07:21 pm
@Jongoff
You are really assuming a fast turnaround time and high usage number.
If I'm not mistaken BlueOrigin wants to launch a new shepard each week. I expect them to need two to four new shepard systems at their van Horn facility. I think L2 contains detailed info about this, but I can't verify.
I think 50 launches annualy on a system for two or three years is the abslute maximum achievable.
The XS-1 vehicles are not even likely to achieve this. 10 launches in 10 days is very unlikely to happen. If it happens, I expect they will need to replace the launcher or they will need at least a month to inspect and repaire the system. And after 40 launches I expect the system to be completely worn out....
That betrays a lack of understanding of engineering and physics. There is no maximum rate of launch determined by physics. It's just what you engineer it to. And there's a big trade-off there, of course, but to pretend there's some magical absolute maximum limit (especially one so low as 50 launches per year) is absurd and entirely false.

If you're talking demand, then of course. But that's Jon's point: in order to get a high-turnaround RLV to work economically, you need to find a source of demand that can absorb a very high launch rate and justify the investment in making the RLV high-turnaround. And there's not a lot out there other than people. (Self-reproducing, self-loading meat cargo)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: savuporo on 05/30/2016 03:50 am
I think 50 launches annualy on a system for two or three years is the abslute maximum achievable.
Soyuz did that at the end of seventies already. 47 or 49 launches per year, i forget
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: guckyfan on 05/30/2016 01:18 pm
I doubt that presently the reason to design for high turn around is not even the high turn around itself. It is the low number of man hours that goes with it. At least that's my take.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 05/30/2016 10:04 pm
I ment 50 launches per year on the same vehicle, with 100 to 150 flights total. Of course a company could oparate multiple vehicles, so the total numbers of launches is limited by demand less so by production capability.  Although the DoD has a different experiance at this moment.

For both blueorigin and SpaceX it is not publicly known how theire business case holds up.
In the FAA launch market study it was reported that only on the chinese side the market is growing.  SpaceX has taken over the market from sealaunch and proton. Micro and small satellites, LEO communication and imaging constalations, and possibly human space flight might create additional market volume. I think launch is not the predominant cost, building the satellites and ground infrastructure are much more the cost drivers. The market won't increase a lot by lower the launch costs, because the ground infrastructure and satellite building cost stay the same, unless innovations are also made on these aspects.
All the new launch systems that come to market between now and 2025 will compete for a share of the launch market, which will hardly grow. That's going to be a tough market, on a business that has hardly been profitble in the past. I really hope and think BlueOrigin will find it's place in the launch market, either as launch provider, stage manufacturer or engine manufacturer. I think they did a very good job developing new shepard, BE-2, BE-3 (U) and BE-4.
If they get the new shapard scientific payload service at an attractive price point, they might fill a voit in the microgravity science world. Doing this they show the reliability of new Shepard,  with a good price thay will attract a lot of the microgravity tourists.
Meanwhile they develop their own orbital launcher, and are involved in at least two other systems.
I expect their orbital launcher will launch free flying scientific flights first. Possibly they will get involved with the ISS. Than tourists to orbit or even a space station. If BlueOrigin's orbital launcher is an alternative to Antares, it might be prefered because it is 100% US, and doesn't contain Russian components. Blue might even allow the BE-4 stage launch a payload using a Castor30(xl). And I think BlueOrigin's BE-2, BE-1 and their experience with HighTestPeroxide can add a lot to OATK's other launchers.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: gospacex on 05/30/2016 11:59 pm
I think launch is not the predominant cost, building the satellites and ground infrastructure are much more the cost drivers.

Thinking is good. Knowing is better. For example, the total cost of building, launching, landing and operating both Mars Exploration Rovers on the surface for the initial 90-sol primary mission was US$820 million. I did not find the cost of Delta II launch, but it is likely no less than $150m. Thus, launch costs for MERs were some 30ish percent.

Quote
I think they did a very good job developing new shepard, BE-2, BE-3 (U) and BE-4.

You know development status of BE-3 and BE-4? Please share your data, because we don't know anything.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: meberbs on 05/31/2016 11:52 pm
You know development status of BE-3 and BE-4? Please share your data, because we don't know anything.

BE-3 is obviously operational, though they may be tweaking it as they get flight test data.

Blue Origin is periodically releasing some info on the status of BE-4 development. Some is on their website, and other information gets sent to any who signs up for their e-mail list. I copied the most recent update into this post (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39756.msg1540155#msg1540155). They have just completed one of two new test cells which will be used for full scale pre-burner testing.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: sanman on 06/01/2016 08:48 am
Bezos says:

“We will settle Mars. And we should, because it’s cool.”

http://fortune.com/2016/06/01/amazon-ceo-jeff-bezos-mars/


Bezos also says:

“We could build gigantic chip factories in space and just send little bits down,” he said. “We don’t have to build them here.”

Hmm, I don't know if microchips would appreciate all that space radiation, though - he might want to think a little more on that. How would microchips benefit from being fabricated in outer space? It's one thing to talk about growing the basic materials out in space (ie. crystals, wafers, etc) maybe because you can get more perfect crystals in a weightless environment, but how would the chips themselves benefit from being made up there?

http://www.recode.net/2016/6/1/11826514/jeff-bezos-space-save-earth

http://www.cityam.com/242323/trump-thiel-and-space-travel-three-things-we-learned-from-amazons-jeff-bezos

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2016/06/01/jeff-bezos-space-plan-building-infrastructure-for-the-next-generation/#2d8d0d3631a5

http://techcrunch.com/2016/05/31/jeff-bezos-on-space-free-speech-and-creating-shows-to-sell-more-shoes/

Quote
“When it comes to space, I see it as my job, I’m building infrastructure the hard way. I’m using my resources to put in place heavy lifting infrastructure so the next generation of people can have a dynamic, entrepreneurial explosion into space.”

“I know Elon, we’re very like minded in many ways. We’re not conceptual twins. One thing I want us to do is go to Mars, but for me it’s one thing. He’s singularly focused on that. I think motivation wise, for me I don’t find that Plan B idea motivating. I don’t want a plan B for Barth, I want Plan B to make sure Plan A works.”

“All our heavy industry will be moved off planet and earth will be zoned residential and light industrial.”

“People will visit Mars, they will settle mars, and we should because it’s cool.”
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: leaflion on 06/01/2016 02:54 pm
I think the point is, "what would we benefit from microchips being fabricated in outer space (not on earth, in other words).
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Kryten on 06/03/2016 05:04 pm
 Blue sent out another email update this morning; the next New Shepard test is to have one each fail of the drogue and main parachutes, and will 'likely' take place before the end of the month.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: The Amazing Catstronaut on 06/05/2016 02:32 am
I agree with Bezos - indeed, it's quite a logical assumption to make that if access to space becomes commonplace and cheap enough, all kinds of major manufacturing will move off-world. However we're talking about a shift that could be over a century out, and is very much dependent upon colonisation and everyman applications for space before we get to that point. In space resource extraction would certainly come first, and quite possibly belt colonies, so Bezos is definitively looking out beyond his own lifespan and placing future goals into the public eye. He hasn't stated his mid term goals with such great clarity as his counterpart however, the intermediate steps between cheaper launch and thousands of people living and working in space.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: sanman on 06/05/2016 02:49 am
Well, space may be friendly to manufacturing, but it's not very friendly to people. So is this our socialist utopian future where the robots do all the work, while we take picnics in the nature park that is Earth?

Sent from my SM-N920W8 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: The Amazing Catstronaut on 06/05/2016 03:47 am
Well, space may be friendly to manufacturing, but it's not very friendly to people. So is this our socialist utopian future where the robots do all the work, while we take picnics in the nature park that is Earth?

Sent from my SM-N920W8 using Tapatalk

That's not so much a socialist future as it is a transhumanist future. Socialism is heavily about ensuring people have jobs. That's partly why it exists in the first place.

Although yes, it would appear that the garden future is what Bezos is aspiring for - and it's a very logical future to conclude if everything but residences were moved off Earth. Given enough determination you could even move agriculture off Earth - why not? Intensive agriculture involves creating artificial habitats on Earth anyway, it's logical one day we'd be able to do it in space given enough years. That would truly change the face of Earth - we'd be looking at a world so pristine no human would have seen its like for thousands of years.



Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: sanman on 06/05/2016 07:55 am
Assuming we haven't over-populated it by then.
Hopefully our manufacturing capacity wouldn't be taken off line by a solar flare.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: The Amazing Catstronaut on 06/05/2016 03:50 pm
Assuming we haven't over-populated it by then.
Hopefully our manufacturing capacity wouldn't be taken off line by a solar flare.

Build it into thick asteroids is one suggestion to mitigate the flare problem.

Overpopulation is a problem of supporting infrastructure taking up a ginormous number of square kilometres just to keep one human being alive according to modern cultural values, not there being physically too many humans for the Earth's surface area. Humans can keep pushing out babies for thousands of years if the support structure for life is relocated out of the atmosphere.

Edit: Changed miles to kilometres because I'm trying to be less of a barbarian.

Edit edit: "Volume of the Earth's surface?" *groans*
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/06/2016 12:30 am
The Earth's population will probably stabilize at around 10 billion. We're nearly there, and global population growth has already slowed a lot.

But the idea that you're going to smelt metals or grow food in orbit instead of on the surface seems absurd to me. We'll find ways to reduce our footprint on the Earth (for instance, growing single-celled food in vats printed off in all forms instead of our vast agricultural footprint), but heavy industry for Earth is going to be on Earth.

Space could function as a sort of release valve, i.e. Earth is preserved but you're allowed to industrially develop space. But we're not going to make cement in orbit for use on Earth. The idea is absurd.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 06/06/2016 12:32 am
I'm sure the idea of making furniture in China, loading it into container ships and sending it around the world to a customer who pays less than it would cost to just walk over to the forest and cut down a tree would seem just as absurd to someone in the early 20th century. Economics is like that.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: The Amazing Catstronaut on 06/06/2016 04:18 am

But the idea that you're going to smelt metals or grow food in orbit instead of on the surface seems absurd to me. We'll find ways to reduce our footprint on the Earth (for instance, growing single-celled food in vats printed off in all forms instead of our vast agricultural footprint), but heavy industry for Earth is going to be on Earth.

Concrete is easy as pie to manufacture in contrast to the average multi-ingredient foodstuff. Agriculture is not as simple as most believe, especially not in the way we've constructed it. It's easier to make a cinderblock than a Big Mac, despite the former massing considerably more than the latter.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/06/2016 03:27 pm

But the idea that you're going to smelt metals or grow food in orbit instead of on the surface seems absurd to me. We'll find ways to reduce our footprint on the Earth (for instance, growing single-celled food in vats printed off in all forms instead of our vast agricultural footprint), but heavy industry for Earth is going to be on Earth.

Concrete is easy as pie to manufacture in contrast to the average multi-ingredient foodstuff. Agriculture is not as simple as most believe, especially not in the way we've constructed it. It's easier to make a cinderblock than a Big Mac, despite the former massing considerably more than the latter.
But we produce a LOT more concrete than we do Big Macs. 10 billion tons of concrete each year versus about 10 million tons of hamburgers.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Lar on 06/06/2016 03:28 pm
Are we on topic? I can't quite tell. Don't answer me via posting...
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: jongoff on 06/06/2016 09:42 pm
I'm sure the idea of making furniture in China, loading it into container ships and sending it around the world to a customer who pays less than it would cost to just walk over to the forest and cut down a tree would seem just as absurd to someone in the early 20th century. Economics is like that.

Trent,

I was just about to post an almost identical response to Chris, but you beat me to the punch. It's amazing to see what can happen with transportation costs come down dramatically. That said, in order for transportation costs to get low enough that off-worlding heavy industry (as was suggested in Bezos's talk that we're discussing on this thread) will make sense, it's going to take some pretty amazing space transportation technology.

~Jon
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/06/2016 09:52 pm
Yeah, if we get cost to access orbit down to just the energy cost, we're talking orbital transport as cheap as aerial transport today (not ocean liner, which would imply space travel lower than energy costs). So stuff you can affordably transport by plane is a possible thing. So maybe specialty foods, electronics, stuff like that.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: jongoff on 06/06/2016 10:30 pm
Yeah, if we get cost to access orbit down to just the energy cost, we're talking orbital transport as cheap as aerial transport today (not ocean liner, which would imply space travel lower than energy costs). So stuff you can affordably transport by plane is a possible thing. So maybe specialty foods, electronics, stuff like that.

Well, that assumes all the materials have to be launched from Earth. If the materials can be sourced off-world, the cost of bringing them down to earth could theoretically be lower than the cost of launching stuff from Earth. A situation like that might be odd--where you optimize your RLVs not for launch mass but return mass. You launch people and the few items that are hard to get off-world, and you reenter a much larger amount of processed goods?

But yeah, that's like step 326 when we're still working on step 2.

~Jon
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Arb on 06/07/2016 01:29 pm
Yeah, if we get cost to access orbit down to just the energy cost, we're talking orbital transport as cheap as aerial transport today (not ocean liner, which would imply space travel lower than energy costs). So stuff you can affordably transport by plane is a possible thing. So maybe specialty foods, electronics, stuff like that.

Well, that assumes all the materials have to be launched from Earth. If the materials can be sourced off-world, the cost of bringing them down to earth could theoretically be lower than the cost of launching stuff from Earth. A situation like that might be odd--where you optimize your RLVs not for launch mass but return mass. You launch people and the few items that are hard to get off-world, and you reenter a much larger amount of processed goods?

But yeah, that's like step 326 when we're still working on step 2.

~Jon
Once off-world materials are available it might well turn out to be cheapest to construct big dumb(ish) re-entry vehicles on orbit to deliver manufactured goods to earth. Once landed and unloaded they can be recycled as scrap.

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Tev on 06/07/2016 03:39 pm
Yeah, if we get cost to access orbit down to just the energy cost, we're talking orbital transport as cheap as aerial transport today (not ocean liner, which would imply space travel lower than energy costs). So stuff you can affordably transport by plane is a possible thing. So maybe specialty foods, electronics, stuff like that.
But making stuff today is arguably too cheap, because we aren't counting in all the externalities. Once the "preserve the Earth" crowd starts gaining political momentum, off-world industry will look much more favorable.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/07/2016 04:59 pm
Yeah, if we get cost to access orbit down to just the energy cost, we're talking orbital transport as cheap as aerial transport today (not ocean liner, which would imply space travel lower than energy costs). So stuff you can affordably transport by plane is a possible thing. So maybe specialty foods, electronics, stuff like that.

Well, that assumes all the materials have to be launched from Earth. If the materials can be sourced off-world, the cost of bringing them down to earth could theoretically be lower than the cost of launching stuff from Earth. A situation like that might be odd--where you optimize your RLVs not for launch mass but return mass. You launch people and the few items that are hard to get off-world, and you reenter a much larger amount of processed goods?

But yeah, that's like step 326 when we're still working on step 2.

~Jon
Once off-world materials are available it might well turn out to be cheapest to construct big dumb(ish) re-entry vehicles on orbit to deliver manufactured goods to earth. Once landed and unloaded they can be recycled as scrap.
That won't be as cheap as ocean transport.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: KSC Sage on 06/07/2016 07:24 pm
FWIW  NASA is loaning Blue Origin an Accelerometer Package to acquire flight data to be flown on the next test flight.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 06/07/2016 10:08 pm
On this news report from Parabolic Arc (http://www.parabolicarc.com/2016/06/02/summary-nsrc-day-1/#more-58568), launch prices for payloads are stated.
A 2U Nano-racks payload will cost at least $5,300
The launch price for a full payload module will cost between $50k and $100k.

A rough estimation of the turnover numbers for one launch can be made using this info.
It is known that the New Shepard vehicle can host six payload stacks of six payload modules each.
So per launch 36 payloads can be taken along. The turn over per launch will be between 1.8 and 3.6 million dollars.
If the same has to be payed by the passengers of a manned flight, that takes 6 people.
The ticket price will be between 300k and 600k $.  :o That's still a looot of $$$   
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 06/07/2016 11:50 pm
On this news report from Parabolic Arc (http://www.parabolicarc.com/2016/06/02/summary-nsrc-day-1/#more-58568), launch prices for payloads are stated.
A 2U Nano-racks payload will cost at least $5,300
The launch price for a full payload module will cost between $50k and $100k.

A rough estimation of the turnover numbers for one launch can be made using this info.
It is known that the New Shepard vehicle can host six payload stacks of six payload modules each.
So per launch 36 payloads can be taken along. The turn over per launch will be between 1.8 and 3.6 million dollars.
If the same has to be payed by the passengers of a manned flight, that takes 6 people.
The ticket price will be between 300k and 600k $.  :o That's still a looot of $$$   
I wouldn't use payload prices as basis for passenger ticket prices. VG prices are better basis as this is NS direct competition.
The payload prices are what Nanorack charge, not what Blue charge Nanorack. Nanorack have to make profit plus there is lot of integration issues which they deal with.
Nanoracks actually make Blue job simple, they only have worry about flying NS.
Blue may decide to use same approach with passenger flights, let another company deal with passengers. This company could well be Virgin, it is what they do best.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Kryten on 06/10/2016 05:07 pm
Blue just published three videos on experiments to be sent up on the next New Shepard test flight;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BN8QoDJxkE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXOyrIo20bM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcejdM9PLCw

Last time these videos were published the day before the flight, so I suspect it's happening very soon.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Kryten on 06/15/2016 12:34 am
Quote
Jeff Foust ‏@jeff_foust  1m1 minute ago
Bezos: up to about 700 people at Blue Origin, working on New Shepard suborbital vehicle and future orbital vehicle.

Jeff Foust ‏@jeff_foust  3m3 minutes ago
Bezos: [still] don’t know what we’ll charge for suborbital flights; we’ll start in same range as Virgin Galactic ($250-300K) and go down.

Jeff Foust ‏@jeff_foust  31m31 minutes ago
Bezos: I believe Blue Origin will be a profitable business some day, but it needs a lot of funding for a long time.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: kevinof on 06/19/2016 02:18 pm
Just listening to the BO development flight live stream - They remind me of a used car salesman. Trying everything to pump up the value of their product, while glossing over their limitations.

For instance - "50 times cheaper than Orbital launch!!" Because you're not Orbital. Try doing what ULA or SpaceX or any other orbital rocket and come in 50 times cheaper.

Come on BO - Don't treat us like idiots.

Rant off/
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: jimbowman on 06/19/2016 02:23 pm
Just listening to the BO development flight live stream - They remind me of a used car salesman. Trying everything to pump up the value of their product, while glossing over their limitations.

For instance - "50 times cheaper than Orbital launch!!" Because you're not Orbital. Try doing what ULA or SpaceX or any other orbital rocket and come in 50 times cheaper.

Come on BO - Don't treat us like idiots.

Rant off/

I had to mute the stream. Same with the Ariane 5 launch yesterday.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Saltvann on 06/19/2016 02:58 pm
Same with the Ariane 5 launch yesterday.

What was wrong with that launch?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: mto on 06/19/2016 03:01 pm
A "technical" broadcast option would be nice.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: jimbowman on 06/19/2016 03:05 pm
Same with the Ariane 5 launch yesterday.

What was wrong with that launch?

The announcer and some of his comments were a bit much for me.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: garcianc on 06/19/2016 03:11 pm
Sorry if I am asking a silly question but, I thought the point of the test launch was to allow one or some of the chutes to fail and test the response of the retro rockets.
I did not see the retro rockets fire and, instead, saw the capsule "land" at 21mph (according the the livestream). A passenger might characterize that more like a crash. A 20mph collision is not gentle by any means. However, the announcers kept referring to it as a perfect touchdown and never mentioned the retro rockets after the touchdown.
Am I missing something?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Dante80 on 06/19/2016 03:13 pm
Sorry if I am asking a silly question but, I thought the point of the test launch was to allow one or some of the chutes to fail and test the response of the retro rockets.
I did not see the retro rockets fire and, instead, saw the capsule "land" at 21mph (according the the livestream). A passenger might characterize that more like a crash. A 20mph collision is not gentle by any means. However, the announcers kept referring to it as a perfect touchdown and never mentioned the retro rockets after the touchdown.
Am I missing something?

Yes. The retro rockets fired without problems, as is evident by the sand plume at the time of landing. The reason you see a 21mph to 0mph in the info-graphic, is simply because that is the retros job (to go from 20 to 1-2 very fast). Also, telemetry lag was evident.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Bob Shaw on 06/19/2016 03:13 pm
Just listening to the BO development flight live stream - They remind me of a used car salesman. Trying everything to pump up the value of their product, while glossing over their limitations.

For instance - "50 times cheaper than Orbital launch!!" Because you're not Orbital. Try doing what ULA or SpaceX or any other orbital rocket and come in 50 times cheaper.

Come on BO - Don't treat us like idiots.

Rant off/


I think they didn't mean 'Orbital', but 'orbital'. The point was that they could launch fifty times on sub-orbital flights for the same cost as one orbital launch, thus gaining experience and proving their systems very cheaply. If anything, it was a dig at SpaceX, with their 'dozen launches a year' comment. Nevertheless, the point is very true - they will amass a lot of good experience for 'little' outlay.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: ugordan on 06/19/2016 03:14 pm
The telemetry obviously came in bursts and did not follow the video closely so nothing much should be read into the fact the velocity went from 21mph to 0.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Dante80 on 06/19/2016 03:15 pm
I really didn't see or hear anything in the stream that could be considered a jab. Unless you are biased about it.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Bob Shaw on 06/19/2016 03:18 pm
I really didn't see or hear anything in the stream that could be considered a jab. Unless you are biased about it.

If you're predisposed to hear 'Orbital', possibly. But I really don't think that was the intent.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: kevinof on 06/19/2016 03:27 pm
First, not at all biased about it.  I love all rockets and don't have a vested interest in any of them.

There were lots of comments about their low cost compared to other orbital launchers (50 times less), how they built re-use into their launcher where other (orbital) launchers didn't.

The fact is this is nowhere near the complexity of an Orbital rocket so why do they keep comparing themselves to one?  My guess it's just to make them look better, cheaper or something like that.

Like I said - Reminds me of a used cars salesman. I ended up muting the commentary and enjoyed the flight much more.

I really didn't see or hear anything in the stream that could be considered a jab. Unless you are biased about it.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: garcianc on 06/19/2016 03:32 pm
Sorry if I am asking a silly question but, I thought the point of the test launch was to allow one or some of the chutes to fail and test the response of the retro rockets.
I did not see the retro rockets fire and, instead, saw the capsule "land" at 21mph (according the the livestream). A passenger might characterize that more like a crash. A 20mph collision is not gentle by any means. However, the announcers kept referring to it as a perfect touchdown and never mentioned the retro rockets after the touchdown.
Am I missing something?

Yes. The retro rockets fired without problems, as is evident by the sand plume at the time of landing. The reason you see a 21mph to 0mph in the info-graphic, is simply because that is the retros job (to go from 20 to 1-2 very fast). Also, telemetry lag was evident.

Thanks! I think the telemetry lag is the part that I was missing. That's why I thought I saw the capsule touchdown while the vertical speed still showed 22mph, at T+9:55 on the webcast video. I went back and watched the video again to make sure and that is how it appears to the viewer. I wish the commentators would have mentioned the [horrible] lag. Like someone else mentioned already, a technical webcast would have been great.

Edit:
P.S. looking at the replay of the webcast, the speed shows >20mph for a full 2 seconds after the capsule has obviously touched down. Yikes!
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 06/19/2016 03:46 pm
Here is hoping they get launch cost down and more importantly  ticket prices  then maybe some of us spaces fans can go to space even if it is for 4 minutes.

They said refurbishment costs in low $1000s, not sure if that is <$5000 or <$50k, either way that getting to stage where fuel costs are significant, bringing it in realms of aircraft flight costs. With passenger flights at $1.5-1.8M (6x $250-300k), they will be making a healthy profit per launch.

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: NaN on 06/19/2016 04:35 pm
Yes. The retro rockets fired without problems, as is evident by the sand plume at the time of landing. The reason you see a 21mph to 0mph in the info-graphic, is simply because that is the retros job (to go from 20 to 1-2 very fast). Also, telemetry lag was evident.

Even ignoring telemetry lag it looks like a very 'firm' touchdown, as with the previous flights. Watching at 1/4 speed you can clearly see the retro-rockets firing but in a very short burst rather than a longer deceleration. I'm sure it's manageable for passengers, but the announcer's description of 'pillowy-soft' seems rather generous.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EI-tGVFg7PU&feature=youtu.be&t=45m05s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EI-tGVFg7PU&feature=youtu.be&t=45m05s)

(edit: fix timestamp after Blue edited video)

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Confusador on 06/19/2016 04:59 pm
To be fair, I don't watch the Spacex hosted stream either.  When you're that invested in an event it's hard not to come off somewhat obnoxious.  I think (hope?) that a lot of what we got today was a result of them still figuring out how to do a stream; they're obviously a lot better at launching rockets :).  Regardless, I'm glad they keep ramping up the visibility, and even more glad for what seemed to be a great flight!
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 06/19/2016 05:04 pm
Just listening to the BO development flight live stream - They remind me of a used car salesman. Trying everything to pump up the value of their product, while glossing over their limitations.

For instance - "50 times cheaper than Orbital launch!!" Because you're not Orbital. Try doing what ULA or SpaceX or any other orbital rocket and come in 50 times cheaper.

Come on BO - Don't treat us like idiots.

Rant off/


I think they didn't mean 'Orbital', but 'orbital'. The point was that they could launch fifty times on sub-orbital flights for the same cost as one orbital launch, thus gaining experience and proving their systems very cheaply. If anything, it was a dig at SpaceX, with their 'dozen launches a year' comment. Nevertheless, the point is very true - they will amass a lot of good experience for 'little' outlay.

Your rant didn't go far enough, and in the right way.

It's another stupid thing for BO to say. It actually takes away from their emerging confidence and competence.

They are reflying the same vehicle, they are pushing harder expanding the envelope of operations. That's fantastic.

He's got ton's more money to do it with. Good - he'll still need it because to approach airline safety, he'll need hundreds to thousands of flights.

And Musk hasn't reflown a stage. Yes. Good to.

Where this "jumps the shark" is with the orbital reference. Clearly he feels inferior because of his "tiny rocket'. Like he's compensating for something. Reminds me of Trump reacting to the tiny hands, and the "short fingered vulgarian" reference.

Bezos is his own worst enemy, and had better get a handle on this fast.

In some ways, both Musk and Bezos help each other when either flies. Irrespective of "team". Because the economics of rocketry is the true target here, and means to assault the edifice, which has daunted the best firms, and whole superpowers for many decades, is a formidable task, and still very much in doubt.

This is why I am skeptical of Bezos and Musk. They are still too childish about this as a rivalry.

They need more of the "steely eyed missile-man" public demeanor.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: ZachS09 on 06/19/2016 05:12 pm
To be honest, even though Blue Origin has made great accomplishments regarding the reuse of the same Propulsion Module 4 times in a row, I'm not impressed with Blue Origin because they do suborbital flights.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Kabloona on 06/19/2016 05:18 pm
Quote
Where this "jumps the shark" is with the orbital reference. Clearly he feels inferior because of his "tiny rocket'. Like he's compensating for something. Reminds me of Trump reacting to the tiny hands, and the "short fingered vulgarian" reference.

Bezos is his own worst enemy, and had better get a handle on this fast.

I know you're referring to the earlier Twitterfest in which Bezos and Musk sparred about orbital vs suborbital. It seems they both realized they were being childish in public and stopped the nonsense.

To be fair, the "Jeff" in today's webcast wasn't Bezos, just a Blue engineer, and I wasn't bothered by the (admittedly multiple) explanations of the difference between orbital and suborbital flights. Hey, everyone's got an ego in this business. Blue has done excellent work to get to this point, and if I had a quarter mil, I'd love to take a ride on New Shepard. Unlike Spaceship Two (developed by another noted aerospace egotist) which you couldn't pay me enough to get on.

Both Musk and Bezos have done impressive things in their own niches and both have a right to be proud of their accomplishments. I don't mind a little horn-tooting from a lowly engineer on a webcast. If I were him I'd be proud too. YMMV.

Anyway, the main thing I came away with from the webcast was how well the New Shepard system seems to work, how simple the turnaround seems to be for reflight, and how much I'd love to get a ride on it. Even if it is "only" suborbital.

Once the manned capsule starts flying, I predict no shortage of demand, and a lot of those customers will be defectors from the SpaceShip Two perpetual wait-list.

Also, I see no reason that, within a decade (Webcast lady said by end of this decade, but that's probably too soon) they won't be flying an orbital vehicle. BE-3 seems to be a great engine and they're well in their way with BE-4 development. No reason they can't take the next step to orbital with enough time, money, and talent, all of which they have or can buy. And this silly "orbital vs suborbital" stuff will be forgotten. New Shepard is an impressive first step.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Dante80 on 06/19/2016 05:29 pm
To be honest, even though Blue Origin has made great accomplishments regarding the reuse of the same Propulsion Module 4 times in a row, I'm not impressed with Blue Origin because they do suborbital flights.

But their rocket IS a suborbital rocket, and it was designed to be one. It is built like a tank (as it should), it is fit for the purpose at hand (scientific research + crewed suborbital flight) and it has shown amazing durability, precision and resilience so far in its development history.

For the first time in history, we are close to a true space tourism vehicle. And that is a damn impressive start, especially if you think about the big picture here (what Blue has already done, what they are developing, what they want to accomplish, and what resources they have available).
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: kevinof on 06/19/2016 05:42 pm
Think you meant "sub-orbital tourism vehicle"!

I agree with you. As a sub-orbital vehicle this it great stuff. It appears to work well, repeatedly and we hope cheaply and I for one would love a ride in it once it's ready. Bring it on.

But please, please BO - Stop comparing it to an orbital vehicle! It's not, and it doesn't need to be.



To be honest, even though Blue Origin has made great accomplishments regarding the reuse of the same Propulsion Module 4 times in a row, I'm not impressed with Blue Origin because they do suborbital flights.

But their rocket IS a suborbital rocket, and it was designed to be one. It is built like a tank (as it should), it is fit for the purpose at hand (scientific research + crewed suborbital flight) and it has shown amazing durability, precision and resilience so far in its development history.

For the first time in history, we are close to a true orbital tourism vehicle. And that is a damn impressive start, especially if you think about the big picture here (what Blue has already done, what they are developing, what they want to accomplish, and what resources they have available).
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Dante80 on 06/19/2016 05:45 pm
Think you meant "sub-orbital tourism vehicle"!

Yeah, I meant space tourism vehicle.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Thomas Dorman on 06/19/2016 06:51 pm
We got to see the launch Blue Origins, New Shepherd  this morning North of Van Horn Texas. We set up on the the east side of highway 54 and were nearly west of the launch pad.  Sadly  we had a very heavy haze.Here is just a quick look at a few images down and dirty. The launch was around 35 minutes late best guess.  The sonic boom was  extremely loud as the rocket  made it's landing. Was unable to lock on it on the way down but was able to catch it right as it landed. We also got the capsule under parachute and it's landing.
Enjoy!
Thomas
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 06/19/2016 08:09 pm
To be honest, even though Blue Origin has made great accomplishments regarding the reuse of the same Propulsion Module 4 times in a row, I'm not impressed with Blue Origin because they do suborbital flights.

Share and repress just that. Because of the application of the endeavor. The thin, vague justification of suborbital tourism just does not compare to spacecraft missions. Even when SX was fumbling with Falcon 1, it was honestly more interesting to me than flying ballistic arcs like this.

Having said that, it's just that SX and BO are taking different paths. There's a lot to be said for both.

SX gets into the launch service provider business first, and uses the proceeds to revise the concept, under the theory of converging on an optimal future while the theory of dominating the global launch services market first.

BO starts with a two vehicle system that they prove for a tiny market, then they expand vehicles/scope/operations to carry the same characteristics forward on a "stern chase" to the larger case, where SX is currently threatening.

Some of us wonder about SX being "so close", why they don't "slow down" to handle small LEO RTLS thoroughly as an interim measure. Such would have the effect of capping BO's next step (to orbital) well before it could happen.

But SX isn't "gradatim" ... they are "large scale agile". Musk would rather have a whole booster that works in the whole envelope including GTO-1800, for a hundred flights, "gas-n-go" ... then settle for the lesser case. Second priority might be economic reuse following that. Third likely is BFR scaled for Mars, whose "day job" apart from Mars synods is handing all scaled up world market launch services they can as a generic provider. Likely this means bulk.

BO seems to be on a longer, narrower path to a high cadence LEO HSF.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: high road on 06/19/2016 08:53 pm
Just listening to the BO development flight live stream - They remind me of a used car salesman. Trying everything to pump up the value of their product, while glossing over their limitations.

For instance - "50 times cheaper than Orbital launch!!" Because you're not Orbital. Try doing what ULA or SpaceX or any other orbital rocket and come in 50 times cheaper.

Come on BO - Don't treat us like idiots.

Rant off/


I think they didn't mean 'Orbital', but 'orbital'. The point was that they could launch fifty times on sub-orbital flights for the same cost as one orbital launch, thus gaining experience and proving their systems very cheaply. If anything, it was a dig at SpaceX, with their 'dozen launches a year' comment. Nevertheless, the point is very true - they will amass a lot of good experience for 'little' outlay.

Your rant didn't go far enough, and in the right way.

It's another stupid thing for BO to say. It actually takes away from their emerging confidence and competence.

They are reflying the same vehicle, they are pushing harder expanding the envelope of operations. That's fantastic.

He's got ton's more money to do it with. Good - he'll still need it because to approach airline safety, he'll need hundreds to thousands of flights.

And Musk hasn't reflown a stage. Yes. Good to.

Where this "jumps the shark" is with the orbital reference. Clearly he feels inferior because of his "tiny rocket'. Like he's compensating for something. Reminds me of Trump reacting to the tiny hands, and the "short fingered vulgarian" reference.

Bezos is his own worst enemy, and had better get a handle on this fast.

In some ways, both Musk and Bezos help each other when either flies. Irrespective of "team". Because the economics of rocketry is the true target here, and means to assault the edifice, which has daunted the best firms, and whole superpowers for many decades, is a formidable task, and still very much in doubt.

This is why I am skeptical of Bezos and Musk. They are still too childish about this as a rivalry.

They need more of the "steely eyed missile-man" public demeanor.

As far as I know, the steely eyed missile-men that launched rockets towards cities, in space, and to the moon have all done so thanks to rivalries. The scale and consequences of these particular rivalries make them no less childish. As long as there's no short term reason to go to space other than because we can, rivalries are the best way to get things moving. Take away rivalry, and we're stuck in low earth orbit and unmanned missions for another hundred years.

Next step of this rivalry: Musk relaunching the first falcon 9 first stage, and leaving BO far behind on all fronts. Unless BO put their money where their mouth is, and scale up their rocket to an orbital one. I doubt it'll be as easy as they say it is, but I'd love to be surprised.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 06/19/2016 09:35 pm


Anyone wish to give some insight into ice buildup in the future on the new shepard?  Today humidity was approx 22%, what should we expect with higher levels ?


Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 06/19/2016 11:18 pm

Anyone wish to give some insight into ice buildup in the future on the new shepard?  Today humidity [/size]was approx 22%, what should we expect with higher levels ?

Nothing to be concerned about, it comes off during launch.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/20/2016 12:13 am
Suborbital is nice and all. I hope a bunch of people buy tickets.

But it's as close to orbital as a parabolic flight is to suborbital. I.e., nothing even close. May be 50 times cheaper, may be a whole lot of fun, may be more reusable, but it's not orbital and sounds cheap to compare them.

I think in 10 years the point will be moot. Blue Origin will be pursuing orbital.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 06/20/2016 12:17 am
Their suborbital engine is more capable than most of the small sat launchers'.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: daveglo on 06/20/2016 12:50 am
Not so fast.  On the cast, BO said they would slow the capsule to a "pillowy touchdown" using retro rockets.  Watching the video, I don't see any evidence of a retro firing, even in the "last second".

Unless BO has developed invisible solid retros, my eyes say no the the firing.

So, good flight, but a rough landing for the capsule.  It's not the drop, it's the stop.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/20/2016 12:59 am
Not so fast.  On the cast, BO said they would slow the capsule to a "pillowy touchdown" using retro rockets.  Watching the video, I don't see any evidence of a retro firing, even in the "last second".

Unless BO has developed invisible solid retros, my eyes say no the the firing.

So, good flight, but a rough landing for the capsule.  It's not the drop, it's the stop.
Um, this sort of discussion belongs in the discussion thread.

And for the record and anyone else reading this thread looking for updates, you're quite wrong. The retros INDEED fired, as you can see by the enormous cloud of dust that's immediately kicked up. Looks exactly the same as here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YU3J-jKb75g (at 59 seconds in)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: notsorandom on 06/20/2016 02:07 am
The capsule's landing looked just like a Soyuz. In both cases the retrorockets fire for only a brief time to slow the craft down a few m/s. It's not going to look like the animations of the Dragon landing.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Svetoslav on 06/20/2016 07:41 am
Greetings,

I would finally dare to ask this question.

How is the weird shape of the Blue Origin rocket advantageous for suborbital spaceflight?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 06/20/2016 08:01 am
How is the weird shape of the Blue Origin rocket advantageous for suborbital spaceflight?

The fins, panels and ducts at the top of the stage help move the centre of pressure forward, presumably ahead of the centre of mass, so as to create a more stable vehicle during descent. That's why arrows have fins.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: rocx on 06/20/2016 08:02 am
Greetings,

I would finally dare to ask this question.

How is the weird shape of the Blue Origin rocket advantageous for suborbital spaceflight?

On the way up its center of drag is lower, while on the way down it's higher. Especially when they deploy the wedge fins and drag brakes.

And I really like the quote
Quote
Any day with a rocket landing is a fantastic day.
It shows thay being fan of one rocket company (or even working there) does not preclude being a fan of the other. Rather more the opposite.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Star One on 06/20/2016 10:08 am
I don't think you see one person in the live part of the coverage which drives home how automated the whole process is.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Thomas Dorman on 06/21/2016 02:36 am
Here is our animation made from the images we took of the launch and landing of Blue Origin/New Shepard on 6-19-2016 West of the launch pad on Highway 54 North of Van Horn Texas.

https://vimeo.com/171501670

Enjoy!
Regards
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: funkyjive on 06/21/2016 05:14 am


Here is our animation made from the images we took of the launch and landing of Blue Origin/New Shepard on 6-19-2016 West of the launch pad on Highway 54 North of Van Horn Texas.

How many people were on the road spectating?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars-J on 06/21/2016 06:12 am
How is the weird shape of the Blue Origin rocket advantageous for suborbital spaceflight?

The fins, panels and ducts at the top of the stage help move the centre of pressure forward, presumably ahead of the centre of mass, so as to create a more stable vehicle during descent. That's why arrows have fins.

But this great amount of passive stability is also a drawback (IMO), as it forces them to separate the capsule at apogee. Descending with the capsule attached - which should speed up processing and thus cost - would make the combined craft less stable which might require more active steering.

Or am I way off base?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: rocx on 06/21/2016 07:36 am

But this great amount of passive stability is also a drawback (IMO), as it forces them to separate the capsule at apogee. Descending with the capsule attached - which should speed up processing and thus cost - would make the combined craft less stable which might require more active steering.

Or am I way off base?

I think you may be right in a technical sense, but if there are passengers on the capsule, separating from the booster removes a whole lot of risk. Besides, if there is a capsule on the empty booster its center of mass will be a lot higher at landing, although it seems the landing is stable enough to handle that.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 06/21/2016 08:25 am
Also passengers can't make a quick exit as the are 10m off the ground. Plus they are attached to booster during the most dangerous part of flight, landing.

Having capsule landing separately is still most safest option. Reattaching the two vehicles is not a big deal.

I'm guessing later versions of capsule will use propulsive landing eg Dragon 2.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: rpapo on 06/21/2016 10:06 am
Also passengers can't make a quick exit as the are 10m off the ground. Plus they are attached to booster during the most dangerous part of flight, landing.

Having capsule landing separately is still most safest option. Reattaching the two vehicles is not a big deal.

I'm guessing later versions of capsule will use propulsive landing eg Dragon 2.
To some extent, they already do.  Soyuz style.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Thomas Dorman on 06/21/2016 10:12 am
funkyjive
Quote
How many people were on the road spectating?

In the area we were at there was only three other people on the side of the road within half mile. We could see all the way down to the south gate and we saw no one.  We were really surprised at how very few people there was and how easy it was to get close to the launch pad to see the launch. Believe Blue Origins need to make a viewing area for people to come watch launches it would help an area of the country that really could use the tourist dollars. Van Horn is pretty ran down community and a lot of down town business area is boarded up. Then again we are talking about some of the poorest areas in the nation in per capita income. Van Horn has several Hotels to stay including the historic El Capitan Hotel. The Blue Origin launch site is around 38 miles, or so, North out of town on  Highway 54 what is called the West Texas Mountain trail. Guadalupe Mountain National Park  is above the launch site.   Yep you can truly see miles and miles of Texas where humans are in the minority and Jackalopes, Coyotes, Rattle Snakes  are in the majority. :D ;D
Regards
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: rsdavis9 on 06/21/2016 11:11 am
does anybody have lat long of launch site? So I can see it in google?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Thomas Dorman on 06/21/2016 11:22 am
Quote
does anybody have lat long of launch site? So I can see it in google?
Around 31 Degrees 27 minutes 15.5 seconds North, 104 degrees 50 minutes 32.55 seconds West.
Regards
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Kryten on 06/21/2016 11:24 am
does anybody have lat long of launch site? So I can see it in google?
Here's (https://www.google.com/maps/place/31%C2%B025'22.5%22N+104%C2%B045'25.8%22W/@31.4250673,-104.751134,2749m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d31.422927!4d-104.757152?hl=en) a direct google maps link; the assembly building is on the road to the south, landing pad along the road to the north, and what's probably Blue's engine test area along the road to the east.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: rsdavis9 on 06/21/2016 01:32 pm
Thanks for the link. Its great being a google space tourist.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Darkseraph on 06/21/2016 05:18 pm
I wouldn't play down the importance of their achievements so far because they are first developing a suborbital vehicle. Unless their competitors have fielded RLV SSTO's I have not heard of, all these vehicles are recovering suborbital boosters (Albeit with higher lateral velocity!). These tests will give valuable experience in designing their orbital system.They can avoid some pitfalls earlier on, cutting their teeth with much less expensive hardware.

A rapidly reusable suborbital system is a huge advancement in of itself and these tests will also inform on how to design a practical reusable lunar lander, which would be of similar size to New Shepard. The propellants of choice for such a lander would very likely be LH/LOX
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: GreenShrike on 06/28/2016 08:23 pm
So, Jeff Bezos sent email around with pics of the future factory in Florida. A second email included higher res pictures than the previous, and the picture of rocket cores coming out of the factory is now much sharper. Still, it's a sub-1Mpixel shot, *and* is undoubtedly an artist's representation of whatever stuck their fancy, and as such likely has close to zero bearing on what VBB will really be.

On the other hand, Kremlinology is a lot of fun.  :)

I attached the original as well as a cropped, enlarged and sharpened version, which took me about 20 seconds of mashing buttons in my image editor to produce. A better version by someone with more know-how than my strictly "Well, I know what an image editor *is*." level of experience would be beneficial.

So, the average sedan length according to reference.com is about 192", which is a bit shy of 5m. The cores are further from the camera than the cars in the parking lot, so the rockets should appear smaller than the cars if they were 5m wide. They appear larger to my decidedly in-expert eye, but how likely is VBB to be 7m or thereabouts?

There are 2 obvious engines in the compartment. Assuming they're BE-4s, a pair of engines would give it the same lift as a no-solid Vulcan.  However, there's a fuzzy bit below and to the right of the engines which kind of makes me think another bell or two is being hidden by perspective of the obvious two. The obvious two seem higher or closer to the edge of the core than I'd expect, rather than more centered like a pair of bells would be.

But landing on three BE-4s would be very hard without a central engine and the layout is obviously not three-in-a-row. 4 in a Y pattern would give you a central engine, but I can't make myself see that in the picture.

Meh. It's probably just a pair of engines, though that would make vertical landing rather interesting.

It does seem larger than a reusable Delta II might be.


Anyone else got a WAG based on entirely too little information?  Is this a real rocket or just an artist's fevered imagination? ;D
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 06/28/2016 08:49 pm
It does look like 3 engines which means all 3 used for landing. NB with 4 engines in square you can use an opposing pair for landing.

Assuming 3x BE4, >25t to LEO as ELV or 15-20t with expendable US, 10-15t fully RLV. Enough for 6-7 crew capsule.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: PahTo on 06/28/2016 09:09 pm

Thanks for the notional numbers--if in fact the artist's rendering is accurate...
Can someone in the know please confirm or deny?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: ch1le on 06/28/2016 09:20 pm
Ah, interesting. I can only speak from my experience in the exciting field of rendering - but I would definitely ask the client how big the stage would be. Also, there are some details like those "winglets (for a lack of a better word), which I wouldnt just come up with on my own. Also as an architect I would say the factory is not much to look at - the rocket stages are what makes the image.
Then again... I might just size the stage to fit the door and have it large enough to support the blue origin decals....
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: meberbs on 06/29/2016 01:30 am
Based on 3 BE-4 engines in a triangle configuration, the stage diameter should be about 13 ft, or 4 m. This seems to be in scale with the size of the building and other things in the picture.

Based on my estimate, that makes the stage roughly 24 m long.

3 BE-4 engines should produce thrust just a little less than a Falcon 9 first stage. This makes for some convenient comparison analysis. This stage, is roughly half the length of a Falcon 9 first stage, and uses a less dense fuel (RP-1 vs methane). This makes no sense, unless the rocket has a completely different architecture (3 stages maybe) so that whatever is on top is very heavy, or the rocket's dry mass is extremely large.

Most likely I think this is not even close to representative of their actual design. Even the number of engines is likely wrong, since landing in this engine configuration would be "interesting" unless they can throttle extremely deeply.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: arachnitect on 06/29/2016 04:51 am
What if we have it totally backwards and those aren't engine bells at all?

What if the business end of those stages is concealed in the building, and we're looking at (something?) on the tops of the stages? Look at the hemispherical end of the closest stage; if New Shepard is any guide, which end is that?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: rsdavis9 on 06/29/2016 04:12 pm
Anybody think that BO is going to beat musk by having a fully reusable rocket first.
1. Develop sub orbital rocket and get reusability down to rapid and simple.
2. Do the same for the booster.
3. Use what was developed in 1 as US of 2 by adding heat sheild.

Of course New Shepard would need  many other things to become a second stage.
So is it really a simpler path than musk's?
Also with high isp(LH+LOX) US the margins should be higher to allow full reuse.
 
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/29/2016 04:46 pm
No, because there's an enormous gap between New Shepard and a real reusable upper stage. And Blue has zero orbital EDL experience unlike SpaceX which have developed their own TPS variant and have performed several Dragon missions for many years, now, allowing them to hone their hypersonic analysis skills. As far as margins being higher for hydrolox... well, it hurts dry mass a lot, so it's not an automatic win.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/29/2016 04:56 pm
If Blue Origin has any chance of beating SpaceX to full reuse it's only because SpaceX may be biting off more than they can chew with MCT and don't do any intermediate reusable upper stage for Falcon 9 or Heavy.

New Shepard, in spite of all the arm chair experts, has almost nothing in common with what their reusable upper stage will have (there would be proportionally more similarities to a simpler expendable upper stage since you need a lot fewer systems).
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: arachnitect on 06/29/2016 05:09 pm
You guys are really onto something with this line of reasoning. Those things that look exactly like engine bells must be something completely different, because they don't square with your preconceived notions of what Blue Origin's orbital rocket will be.  ::)

First things first: the most probable answer is that the architects also have no idea what the rocket will look like, so they just threw something together for the sake of the renderings. Look at how crudely applied the lettering is.

As for "preconceived notions" ? I have no idea what Bezos is up to. He could be building 1:1 Saturn V replicas for all I care to guess.

My "theory" explains why the left side of the stage is hemispherical and sidesteps the question of why the "engines" are in such a troublesome arrangement.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Oli on 06/29/2016 05:22 pm
To me it looks like 2 big engines and 1 smaller engine behind them.

I do wonder what payloads BO wants to fly with those rockets. There's already SpaceX, ULA and maybe OrbitalATK for the US alone.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 06/29/2016 05:25 pm
Anybody think that BO is going to beat musk by having a fully reusable rocket first.
1. Develop sub orbital rocket and get reusability down to rapid and simple.
2. Do the same for the booster.
3. Use what was developed in 1 as US of 2 by adding heat sheild.

Doesn't have to work that way. More likely:

1. BO becomes an org that designs/builds/revises/operates for high tempo operations that implies reuse.
2. They expand scope to cover orbital, which implies US + booster, again with reuse inherent.
3. All vehicles with orbital need added TPS/other to function as orbital. Look at F9 booster recovery.

Quote
Of course New Shepard would need  many other things to become a second stage.
So is it really a simpler path than musk's?
Also with high isp(LH+LOX) US the margins should be higher to allow full reuse.

As Robotbeat will likewise educate you, New Shepard's booster is not a US by any means.

It is not a simpler path than Musk's. It is a narrower, tighter focused path, with less visible. For example, choice of recovery, engine strategy, GSE/pad, no shroud, ... are to be expected for HSF operations. BO wants, more than Musk at this point, to get "aircraft like operations" before "orbital business" as a priority.

We don't yet know of any successful US recovery (except Shuttle partial - no tanks but also payload). iSP adds performance to cover parasitic mass of recovery, but might add other issues that complicate reprocessing/reuse. Deep cryogens like LH bring on materials/cycling/handling issues, and "fluffy" stages to preserve that iSP advantage along with thrust might not be so easy to handle stage recovery with.

It's not so much that iSP is needed for US recovery as that the scaling of the vehicle works against it. It would not surprise me if F9 booster reuse became routine, that some F9US experiments might be attempted. Nor that a hypothetical single Raptor US with significant "over performance" might attempt recovery as well, as such a vehicle might a) have enough performance/lifetime/props to make it to Mars EI/retropropulsion, b) be the second vehicle able to land on two planets.

Musk's idea's about vehicles also often include proving operations well ahead of use/economics.

Neither company has much yet proven as an operational advantage with recovery/reuse. BO clearly is doing more reuse with fewer vehicles in its flight test program, beats the pants off SX in recycle rate. SX is doing real global launch service provider business routinely, depressing prices, and beats the pants off BO as getting payloads to orbit.

No, because there's an enormous gap between New Shepard and a real reusable upper stage. And Blue has zero orbital EDL experience unlike SpaceX which have developed their own TPS variant and have performed several Dragon missions for many years, now, allowing them to hone their hypersonic analysis skills. As far as margins being higher for hydrolox... well, it hurts dry mass a lot, so it's not an automatic win.

Correct. BO's approach lacks "orbital conviction", which is hard won. However they have the benefit of actual suborbital reuse that can be made 10x more rapid than SX, allowing them to iterate faster than SX.

If Blue Origin has any chance of beating SpaceX to full reuse it's only because SpaceX may be biting off more than they can chew with MCT and don't do any intermediate reusable upper stage for Falcon 9 or Heavy.

You didn't mention CommX - that's a greater diversion. SX also has been wary of FH (and VI) as a diversion. Even F9R is in many ways a diversion past what it means as a development step to BFR/BFS.

Face it, SX is really "all about BFR/BFS". The rest is a means to an end. In spite of the "generic launch" business pioneered with F9.

Quote
New Shepard, in spite of all the arm chair experts, has almost nothing in common with what their reusable upper stage will have (there would be proportionally more similarities to a simpler expendable upper stage since you need a lot fewer systems).

They are testing out recoverable booster mechanisms that may not serve for US, yes.

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: MattMason on 06/29/2016 05:55 pm
Blue Origin is more akin to the early railway barons of the 1800s. For their trains to work, they needed to literally pound out an infrastructure for trains to ride on.

But before the rails were placed, there had to be a destination established for the railroads to go profitably.

Blue Origin is working a little backwards and rightly so. They have a general destination but there's nowhere yet to inhabit. By creating a reliable and cheap means to get into space, Bezo simply bets that the destinations will be created with his "space train" deliveries of habitats, hotels, labs and soon, lots of people. So far, Blue is interested in low Earth orbit, but I can see it moving to the moon rapidly.

SpaceX is very similar in goal, except much, much farther. They aren't interesting in LEO in the long-term, and aren't into creating public transportation unless you're going to live on Mars on it. In that, SpaceX is more akin to the great immigration transportation processes of the 1800s. They, too, have to pound out the space trains needed to move people to a literal new world.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 06/29/2016 07:18 pm
Am left with the impression that BO's "cash cow" business will always be some form of HSF, where likely they'd contract out for destination habs and delivery of them and related "mission modules". Not "generic launch" just high tempo "cab service" to/from destinations, where they have the highest frequency of flight of the greatest commonality. And they "step up" capability gradually. Less schedule/program risk and CapEx but uncertain revenue. Bezos wants to make HSF routine, when it does, other things can be made to happen LEO and beyond.

While SX's "cash cow" is "generic launch", either unmanned (shroud) or HSF (capsule) (or SC constellation it would seem as well). They step this up with FH/BFR, then purpose BFR 24/26th time for "generic launch", 2/26th for BFS. More CapEx and schedule/program risk/revenue. Musk wants to absorb enough "money flux", mindset ... that industry can't help but change in a way to take on Mars.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: jpo234 on 06/30/2016 07:05 am
SpaceX is very similar in goal, except much, much farther. They aren't interesting in LEO in the long-term, and aren't into creating public transportation unless you're going to live on Mars on it.

BO wants to turn Earth into suburbia by moving industry into LEO.
SPX wants to colonize Mars.

Theses aims are complimentary. It's much easier to colonize Mars, if the industrial base for this is already outside Earth's gravity well.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: high road on 06/30/2016 08:04 am
Anybody think that BO is going to beat musk by having a fully reusable rocket first.
1. Develop sub orbital rocket and get reusability down to rapid and simple.
2. Do the same for the booster.
3. Use what was developed in 1 as US of 2 by adding heat sheild.

Doesn't have to work that way. More likely:

1. BO becomes an org that designs/builds/revises/operates for high tempo operations that implies reuse.

Their strategy is to limit development costs until they can get a steady revenue. Suborbital is supposed to make this possible. But shouldn't that mean their launch rate needs to be higher at this point than SpaceX's? When is their next launch due?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: rsdavis9 on 06/30/2016 10:37 am

Their strategy is to limit development costs until they can get a steady revenue. Suborbital is supposed to make this possible. But shouldn't that mean their launch rate needs to be higher at this point than SpaceX's? When is their next launch due?

They will never tell when the next launch is. Maybe they are doing complete inspections before every launch. Its hard to believe there is that much that they are replacing. Eventually if they skip detailed inspections they should be able to launch daily?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: high road on 06/30/2016 11:37 am

Their strategy is to limit development costs until they can get a steady revenue. Suborbital is supposed to make this possible. But shouldn't that mean their launch rate needs to be higher at this point than SpaceX's? When is their next launch due?

They will never tell when the next launch is. Maybe they are doing complete inspections before every launch. Its hard to believe there is that much that they are replacing. Eventually if they skip detailed inspections they should be able to launch daily?

So you're saying rapid turnaround is the end goal, not the means by which they plan to develop their technology faster. Must of misunderstood the launch webcast commentary.

Does that mean a suborbital launch will eventually be 50 times cheaper than an orbital (no capital letter ;-) ) launch? Because they clearly said this (without the eventually) when they were explaining why doing suborbital missions will get them to orbital missions faster than developing an orbital launcher straight away.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: meberbs on 06/30/2016 12:21 pm
Blue is iterating between every launch, and no 2 launches have used the same profile (changes to the landing algorithm, late engine start, simulated parachute failure). This takes time to do usefully. Unlike SpaceX which launches as often as possible to get customer payloads into orbit, meaning lessons learned from one launch might not make it into the rocket until a few launches later. Blue Origin would want to instead only launch when their lessons learned are incorporated, and they have good potential to learn something new. Their flight rate should increase when they get to flying for profit rather than for testing. Or maybe earlier if they want to do some number (maybe 20 to 40) launches in a row of the final configuration to increase the chance of catching lower probability failures. No point in that until the design is stabilized though.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Doesitfloat on 07/06/2016 02:46 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ex-ui7ldnD0


Good discussion with Bezos and Michael Collins
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Brovane on 07/06/2016 07:29 pm
Michael Collins is hilarious.

"What would you do if the President called you and asked what to do with US space program?"

Collins "I would be so nervous I would drop the phone"
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 07/10/2016 06:35 pm
Blue is iterating between every launch, and no 2 launches have used the same profile (changes to the landing algorithm, late engine start, simulated parachute failure). This takes time to do usefully.

All launch service providers iterate each launch, the question is to the degree and purpose. BO is doing a dedicated HSF suborbital test program as a baseline to work out various failure modes in the vehicles, so that when they enter service there will be acceptable statistics, as a nod to the even more rigorous, numerous requirements for a commercial service airliner.

Note that VG will also have to do same for SS2 if they ever attempt flights again with the ambition of entering service. BO is far in the lead against VG obviously.

Quote
Unlike SpaceX which launches as often as possible to get customer payloads into orbit, meaning lessons learned from one launch might not make it into the rocket until a few launches later.

SX does not have a dedicated flight test program, but instead flies Dragon/F9 on missions, gaining flight history, and experience at LOM with both. By this they get actual, orbital mission experience (and revenue!) in volume ahead of BO. However, they don't get the fine grained coverage and detailed comparatives that BO gets, they don't get a baseline to measure against upgrading vehicles, and they lose more vehicles due to failures this way (on recovery as well as LOM).

So BO can "look better" in less failures, gain flight history on the same vehicles flown consecutively, and perhaps not lose any vehicles in commercial operation.
 
Suggest these are big, big, issues between Bezos and Musk. Certain pain for Musk and his arrogance to deal with.

Quote
Blue Origin would want to instead only launch when their lessons learned are incorporated, and they have good potential to learn something new. Their flight rate should increase when they get to flying for profit rather than for testing. Or maybe earlier if they want to do some number (maybe 20 to 40) launches in a row of the final configuration to increase the chance of catching lower probability failures. No point in that until the design is stabilized though.

They are under schedule pressure to advance to a suborbital service, because only then will flights count towards actually doing something - the cost of having a dedicated test program is that you must eventually leave it. Am betting that they will have fewer flights then they spoke of at the start, possibly fewer than 20-30. And expect that you'll know when the test program will be concluding when the pacing drops to a per week schedule for a vehicle and that they have more than one vehicle in the program as it cycles with multiple teams.

Much like SX in booster reuse, BO's flight test program is still in its early phases as they feel their way through issues. Both are gaining experience and have yet to probe operational needs for significant advantage.

Musk hints at booster reuse. Bezos talks of entering service. So much for PR. As usual, these are way out in front of an operational program. All of the vehicles still have unexplored issues to be "put to bed".

Then we'll see a cadence of repeatable, "boring" operations, perhaps with "hiccups". At that point we'll have a clear idea of operational envelope, CONOPs, frequency, performance, and cost.

And then its a business.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 07/11/2016 04:45 pm
We still have to get good statistics on suborbital failure drivers. We know that orbital risk is highest at propulsion failure. We still don't know about sub-orbital. Specially because the approaches are so different. In VG and XCOR case, they were trying to do a rocket plane, for which they could get the statistics of planes and rockets.
Blue is more purely rocket + capsule. And I would guess they could use the crewed orbital history leveraged. But it would seem like very little data points. On the other hand it would seem much more simpler designs. So the aircraft like approach might not be quite as applicable.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Brovane on 07/11/2016 11:02 pm
When we compare Bezos and Musk path's to a launch vehicle, what get's left out is the capital differences.

Musk had to as soon as possible get paying customers so he could launch payloads.  He didn't have the deep Amazon pockets that Bezos has.  SpaceX came very near to failing because of the early issues with the F1 and with CRS1 we would probably never have seen the F9 in service as as soon as we did.  Bezos can drop a couple of Billion on BO for launch vehicle development and not even break a sweat. 
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 07/12/2016 12:51 am
We still have to get good statistics on suborbital failure drivers. We know that orbital risk is highest at propulsion failure. We still don't know about sub-orbital. Specially because the approaches are so different.

Excuse me but ... why? Application specifically? Not arguing. Just want a concise reason to attach to the omission. Because I'm not certain what you're trying to say.

As to stages, you've got two suborbital RV's in terms of boosters exploring that regime right now. Not to mention lots of weapons systems ...

Quote
In VG and XCOR case, they were trying to do a rocket plane, for which they could get the statistics of planes and rockets.
Both are severely underfunded and the most advanced of the two has significant issues that keep it from next round of flight tests. The other is in limbo. Not promising to get a comparative.

Quote
Blue is more purely rocket + capsule. And I would guess they could use the crewed orbital history leveraged.
Fixed that for you. It is a booster/stage vehicle and a capsule vehicle. They talk about it as a step to orbital operations of a two stage vehicle with a like capsule.

Quote
But it would seem like very little data points. On the other hand it would seem much more simpler designs.

There were two manned Mercury suborbital flights before orbital, not counting X-15 flights or other tests. Not many data points. Thus the baseline mention in my post.

Flight operations for a high cadence vertically launched HSF vehicle seems to be a key part of the BO CONOPs. Which could use "aircraft like" operations as well.

Quote
So the aircraft like approach might not be quite as applicable.
It's unrelated to the BO effort. So pragmatically you might not get a broad answer here for HSF suborbital vehicles.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 07/12/2016 01:15 am
My point is that for rockets propulsion are the main source of failure and that can be bench tested as much as necessary.
But for reusable suborbital, you have the whole return thing. That can't be bench tested. And there is mighty little experience. On the return phase.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 07/12/2016 05:58 pm
You mean the systems engineering of a full cycle vehicle test, including lifetime wear, processing, and replacement. Not unlike what happens with a new aircraft as you prove/certify it.

Unfortunately, few aircraft have 100's of flights of active life, like such vehicles likely might. Nor due to costs can such suborbital/orbital vehicles afford/last to endure the 1,000's of flights aircraft do to achieve same. So they can only handle the "experimental" category, which limits the conclusions you can make from such.

Another "chicken and egg"? 
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 07/12/2016 08:03 pm
My point, exactly.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Kryten on 07/21/2016 09:32 pm
Quote
Jeff Foust ‏@jeff_foust  41m41 minutes ago
Blue Origin’s Megan Mitchell says on launch panel that the company expects to open New Shepard ticket sales some time next year.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 07/26/2016 02:57 am
Quote
Gerst: also entered into a new unfunded Space Act Agreement with Blue Origin regarding its plans for orbital human space transport system.

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/757578447027699712
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 07/27/2016 12:27 am
Quote
McAlister: signed new unfunded Space Act Agreement with Blue Origin rather than continuing to extend older CCDev award, but similar goals.

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/757948471223562240
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 07/31/2016 12:11 am
I don't know how much of this has been posted previously, but I heard some information about Blue Origin this week and I want to pass it along.

I was chatting with a couple at a non-space-related event and they mentioned their child had started working at Blue Origin in Washington a few months ago.  They mentioned Blue Origin having 500 employees and that their number one priority right now was hiring more people.  They said the goal was 2017 for sub-orbital human launch, but that the "real" goal was orbital "cargo delivery".
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Bubbinski on 08/15/2016 06:19 pm
Orbital cargo delivery? To where...ISS? Or future space stations and deep space habitats?

Or point to point cargo delivery between places on earth? Like, say, launching in London and landing a cargo pod in Sydney 2 hours later? After all Bezos is the founder of Amazon.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: JazzFan on 08/16/2016 01:38 am
Orbital cargo delivery? To where...ISS? Or future space stations and deep space habitats?

Or point to point cargo delivery between places on earth? Like, say, launching in London and landing a cargo pod in Sydney 2 hours later? After all Bezos is the founder of Amazon.

Far too many more cost efficient solutions than this approach.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 08/16/2016 01:59 am
Orbital cargo delivery? To where...ISS? Or future space stations and deep space habitats?

Likely cislunar space and eventually Mars. NASA has mentioned on several occasions that it is interested in commercial cargo for BLEO exploration. 
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: GWH on 08/19/2016 03:46 pm
Any rumors on Blue Origin announcing more on their orbital rocket soon? 

They stated last September at the launch site announcement that the rocket would be revealed "next year": http://spacenews.com/blue-origin-announces-florida-factory-and-launch-site-for-orbital-vehicle/

Waiting for the BE-4 static fire test that's been said to be this year? 
I would expect Elon & co's BFR unveiling would have an effect on their timing, I can't see Blue wanting their announcement of a modestly sized rocket to be overshadowed.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Kabloona on 08/21/2016 02:32 am
I would expect Elon & co's BFR unveiling would have an effect on their timing, I can't see Blue wanting their announcement of a modestly sized rocket to be overshadowed.

Bezos already announced his rocket last September at the event you mentioned. What he promised this year was "more details" on the rocket. Maybe they'll show up on Blue's website later this year, but I doubt Bezos is worried about competing the BFR unveiling in September. He already had his big media splash a year ago.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Scylla on 09/05/2016 09:37 pm
On The Bright Side - Blue Origin - Largest Explosion 09-05-2016
USLaunchReport

Published on Sep 5, 2016We wanted to show some of the many good things happening in our space community. Blue Origin is constructing the first rocket factory on the Space Coast. Also we have is the true largest explosion at the Cape.We are a US disabled veteran run, non profit video production company who's mission is to bring other disabled US Veterans to witness a launch, experience US Space History and become part of our report. Our nonprofit 501(c)(3) is 100% tax deductible, just go to our webpage www.USLaunchReport.com which is merged with www.VeteransSpaceReport.com and find our Donate button. You can help change the life of a US Veteran. Thank You

http://youtu.be/NgqnlUifggw
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: KSC Sage on 09/08/2016 01:10 pm
Blue Origin is looking to develop a launch and engine testing site at LC-11 in addition to LC-36.

http://www.bizjournals.com/orlando/news/2016/09/07/blue-origin-plans-2-new-cape-canaveral-launch.html

They also released an image of their LC-36 launch pad concept.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Kryten on 09/08/2016 01:18 pm
New email update from Bezos;
Quote
Our next flight is going to be dramatic, no matter how it ends.
 
Like Mercury, Apollo, and Soyuz, New Shepard has an escape system that can quickly propel the crew capsule to safety if a problem is detected with the booster. Our escape system, however, is configured differently from those earlier designs. They mounted the escape motor on a tower above the capsule – a “tractor” configuration – the escape motor would pull the capsule away from a failing booster. But because a capsule cannot reenter Earth’s atmosphere or deploy parachutes with a tower on top, the tower, along with the escape motor, must be jettisoned on every flight – even the nominal flights. Expending an escape motor on every flight drives up costs significantly. Further, the jettison operation is itself safety critical. Failure to jettison the tower is catastrophic.
 
The New Shepard escape motor pushes rather than pulls and is mounted underneath the capsule rather than on a tower. There is no jettison operation. On a nominal mission, the escape motor is not expended and can be flown again and again. We’ve already tested our pusher escape system, including many ground tests and a successful pad escape test, but this upcoming flight will be our toughest test yet. We’ll intentionally trigger an escape in flight and at the most stressing condition: maximum dynamic pressure through transonic velocities.
 
Capsule in-flight escape testing was last done during the Apollo program. From 1964-1966, in-flight escape tests were performed with Apollo simulator capsules using an expendable booster called the Little Joe II. We’ll be doing our in-flight escape test with the same reusable New Shepard booster that we’ve already flown four times. About 45 seconds after liftoff at about 16,000 feet, we’ll intentionally command escape. Redundant separation systems will sever the crew capsule from the booster at the same time we ignite the escape motor. You can get an idea of what will happen in this animation. The escape motor will vector thrust to steer the capsule to the side, out of the booster’s path. The high acceleration portion of the escape lasts less than two seconds, but by then the capsule will be hundreds of feet away and diverging quickly. It will traverse twice through transonic velocities – the most difficult control region – during the acceleration burn and subsequent deceleration. The capsule will then coast, stabilized by reaction control thrusters, until it starts descending. Its three drogue parachutes will deploy near the top of its flight path, followed shortly thereafter by main parachutes.
 
What of the booster? It’s the first ever rocket booster to fly above the Karman line into space and then land vertically upon the Earth. And it’s done so multiple times. We’d really like to retire it after this test and put it in a museum. Sadly, that’s not likely. This test will probably destroy the booster. The booster was never designed to survive an in-flight escape. The capsule escape motor will slam the booster with 70,000 pounds of off-axis force delivered by searing hot exhaust. The aerodynamic shape of the vehicle quickly changes from leading with the capsule to leading with the ring fin, and this all happens at maximum dynamic pressure. Nevertheless, the booster is very robust and our Monte Carlo simulations show there’s some chance we can fly through these disturbances and recover the booster. If the booster does manage to survive this flight – its fifth – we will in fact reward it for its service with a retirement party and put it in a museum. In the more likely event that we end up sacrificing the booster in service of this test, it will still have most of its propellant on board at the time escape is triggered, and its impact with the desert floor will be most impressive.
 
The test should be in the first part of October, and we’ll webcast it live for your viewing pleasure. Details to come.
 
If someone forwarded this email to you and you’d like to subscribe to get these updates yourself, you can do so here. In my next email update, I hope to give you a sneak peek of the orbital vehicle we’ve been working on for the last few years.
 
Gradatim Ferociter!
 
Jeff Bezos
If you don't want to read all that, here's a quick summary;
-Next test is in early October, and is the in-flight abort test, using the same NS booster as the last few flights
-The booster may survive, but they expect it to be destroyed
-Some details of the orbital system are coming in the next email

The images were a shot of the Blue pad abort test and a stock photo of an Apollo LES test, so I've not bothered attaching them.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 09/08/2016 02:06 pm
The e-mail/press release is worth reading in its entirety. It's pretty interesting. There is also a link to a Youtube animation which is not yet public.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: MarekCyzio on 09/08/2016 03:45 pm
https://permitting.sjrwmd.com/epermitting/jsp/Search.do?theAction=searchDetail&permitNumber=147362

Edit - no landing pad - will new Blue Origin rocket land on a barge?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Kryten on 09/08/2016 04:11 pm
The animation of the abort test is now public; https://youtu.be/N5i-f-D_A-M
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: edkyle99 on 09/08/2016 04:34 pm
Blue Origin is looking to develop a launch and engine testing site at LC-11 in addition to LC-37.

http://www.bizjournals.com/orlando/news/2016/09/07/blue-origin-plans-2-new-cape-canaveral-launch.html

They also released an image of their LC-37 launch pad concept.
Should be SLC 36, not 37. 

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: edkyle99 on 09/08/2016 04:38 pm
https://permitting.sjrwmd.com/epermitting/jsp/Search.do?theAction=searchDetail&permitNumber=147362

Edit - no landing pad - will new Blue Origin rocket land on a barge?
EDIT:  OK, I see what they are planning.  SLC 11 is being essentially combined with adjacent SLC 36 to form one bigger complex.  The engine test stand will be on today's SLC 11.  The new Blue Origin launch pad will stand where SLC 36 Pad A once stood.  The hangar will stand approximately on the old SLC 36 Pad B site.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: RonM on 09/08/2016 05:13 pm
https://permitting.sjrwmd.com/epermitting/jsp/Search.do?theAction=searchDetail&permitNumber=147362

Edit - no landing pad - will new Blue Origin rocket land on a barge?

They'll probably do the same thing SpaceX did, lease a different pad to be the landing zone.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: savuporo on 09/08/2016 05:55 pm
Is it just me or was anyone else expecting much more frequent test flights from New Shepard this year ? I mean, with things like ".. the company plans to increase the frequency of test flights as it prepares to bring New Shepard into commercial operations" and “We will not be strangers” being said earlier.

EDIT: from January http://spacenews.com/blue-origin-to-ramp-up-new-shepard-tests/
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 09/08/2016 07:39 pm
Is it just me or was anyone else expecting much more frequent test flights from New Shepard this year ? I mean, with things like ".. the company plans to increase the frequency of test flights as it prepares to bring New Shepard into commercial operations" and “We will not be strangers” being said earlier.

EDIT: from January http://spacenews.com/blue-origin-to-ramp-up-new-shepard-tests/
I was wondering why it has been so long since last flight, this explains it. The preparation for this test would be significant and is the most important  test as a successful test clears way for manned flights.

They wouldn't destroy No2 booster unless No3 and most likely No4 are ready.

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: high road on 09/08/2016 08:52 pm
If they do a succesful in flight abort now, do they have to do another one to have their orbital launcher man-rated? Seems to be an obvious yes to me, but I'm not a 100% sure, as the abort system is located on the capsule and not on the launcher.

I'm expecting another 'welcome to the club' tweet next year, that's why I'm asking.

I already mentioned the long delays between missions shortly after the previous test, especially since they went on and on about how their suborbital article allowed them to do more tests faster and cheaper. But their new test goal does not disappoint, and SpaceX are doing their second RTF in a year. If that information on their orbital launcher includes a delivery date in the near future, this friendly competition promises to become even more interesting.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: russianhalo117 on 09/08/2016 09:09 pm
If they do a succesful in flight abort now, do they have to do another one to have their orbital launcher man-rated? Seems to be an obvious yes to me, but I'm not a 100% sure, as the abort system is located on the capsule and not on the launcher.

I'm expecting another 'welcome to the club' tweet next year, that's why I'm asking.

I already mentioned the long delays between missions shortly after the previous test, especially since they went on and on about how their suborbital article allowed them to do more tests faster and cheaper. But their new test goal does not disappoint, and SpaceX are doing their second RTF in a year. If that information on their orbital launcher includes a delivery date in the near future, this friendly competition promises to become even more interesting.
Yes, everything would have to be redone because the current ground lit stage uses a the sea-level version of BE-3 whereas the, yet to be given a name, BO OLV second stage is not the same stage at all because it is not optimized and built for a Karman Line mission profile. OLV Second Stage will one or the other of the two BE-3 vacuum versions known as BE-3U (without composite nozzle extension) and BE-3UEN (with composite nozzle extension). Thirdly the the OLV Second stage is not the OLV First Stage. These are new stages and the engine versions flying on OLV have yet to fly or be tested in their simulated and operational operating environments.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: mme on 09/08/2016 09:15 pm
If they do a succesful in flight abort now, do they have to do another one to have their orbital launcher man-rated? Seems to be an obvious yes to me, but I'm not a 100% sure, as the abort system is located on the capsule and not on the launcher.

I'm expecting another 'welcome to the club' tweet next year, that's why I'm asking.

I already mentioned the long delays between missions shortly after the previous test, especially since they went on and on about how their suborbital article allowed them to do more tests faster and cheaper. But their new test goal does not disappoint, and SpaceX are doing their second RTF in a year. If that information on their orbital launcher includes a delivery date in the near future, this friendly competition promises to become even more interesting.
I think they will use a different capsule for the orbital rocket.  I am not 100% sure, but New Shepard's crew capsule looks to be specifically designed for sub-orbital.  I doubt it could handle orbital reentry.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 09/08/2016 09:32 pm
Nice launch site plan for BO's orbital launcher.
And nice they are doing the inflight abort on the 5th (?) mission for New Sheperd booster 2 (6th flight capsule 1?).

Am I correct that New Shepard in stil launching on a experimental FAA license?
Does launching on a 'experimental'  launch license mean they are not allowed to sell services at a profit with these flights?
Does BO have a replacement New Shepard system very close to start launching?

I think the 'slow' launch cadence was driven by software iterations of the New Shepard system. Most likely the first capsule didn't have all equipment installed to support all intended payload services. It is known the first capsule didn't have window's but window covers instead. I think a lot of other systems were not installed in they final configuration because this capsule was used to flight proven and test the design.
Most likely the second capsule has window's and has more equipment installed, because it will be the first operational payload capsule.
I think the cadence will increase when the second system commences service, when there is enough demand for scientific flights.
disclaimer: This was just speculation from my side, using public info and common sense. I don't have any inside info.

To MME: indeed there isn't a heat shield
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: mme on 09/08/2016 11:29 pm
...
Am I correct that New Shepard in stil launching on a experimental FAA license?
Does launching on a 'experimental'  launch license mean they are not allowed to sell services at a profit with these flights?
...

TL;DR Executive Summary

Yes.  Based on my soon to be patented "procrastinating an unpleasant task by spelunking faa.gov and ecfr.gov for FAA regulations" process, it looks like Blue Origin is operating under Experimental Permit 14-009 from the FAA (pdf) (http://"https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/licenses_permits/media/EP%2014-009%20Blue%20Origin%20New%20Shepard.pdf") and that explicitly forbids flying passengers "for profit."

TMI - But maybe interesting.  I thought it was ...

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&mc=true&node=pt14.4.437&rgn=div5#se14.4.437_191 (http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&mc=true&node=pt14.4.437&rgn=div5#se14.4.437_191)
Quote
§437.91   For-hire prohibition.
No permittee may carry any property or human being for compensation or hire on a reusable suborbital rocket.

But (if I'm reading this right) they can fly with crew/"space flight participants" as part of their research and development with an experimental permit.

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&mc=true&n=pt14.4.437&r=PART&ty=HTML#se14.4.437_121 (http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&mc=true&n=pt14.4.437&r=PART&ty=HTML#se14.4.437_121)
Quote
§437.21   General.
To obtain an experimental permit an applicant must make the demonstrations and provide the information required by this section.
...
(3) Human space flight. An applicant proposing launch or reentry with flight crew or a space flight participant on board a reusable suborbital rocket must demonstrate compliance with §§460.5, 460.7, 460.11, 460.13, 460.15, 460.17, 460.51 and 460.53 of this subchapter.
...

Part 437 is for "Experimental Permits" where as part 460 is for "Human Space Flight Requirements".  These are the titles of the mentioned requirements:

Quote
Subpart A—Launch and Reentry with Crew

§460.5   Crew qualifications and training.
§460.7   Operator training of crew.
§460.11   Environmental control and life support systems.
§460.13   Smoke detection and fire suppression.
§460.15   Human factors.
§460.17   Verification program.

Subpart B—Launch and Reentry with a Space Flight participant

§460.51   Space flight participant training.

Fun fact from all this research: Amazon is permitted to give away or even sell Kindles that flew as part of the payload of a Blue Origin mission (pdf) (http://"http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/pol_adjudication/agc200/interpretations/data/interps/2015/powers-blue%20origin%20-%20(2015)%20legal%20interpretation.pdf").

Resource Used / Discovered:
* 51 U.S. Code Subtitle V - Programs Targeting Commercial Opportunities (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/51/subtitle-V)
* FAA Home ▸ Data & Research ▸ Commercial Space Data ▸ Active Permits (https://www.faa.gov/data_research/commercial_space_data/permits/)
* ELECTRONIC CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS: CHAPTER III—COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?mc=true&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title14/14chapterIII.tpl)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: russianhalo117 on 09/09/2016 12:26 am
...
Am I correct that New Shepard in stil launching on a experimental FAA license?
Does launching on a 'experimental'  launch license mean they are not allowed to sell services at a profit with these flights?
...

TL;DR Executive Summary

Yes.  Based on my soon to be patented "procrastinating an unpleasant task by spelunking faa.gov and ecfr.gov for FAA regulations" process, it looks like Blue Origin is operating under Experimental Permit 14-009 from the FAA (pdf) (http://"https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/licenses_permits/media/EP%2014-009%20Blue%20Origin%20New%20Shepard.pdf") and that explicitly forbids flying passengers "for profit."

TMI - But maybe interesting.  I thought it was ...

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&mc=true&node=pt14.4.437&rgn=div5#se14.4.437_191 (http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&mc=true&node=pt14.4.437&rgn=div5#se14.4.437_191)
Quote
§437.91   For-hire prohibition.
No permittee may carry any property or human being for compensation or hire on a reusable suborbital rocket.

But (if I'm reading this right) they can fly with crew/"space flight participants" as part of their research and development with an experimental permit.

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&mc=true&n=pt14.4.437&r=PART&ty=HTML#se14.4.437_121 (http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&mc=true&n=pt14.4.437&r=PART&ty=HTML#se14.4.437_121)
Quote
§437.21   General.
To obtain an experimental permit an applicant must make the demonstrations and provide the information required by this section.
...
(3) Human space flight. An applicant proposing launch or reentry with flight crew or a space flight participant on board a reusable suborbital rocket must demonstrate compliance with §§460.5, 460.7, 460.11, 460.13, 460.15, 460.17, 460.51 and 460.53 of this subchapter.
...

Part 437 is for "Experimental Permits" where as part 460 is for "Human Space Flight Requirements".  These are the titles of the mentioned requirements:

Quote
Subpart A—Launch and Reentry with Crew

§460.5   Crew qualifications and training.
§460.7   Operator training of crew.
§460.11   Environmental control and life support systems.
§460.13   Smoke detection and fire suppression.
§460.15   Human factors.
§460.17   Verification program.

Subpart B—Launch and Reentry with a Space Flight participant

§460.51   Space flight participant training.

Fun fact from all this research: Amazon is permitted to give away or even sell Kindles that flew as part of the payload of a Blue Origin mission (pdf) (http://"http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/pol_adjudication/agc200/interpretations/data/interps/2015/powers-blue%20origin%20-%20(2015)%20legal%20interpretation.pdf").

Resource Used / Discovered:
* 51 U.S. Code Subtitle V - Programs Targeting Commercial Opportunities (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/51/subtitle-V)
* FAA Home ▸ Data & Research ▸ Commercial Space Data ▸ Active Permits (https://www.faa.gov/data_research/commercial_space_data/permits/)
* ELECTRONIC CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS: CHAPTER III—COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?mc=true&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title14/14chapterIII.tpl)
BO has said previously that it is preparing to apply for a for profit permit after completion of the testing and man-rating processes that are currently ongoing.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/09/2016 03:45 am
If they do a succesful in flight abort now, do they have to do another one to have their orbital launcher man-rated? Seems to be an obvious yes to me, but I'm not a 100% sure, as the abort system is located on the capsule and not on the launcher....
Of course. Their current capsule is for suborbital use only. Design would be and is different for orbital capsule.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 09/09/2016 07:30 am
The Orbital capsule uses biconic capsule design. Google it. ESA did some work on it, has some advantages over normal capsule design.

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Kryten on 09/09/2016 02:14 pm
https://permitting.sjrwmd.com/epermitting/jsp/Search.do?theAction=searchDetail&permitNumber=147362

Edit - no landing pad - will new Blue Origin rocket land on a barge?
In 'bookmarked application submittals' at that link, there's a document called Drainage Analysis Technical Memorandum. Most of it's exactly as interesting as that sounds, but it starts with a general description of the plans for the site, with quite a lot of new information.
Quote
1.1 PURPOSE AND DESCRIPTION
Blue Origin has an incremental approach in developing launch vehicles and is advancing to the orbital
human spaceflight phase. This phase is defined by the development of an Orbital Launch Vehicle (OLV) and
an accompanying Orbital Launch Site (OLS) to support human spaceflight, as well as satellite and science
payload launches. The OLV is a multi-stage launch system capable of carrying either the Blue Origin Space
Vehicle (SV) spacecraft with participants and/or crew, or carry the Payload Accommodations (PA) which
would be comprised of one or more Spacecraft (SC) in a Payload Fairing (PLF). The launch vehicle’s 1st Stage
and SV are reusable and designed to be flown numerous times. Present plans call for returning first stages
for a landing on a downrange ocean-going platform, and return it to a facility for reuse.

The manufacturing of the large elements (e.g. 1st Stage, 2nd Stage, PLF, etc.) is planned to occur at a new
facility located at Exploration Park (Phase 2) on Kennedy Space Center (KSC).
[snipped section about wastewater management]
Final integration of the various flight elements of the launch vehicle, as well as spaceflight participant preparations will occur at the OLS and is part of this project.

Blue Origin is planning to construct and operate an OLS at the combined areas of Launch Complex (LC)-11
and LC-36 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS) in Brevard County, Florida (see Figure 1). The major
elements of the redevelopment at LC-11 and LC-36 include a Launch Pad, Integration Facility, Engine
Assembly and Control Building, Launch Vehicle Refurbishment Facility, Engine Test Stand, systems to
recover and refurbish reusable space systems (1st Stage and SV), new roadway corridors, updated utilities,
and a stormwater management system. The “built-out” design will result in a total of 43.84 acres of new
impervious surface (including buildings). After arrival at the Integration Facility, the 1st Stage and 2nd Stage,
and a possible 3rd Stage, would then be mated together and integrated onto the Transporter Erector
system. Following integration of the booster stages, the SV (or PA) would be attached, and then the entire
system would undergo a readiness test. The OLV would then be transported from the Integration Facility to
the Launch Pad and erected for launch. After a successful launch the first stage would return to the Earth
for recovery in the Atlantic Ocean approximately 750 nautical miles downrange in the Atlantic Ocean, east
of and well off the Carolina coast, and any payload or capsule would land under parachute at a yet to be
determined land site in Texas.
The document is dated 2nd September 2016, so we can assume this information is up-to-date. An identical section is included in another document called Wetland Evaluation and Biological Assessment Technical Memorandum, dated  August 15th 2016.
EDIT: Another thing I've just noticed; The application isn't made by Blue Origin, LLC of Washington state, it's by a new subsidiary called Blue Origin Florida, LLC. Blue Florida was incorporated in June 2015.

2nd EDIT: found more info in another document in 'bookmarked application submittals', the USDI Biological Opinion near the end;
Quote
The Proposed Action would be to construct and operate a commercial Orbital Launch Site (OLS) at the combined areas of LC-36 and LC-11 at CCAFS, Florida. The facility would contain infrastructure to test rocket engines, integrate launch vehicles, and conduct launches of liquid fueled, medium and heavy-lift class orbital launch vehicles (OLV). The action includes construction of a launch pad, engine test stand, integration facility, launch vehicle wash building, fuel storage tanks, as well as roads, lighting, a parking lot and multiple stormwater retention ponds throughout the complex. Operationally, the proposed action includes the potential for up to 12 launches per year of the OLV.
[snip irrelevant stuff]
engine firings will occur for acceptance testing only, and will not test multiple engines simultaneously.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Kryten on 09/09/2016 08:24 pm
 For those of you that don't want to navigate that mess of a post, and I certainly don't blame you if you don't, here's a summary;
-The site is a single complex for launch, LV integration, engine acceptance testing, booster and Space Vehicle refurbishment, and 'spaceflight participant preparation'. Landing won't happen at the complex, and it sounds like it also won't do static fire tests.
-The site is intended for a maximum of 12 orbital launches a year
-Orbital LV booster stages will be recovered by an ocean-going platform off the coast of Carolina, ~750nm downrange
-Space Vehicle recovery is to be by parachute on land, somewhere in Texas
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Kabloona on 09/09/2016 10:20 pm
Quote
Orbital LV booster stages will be recovered by an ocean-going platform off the coast of Carolina, ~750nm downrange...

That's interesting because it's about twice the downrange distance of SpaceX's ASDS position. Much farther.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Prettz on 09/09/2016 11:16 pm
Quote
Orbital LV booster stages will be recovered by an ocean-going platform off the coast of Carolina, ~750nm downrange...

That's interesting because it's about twice the downrange distance of SpaceX's ASDS position. Much farther.
Presumably because BO's rocket uses a hydrogen second stage with lower thrust, so the first stage goes higher and faster vs. F9's, yes?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: meberbs on 09/09/2016 11:45 pm
Quote
Orbital LV booster stages will be recovered by an ocean-going platform off the coast of Carolina, ~750nm downrange...

That's interesting because it's about twice the downrange distance of SpaceX's ASDS position. Much farther.
Presumably because BO's rocket uses a hydrogen second stage with lower thrust, so the first stage goes higher and faster vs. F9's, yes?
Hard to say. One of the tidbits from that document includes mention of a possible 3rd stage. When I saw the picture of the launch site with the vehicle on it, the rocket shape made me think about it possibly being a 3 stage system.

I'll let others take the first shot at guessing what this would imply.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: NaN on 09/10/2016 06:40 am
Quote
Orbital LV booster stages will be recovered by an ocean-going platform off the coast of Carolina, ~750nm downrange...

That's interesting because it's about twice the downrange distance of SpaceX's ASDS position. Much farther.

On another thread it was suggested that SpaceX landing facilities were shared use and Blue could share them - but this downrange distance suggests that Blue will not even have an RTLS option, as the penalty would be very high with such separation velocity.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 09/10/2016 02:16 pm
Quote
Orbital LV booster stages will be recovered by an ocean-going platform off the coast of Carolina, ~750nm downrange...

That's interesting because it's about twice the downrange distance of SpaceX's ASDS position. Much farther.
Presumably because BO's rocket uses a hydrogen second stage with lower thrust, so the first stage goes higher and faster vs. F9's, yes?

Propellant doesn't determine the thrust of a stage.  The BE upper stage engine will have more thrust than an RL10
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Kabloona on 09/10/2016 11:43 pm
Quote
Orbital LV booster stages will be recovered by an ocean-going platform off the coast of Carolina, ~750nm downrange...

That's interesting because it's about twice the downrange distance of SpaceX's ASDS position. Much farther.
Presumably because BO's rocket uses a hydrogen second stage with lower thrust, so the first stage goes higher and faster vs. F9's, yes?
Hard to say. One of the tidbits from that document includes mention of a possible 3rd stage. When I saw the picture of the launch site with the vehicle on it, the rocket shape made me think about it possibly being a 3 stage system.

I'll let others take the first shot at guessing what this would imply.

A third stage would have the reverse effect on delta V splits, meaning stage 1 would need to do less work, not more, and landing nearer downrange.  Also, a third stage is another level of complexity and another opportunity for failure (at staging), so I doubt they'd start with that. Usually LV designers try to start simple and consider a third stage as a potential "growth path" down the road.

Seems to me the "much farther downrange landing" of the first stage (vs. F9) implies a bigger vehicle with more total delta V, and/or a different delta V split between S1 and S2.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 09/11/2016 12:38 am
... or more passive braking.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: guckyfan on 09/11/2016 04:51 am
... or more passive braking.

It is always good to see different concepts play out. Not just copying the SpaceX concept.

Highly speculative. They may go for magnetoshell aerobraking. The first stage goes high enough to use it.

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/12/2016 02:04 am
... or more passive braking.

It is always good to see different concepts play out. Not just copying the SpaceX concept.

Highly speculative. They may go for magnetoshell aerobraking. The first stage goes high enough to use it.
Magnetoshell aerobraking is a very low TRL technology. Not even sure how well it even works or if it's even practical (though it may be). No way Blue Origin is relying on using it.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: guckyfan on 09/12/2016 04:50 am
Magnetoshell aerobraking is a very low TRL technology. Not even sure how well it even works or if it's even practical (though it may be). No way Blue Origin is relying on using it.

True about the low TRL and that Blue Origin won't rely on it now.

But it looks like development is going well and with the Blue Origin concept of more work done by the first stage it would make a huge capability boost for future development of the Blue Origin orbital vehicle. Much less so for Falcon 9.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Eerie on 09/12/2016 04:59 am
But it looks like development is going well and with the Blue Origin concept of more work done by the first stage it would make a huge capability boost for future development of the Blue Origin orbital vehicle. Much less so for Falcon 9.

Magnetoshell aerobraking would be great for second stage recovery, for either SpaceX or Blue Origin.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Kabloona on 09/13/2016 02:44 am
Quote
Orbital LV booster stages will be recovered by an ocean-going platform off the coast of Carolina, ~750nm downrange...

That's interesting because it's about twice the downrange distance of SpaceX's ASDS position. Much farther.
Presumably because BO's rocket uses a hydrogen second stage with lower thrust, so the first stage goes higher and faster vs. F9's, yes?
Hard to say. One of the tidbits from that document includes mention of a possible 3rd stage. When I saw the picture of the launch site with the vehicle on it, the rocket shape made me think about it possibly being a 3 stage system.

I'll let others take the first shot at guessing what this would imply.

Seems to me the "much farther downrange landing" of the first stage (vs. F9) implies a bigger vehicle with more total delta V, and/or a different delta V split between S1 and S2.

And the answer is....much bigger vehicle. Wow.

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Ragmar on 09/13/2016 02:14 pm
In renderings of BO's launch site, it appears that they plan on merging/combining LC-11 and LC-36 (BO filed permits to use both sites).  Does this sound about right?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: sanman on 09/16/2016 08:00 am
Just noticed this recent video from Blue:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qx1CDI7dYmA
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 09/16/2016 04:36 pm
Just as Blue have larger follow on LV for New Glenn, there may well be larger version2 NS. My guess is it will use shorter version of NG booster with a 1xBE4 and a 20+ seat capsule with propulsive  landing.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/16/2016 04:59 pm
Just as Blue have larger follow on LV for New Glenn, there may well be larger version2 NS. My guess is it will use shorter version of NG booster with a 1xBE4 and a 20+ seat capsule with propulsive  landing.
No way. NS is it for suborbital.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 09/16/2016 08:11 pm
Just as Blue have larger follow on LV for New Glenn, there may well be larger version2 NS. My guess is it will use shorter version of NG booster with a 1xBE4 and a 20+ seat capsule with propulsive  landing.
No way. NS is it for suborbital.
And so would NS version 2. Bigger capsule more passengers lower seat price. Planes didn't stop at 6 seats why should suborbital vehicles.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Fan Boi on 09/16/2016 09:06 pm
Mowry leaving Arianespace for Blue Origin:

http://spacenews.com/mowry-leaving-arianespace-for-blue-origin/
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: sanman on 09/16/2016 10:09 pm
Apparently the original New Shepard vehicle will be put in a museum:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2016/09/16/blue_origin_plans_to_test_the_capsule_abort_system_during_an_actual_launch.html

Quote
But if it does survive and lands, Bezos says it’ll be placed into a museum, which is fitting. It’s the first rocket ever to go into space and then land again vertically, let alone do it again three more times. It’s quite an accomplishment.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 09/16/2016 10:24 pm
Mowry leaving Arianespace for Blue Origin:

http://spacenews.com/mowry-leaving-arianespace-for-blue-origin/
This does suggest Blue are going after commercial satellite launches in addition to NG prime purpose of HSF.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Chasm on 09/17/2016 08:41 am
Apparently the original New Shepard vehicle will be put in a museum:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2016/09/16/blue_origin_plans_to_test_the_capsule_abort_system_during_an_actual_launch.html

Quote
But if it does survive and lands, Bezos says it’ll be placed into a museum, which is fitting. It’s the first rocket ever to go into space and then land again vertically, let alone do it again three more times. It’s quite an accomplishment.


IF it survives the launch escape test at max Q.
Which is rather unlikely since they fire their solid rocket motor directly onto the NS tank. Sound like a great way to depressurize said tank in a hurry.  ;D
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Comga on 09/19/2016 09:09 pm
Mowry leaving Arianespace for Blue Origin:

http://spacenews.com/mowry-leaving-arianespace-for-blue-origin/

Someone I know, who was one of the senior people who took the buy-out at ULA, is also going to Blue Origin.
I will ask if I can post the name and title.
We will see I now have an inside source at BO. ;-)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 09/19/2016 09:21 pm
Mowry leaving Arianespace for Blue Origin:

http://spacenews.com/mowry-leaving-arianespace-for-blue-origin/

Someone I know, who was one of the senior people who took the buy-out at ULA, is also going to Blue Origin.
I will ask if I can post the name and title.
We will see I now have an inside source at BO. ;-)
Who isn't going to Blue?. Their website stated they had 60 propulsion engineers from industry leader (Aerojet?).
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: sdsds on 09/23/2016 05:49 am
Blue did a great job with PR at Dent:Space in San Francisco over the past two days!
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Darkseraph on 09/23/2016 12:13 pm
Even Blue Origin has the sense to recognize Aerojet as an industry leader in propulsion. It may not be as flashy and exciting to an internet audience as the work being done by SpaceX, Blue or others, but it remains vitally important and they have decades of valuable experience with these systems that would be the envy of any company trying to get into the launch industry. Hence, New Space companies often hire from the ranks of Old Space companies.

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: AncientU on 09/23/2016 12:21 pm
Even Blue Origin has the sense to recognize Aerojet as an industry leader in propulsion. It may not be as flashy and exciting to an internet audience as the work being done by SpaceX, Blue or others, but it remains vitally important and they have decades of valuable experience with these systems that would be the envy of any company trying to get into the launch industry. Hence, New Space companies often hire from the ranks of Old Space companies.

Not arguing that they have the industry talent... they do, and have had it for years.  And given the opportunity, that talent can produce great engines. State of the art.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: ncb1397 on 09/23/2016 03:44 pm
So that makes them the leading legacy hardware provider... they certainly aren't leading the industry in advacing rocketry state of the art (in fact they are sucking exhaust fumes).  But if legacy production from the 1960s an 1970s is your thing... yes, they are industry leaders.

http://www.rocket.com/green-monopropellant-propulsion
http://www.rocket.com/article/nasa-thruster-achieves-world-record-5-years-operation
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: AncientU on 09/23/2016 04:24 pm
So that makes them the leading legacy hardware provider... they certainly aren't leading the industry in advacing rocketry state of the art (in fact they are sucking exhaust fumes).  But if legacy production from the 1960s an 1970s is your thing... yes, they are industry leaders.

http://www.rocket.com/green-monopropellant-propulsion
http://www.rocket.com/article/nasa-thruster-achieves-world-record-5-years-operation

Nice, they make some of the latest and greatest thrusters. (Didn't know that.)
This discussion was about the latest and greatest rocket engines.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 09/23/2016 04:47 pm
Mowry leaving Arianespace for Blue Origin:

http://spacenews.com/mowry-leaving-arianespace-for-blue-origin/

Someone I know, who was one of the senior people who took the buy-out at ULA, is also going to Blue Origin.
I will ask if I can post the name and title.
We will see I now have an inside source at BO. ;-)
Who isn't going to Blue?. Their website stated they had 60 propulsion engineers from industry leader (Aerojet?).
I started this debate by being to lazy to quote exactly from Blue website and guessed "industry leader ". Still think its valid though.

Here is website statement from BE4 section.

Right team
Blue Origin has assembled a highly experienced propulsion team whose members have held key roles on every U.S. liquid rocket engine development program in the last 30 years. In fact, more than 60 of the best people from the alternative engine developer have already joined our team.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: ncb1397 on 09/23/2016 04:51 pm
So that makes them the leading legacy hardware provider... they certainly aren't leading the industry in advacing rocketry state of the art (in fact they are sucking exhaust fumes).  But if legacy production from the 1960s an 1970s is your thing... yes, they are industry leaders.

http://www.rocket.com/green-monopropellant-propulsion
http://www.rocket.com/article/nasa-thruster-achieves-world-record-5-years-operation

Nice, they make some of the latest and greatest thrusters. (Didn't know that.)
This discussion was about the latest and greatest rocket engines.

And the difference between a thruster and rocket engine is what exactly?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 09/23/2016 05:18 pm
So that makes them the leading legacy hardware provider... they certainly aren't leading the industry in advacing rocketry state of the art (in fact they are sucking exhaust fumes).  But if legacy production from the 1960s an 1970s is your thing... yes, they are industry leaders.

http://www.rocket.com/green-monopropellant-propulsion
http://www.rocket.com/article/nasa-thruster-achieves-world-record-5-years-operation

Nice, they make some of the latest and greatest thrusters. (Didn't know that.)
This discussion was about the latest and greatest rocket engines.

And the difference between a thruster and rocket engine is what exactly?
'Generally speaking, thruster refers to a device that generates thrust for attitude control, station keeping and as a reaction control system. But most books on space navigation use thruster more generally as also the primary propulsion device.
A rocket engine is one possible technology to use as a thruster. You can also use electric propulsion engines, cold gas thrusters, etc.
BTW, the electric propulsion and green propellant development was the AeroJet side of the business, Rocketdyne was not as strong in those areas.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: AncientU on 09/23/2016 06:35 pm
So that makes them the leading legacy hardware provider... they certainly aren't leading the industry in advacing rocketry state of the art (in fact they are sucking exhaust fumes).  But if legacy production from the 1960s an 1970s is your thing... yes, they are industry leaders.

http://www.rocket.com/green-monopropellant-propulsion
http://www.rocket.com/article/nasa-thruster-achieves-world-record-5-years-operation

Nice, they make some of the latest and greatest thrusters. (Didn't know that.)
This discussion was about the latest and greatest rocket engines.

And the difference between a thruster and rocket engine is what exactly?

1/2,400,000*

*Green Thruster/BE-4
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: savuporo on 09/23/2016 07:42 pm
Even Blue Origin has the sense to recognize Aerojet as an industry leader in propulsion. ...
AJR propulsion systems have pretty much gone into every corner of the solar system, plus are keeping a huge fleet of satellites delivering services ( and revenue ) around earth. If they aren't the leader in space propulsion technology i wonder who is.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Darkseraph on 09/23/2016 08:01 pm
Even Blue Origin has the sense to recognize Aerojet as an industry leader in propulsion. ...
AJR propulsion systems have pretty much gone into every corner of the solar system, plus are keeping a huge fleet of satellites delivering services ( and revenue ) around earth. If they aren't the leader in space propulsion technology i wonder who is.

I could hardly have put it better myself. No disagreement here. As Bezos himself remarked, great industries are never usually built by one company and AJR have built up an immense portfolio over the decades.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Chasm on 09/23/2016 08:03 pm
What I would like to know is how the usual suspects in the rocket business reacted to BO offering the BE-4 when ULA asked for a RD-180 replacement. Must have been an interesting day in the office.
Maybe we'll know one day. Nice topic for a follow on documentary to the RD-180 story. Once more demystifying the political vs. technical reality of rocketeering.


Another question is: How much emphasis does BO put onto doing things themself?
SpaceX seems sometime to be hell bent on that path. Hard to tell with BO, given how little they talk about anything.
We do know that BO sells engines to everyone who is not running away fast enough. The one thing they don't have at this time is operational experience with an orbital system. How much data sharing can they bake into the contracts?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 09/23/2016 08:45 pm




Another question is: How much emphasis does BO put onto doing things themself?
SpaceX seems sometime to be hell bent on that path. Hard to tell with BO, given how little they talk about anything.
We do know that BO sells engines to everyone who is not running away fast enough. The one thing they don't have at this time is operational experience with an orbital system. How much data sharing can they bake into the contracts?

They are very good at hiring/poaching the people with knowledge they need. Just hired one of industry leaders for commercial satellite launch sales.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 09/23/2016 09:05 pm
So that makes them the leading legacy hardware provider... they certainly aren't leading the industry in advacing rocketry state of the art (in fact they are sucking exhaust fumes).  But if legacy production from the 1960s an 1970s is your thing... yes, they are industry leaders.

http://www.rocket.com/green-monopropellant-propulsion
http://www.rocket.com/article/nasa-thruster-achieves-world-record-5-years-operation

Nice, they make some of the latest and greatest thrusters. (Didn't know that.)
This discussion was about the latest and greatest rocket engines.

The comment was propulsions systems and yes, they are the leader.  RS-68A, RS-25E
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: ncb1397 on 09/23/2016 10:22 pm
So that makes them the leading legacy hardware provider... they certainly aren't leading the industry in advacing rocketry state of the art (in fact they are sucking exhaust fumes).  But if legacy production from the 1960s an 1970s is your thing... yes, they are industry leaders.

http://www.rocket.com/green-monopropellant-propulsion
http://www.rocket.com/article/nasa-thruster-achieves-world-record-5-years-operation

Nice, they make some of the latest and greatest thrusters. (Didn't know that.)
This discussion was about the latest and greatest rocket engines.

And the difference between a thruster and rocket engine is what exactly?

1/2,400,000*

*Green Thruster/BE-4

They actually have a 22 newton thruster(see the source I posted) which means the ratio is more like 110,000:1. If you want something with more power, the Aerojet Rocketdyne thrusters on MSL each had about 1/16th the thrust of a super-draco and landed the largest payload ever to land on the surface of Mars. If Red Dragon works, the same people belittling this accomplishment will probably be crowing about how this makes SpaceX a market leader.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: sanman on 09/26/2016 10:17 am
Read something in this article about Jeff Bezos wanting to do space from the very beginning, and hoping to take profits from any successful business venture and put them into a space enterprise eventually:

http://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/jeff-bezos-simple-two-step-plan-180960498/?no-ist


I wonder if that's true, or if it's just "ret-conning" what's turned out to have happened?

Also, never knew that Bezos and Diamandis went to school together.

(Beware of Greeks bearing ships - j/k)   ;)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 09/26/2016 10:23 am
Looks like Mr Bezos wants in on the cool space news tweets...

Here's a pair he just sent out:

(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160926/7eaaa726e1dc9e2dd310b12909b9f737.jpg)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: sanman on 09/26/2016 11:31 am
7 fabulous engines on the bottom, as promised - does that correlate to Friendship 7?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: J-V on 09/26/2016 11:36 am
Is the image from the front showing a 2-stage NG with a 7m fairing. The original pictures had a smaller fairing for the 2-stage variant.
I never understood why it was that way BTW. Aren't you usually lifting heavier (=bigger?) things to LEO and lighter stuff to BEO?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Darkseraph on 09/26/2016 11:41 am
Any ideas as to what the purpose of that engine covering aft-skirt thingy is at the base of the booster? There is nothing like that on New Sheppard.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: DJPledger on 09/26/2016 12:09 pm
Any ideas as to what the purpose of that engine covering aft-skirt thingy is at the base of the booster? There is nothing like that on New Sheppard.
I think the aft skirt houses the landing legs.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: cscott on 09/26/2016 01:36 pm
Any ideas as to what the purpose of that engine covering aft-skirt thingy is at the base of the booster? There is nothing like that on New Sheppard.
I think the aft skirt houses the landing legs.
It might also move the shockwave away from the (delicate?) engine bells.  The Twitter note explicitly states they were doing "descent configuration" wind tunnel tests; ie flying the rocket tail first.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: edkyle99 on 09/26/2016 01:56 pm
It might also move the shockwave away from the (delicate?) engine bells.  The Twitter note explicitly states they were doing "descent configuration" wind tunnel tests; ie flying the rocket tail first.
I would expect the real version to include an enclosure at the base.  Bad things might happen if an open-at-the-bottom skirt were built to enclose the engines as we see in this model.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Chasm on 09/26/2016 02:04 pm
The legs have to go somewhere. Comparing with NS they should be closer to the ground / shorter on NG.

Looks like the bells are a bit longer than the skirt. Hm, if not another idea brain fart is part of the landing system, land the rocket on legs and then lower it down on the skirt.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: cscott on 09/26/2016 02:49 pm
It might also move the shockwave away from the (delicate?) engine bells.  The Twitter note explicitly states they were doing "descent configuration" wind tunnel tests; ie flying the rocket tail first.
I would expect the real version to include an enclosure at the base.  Bad things might happen if an open-at-the-bottom skirt were built to enclose the engines as we see in this model.

 - Ed Kyle
Since their CFD models have been "validated", I expect they just finished the tests and confirmed that bad things won't happen.  Test what you'll fly.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Dante80 on 09/26/2016 04:12 pm
That picture with the 7 nozzles looks very cool. Very excited to see how this unfolds!
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars-J on 09/26/2016 04:19 pm
Better quality images:
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: edkyle99 on 09/26/2016 04:24 pm
Quote
I would expect the real version to include an enclosure at the base.  Bad things might happen if an open-at-the-bottom skirt were built to enclose the engines as we see in this model.

 - Ed Kyle
Since their CFD models have been "validated", I expect they just finished the tests and confirmed that bad things won't happen.  Test what you'll fly.
I'm thinking more about base heating during ascent. 

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Darkseraph on 09/26/2016 04:31 pm
From other pictures it can be seen the legs extend out from this structure, but I have to suspect, given its considerable bulk and the fact it surrounds the engines, it has some purpose in addition to housing the legs. I haven't seen any other booster with a similar structure before.

Perhaps Blue Origin may reveal more about this tomorrow at IAC.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 09/26/2016 04:45 pm
Perhaps this cowling has something to do with engine exhaust during descent - BO has had plenty of opportunity to see what happens to SX boosters on descent...
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: cscott on 09/26/2016 05:12 pm
Quote
I would expect the real version to include an enclosure at the base.  Bad things might happen if an open-at-the-bottom skirt were built to enclose the engines as we see in this model.

 - Ed Kyle
Since their CFD models have been "validated", I expect they just finished the tests and confirmed that bad things won't happen.  Test what you'll fly.
I'm thinking more about base heating during ascent. 

 - Ed Kyle
Ah.  Is it usual practice in hypersonic wind tunnel testing to vent gas out the nozzles to simulate the flow and recirculation?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: 2552 on 09/27/2016 04:44 am
Just found on the Blue Origin subreddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/BlueOrigin/comments/54n4vr/official_blue_origin_iac_presentation_discussion/?st=itkzagwv&sh=b1d7005c) that they'll be presenting their short and long term plans at IAC tommorrow, at 16:45 UTC, almost 2 hours before SpaceX's Mars plan reveal.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: DJPledger on 09/27/2016 07:20 am
Just found on the Blue Origin subreddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/BlueOrigin/comments/54n4vr/official_blue_origin_iac_presentation_discussion/?st=itkzagwv&sh=b1d7005c) that they'll be presenting their short and long term plans at IAC tommorrow, at 16:45 UTC, almost 2 hours before SpaceX's Mars plan reveal.
Hopefully BO will give New Armstrong at least a mention and that it won't be like the N-1. JB has much more money than EM so BO should be able to dev. all new engines for New Armstrong including a >F-1 thrust engine for it's 1st stage. 7-9 engines on a 1st stage is plenty enough.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: meberbs on 09/27/2016 07:55 am
Quote
     
Ok we're not going to pretend this speech isn't being a little over-shadowed by Spacex's mars announcement, (which can be followed on their sub) but don't be too hasty in thinking that Blue Origin don't have anything too major up their sleeve.
I like that they acknowledge that what they have will be overshadowed. I hope we get some interesting info though. While I doubt it will be as grand as Musk's announcement, they likely will discuss something more certain and relatively near term.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: AncientU on 09/27/2016 10:42 am
Quote
     
Ok we're not going to pretend this speech isn't being a little over-shadowed by Spacex's mars announcement, (which can be followed on their sub) but don't be too hasty in thinking that Blue Origin don't have anything too major up their sleeve.
I like that they acknowledge that what they have will be overshadowed. I hope we get some interesting info though. While I doubt it will be as grand as Musk's announcement, they likely will discuss something more certain and relatively near term.

If they do present something major, as implied above amidst the double negatives, then this will be a day to remember.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: leaflion on 09/29/2016 02:55 pm
https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/781488570922049536

Dramatic New Shepard #InFlightEscape test Tuesday, Oct 4. Live webcast starts at 10:50 am ET at http://blueorigin.com  #GradatimFerociter

Do we have a thread for this launch?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: ChrisC on 10/03/2016 03:05 am
Do we have a thread for this launch?

No, really, shouldn't there be a thread for the flight on Tuesday?

While I'm here, I might as well provide some thread links.  It took me a couple minutes to straighten out the threads, due to the naming scheme here.  I propose that the first post of that new thread include the information below, including the links.

29 Apr 2015 flight -- 1st NS test, launch vehicle lost (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37445.0)
23 Nov 2015 flight -- 2nd NS test, 1st test of new launch vehicle (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38873.0)
22 Jan 2016 flight -- 3rd NS test, 2nd test of same launch vehicle (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39402.0)
02 Apr 2016 flight -- 4th NS test, 3rd test of same launch vehicle (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39953.0)
19 Jun 2016 flight -- 5th NS test, 4th test of same launch vehicle (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40514.0)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Navier–Stokes on 10/03/2016 01:49 pm
No, really, shouldn't there be a thread for the flight on Tuesday?

While I'm here, I might as well provide some thread links.  It took me a couple minutes to straighten out the threads, due to the naming scheme here.  I propose that the first post of that new thread include the information below, including the links.

29 Apr 2015 flight -- 1st NS test, launch vehicle lost (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37445.0)
23 Nov 2015 flight -- 2nd NS test, 1st test of new launch vehicle (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38873.0)
22 Jan 2016 flight -- 3rd NS test, 2nd test of same launch vehicle (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39402.0)
02 Apr 2016 flight -- 4th NS test, 3rd test of same launch vehicle (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39953.0)
19 Jun 2016 flight -- 5th NS test, 4th test of same launch vehicle (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40514.0)
Just created an update thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41362.0) and included the above links. Thanks for compiling those, ChrisC.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Bubbinski on 10/05/2016 06:45 pm
Today's New Shepard abort test was the last flight for the capsule and the booster. Will the next NS capsule be equipped with a full life support system and windows?

And any thoughts on when the next flight will take place? Do they have a new booster ready?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Navier–Stokes on 10/05/2016 06:48 pm
Today's New Shepard abort test was the last flight for the capsule and the booster. Will the next NS capsule be equipped with a full life support system and windows?

And any thoughts on when the next flight will take place? Do they have a new booster ready?
In the webcast, they stated that the next NS capsule will indeed have windows. No mention of life support systems though. The next flight (with the new booster and capsule) was discussed as occurring "early next year".
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: guckyfan on 10/08/2016 07:41 am
In the webcast, they stated that the next NS capsule will indeed have windows. No mention of life support systems though. The next flight (with the new booster and capsule) was discussed as occurring "early next year".

Life support for the 10 minutes of flight should not be a challenge. Assuming temperature control is already in place they may need no more than CO2 scrubbing.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 10/08/2016 09:12 am
In the webcast, they stated that the next NS capsule will indeed have windows. No mention of life support systems though. The next flight (with the new booster and capsule) was discussed as occurring "early next year".

Life support for the 10 minutes of flight should not be a challenge. Assuming temperature control is already in place they may need no more than CO2 scrubbing.
Doubt you'd even need that. The thing is non-orbital, so there's no chance of getting stuck up there. You just need a few air tanks and a pressure regulator, venting to the outside, providing constant flow while maintaining desired interior pressure.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: sanman on 10/09/2016 12:31 am
Do they simulate the weight of the passengers in these tests? Surely their weight isn't negligible.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Bob Shaw on 10/09/2016 12:42 am
If they need crash-test dummies, then I'm willing to go!
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Patchouli on 10/09/2016 04:10 am
Do they simulate the weight of the passengers in these tests? Surely their weight isn't negligible.

They probably added ballast to simulate them.
I would not be surprised if they put an actual instrumented crash test dummy on one of the flights or plan to.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Navier–Stokes on 10/13/2016 05:32 pm
Quote from: https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/786619452376756224
Jeff Foust ‏@jeff_foust 10:27 AM - 13 Oct 2016

Meyerson: New Shepard test keeps us on track to start flying test astronauts by the end of 2017; comm’l missions in 2018. #ISPCS2016

Quote from: https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/786620815693320192
Jeff Foust ‏@jeff_foust 10:33 AM - 13 Oct 2016 

Meyerson: no significant damage to Fla. facilities from Hurricane Matthew. Installed 1st vertical beam at factory today. #ISPCS2016

Quote from: https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/786621077849907200
Jeff Foust ‏@jeff_foust 10:34 AM - 13 Oct 2016 

Meyerson: “really great” progress on BE-4 engine; plan engine tests to begin early next year. #ISPCS2016
Title: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Star One on 10/13/2016 07:17 pm
Quote
Jeff Foust –  ‏@jeff_foust

Meyerson: doubled size of company in last year from 400 to 800 employees; hiring 100s more. #ISPCS2016

https://mobile.twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/786621710128721920

Quote
Jeff Foust –  ‏@jeff_foust

@fre_towers They have not disclosed ticket prices yet.

https://mobile.twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/786641540919668736
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Star One on 10/14/2016 05:37 pm
And here's the article from SN.

Blue Origin on track for human suborbital test flights in 2017

http://spacenews.com/blue-origin-on-track-for-human-suborbital-test-flights-in-2017/
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Zond on 10/22/2016 06:44 pm
Blue has bought the warehouse across the street from their Kent WA headquarters.
Bezos' rocket company, Blue Origin, is the new owner of an old warehouse in Kent (http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/blog/techflash/2016/10/jeff-bezos-rocket-blue-origin-real-estate-kent.html?ana=fbk)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 12/18/2016 09:33 am
Haven't seen this posted any where.

Blue Origin won the 2016 Smithsonian Magazine Ingenuity Award for technology (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/rocketeer-jeff-bezos-winner-smithsonians-technology-ingenuity-award-180961119/).

At the awards ceremony, on the day John Glenn died, a letter (attached) was read out from John Glenn praising Blue Origin and commenting on New Glenn: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/read-letter-written-sen-john-glenn-honor-jeff-bezos-blue-origin-180961366/ (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/read-letter-written-sen-john-glenn-honor-jeff-bezos-blue-origin-180961366/)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1zqfidW1aI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1zqfidW1aI)

Edit: leaflion previously posted a link about this here (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41146.msg1617754#msg1617754)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/18/2016 04:50 pm
I love Mae Jemison. Brilliant. I love the 100 year Starship thing she leads. Also, I don't think there's any harm in saying she's beautiful.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 12/28/2016 03:17 pm
This presentation was posted a couple of weeks ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsYQCJlVehA
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/29/2016 02:08 am
This first suborbital booster iteration is designed for 25 reuses, but they plan to increase that.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 12/29/2016 03:32 am
Test astronauts by the end of 2017. Commercial flights in 2018. Next vehicle on the drawing board is New Armstrong. Well over half way in BE-4 development program. Tests on preburner, turbo-machinery, main injector and control valves. Developing transient start sequence. Engine testing early next year. Providing BE-3U to Orbital-ATK. New Shepard has over 400 additively manufactured parts. GOX dome for BE-4. Image shows cast dome which took nearly a year to produce. Additive manufactured dome took less than three months to produce. Believed to be the largest additive manufactured part ever made. Using own test stand at West Texas is five times faster. Conducted over 550 engine tests in 2015 for BE-3 and BE-4. In last year doubled in size from 400 to 800 people. Currently adding 100s of jobs. About 10 g's during abort. Aerojet-Rocketdyne made abort motor. 100's of hours and tens of thousands of dollars to recover and refurbish booster. Designed system for 25 uses. Old booster going to Kent after inspections. Then going to a museum, which museum to be determined. Bezos making that decision. Question about not using spacesuits. Short duration mission with a life support system and humidity control on board.

I liked how they got Wayne Hale to collect questions beforehand on paper and then have him pick and ask the questions. That would have avoided any Burning Man types questions for Musk's ITS presentation!
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/29/2016 03:43 am
The first rocket flamey thing is a BE3. The second is part of a BE4.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: AncientU on 12/29/2016 08:12 pm
First BE-4 engine test in early 2017.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 12/29/2016 09:00 pm
100's of hours and tens of thousands of dollars to recover and refurbish booster.

Biggest part of this is the TPS which is ablative.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Chris Bergin on 01/04/2017 02:05 pm
A.C. Charania ‏@ac_charania  2h2 hours ago
Exciting professional update: joined @blueorigin as Manager, Business Development & Strategy - Advanced Programs https://www.linkedin.com/in/charania
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 01/04/2017 02:33 pm
A.C. Charania ‏@ac_charania  2h2 hours ago
Exciting professional update: joined @blueorigin as Manager, Business Development & Strategy - Advanced Programs https://www.linkedin.com/in/charania

It appears he's spent the last 4 years in similar role(s) at Virgin Galactic. Blue are certainly absorbing significant numbers of people. Given the point Blue are at, and their future plans, looks like a good career move to me!
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: jcm on 01/17/2017 07:05 am
A.C. Charania ‏@ac_charania  2h2 hours ago
Exciting professional update: joined @blueorigin as Manager, Business Development & Strategy - Advanced Programs https://www.linkedin.com/in/charania

It appears he's spent the last 4 years in similar role(s) at Virgin Galactic. Blue are certainly absorbing significant numbers of people. Given the point Blue are at, and their future plans, looks like a good career move to me!

Also a good move given the point that VG and their launcher plans are at, I suspect

A.C's a nice guy. Good for him, and a good pick for Blue.
Title: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Star One on 01/19/2017 07:42 pm
Quote
Jeff Foust –  ‏@jeff_foust

Latest Blue Origin email update from Jeff Bezos: “Underappreciated Engine Components - The Ox Boost Pump”
Underappreciated no more…

https://mobile.twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/822136570585219075
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 01/19/2017 07:58 pm
Details of Bezos' email were posted by Navier-Stokes in the BE-4 thread  here (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39674.msg1632428#msg1632428)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Svetoslav on 01/30/2017 09:18 am
Here's an awesome interview about BO:

http://www.geekwire.com/2017/riding-jeff-bezos-blue-origin-new-shepard/

Basically, as of the end of january, they still aim for manned test missions until the end of 2017. They won't release expected dates as it's said to be "proprietary information". They said they haven't decided on the cost per flight, but would like it to be as low as possible.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 01/30/2017 05:42 pm
Sounds like long term their are targeting a ticket price well under $100k. I guessing initial flights well be in the  $100-250k range.

The question is how often can they fly from single site, given a fleet of vehicles. Weather will be deciding factor.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 01/31/2017 05:00 am
The question is how often can they fly from single site, given a fleet of vehicles. Weather will be deciding factor.

I think the real question will be if they sell New Shepard vehicles to other spacelines, like Boeing and Airbus selling planes to other airlines and not operating the planes themselves. I think "Australian Spacelines" or "American Spacelines" has a nice ring to it! :-) That's the future I would like to see.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 01/31/2017 06:13 am
The question is how often can they fly from single site, given a fleet of vehicles. Weather will be deciding factor.

I think the real question will be if they sell New Shepard vehicles to other spacelines, like Boeing and Airbus selling planes to other airlines and not operating the planes themselves. I think "Australian Spacelines" or "American Spacelines" has a nice ring to it! :-) That's the future I would like to see.

VG has tried/is trying this. With an "airliner like" launch system / vehicles. The economics of which are too stretched for safety to begin with.

For Blue it's very different than "airliner like". It doesn't match economics, operations, or structure, not to mention certain regulatory issues (which vary considerably with each country, thus the desire for VG's approach).

And ... you'll need to prove that a) there's enough of a proven market (volume * price), b) that the net profit (price  - cost  - liabilities) is "airliner like" (or Concorde-like), and c) that a minimum safety level (Everest trip level) has some statistical basis (7 - 14 flights of paying customers). At a minimum.

To be ... realistic.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 02/01/2017 03:41 pm
Proposed Florida budget would include Blue Origin incentives:
http://spacenews.com/proposed-florida-budget-would-include-blue-origin-incentives/
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: babakm on 02/02/2017 05:24 pm
Recent Tweet by Bezos with goodies in the background.

https://twitter.com/JeffBezos/status/827213980384964608

I spy the New Sheppard (sans fins) and four aircraft turbine-looking objects hanging in the back room.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C3raeuHUEAE8FDo.jpg)

Ideas?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: old_sellsword on 02/02/2017 05:28 pm
Welcome to the forum!

Here's a high res version of that picture. And upon further investigation, that appears to be a huge banner with a picture of their first development vehicle, Charon. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Origin#Charon)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: meberbs on 02/02/2017 05:35 pm

I spy the New Sheppard (sans fins) and four aircraft turbine-looking objects hanging in the back room.


There is no back room in that picture. You seem to be confused by a wall hanging (probably of equipment at their Texas site). You can see the wrinkles in it. Plus, that is an exterior wall of the building.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Kansan52 on 02/02/2017 05:52 pm
Great picture.

But having Buzz standing next to Jeff seems to be a highlight no one has pointed out!
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: babakm on 02/02/2017 06:15 pm
Thanks!   I thought the wrinkles were from some sort of netting hanging in front of the "back room".  At least I got the aircraft turbine part right.  Will try harder to add value next time.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 02/03/2017 06:12 am
Here's a crop showing Bezos and Aldrin. The guy next to Aldrin looks familiar, but I can't put a name to the face.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: HMXHMX on 02/03/2017 04:16 pm
Here's a crop showing Bezos and Aldrin. The guy next to Aldrin looks familiar, but I can't put a name to the face.

Andy Aldrin, Buzz's son.  Former ULA.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: meberbs on 02/04/2017 03:15 am
Thanks!   I thought the wrinkles were from some sort of netting hanging in front of the "back room".  At least I got the aircraft turbine part right.  Will try harder to add value next time.
Just posting that picture made for a great first post on this forum.

I can't blame you for being confused by the giant wall hanging. I have the advantage of having been in that building once, so I knew they have hangings all along the wall.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 02/06/2017 06:55 pm
Blue Origin's New Shepherd is one of four nominees for the 2016 Collier Trophy (NAA press release attached).

The other nominees are:

- Boeing 737 MAX
- Dassault Aviation FalconEye Combined Vision System
- U.S. Air Force 212th Rescue Squadron and 249th Airlift Squadron
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 02/18/2017 11:07 am
Quote
Area-man-does-good story in Ontario newspaper reveals a few new details about Blue Origin’s New Shepard plans: http://bit.ly/2l5aboW

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/832919032454062080 (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/832919032454062080)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: EgorBotts on 02/18/2017 12:08 pm
There were a few declarations on the last quarter of 2016 openly stating that New Sheperd tests would take place on the beginning of this year (BO comments during last launch, for example).

Do they decided to shift all non-crewed capsule tests with the habitable module to the end of the year, or will New Shepard execute a new set of uncrewed launches as planned on first quarter 2017?
Anything new on Texas launch site (yes, I know, BO does close its communications very well)?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 02/19/2017 12:33 am
I believe the article is referring to the first crewed launch of New Shepard, which was expected at the end of the year. Uncrewed test flights with a new booster and capsule were expected to start this quarter.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 02/19/2017 09:36 am
BO needs a operational licence to be allowed to sell payload suborbital launch slots,  right?
I think the FAA hasn't granted this operational licence jet, thus BO can only do test launches with free payload slots.
I think New Shepard will launch again when BO has been granted a licence.

The first crew launch is again a test launch. I expect a/several  system test launch(es) before the crew demo launch.
So if BO doesn't get a operational licence, I expect at least one additional launch. But I expect BO will soon receive their operational licence for their payload service.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 02/22/2017 10:41 pm
Quote
.@JeffBezos' @blueorigin space venture has plans for big expansion of Seattle-area HQ: http://www.geekwire.com/2017/jeff-bezos-blue-origin-hq/

https://twitter.com/b0yle/status/834545739560673280 (https://twitter.com/b0yle/status/834545739560673280)

I think the article has some new photos?

Edit: added another example new(?) photo
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: ethan829 on 02/23/2017 02:05 pm
I think the article has some new photos?

Edit: added another example new(?) photo


They're from the Ars Technica article: https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/03/behind-the-curtain-ars-goes-inside-blue-origins-secretive-rocket-factory/
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Tev on 02/23/2017 08:43 pm
Quote
Area-man-does-good story in Ontario newspaper reveals a few new details about Blue Origin’s New Shepard plans: http://bit.ly/2l5aboW

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/832919032454062080 (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/832919032454062080)

I don't get it, what on the booster needs redesign for manned flight?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 02/24/2017 04:23 am
I don't get it, what on the booster needs redesign for manned flight?

They need to build a special compartment for the pixie dust.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: meberbs on 02/24/2017 06:56 am
Quote
Area-man-does-good story in Ontario newspaper reveals a few new details about Blue Origin’s New Shepard plans: http://bit.ly/2l5aboW

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/832919032454062080 (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/832919032454062080)

I don't get it, what on the booster needs redesign for manned flight?
New Shepard refers to the whole system, not just the booster. The manned flights will require some details that were absent in their first capsule. Just minor things like seats, life support, etc. ;)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 02/24/2017 07:49 am
Life support is not that complex, only needs to support passengers for 1hr if that.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/03/2017 09:06 am
Quote
Woo! Blue Origin wins the AvWeek Laureate space award. Proud, as always, to be part of this team.

https://twitter.com/arianecornell/status/837476546466177024 (https://twitter.com/arianecornell/status/837476546466177024)

Edit: here's AvWeek tweet

Quote
Winner, Space: @blueorigin for successful reuse of the New Shepard suborbital booster on a total of five flights.

https://twitter.com/AviationWeek/status/837498517992132608 (https://twitter.com/AviationWeek/status/837498517992132608)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/03/2017 10:26 am
Here's something a bit different:

https://www.oliveoiltimes.com/olive-oil-basics/olive-oil-heads-space-bezos-rocket/55585 (https://www.oliveoiltimes.com/olive-oil-basics/olive-oil-heads-space-bezos-rocket/55585)

Sounds like a sub-orbital New Shepherd payload, although the article's claim of 7 to 8 minutes of zero g seems a little high.
Title: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Star One on 03/03/2017 12:28 pm
Bezos: In Future, Humans Will Build All Heavy Manufacturing In Space

Video on link.

http://m.aviationweek.com/space/bezos-future-humans-will-build-all-heavy-manufacturing-space
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/03/2017 01:25 pm
Thanks for posting that link. Good interview with Jeff Bezos touching on New Shepherd, Blue Moon (he hopes to partner with NASA), moon first, and his longer-term vision for development of space.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjz2vP3zPhE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjz2vP3zPhE)

Edit: P.S. I liked his comment at the end; a reminder of how much things have changed in quite a short period
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Alpha Control on 03/03/2017 01:31 pm
Here's the Washington Post article on this (which Bezos owns).

"It is time for America to return to the Moon — this time to stay,” Bezos said in response to emailed questions from The Post. “A permanently inhabited lunar settlement is a difficult and worthy objective. I sense a lot of people are excited about this.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/03/02/an-exclusive-look-at-jeff-bezos-plan-to-set-up-amazon-like-delivery-for-future-human-settlement-of-the-moon/?hpid=hp_regional-hp-cards_rhp-card-technology%3Ahomepage%2Fcard&utm_term=.523530fd5918

Edit: This article was posted earlier over on the new 'Blue Origin Lunar Settlement Proposal' thread, before I posted it. Hard to be first around here!  :)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Darkseraph on 03/03/2017 10:54 pm
I wouldn't play down the importance of their achievements so far because they are first developing a suborbital vehicle. Unless their competitors have fielded RLV SSTO's I have not heard of, all these vehicles are recovering suborbital boosters (Albeit with higher lateral velocity!). These tests will give valuable experience in designing their orbital system.They can avoid some pitfalls earlier on, cutting their teeth with much less expensive hardware.

A rapidly reusable suborbital system is a huge advancement in of itself and these tests will also inform on how to design a practical reusable lunar lander, which would be of similar size to New Shepard. The propellants of choice for such a lander would very likely be LH/LOX
It looks like Blue Origin are going down this particular route afterall. Exciting times ahead! They have suggested it in such a way that the politics are good for it, in that it doesn't directly clash with the Orion/SLS and in fact can help solve a problem with that system: The lack of money for a lander. But it could also launch on a variety of other vehicles, albeit with less payload.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: AncientU on 03/03/2017 11:59 pm
Thanks for posting that link. Good interview with Jeff Bezos touching on New Shepherd, Blue Moon (he hopes to partner with NASA), moon first, and his longer-term vision for development of space.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjz2vP3zPhE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjz2vP3zPhE)

Edit: P.S. I liked his comment at the end; a reminder of how much things have changed in quite a short period

When one person says these things, they are easily brushed off as crazy or egomaniacs or whatever dismissal one chooses.  When stated by two or three individuals who have each created multi-billion dollar companies and repeatedly upset the status quo, it is harder to be dismissive. 

Bravo Jeff Bezos!

We're finally going back to the Moon, and on to Mars -- hopefully in each of our lifetimes...
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/04/2017 04:59 am
Quote
Honored to receive the @AviationWeek Laureate Award for Space for #NewShepard, the 1st rocket to fly to space and be reused

https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/837808544061628416 (https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/837808544061628416)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: PahTo on 03/05/2017 04:43 pm

I toured Blue Origin (Kent facility) yesterday.

[For context, I have watched shuttle launches from the Saturn V center and the causeway.  I have attended an NSF sponsored pre-launch dinner with astronauts' families and met many of the contributors to this fine site]

Seeing what Blue does, and how they do it is one of the best experiences in my spaceflight life.
Wow!
Trust me:  Stuff is Happening!
That is a remarkable shop they have.

I am very thankful to Mr. Bezos and the entire Blue Origin team for sharing so openly and I appreciate the trust they show by allowing folks like me to see "behind the curtain".  I won't betray that trust by sharing anything, especially considering the ethos of this site and how NSF works.

But let me say again--Stuff is Happening.  Stay tuned!

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/05/2017 11:54 pm
Talking of staying tuned:

Quote
Jeff Bezos Expected to Unveil Further Plans for Private Space Exploration
Amazon chief likely to disclose new initiatives for his Blue Origin space venture
By Andy Pasztor
Updated March 5, 2017 7:03 p.m. ET

The burgeoning space-transportation company owned by Amazon.com Inc. chairman Jeff Bezos this week is expected to announce some customers and new initiatives, the latest step toward its long-term goal of building rockets powerful enough to penetrate deep into the solar system, according to industry officials.

[...]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/jeff-bezos-expected-to-unveil-further-plans-for-private-space-exploration-1488743790 (https://www.wsj.com/articles/jeff-bezos-expected-to-unveil-further-plans-for-private-space-exploration-1488743790)

This refers to Jeff Bezos giving a keynote at Satellite 2017 conference on Tuesday morning.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: savuporo on 03/06/2017 03:14 am
Lots of buzz. They gonna fly again sometime ?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Chris Bergin on 03/06/2017 12:56 pm
Talking of staying tuned:

Quote
Jeff Bezos Expected to Unveil Further Plans for Private Space Exploration
Amazon chief likely to disclose new initiatives for his Blue Origin space venture
By Andy Pasztor
Updated March 5, 2017 7:03 p.m. ET

The burgeoning space-transportation company owned by Amazon.com Inc. chairman Jeff Bezos this week is expected to announce some customers and new initiatives, the latest step toward its long-term goal of building rockets powerful enough to penetrate deep into the solar system, according to industry officials.

[...]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/jeff-bezos-expected-to-unveil-further-plans-for-private-space-exploration-1488743790 (https://www.wsj.com/articles/jeff-bezos-expected-to-unveil-further-plans-for-private-space-exploration-1488743790)

This refers to Jeff Bezos giving a keynote at Satellite 2017 conference on Tuesday morning.

Some very obvious media politics in play here.

1) Presented as a leak to WSJ (apparently with some Wash Post content which Bezos owns) - but the WSJ article is the one retweeted by Blue Origin leadership (Clay etc).
2) Some slapping of SpaceX in the article, WSJ style.
3) Comment section that has anti-SpaceX comments. "I like Bezos much more than Musk." "I wish Bezos success.  I hope Musk ends up in bankruptcy court" - the latter has been on there 15 hours and hasn't been moderated.

I've seen this tactic before.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Kryten on 03/06/2017 01:05 pm
@JeffBezos  15m15 minutes ago

 1st BE-4 engine fully assembled. 2nd and 3rd following close behind. #GradatimFerociter

@JeffBezos  11m11 minutes ago

 Here’s one more shot of BE-4 in its transport cradle.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/06/2017 01:33 pm
Tory Bruno says hot fire is very soon (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39674.msg1650800#msg1650800).

Higher resolution photos also in the BE-4 thread (I didn't spot the tweets had already been posted here).
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: matthewkantar on 03/06/2017 03:47 pm
The size of this piece of hardware really hammers home the magnitude of the mass this thing is expected to push.

Matthew
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: sanman on 03/06/2017 05:34 pm
Tory Bruno says hot fire is very soon (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39674.msg1650800#msg1650800).

Higher resolution photos also in the BE-4 thread (I didn't spot the tweets had already been posted here).

Is BE-4 the Bezos announcement that was supposed to imminently happen in the news?

Even during that TMRO interview, Mr Bruno hinted at an imminent announcement - was this it?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Confusador on 03/06/2017 06:12 pm
Is BE-4 the Bezos announcement that was supposed to imminently happen in the news?

Even during that TMRO interview, Mr Bruno hinted at an imminent announcement - was this it?

Almost certainly not.  Bezos is scheduled to speak at Satellite tomorrow morning (http://satellite17.mapyourshow.com/7_0/sessions/session-details.cfm?ScheduleID=111).
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: AncientU on 03/06/2017 07:17 pm
Talking of staying tuned:

Quote
Jeff Bezos Expected to Unveil Further Plans for Private Space Exploration
Amazon chief likely to disclose new initiatives for his Blue Origin space venture
By Andy Pasztor
Updated March 5, 2017 7:03 p.m. ET

The burgeoning space-transportation company owned by Amazon.com Inc. chairman Jeff Bezos this week is expected to announce some customers and new initiatives, the latest step toward its long-term goal of building rockets powerful enough to penetrate deep into the solar system, according to industry officials.

[...]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/jeff-bezos-expected-to-unveil-further-plans-for-private-space-exploration-1488743790 (https://www.wsj.com/articles/jeff-bezos-expected-to-unveil-further-plans-for-private-space-exploration-1488743790)

This refers to Jeff Bezos giving a keynote at Satellite 2017 conference on Tuesday morning.

Some very obvious media politics in play here.

1) Presented as a leak to WSJ (apparently with some Wash Post content which Bezos owns) - but the WSJ article is the one retweeted by Blue Origin leadership (Clay etc).
2) Some slapping of SpaceX in the article, WSJ style.
3) Comment section that has anti-SpaceX comments. "I like Bezos much more than Musk." "I wish Bezos success.  I hope Musk ends up in bankruptcy court" - the latter has been on there 15 hours and hasn't been moderated.

I've seen this tactic before.

Just 'locker room talk'  ;)

Great to have such a vibrant competition underway!  If Blue can outflank SpaceX, more power to them -- cannot hurt to have a competitor that good leading the revival of the industry.  Bezos and Musk are different characters, so some will prefer one over the other -- whatever.  Neither of them can be slighted for being timid; both will have to up their game.
Title: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Star One on 03/06/2017 08:07 pm
Jeff Foust‏ @jeff_foust

.@blueorigin making its presence known at #SATShow

https://mobile.twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/838798635081039873

Jeff Foust‏ @jeff_foust

Yes, @SpaceX has some banners at #SATShow as well.

https://mobile.twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/838842231406608384
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: AncientU on 03/06/2017 08:23 pm
Jeff Foust‏ @jeff_foust

.@blueorigin making its presence known at #SATShow

https://mobile.twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/838798635081039873

...

Coming out party time...
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/07/2017 12:31 pm
Quote
Jeff Bezos: now over a 1,000-person team working at Blue Origin. #SATSHOW

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/839104746887634944 (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/839104746887634944)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/07/2017 12:36 pm
Cross-posting as suspect more people follow here, follow-ups in original thread:

Quote
Blue Origin has released a new video promoting the New Glenn rocket. It is like ... whoah.

https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/839105757194960897 (https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/839105757194960897)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BTEhohh6eYk (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BTEhohh6eYk)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: rockets4life97 on 03/07/2017 12:38 pm
Cross-posting as suspect more people follow here, follow-ups in original thread:

Quote
Blue Origin has released a new video promoting the New Glenn rocket. It is like ... whoah.

https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/839105757194960897 (https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/839105757194960897)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BTEhohh6eYk (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BTEhohh6eYk)

It is like... where have I seen this before...
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: leetdan on 03/07/2017 12:47 pm
It is like... where have I seen this before...

US8678321 B2 (https://www.google.com/patents/US8678321) perhaps?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/07/2017 12:48 pm
Quote
Blue Origin moves New Shepard from recovery to relaunch with ~$10k in mx costs. Getting very close to rapid repeats. -Bezos #satshow

https://twitter.com/wandrme/status/839106518020665344 (https://twitter.com/wandrme/status/839106518020665344)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: AncientU on 03/07/2017 12:59 pm
Horizontal integration.
Commercial sat delivery.
Big landing ship.

45 tonnes to LEO, 13 to GTO.
(first comment below above tweet.)

Eutelsat first customer...
(second comment below above tweet.)
2021 launch
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Navier–Stokes on 03/07/2017 01:54 pm
Press release from Eutelsat:

Eutelsat signs up for Blue Origin’s New Glenn launcher (http://news.eutelsat.com/pressreleases/eutelsat-signs-up-for-blue-origins-new-glenn-launcher-1845131)
Quote
Paris, Washington D.C. 7 March 2017 – Eutelsat Communications (NYSE Euronext Paris: ETL) today announced at the Satellite 2017 Convention in Washington D.C. the conclusion of a contract with Blue Origin for a launch on the New Glenn rocket that is expected to initiate flights in 2020.

The new partnership with Blue Origin reflects Eutelsat’s longstanding strategy to source launch services from multiple agencies in order to secure access to space and partner with launch agencies that combine the highest levels of performance, flexibility and competitiveness.

The agreement with Blue Origin covers the launch of a geostationary satellite in the 2021-2022 timeframe. The New Glenn launcher will be compatible with virtually all Eutelsat satellites, giving flexibility to allocate the mission 12 months ahead of launch.

Rodolphe Belmer, Eutelsat CEO, commented on the new relationship with Blue Origin: “Blue Origin has been forthcoming with Eutelsat on its strategy and convinced us they have the right mindset to compete in the launch service industry. Their solid engineering approach, and their policy to develop technologies that will form the base of a broad generation of launchers, corresponds to what we expect from our industrial partners. In including New Glenn in our manifest we are pursuing our longstanding strategy of innovation that drives down the cost of access to space and drives up performance. This can only be good news for the profitability and sustainability of our industry.”

“Eutelsat is one of the world’s most experienced and innovative satellite operators, and we are honoured that they chose Blue Origin and our New Glenn orbital launch vehicle,”
said Jeff Bezos, Blue Origin founder. “Eutelsat has launched satellites on many new vehicles and shares both our methodical approach to engineering and our passion for driving down the cost of access to space. Welcome to the launch manifest, Eutelsat, can’t wait to fly together.”
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 03/07/2017 04:05 pm
FWIW, here's the official response (https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/839119280012689409) of the New Glenn unveil from Tory Bruno:

Cosmic Penguin‏ @Cosmic_Penguin
@torybruno Given similar performances, do you see any chances of co-operation of @ulalaunch Vulcan w/ @blueorigin New Glenn beyond the BE-4?

Tory Bruno @torybruno

@Cosmic_Penguin @ulalaunch @blueorigin Yes. I think Jeff and I will have an opportunity to discover more through our  BE4 partnership
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: GWH on 03/07/2017 04:28 pm
FWIW, here's the official response (https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/839119280012689409) of the New Glenn unveil from Tory Bruno:

Cosmic Penguin‏ @Cosmic_Penguin
@torybruno Given similar performances, do you see any chances of co-operation of @ulalaunch Vulcan w/ @blueorigin New Glenn beyond the BE-4?

Tory Bruno @torybruno

@Cosmic_Penguin @ulalaunch @blueorigin Yes. I think Jeff and I will have an opportunity to discover more through our  BE4 partnership

@45 mt to LEO & 1st stage reuse the New Glenn would be ideal for delivery prop to support ACES tugs
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: DOCinCT on 03/07/2017 04:48 pm
@JeffBezos  15m15 minutes ago

 1st BE-4 engine fully assembled. 2nd and 3rd following close behind. #GradatimFerociter

@JeffBezos  11m11 minutes ago

 Here’s one more shot of BE-4 in its transport cradle.
Rumor is that the 3rd person with beard is actually our own Roadie trying to gather L2 level intell.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: dror on 03/07/2017 05:11 pm
Horizontal integration.
Commercial sat delivery.
Big landing ship.

45 tonnes to LEO, 13 to GTO.
(first comment below above tweet.)

Eutelsat first customer...
(second comment below above tweet.)
2021 launch
FWIW, here's the official response (https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/839119280012689409) of the New Glenn unveil from Tory Bruno:

Cosmic Penguin‏ @Cosmic_Penguin
@torybruno Given similar performances, do you see any chances of co-operation of @ulalaunch Vulcan w/ @blueorigin New Glenn beyond the BE-4?

Tory Bruno @torybruno

@Cosmic_Penguin @ulalaunch @blueorigin Yes. I think Jeff and I will have an opportunity to discover more through our  BE4 partnership

@35 mt to LEO & 1st stage reuse the New Glenn would be ideal for delivery prop to support ACES tugs

Which one is it , 35 or 45 ton to LEO ?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: GWH on 03/07/2017 05:18 pm
45... edited.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: mme on 03/07/2017 08:19 pm
Cross-posting as suspect more people follow here, follow-ups in original thread:

Quote
Blue Origin has released a new video promoting the New Glenn rocket. It is like ... whoah.

https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/839105757194960897 (https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/839105757194960897)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BTEhohh6eYk (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BTEhohh6eYk)

It is like... where have I seen this before...
Perhaps in a 1959 Russian Sci-Fi movie?  Or most Heinlein books.  There's a whole South Park episode on how "The Simpsons did it" first. I think we get way too hung up on thinking that ideas are new, or original...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grCad_Dny6A&t=1h6m33s

Go to 1:06:33 if the timestamp doesn't work.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: savuporo on 03/07/2017 08:40 pm
Quote
Blue Origin moves New Shepard from recovery to relaunch with ~$10k in mx costs. Getting very close to rapid repeats. -Bezos #satshow

https://twitter.com/wandrme/status/839106518020665344 (https://twitter.com/wandrme/status/839106518020665344)

Come on hurry up now. When are these rapid repeats happening, in 2 years from now ? Last turnaround time was what, 9 months ?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 03/07/2017 09:14 pm
Do others also think that strong-back (launcher-errector) is relatively thick?

Is the first stage landing on a moving converted oil tanker? ???
I hope this is an error in the simulation. Landing on a moving ship would increase the difficulty of the landing.

Does any payload approach the capability of New Glenn?
I think a single engine BE-4 stage with a Centaur upper stage would much beter match the now foreseen satellites. I like the name Atlas M. Possibly the Boeing-BO XS-1 contender could be this single engine first stage.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: mme on 03/07/2017 10:09 pm
...
Is the first stage landing on a moving converted oil tanker? ???
I hope this is an error in the simulation. Landing on a moving ship would increase the difficulty of the landing.
...

https://twitter.com/WandrMe/status/839110824245473280

 Jeff Bezos narration of video. Confirms ship is moving for landing.

They are using the ship's fin stabilizers to allow landing in rougher seas.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars-J on 03/07/2017 10:10 pm
Do others also think that strong-back (launcher-errector) is relatively thick?

Is the first stage landing on a moving converted oil tanker? ???
I hope this is an error in the simulation. Landing on a moving ship would increase the difficulty of the landing.

I think there is a lot of artistic license in the video - with the exception of the New Glenn rocket itself.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Lar on 03/07/2017 11:00 pm
We have a new space race, folks!!!!

Congrats to Eutelsat for choosing to be launch customer, and to Blue for their audacious plans

Now we get to see if Amazon-Fast-Follower means that SpaceX should worry....

Good news? EVERYBODY wins in this race.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Chasm on 03/08/2017 02:47 am
Do others also think that strong-back (launcher-errector) is relatively thick?

Is the first stage landing on a moving converted oil tanker? ???
I hope this is an error in the simulation. Landing on a moving ship would increase the difficulty of the landing.

I think there is a lot of artistic license in the video - with the exception of the New Glenn rocket itself.

The video was shown at the satellite conference 2017. A short video (https://twitter.com/WandrMe/status/839110824245473280) of Jeff Bezos doing some narration makes the round on twitter.

Moving ship, because it is more stable. (That is also their patent, remember all that controversy.)
There seem to be quite a few design choices to take landing site weather out of the equation. Both the fixed strakes and the moving ship were mentioned.
Certainly not a 1:1 copy pasta job.


The advantage of such a large ship is inertia. It is not going to change speed any time soon. Also don't forget that ships are quite slow.
A container ship or tanker of that size, going full operational speed is what? 20-25kts? The among fastest ones should be the Emma Boston class at 29.2kts, but those are the exeption. Fuel is expensive and shipping rates are only dropping. According to wiki new builds have an operational speed of just 13-18kts. (Hull form affects operational speed and corresponding fuel efficiency. Just dropping speeds helps but is not enough, hull, propeller and to some degree the engine have to be optimized for each other.)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: HMXHMX on 03/08/2017 05:04 am
Do others also think that strong-back (launcher-errector) is relatively thick?

Is the first stage landing on a moving converted oil tanker? ???
I hope this is an error in the simulation. Landing on a moving ship would increase the difficulty of the landing.

I think there is a lot of artistic license in the video - with the exception of the New Glenn rocket itself.

The video was shown at the satellite conference 2017. A short video (https://twitter.com/WandrMe/status/839110824245473280) of Jeff Bezos doing some narration makes the round on twitter.

Moving ship, because it is more stable. (That is also their patent, remember all that controversy.)
There seem to be quite a few design choices to take landing site weather out of the equation. Both the fixed strakes and the moving ship were mentioned.
Certainly not a 1:1 copy pasta job.


The advantage of such a large ship is inertia. It is not going to change speed any time soon. Also don't forget that ships are quite slow.
A container ship or tanker of that size, going full operational speed is what? 20-25kts? The among fastest ones should be the Emma Boston class at 29.2kts, but those are the exeption. Fuel is expensive and shipping rates are only dropping. According to wiki new builds have an operational speed of just 13-18kts. (Hull form affects operational speed and corresponding fuel efficiency. Just dropping speeds helps but is not enough, hull, propeller and to some degree the engine have to be optimized for each other.)

You are correct that being underway is more stable, and launching and/or landing on a vessel that's underway is an old, old idea.  Below, two images from our converted tanker sea-launch study done at Rotary in 1998, and the launch of a Bono VTOL (Ithacus troop transport) from a CVN (about 1965).
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 03/08/2017 05:45 am
Some screen captures. Notice how the umbilicals extend when the strong back leans back.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/08/2017 12:31 pm
Quote
Jeff Bezos‏Verified account @JeffBezos now10 seconds ago

Adding to the #NewGlenn launch manifest. Agreement with #OneWeb for five launches initially. Happy to work with you @Greg_Wyler

https://twitter.com/JeffBezos/status/839468386530824193 (https://twitter.com/JeffBezos/status/839468386530824193)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/08/2017 12:44 pm
No press release on either OneWeb's or Blue Origin's websites, but OneWeb does have the attached customised New Glenn graphic and a headline saying: 'Agreement with Blue Origin starting in 2020 [...]'

Edit: oops, wrong attachment!
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: AncientU on 03/08/2017 01:37 pm
The Race is on!
Two big Arianespace customers... one also SpaceX.
(yeah)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Darkseraph on 03/08/2017 01:58 pm
To have signed two customers already, it must have been offered at a relatively attractive price point for a vehicle of its size and capability.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: sghill on 03/08/2017 02:00 pm
Let's talk about the first stage wings for a moment (not the canards).

Methinks they are going to use the wings to increase surface area, generate a bit of lift for cross-range capability, and eliminate the need for a reentry burn.  Thoughts?

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: rpapo on 03/08/2017 02:08 pm
To have signed two customers already, it must have been offered at a relatively attractive price point for a vehicle of its size and capability.
At this point, Blue Origin does not need to show a profit.  It is not publicly traded, and remains in a cash consuming "startup" mode after sixteen years.  That said, Bezos can do whatever he wants to with his pocket money and doesn't need to answer to anyone about it.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: grakenverb on 03/08/2017 02:19 pm
Do others also think that strong-back (launcher-errector) is relatively thick?

Is the first stage landing on a moving converted oil tanker? ???
I hope this is an error in the simulation. Landing on a moving ship would increase the difficulty of the landing.

I think there is a lot of artistic license in the video - with the exception of the New Glenn rocket itself.

The video was shown at the satellite conference 2017. A short video (https://twitter.com/WandrMe/status/839110824245473280) of Jeff Bezos doing some narration makes the round on twitter.

Moving ship, because it is more stable. (That is also their patent, remember all that controversy.)
There seem to be quite a few design choices to take landing site weather out of the equation. Both the fixed strakes and the moving ship were mentioned.
Certainly not a 1:1 copy pasta job.


The advantage of such a large ship is inertia. It is not going to change speed any time soon. Also don't forget that ships are quite slow.
A container ship or tanker of that size, going full operational speed is what? 20-25kts? The among fastest ones should be the Emma Boston class at 29.2kts, but those are the exeption. Fuel is expensive and shipping rates are only dropping. According to wiki new builds have an operational speed of just 13-18kts. (Hull form affects operational speed and corresponding fuel efficiency. Just dropping speeds helps but is not enough, hull, propeller and to some degree the engine have to be optimized for each other.)

I'm wondering about the safety of the crew who would be required to be aboard a moving ship of that size.  Autonomous ships would fit the bill perhaps.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/transportation/marine/forget-autonomous-cars-autonomous-ships-are-almost-here

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: sghill on 03/08/2017 02:27 pm
I'm wondering about the safety of the crew who would be required to be aboard a moving ship of that size.  Autonomous ships would fit the bill perhaps.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/transportation/marine/forget-autonomous-cars-autonomous-ships-are-almost-here

Just go below decks to an armored bridge.  Heck, we design warships to survive far more damage.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: edkyle99 on 03/08/2017 03:51 pm
Let's talk about the first stage wings for a moment (not the canards).

Methinks they are going to use the wings to increase surface area, generate a bit of lift for cross-range capability, and eliminate the need for a reentry burn.  Thoughts?
I can't figure out why the two "wings" are needed.  They move the CP forward (on a "backward" flying stage returning to land), which should reduce stability.  Maybe they are needed in combination with the canards to achieve control through transonic conditions? 

It seems to me that adding wings is less than ideal, due to added mass, more surface area exposed to reentry heating, etc.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Chasm on 03/08/2017 04:18 pm
Let's talk about the first stage wings for a moment (not the canards).

Methinks they are going to use the wings to increase surface area, generate a bit of lift for cross-range capability, and eliminate the need for a reentry burn.  Thoughts?


I really would like to have the conference recording of Jeffs keynote.
There are only two fixed wings/strakes. According to articles Jeff said that that they increase range and maneuverability while decreasing loads and wind influence for a ballistic reentry.
Sounds like Blue really doesn't want to scrub launches because of landing site conditions. Taking preflight checks of the landing gear and hovering ability instead of hoverslam into account I think that that Blue is much more interested in successful and gentle landings than performance optimization of the first stage.

The configuration also reminds me a bit of the Aerion AS2, the latest and greatest in supersonic passenger vaporware ...eh, product in need of investors. Which in turn is kind of Starfighter like. Stubby wings are en vogue again.



Going back to the environmental study: "After a successful launch the first stage would return to the Earth
for recovery in the Atlantic Ocean approximately 750 nautical miles downrange in the Atlantic Ocean, east
of and well off the Carolina coast, [....]"
There is not much land out there which again validates the use an oceangoing ship instead of a barge.

If you need crew on the ship it should not be too complicated. They needs an protected area and most importantly a lifeboat in a hardened stand instead of out in the open. (The two orange spots at the stern in the render.) Just buy a free fall fireproof lifeboat, they are build to survive evacuation off an oil rig or tanker through a burning oil slick. There is also the option to operate atmosphere independent for a limited time which should cover most of the problems if the landing gets more exciting than planned.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars-J on 03/08/2017 04:20 pm
Let's talk about the first stage wings for a moment (not the canards).

Methinks they are going to use the wings to increase surface area, generate a bit of lift for cross-range capability, and eliminate the need for a reentry burn.  Thoughts?

The "wings" are probably for cross-range, yes... But they will have little or no effect on the need (or not) for a reentry burn. The stage is ballistic and will impact the atmosphere at a pretty steep angle. Wings won't make much difference, the strength of the structure and its heat resistance is more important.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Gliderflyer on 03/08/2017 04:38 pm
The "wings" are probably for cross-range, yes... But they will have little or no effect on the need (or not) for a reentry burn. The stage is ballistic and will impact the atmosphere at a pretty steep angle. Wings won't make much difference, the strength of the structure and its heat resistance is more important.
The wings might actually have a non-trivial effect on reentry. If they are landing 750 miles downrange, and assuming their first stage apogee is similar to the Falcon 9 (~100 miles or so), their trajectory will be much flatter. Increasing the L/D of the stage would allow them to slow down higher up in the atmosphere and reduce the heating rates, in addition to increasing the cross-range capability.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: suncity on 03/08/2017 04:45 pm
Let's talk about the first stage wings for a moment (not the canards).

Methinks they are going to use the wings to increase surface area, generate a bit of lift for cross-range capability, and eliminate the need for a reentry burn.  Thoughts?

The wings make me think about the Soyuz reentry. If they go on a ballistic trajectory, the craft experience very high g-load. If they "fly" by generating lift thanks to their asset, they reduce the g-load significantly (by spending more time in the upper atmosphere, dissipating cinetic energy at a slower pace).

I suspect the wings will be used for the same purpose, to generate lift and "fly" for a while, taking more time to reduce the speed than it would be possible with a ballistic reentry. It make sense if the reentry will be made - as they claim - at higher speed than Falcon 9.   
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars-J on 03/08/2017 04:48 pm
The "wings" are probably for cross-range, yes... But they will have little or no effect on the need (or not) for a reentry burn. The stage is ballistic and will impact the atmosphere at a pretty steep angle. Wings won't make much difference, the strength of the structure and its heat resistance is more important.
The wings might actually have a non-trivial effect on reentry. If they are landing 750 miles downrange, and assuming their first stage apogee is similar to the Falcon 9 (~100 miles or so), their trajectory will be much flatter. Increasing the L/D of the stage would allow them to slow down higher up in the atmosphere and reduce the heating rates, in addition to increasing the cross-range capability.

That's a good point. So this could be a first stage trajectory more similar to Atlas V (burns longer and goes further) rather than F9 (stages pretty early). We'll have to wait and see.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 03/08/2017 05:46 pm
OneWeb has reserved five New Glenn Launches:

https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/839470024012214272

Edit for original source
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/11/2017 05:24 am
Quote
Congratulations @blueorigin New Shepard Team on receiving Goddard Trophy. So well deserved! Bravo! Keep inspiring! #GoddardDinner @ClayMowry

https://twitter.com/spacechelle/status/840408335174246401 (https://twitter.com/spacechelle/status/840408335174246401)

Quote
This is a team award. Individuals don't make great progress in space. It's too hard - @JeffBezos accepts Goddard Trophy for @blueorigin team

https://twitter.com/spacechelle/status/840404350774190082 (https://twitter.com/spacechelle/status/840404350774190082)

Quote
#FridayFunFact - did you know that @JeffBezos 15-year-old son's name is Goddard after Dr. Robert Goddard

#GoddardDinner #SpaceProm

https://twitter.com/spacechelle/status/840403173865074689 (https://twitter.com/spacechelle/status/840403173865074689)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: AncientU on 03/11/2017 12:31 pm
Let's talk about the first stage wings for a moment (not the canards).

Methinks they are going to use the wings to increase surface area, generate a bit of lift for cross-range capability, and eliminate the need for a reentry burn.  Thoughts?

The wings make me think about the Soyuz reentry. If they go on a ballistic trajectory, the craft experience very high g-load. If they "fly" by generating lift thanks to their asset, they reduce the g-load significantly (by spending more time in the upper atmosphere, dissipating cinetic energy at a slower pace).

I suspect the wings will be used for the same purpose, to generate lift and "fly" for a while, taking more time to reduce the speed than it would be possible with a ballistic reentry. It make sense if the reentry will be made - as they claim - at higher speed than Falcon 9.

For the 'wings' to work, wouldn't more of the  stage cylinder be subject to reentry heating?  How much boil-off will that cost compared to a deceleration burn and end-on reentry?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: kevin-rf on 03/11/2017 03:17 pm
The wings might actually have a non-trivial effect on reentry. If they are landing 750 miles downrange, and assuming their first stage apogee is similar to the Falcon 9 (~100 miles or so), their trajectory will be much flatter. Increasing the L/D of the stage would allow them to slow down higher up in the atmosphere and reduce the heating rates, in addition to increasing the cross-range capability.
You know, if your actual primary goal is manned space flight, a flatter, less loft trajectory is a good thing when dealing with launch aborts. Just saying...
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: ZachF on 03/12/2017 06:09 pm
Let's talk about the first stage wings for a moment (not the canards).

Methinks they are going to use the wings to increase surface area, generate a bit of lift for cross-range capability, and eliminate the need for a reentry burn.  Thoughts?

The wings make me think about the Soyuz reentry. If they go on a ballistic trajectory, the craft experience very high g-load. If they "fly" by generating lift thanks to their asset, they reduce the g-load significantly (by spending more time in the upper atmosphere, dissipating cinetic energy at a slower pace).

I suspect the wings will be used for the same purpose, to generate lift and "fly" for a while, taking more time to reduce the speed than it would be possible with a ballistic reentry. It make sense if the reentry will be made - as they claim - at higher speed than Falcon 9.

It would be interesting the see the math on how much these wings are supposed to weigh versus the fuel weight for a boostback burn...
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Dante80 on 03/13/2017 01:18 am
A boostback burn may not even be applicable to the flight profile that this monster of a stage (the F9 S1 looks like a fragile fashion model with anorexia in comparison) is designed for.

We don't know the whole story, the amount of information we have is limited. Nevertheless, the engineers at Blue are pretty smart guys, and those wings are definitely not put there for aesthetic purposes.

Lets see how this unfolds.. :)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: jpo234 on 03/13/2017 08:18 am
If New Glenn will launch before the end of the decade, shouldn't the recovery ship (New Noa (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Noa_%28DD-841%29)? Noa 2?) be somewhere in a ship yard by now?

Is it possible to find it from public records?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/13/2017 12:44 pm
Peter B. de Selding's write-up of Jeff Bezos' talk a week ago:

https://www.spaceintelreport.com/blue-origins-bezos-barnstorming-to-lead-satellite-industry-to-new-equilibrium (https://www.spaceintelreport.com/blue-origins-bezos-barnstorming-to-lead-satellite-industry-to-new-equilibrium)

Explains philosophy of growing up/out from suborbital experience.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: ZachS09 on 03/13/2017 01:15 pm
Remind me if this question was answered before:

What "drone ship" will New Glenn utilize when barging? Obviously not OCISLY, but something else that Blue Origin can use for themselves.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: jpo234 on 03/13/2017 01:26 pm
Remind me if this question was answered before:

What "drone ship" will New Glenn utilize when barging? Obviously not OCISLY, but something else that Blue Origin can use for themselves.

According to a comment by /u/Ivebeenfurthereven (https://www.reddit.com/r/BlueOrigin/comments/5y0b1a/introducing_new_glenn_blue_orgin/dem80oh/) :
Quote from: /u/Ivebeenfurthereven
As a naval architect I note with interest that their 'barge' looks like a converted VLCC (very large crude carrier - an oil supertanker).



Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Navier–Stokes on 03/13/2017 01:46 pm
Peter B. de Selding's write-up of Jeff Bezos' talk a week ago:

https://www.spaceintelreport.com/blue-origins-bezos-barnstorming-to-lead-satellite-industry-to-new-equilibrium (https://www.spaceintelreport.com/blue-origins-bezos-barnstorming-to-lead-satellite-industry-to-new-equilibrium)

Explains philosophy of growing up/out from suborbital experience.

Confirmed that New Glenn will not have a re-entry burn:
Quote
It’s designed so that we don't need to do an in-space deceleration burn, which saves on propellant. it’s a performance and efficiency improvement, not having to do that in space deceleration burn.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 03/13/2017 02:40 pm
Remind me if this question was answered before:

What "drone ship" will New Glenn utilize when barging? Obviously not OCISLY, but something else that Blue Origin can use for themselves.

According to a comment by /u/Ivebeenfurthereven (https://www.reddit.com/r/BlueOrigin/comments/5y0b1a/introducing_new_glenn_blue_orgin/dem80oh/) :
Quote from: /u/Ivebeenfurthereven
As a naval architect I note with interest that their 'barge' looks like a converted VLCC (very large crude carrier - an oil supertanker).


It would have to be compatible with Port Canaveral.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: ZachF on 03/13/2017 02:47 pm
Remind me if this question was answered before:

What "drone ship" will New Glenn utilize when barging? Obviously not OCISLY, but something else that Blue Origin can use for themselves.

According to a comment by /u/Ivebeenfurthereven (https://www.reddit.com/r/BlueOrigin/comments/5y0b1a/introducing_new_glenn_blue_orgin/dem80oh/) :
Quote from: /u/Ivebeenfurthereven
As a naval architect I note with interest that their 'barge' looks like a converted VLCC (very large crude carrier - an oil supertanker).

looks more like a converted container ship IMHO.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: jpo234 on 03/13/2017 03:33 pm
Remind me if this question was answered before:

What "drone ship" will New Glenn utilize when barging? Obviously not OCISLY, but something else that Blue Origin can use for themselves.

According to a comment by /u/Ivebeenfurthereven (https://www.reddit.com/r/BlueOrigin/comments/5y0b1a/introducing_new_glenn_blue_orgin/dem80oh/) :
Quote from: /u/Ivebeenfurthereven
As a naval architect I note with interest that their 'barge' looks like a converted VLCC (very large crude carrier - an oil supertanker).

looks more like a converted container ship IMHO.

Don't think so. If you do a Google image search for ULCS (Ultra Large Container Ship) you will see, that they have the bridge structure in the middle of the ship:
(http://www.seanews.com.tr/images/haberler/2011_06/63566/carousel.jpg)

(http://cdn.webtekno.com/custom/images/Samsung%2021%2C100%20TEU%20container%20ship%20render.jpg)

Crude Carriers have the bridge located at the end of the deck, which is the location on Blue's rocket carrier:

(http://img.nauticexpo.com/images_ne/photo-mg/36593-3333129.jpg)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Stan-1967 on 03/13/2017 03:55 pm
The Blue Origin approach to landing on a moving ship is very interesting to compare against not only SpaceX, but also other discussions on this site regarding precision landing on Mars.   The questions surrounding what instrumentation is needed for precision, as well as the need or reliance on communication between the stage and the landing site is very different under the Blue Origin approach.

The most simple precision approach is what SpaceX is currently doing.   GPS provides all the information needed to land the stage.   Spatial coordinates are loaded prior to launch, and the stage finds the control solution given the available inputs.  The time dimension is useful for calculations of velocity & acceleration, as well as projecting forward in time to converge on the landing solution.  However the time interval from boostback to landing does not matter.

In contrast, Blue Origin seems to have a time dimension that is just as critical as the spatial coordinates. 
Consider the different possibilities:

1.  Mimic the SpaceX approach to deliver the stage to a defined spatial coordinate at very precise time.   To do this you must also maneuver the landing ship to the exact coordinates at the exact time the rocket stage arrives.  This has the added dimension of time added to the SpaceX approach.   Doable?  probably, but it seems like it severely constrains the set of computed solutions available for a successful landing

2.  Depart from fixed spatial coordinates and define the landing zone on a frame of reference independent from the surface of the earth.  This means that the solution has a non zero velocity component relative to the earths surface, but the landing pads relative velocity will be zero.  This seems trivial to a computational algorithm.  The ship needs as good precision as the rocket.   It will need to control its position along a vector in synchronization with the landing rocket.

3.  Guide the rocket stage to a terminal window where onboard sensors acquire the landing zone and compute the solution.  This could take the form of sensors contained solely in the rocket, or it could share information by placing navigational aids on the ship that the returning rocket can use for guidance.

Whatever the solution ends up being, I see that Blue Origin has added manageable complexity in return for some perceived operational benefits.    The SpaceX approach looks like a JDAM smart bomb, and Blue Origin may end up looking like the Chinese DF-21
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 03/13/2017 04:01 pm

Don't think so. If you do a Google image search for ULCS (Ultra Large Container Ship) you will see, that they have the bridge structure in the middle of the ship:

Crude Carriers have the bridge located at the end of the deck, which is the location on Blue's rocket carrier:


It can't be either VL or UL.  The port is not sized for them.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: envy887 on 03/13/2017 04:13 pm

Don't think so. If you do a Google image search for ULCS (Ultra Large Container Ship) you will see, that they have the bridge structure in the middle of the ship:

Crude Carriers have the bridge located at the end of the deck, which is the location on Blue's rocket carrier:


It can't be either VL or UL.  The port is not sized for them.

And the ship in the rendering is only about 200m long, based on a comparison to the booster diameter.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Stan-1967 on 03/13/2017 04:23 pm

Don't think so. If you do a Google image search for ULCS (Ultra Large Container Ship) you will see, that they have the bridge structure in the middle of the ship:

Crude Carriers have the bridge located at the end of the deck, which is the location on Blue's rocket carrier:


It can't be either VL or UL.  The port is not sized for them.

And the ship in the rendering is only about 200m long, based on a comparison to the booster diameter.

What is the specific size limitation?  The cruise ships departing some of the Port Canaveral facilities are around 800-1110 ft long. ( from a quick search of Disney's ships)  Is it a problem of their draft, length, or no infrastructure to support them?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 03/13/2017 04:39 pm
ULCC example
Length:   380 m (1,246 ft 9 in)
Beam:   68 m (223 ft 1 in)
Draught:   24.5 m (80 ft 5 in)

VLCS example
Length:   400 m (1,312 ft)
Beam:   59 m (194 ft)
Draft:   16 m (52 ft)

Oasis of the Seas
Length:   361.6 m (1,186.5 ft)
Beam:   47 m (154 ft) waterline  60.5 m (198 ft) max beam
Draught:   9.322 m (30.6 ft

The port is dredge to 41- 44 ft
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/13/2017 04:43 pm
ULCC example
Length:380 m (1,246 ft 9 in)
Beam:68 m (223 ft 1 in)
Draught:24.5 m (80 ft 5 in)

VLCS example
Length:400 m (1,312 ft)
Beam:59 m (194 ft)
Draft:16 m (52 ft)

Oasis of the Seas
Length:361.6 m (1,186.5 ft)
Beam:47 m (154 ft) waterline  60.5 m (198 ft) max beam
Draught:9.322 m (30.6 ft

The port is dredge to 41- 44 ft
Draft shouldn't be issue as ship is empty.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: jpo234 on 03/13/2017 04:48 pm
It can't be either VL or UL.  The port is not sized for them.

I won't argue. I just wanted to point out that the basic layout of the Blue Origin rocket carrier seems indeed much closer to a crude carrier than to a container ship.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: HMXHMX on 03/13/2017 05:02 pm
It can't be either VL or UL.  The port is not sized for them.

I won't argue. I just wanted to point out that the basic layout of the Blue Origin rocket carrier seems indeed much closer to a crude carrier than to a container ship.

Scaling the landing vessel from the New Glenn diameter, it appears to be Panamax class, with a beam about 100 ft., the same class as we used in the Rotary Rocket landing ship layout. These vessels are dirt cheap and easily modified.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Chasm on 03/13/2017 06:02 pm
The big question is how wide of a landing site do they need.
After a quick look at the video and going with a 200m ship that landing pad is only ~40m wide compared to the ~50m of the SpaceX barges.

The ship itself seems to be ~30m wide, Panamax sounds right. Why not keep the option to add an west coast launch site if there is a market. With the move to post-panamax many of them are on the market and the added width is no problem.

My guess would be a bulk carrier. They tend have a similar layout (aft bridge), are build for deck cargo, and there is much less stress with oil residues during the conversion. "Just" add the landing deck.

Long term I wonder if Blue will try to add cranes to the ship. The ability to lower the stage should help quite a bit. Self unloading in port too.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Kabloona on 03/13/2017 06:15 pm
The big question is how wide of a landing site do they need.
After a quick look at the video and going with a 200m ship that landing pad is only ~40m wide compared to the ~50m of the SpaceX barges.

The ship itself seems to be ~30m wide, Panamax sounds right. Why not keep the option to add an west coast launch site if there is a market. With the move to post-panamax many of them are on the market and the added width is no problem.

My guess would be a bulk carrier. They tend have a similar layout (aft bridge), are build for deck cargo, and there is much less stress with oil residues during the conversion. "Just" add the landing deck.

The bulk carrier sounds like a good guess. If the previous estimate of 200m ship length based on the rendering is correct, that would be a Supramax class according to the following site, ie one class below Panamax.

http://maritime-connector.com/bulk-carrier/

For comparison, here is a Supramax with dimensions close to those derived above from the rendering:

https://www.griegstar.com/vessels/bulk-carriers/new-type/

LOA: 189 m
Beam: 32 m
Draft: 13 m
Max speed at full load: 14 kts

When empty, even with a landing deck built on top, the draft would be well under 13 m and easily accommodated at Port Canaveral.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Welsh Dragon on 03/13/2017 06:27 pm
ULCC example
Length:380 m (1,246 ft 9 in)
Beam:68 m (223 ft 1 in)
Draught:24.5 m (80 ft 5 in)

VLCS example
Length:400 m (1,312 ft)
Beam:59 m (194 ft)
Draft:16 m (52 ft)

Oasis of the Seas
Length:361.6 m (1,186.5 ft)
Beam:47 m (154 ft) waterline  60.5 m (198 ft) max beam
Draught:9.322 m (30.6 ft

The port is dredge to 41- 44 ft
Draft shouldn't be issue as ship is empty.
Wouldn't you want to ballast it down with water for stability? Guess you could de-ballast it when entering port.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: catdlr on 03/13/2017 08:22 pm
I've ask the moderator to take all these Blue Origin recovery ship posts above and creat a new thread on this topic.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 03/14/2017 08:45 am
It can't be either VL or UL.  The port is not sized for them.

Maybe it doesn't have to be. I thought the plan was to transfer the stage to another ship which then takes it to Port Canaveral. The landing ship can dock at another port.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: cscott on 03/14/2017 12:30 pm
It can't be either VL or UL.  The port is not sized for them.

Maybe it doesn't have to be. I thought the plan was to transfer the stage to another ship which then takes it to Port Canaveral. The landing ship can dock at another port.
That's certainly how the patent application reads.  But then you'd require two separate dock facilities.  As we've seen with Go Searcher, Go Quest, and the ASDSes, it's very convenient to have a "home port" where the whole fleet can tie up together, transfer crew between them, etc.  So while it's *possible* to have separate ports for the separate vessels, I think some of the other ideas on this thread are more likely (unloading the landing ship to reduce draft, using smaller Panamax-ish class vessel for landing, etc), even if in practice it was the smaller vessel more often in port.

Some of this goes back to development methodology. Is Blue going to pursue incremental development---first the landing ship, then later add a carrier shuttle, etc---or is this the vehicle when Blue goes all in at once and implements the full scheme described in Bezos' patent?  He's got the money to do it, certainly.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: wannamoonbase on 03/14/2017 07:41 pm
It can't be either VL or UL.  The port is not sized for them.

Maybe it doesn't have to be. I thought the plan was to transfer the stage to another ship which then takes it to Port Canaveral. The landing ship can dock at another port.

Handling a booster stage at sea could make for some interesting video.

If they were transferring the stage maybe they can rotate it horizontal at sea and roll it straight off once in port.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 03/14/2017 07:58 pm
I thought the plan was to transfer the stage to another ship which then takes it to Port Canaveral.

That's a big structure to be moving between vessels on a constantly moving sea.  Do we know if anything like that has been done before on a regular basis?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: JazzFan on 03/14/2017 11:44 pm
I thought the plan was to transfer the stage to another ship which then takes it to Port Canaveral.

That's a big structure to be moving between vessels on a constantly moving sea.  Do we know if anything like that has been done before on a regular basis?

I doubt it since most operations of that scope and scale are deferred until ships return to port.  There are not many operations that would require an attempt of this nature from a risk factor.  It's not just a matter if it has ever been done before, but if it is a matter of routine practice.  Low sea states are not like working on land and the normally calculated but still large concerns of moving large objects.  High sea states means that you cease operations and lose the cargo and risk damage to the landing craft which is still preferable to loss of life.  Blue Origin should be seeking a process that meets their business need of recovery and not a one off situation.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: spacenut on 03/15/2017 12:56 am
I know BO can get the booster back to Port Canaveral.  However, the rocket is what 6-7 meters in diameter.  SpaceX can truck theirs back to the launch pad.  Howe will BO get their large rocket back to the pad?  Barge back to the dock at the VAB?  Then somehow getting it back to their launch pad.  I can see why they wanted 39a.  Just wondering how they will get it from landing ship to launch pad? 
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: old_sellsword on 03/15/2017 01:00 am
I know BO can get the booster back to Port Canaveral.  However, the rocket is what 6-7 meters in diameter.  SpaceX can truck theirs back to the launch pad.  Howe will BO get their large rocket back to the pad?  Barge back to the dock at the VAB?  Then somehow getting it back to their launch pad.  I can see why they wanted 39a.  Just wondering how they will get it from landing ship to launch pad?

By road apparently. The attached image is from their environmental assessment [PDF]. (http://www.patrick.af.mil/Portals/14/documents/Blue_Origin_EA_Draft_Final_10_19_16.pdf)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 03/15/2017 01:36 am
Read the BO patents and believe that the expedited return via faster, smaller ship ... is meant to be an optimization of down range recovery, to buttress claims for the benefit of the novelty of the invention.

In application to an actual launch system as deployed/operated, likely its meant late in the growth of the business, when the flight rate would be limited by travel time of the larger ship. At that point, handling gear appropriate for an automated hand-off, even in high sea state, might be part of an "all weather" launch system.

And, in that case, the lesser draft of a larger vessel might be a limiting factor on earlier use. Perhaps requiring port access for a tanker or containerized cargo or ... aircraft carrier.

Keep in mind that patents come long before operational reality sets in. It would make sense that initial NG vehicle operations mimic what is seen with NS, possibly landing at LZ-1. Then perhaps also to a down range barge. And once they gain some successful flights/landings/missions ... they may revise recovery considerably.

Perhaps they might not need as large a vessel. Perhaps they find that greater vessel range and speed also becomes necessary for desired operations.

Oh, and yes while Bezos has the capital to do things, please note how few NS boosters have been flow and lost. Compared to SX. This is a very compulsive organization that does not waste much, unlike profligate spending usually associated with a billionaire.

What I'm watching instead is the progression of BO's businesses - NS space tourism joy rides, BE-3/4 engines, and NG satellite payloads to GTO. His capital costs are high, due to the long business cycle to revenue recognition. And growing still longer as more businesses get announced but revenues from the earlier ones don't seem to arrive.

The concern on the tourism front might be - does suborbital not develop because it gets undercut by orbital? Orbital undercut by lunar? That perhaps some of these businesses don't go to fruition but instead get cannibalized by others. Which in and of itself is not altogether of concern fiscally, but does concern as to the tactical execution of a businessman, who is supposed to time entry into markets and anticipate needs many years in advance.

It could look like a business that is constantly being outmaneuvered in the market, and having to play "catch up" at the cost of a clear focus on objectives. Which is disastrous when you have long lead time items, like just about everything in space. Including large recovery vessels.

add:
Also, having money means you can do things. But even with funding large numbers of things, that doesn't mean you can coherently coordinate quickly enough to get useful things e.g. you can't take nine women and have a baby in a month.

He really can't buy time here.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: RonM on 03/15/2017 01:43 am
I thought the plan was to transfer the stage to another ship which then takes it to Port Canaveral.

That's a big structure to be moving between vessels on a constantly moving sea.  Do we know if anything like that has been done before on a regular basis?

Offshore oil production platforms are assembled in two major components. Once the jacket is in position, a crane is used to put the deck in place. These things are far more massive than an empty first stage.

The larger the ship, the more stable it would be. However, if you have to wait around for calm seas, it would probably be better just to use one ship for landing and transporting back to port.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/15/2017 01:54 am
SpaceX hasn't lost many test boosters. The closest analogues were Grasshopper & F9Rdev1. Grasshopper flew 8 times before retirement. f9Rdev1 flew 5 times before FTS-triggered explosion similar to that one NS predecessor vehicle.

New Shepard was lost on its first return from flight. The predecessor vehicle (also called New Shepard? Can't remember) was lost during ascent when it veered off course and was terminated like F9dev1.

So as far as dedicated test missions, SpaceX and Blue Origin have a very similar record. It's just that SpaceX has done a bunch of tests after an operational mission.

It's true that Blue Origin hasn't been spending much and generally has been very careful, but I'd argue they still are effectively profligate spending since they've been almost entirely undriven by customer needs until they started getting money for BE-3 and their capsule from NASA and then BE-4 from ULA. Blue Origin started before SpaceX and has always had the benefit of more independent funding, but their slow progress so far is disappointing. I think that is changing now that they'll actually have to compete (and notice they're late with BE-4, which is providing AJR an opening).

I think long-term Blue Origin will succeed because Bezos is very rich and they're taking a good technical approach.
Title: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: old_sellsword on 03/15/2017 02:08 am
...

The predecessor vehicle (also called New Shepard? Can't remember) was lost during ascent when it veered off course and was terminated like F9dev1.

...

I believe you're referring to PM-2 Flight 2.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/15/2017 06:49 am
The concern on the tourism front might be - does suborbital not develop because it gets undercut by orbital? Orbital undercut by lunar? That perhaps some of these businesses don't go to fruition but instead get cannibalized by others.

No I don't think so. Currently there are two orders of magnitude difference in price between suborbital and orbital and likely another order of magnitude again for lunar. Prices may drop but I expect order of magnitude differences to remain for many years to come. So they are very different market segments.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/15/2017 12:56 pm
Blue Origin aiming for first people flights within a year:

http://www.space.com/36074-blue-origin-crewed-flights-next-year.html (http://www.space.com/36074-blue-origin-crewed-flights-next-year.html)

Quote
We're trying to get to our first human flights within the next year. That's a laser focus for the team right now
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: rsdavis9 on 03/15/2017 03:19 pm
I tend to agree with the above post that they do have a narrowing window for suborbital tourist hops. If NA or ITS with full recovery get off the ground orbital flight is going to get cheap fast. So what is that 4-8 years?
I am right in remembering NG is only first stage reuse?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars-J on 03/15/2017 03:29 pm
Blue Origin aiming for first people flights within a year:

http://www.space.com/36074-blue-origin-crewed-flights-next-year.html (http://www.space.com/36074-blue-origin-crewed-flights-next-year.html)

Quote
We're trying to get to our first human flights within the next year. That's a laser focus for the team right now

Then we aren't they flying NS more? Surely they need to build up a pretty decent flight history before they start selling tickets?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: launchwatcher on 03/15/2017 03:37 pm
Offshore oil production platforms are assembled in two major components. Once the jacket is in position, a crane is used to put the deck in place. These things are far more massive than an empty first stage.

The larger the ship, the more stable it would be. However, if you have to wait around for calm seas, it would probably be better just to use one ship for landing and transporting back to port.
There are (human-rated!) actively stabilized platforms available (developed for North Sea offshore oil/gas/wind installations) that can compensate for ship-to-ship relative motion.   

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVonK9utYSc

There are bigger versions of this sort of system available for cranes.   Won't allow operation in all sea conditions but it could significantly expand what counts as "calm enough".    Of course it's unclear whether this would actually lead to any cost savings.   
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/15/2017 04:41 pm
I tend to agree with the above post that they do have a narrowing window for suborbital tourist hops. If NA or ITS with full recovery get off the ground orbital flight is going to get cheap fast. So what is that 4-8 years?
I am right in remembering NG is only first stage reuse?
The technology that makes orbital flights <$1M will make suborbital <$50k. Price difference will always be there.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: rsdavis9 on 03/15/2017 05:18 pm
I tend to agree with the above post that they do have a narrowing window for suborbital tourist hops. If NA or ITS with full recovery get off the ground orbital flight is going to get cheap fast. So what is that 4-8 years?
I am right in remembering NG is only first stage reuse?
The technology that makes orbital flights <$1M will make suborbital <$50k. Price difference will always be there.

Yea but being a spacenut I don't think I would spring for the suborbital. What 5 minutes of weightlessness versus days or weeks.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/15/2017 06:13 pm
A lot more people can afford suborbital who can't afford orbital. Ok so you might not think a brief orbital flight is worth it, but my guess is that there will be a lot of other people who do.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Navier–Stokes on 03/20/2017 06:28 pm
Relevant quote from Chris Gebhardt's latest article:
Quote from: https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/03/air-force-reveals-48-launches-year-cape/
“Pad 36 is being operated by Blue Origin,” notes Brig. Gen. Monteith. “They have started horizontal construction.  We hope they’ll be starting vertical construction later this year.

It might be time to start a pad 36 thread to track the construction as it progresses.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: 2552 on 03/22/2017 07:33 pm
https://twitter.com/RSgroshn/status/844596259776278529

Slide from Blue Origin presentation at SM2017 (original resolution (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C7ib0KTXUAADJYk.jpg:orig)), mentions New Glenn will have "initially expendable upper stages." Seems Blue plans to make New Glenn fully reusable at some point.

Original post (https://www.reddit.com/r/BlueOrigin/comments/60wh4i/blue_origin_presentation_slide_mentions_initially/) on /r/BlueOrigin.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: matthewkantar on 03/22/2017 08:05 pm
https://twitter.com/RSgroshn/status/844596259776278529

Slide from Blue Origin presentation at SM2017 (original resolution (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C7ib0KTXUAADJYk.jpg:orig)), mentions New Glenn will have "initially expendable upper stages." Seems Blue plans to make New Glenn fully reusable at some point.

Original post (https://www.reddit.com/r/BlueOrigin/comments/60wh4i/blue_origin_presentation_slide_mentions_initially/) on /r/BlueOrigin.

The size of the first stage, combined with the fact they plan to build a bigger one some day, has led me to believe since the announcement of New Glenn that an reusable upper stage/fairing was in the works.

Matthew
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: meekGee on 03/23/2017 02:47 am
https://twitter.com/RSgroshn/status/844596259776278529

Slide from Blue Origin presentation at SM2017 (original resolution (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C7ib0KTXUAADJYk.jpg:orig)), mentions New Glenn will have "initially expendable upper stages." Seems Blue plans to make New Glenn fully reusable at some point.

Original post (https://www.reddit.com/r/BlueOrigin/comments/60wh4i/blue_origin_presentation_slide_mentions_initially/) on /r/BlueOrigin.

The size of the first stage, combined with the fact they plan to build a bigger one some day, has led me to believe since the announcement of New Glenn that an reusable upper stage/fairing was in the works.

Matthew

Agreed.  For a new rocket, it shouldn't cost more to make it bigger, and have margin for full re-use - which is what they've done. 
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Navier–Stokes on 03/29/2017 01:09 pm
Quote from: Blue Origin Crew Capsule sneak peek
Our New Shepard flight test program is focused on demonstrating the performance and robustness of the system. In parallel, we’ve been designing the capsule interior with an eye toward precision engineering, safety, and comfort. Here’s a sneak peek.

If you happen to be attending the 33rd Space Symposium in Colorado Springs April 3-6, come see this for yourself. The high-fidelity capsule mockup will be on display alongside the New Shepard reusable booster that flew to space and returned five times.

Jeff Bezos

P.S. If you were forwarded this e-mail, you can receive it directly by signing up for updates at blueorigin.com/interested (http://blueorigin.com/interested)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: EgorBotts on 03/29/2017 01:32 pm
Well I'll go and say it, I find this capsule interior absolutely stunning. The lack of flights lately bothers me, but the hype is growing for sure.

Still lacks prices and firm dates, but we got used to it, I guess.

I'm eager to see pictures of the exhibition model.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/29/2017 01:36 pm
Great pictures. I like the screens by each window so passengers can have other views.

Why the round unit in the centre of the cabin though?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Scylla on 03/29/2017 01:43 pm
Great pictures. I like the screens by each window so passengers can have other views.

Why the round unit in the centre of the cabin though?

I believe thats the abort engine.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Semmel on 03/29/2017 02:00 pm
A year ago, I would not have thought I would say this.. but the information flow by BO is quite good for us Space enthusiasts. I wish more companies would be similarly informative every so often. This news letter type thing is quite well done. Thank you Blue Origin!
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/29/2017 06:47 pm
https://twitter.com/RSgroshn/status/844596259776278529

Slide from Blue Origin presentation at SM2017 (original resolution (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C7ib0KTXUAADJYk.jpg:orig)), mentions New Glenn will have "initially expendable upper stages." Seems Blue plans to make New Glenn fully reusable at some point.

Original post (https://www.reddit.com/r/BlueOrigin/comments/60wh4i/blue_origin_presentation_slide_mentions_initially/) on /r/BlueOrigin.

The size of the first stage, combined with the fact they plan to build a bigger one some day, has led me to believe since the announcement of New Glenn that an reusable upper stage/fairing was in the works.

Matthew
A reuseable 7m US with cargo haul would easily be able to hold cargo/habit 5m+ modules. Give it 2day endurance it could transport them too and from a space station, removing need for separate cargo capsule. With satellites there is no need for fairing, plus satellite  can be returned before deployment if any problems detected. Not sure if it would be capable of GTO missions with cargo hold.

A tanker version would as be possibility, 30t?.

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/29/2017 09:05 pm
Blue Origin won the Collier trophy!

Quote
Blue Origin wins the 2016 National Aeronautic Association’s Collier Trophy for its work on New Shepard: bit.ly/2nB6tEu

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/847191610391703553 (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/847191610391703553)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/29/2017 10:45 pm
Quote
NAA is proud to announce that Blue Origin New Shepard has been named as the recipient of the 2016 Collier Trophy

https://twitter.com/natlaero/status/847178033425498112 (https://twitter.com/natlaero/status/847178033425498112)

Quote
Impossible to express how personally meaningful this is. A dream. Huge kudos to @BlueOrigin team that worked so hard naa.aero/userfiles/file…

https://twitter.com/jeffbezos/status/847217297257185281 (https://twitter.com/jeffbezos/status/847217297257185281)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Navier–Stokes on 03/29/2017 11:48 pm
Quote
A dream indeed @JeffBezos – we’re smiling at Blue today and very proud to receive the @NatlAero #CollierTrophy for #NewShepard

https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/847221444606021632
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Navier–Stokes on 03/29/2017 11:51 pm
A couple of Blue Origin related slides in Kathryn Lueders's Commercial Crew Program Status presentation during the NASA Advisory Council HEO Committee meeting.

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/nac_ccp_status_march_28_20171.pdf

Edit: rotated attachments.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: high road on 03/30/2017 04:47 pm
Quote from: Blue Origin Crew Capsule sneak peek
Our New Shepard flight test program is focused on demonstrating the performance and robustness of the system. In parallel, we’ve been designing the capsule interior with an eye toward precision engineering, safety, and comfort. Here’s a sneak peek.

If you happen to be attending the 33rd Space Symposium in Colorado Springs April 3-6, come see this for yourself. The high-fidelity capsule mockup will be on display alongside the New Shepard reusable booster that flew to space and returned five times.

Jeff Bezos

P.S. If you were forwarded this e-mail, you can receive it directly by signing up for updates at blueorigin.com/interested (http://blueorigin.com/interested)

Love the design. Although that third picture had me wondering how fast they would get back in their seats, so they don't injure themselves on the way down.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 04/01/2017 03:05 pm
Though this is a demo (sort of) for the Amazon delivery drone concept, there's a nice "flight proven" New Shepard in the background (along with a mech suit that recently Bezos ran.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YoBqlltIzM&feature=youtu.be
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: savuporo on 04/01/2017 06:01 pm
..The lack of flights lately bothers me, but the hype is growing for sure. ..

So what happened ? 6 Months later ..

http://spacenews.com/blue-origin-on-track-for-human-suborbital-test-flights-in-2017/
October 14, 2016

Quote
That test was a key milestone for the company’s plans to fly humans on New Shepard for tourism or research missions. “This test got us one step closer to human spaceflight,” he added. “We’re still on track to flying people, our test astronauts, by the end of 2017, and then starting commercial flights in 2018.”

Quote
... New vehicles are being built at the company’s headquarters near Seattle, and Meyerson said after his speech that flight tests of those vehicles should begin within a few months.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/03/2017 06:12 am
Quote
Greetings from Colorado Springs. The trees sure look weird here.

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/848629946243325957 (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/848629946243325957)

Quote
As darkness falls, the @blueorigin exhibit takes shape at #33SS

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/848715342755057664 (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/848715342755057664)

Edit to add:

Quote
.@blueorigin crew working late getting capsule and booster display ready for #SpaceSymposium

https://twitter.com/berger_sn/status/848726500274708481 (https://twitter.com/berger_sn/status/848726500274708481)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/03/2017 06:18 pm
Posting this as it's a great close-up but mainly because it made me laugh :)

Quote
Overheard at #33SS: "Is this the one that landed on the barge?"

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/848959587491487745 (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/848959587491487745)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Chasm on 04/04/2017 03:12 pm
..The lack of flights lately bothers me, but the hype is growing for sure. ..

So what happened ? 6 Months later ..

As far as the public knows not much is happening. Quite disappointing since more launchers were supposed to be in the build pipeline and the new capsule hardware was part of all Kent tour images and is now part of the NS exhibition.


There could be a few causes.
Regulatory issues. As posted upthread  their permit is running out and they need it extended or replaced. It not clear to me under which rules the commercial flight will take place, that's a political process and takes whatever time it takes. Locking the requirements down before more hardware is build seems to be a good idea.

Other projects. Did they move key staff to other projects or up the food chain? Some of the BE-3 engine guys left and opened their own company last year. [NSF thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41331.0)] Blue recently added a lot of staff and are still doing so. Bringing new people up to speed always takes time. Increasing staff by an order of magnitude means that the whole company gets restructured at the same time, weather they want to or not.

Priorities. Delivering BE-4 should be high in the list, closely followed by building the Florida factory and pad. Then there will be another staff shuffle or expansion. The first part of the NS test program ended well with the launch escape test. I doubt that there is much pressure from the top to start flying again right now. That will change once BE-4 has ticked the hot fire box and the publicly announced manned launch dates come closer.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: GWH on 04/04/2017 10:02 pm
Posting this as it's a great close-up but mainly because it made me laugh :)

Quote
Overheard at #33SS: "Is this the one that landed on the barge?"

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/848959587491487745 (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/848959587491487745)

This stage set up really looks like a proper place to announce and show off a BE-4 hot fire  ;)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/05/2017 01:55 pm
Quote
Phillip Swarts‏ @PFSwarts

New space appears to continue its aversion to media. @blueorigin event is first I've been refused entry to at #SpaceSymposium.

https://twitter.com/PFSwarts/status/849616264574242816 (https://twitter.com/PFSwarts/status/849616264574242816)

Hmm, why exclude a SpaceNews reporter? Is the event customer focussed or something?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Chasm on 04/05/2017 02:34 pm
Searching the agenda (https://www.spacesymposium.org/agenda/expanded) for the 33rd space symposium agenda I can only find one BlueOrigin event that fits the bill.
Satellite Forum Breakfast - By Invitation Only
hosted by Robert Meyerson, co-sponsored by BlueOrigin

There are two other events with Robert Meyerson as mentor and panelist.
New Generation Space Leaders: Speed Mentoring. With 20 mentors on Monday
Panel: Heavy Lift - Creating Opportunities for Deep Space Exploration. Part of the Symposium track today.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Navier–Stokes on 04/05/2017 08:24 pm
A very nice look inside the New Shepard crew capsule mock-up courtesy of /u/mw3haha on the Blue Origin subreddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/BlueOrigin/comments/63iwcp/capsule_mockup_presentation/).

https://youtu.be/GJjk5KuyHpo
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Navier–Stokes on 04/05/2017 09:59 pm
Quote from: https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/849737035271331840
Jeff Bezos appears in front of Blue Origin’s New Shepard at #33ss
Quote from: https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/849737712559169536
Bezos: we’ll put people on New Shepard when it’s ready and not a second sooner. #33SS
Quote from: https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/849739142519029760
Bezos: still hoping to fly people on New Shepard in 2018. #33ss
Quote from: https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/849740836086706176
Bezos: don’t know what ticket price will be yet. Have time, since not ready to start selling tickets for a while. #33SS
Quote from: https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/849741701791064066
Bezos: it would be interesting to put a small second stage on New Shepard and use it as a smallsat launcher. #33SS
Quote from: https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/849742099805343753
Bezos: current business model for Blue Origin is I sell $1B a year in Amazon stock and invest it in the company.
Quote from: https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/849742443343904768
Bezos: I estimate it’ll cost $2.5b to develop New Glenn orbital launcher. #33SS

Edit:
Clarification from another source that the 2018 date for flying people on New Shepard may be in reference to commercial passengers:
Quote from: https://twitter.com/tanyaofmars/status/849739735933353984
Bezos: We could see commercial passengers in 2018. #SpaceSymposium #33SS
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: HMXHMX on 04/05/2017 10:05 pm
Does anyone beside me think that the cover of the escape motor looks like a gigantic Alexa?

"Alexa, please abort!"
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/05/2017 10:33 pm
Some other tweets on Jeff Bezos' remarks:

Quote
It's a mistake to rush to make some deadline when you're talking about flying people into space - @JeffBezos @blueorigin #SpaceSymposium
https://twitter.com/spacechelle/status/849737872257232901 (https://twitter.com/spacechelle/status/849737872257232901)

Quote
Expect only a day of training for passengers. Have designed the system to facilitate this. - @JeffBezos @blueorigin #SpaceSymposium
https://twitter.com/spacechelle/status/849738452748861440 (https://twitter.com/spacechelle/status/849738452748861440)

Quote
Will test flights happen before end of year? Vehicle is human rated & we will put humans on it when we're happy but not likely 2017
https://twitter.com/spacechelle/status/849739722981343232 (https://twitter.com/spacechelle/status/849739722981343232)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/05/2017 10:35 pm
Quote
.@JeffBezos press conference video on @blueorigin from 2017 Space Symposium via @geekwire #33SS #SpaceSymposium https://www.facebook.com/geekwire/videos/1498700776820330

https://twitter.com/ac_charania/status/849750680684249092 (https://twitter.com/ac_charania/status/849750680684249092)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Navier–Stokes on 04/05/2017 11:35 pm
Some paraphrasing from the full video:

Bezos: Hopeful to finish test program and start selling tickets in 2018.

Bezos: I don't think we'll put Blue Origin test astronauts on New Shepard will in 2017, though it could be.

Bezos: I still think we can do commercial, paying passengers in 2018.

Bezos: I think it is it very important Blue Origin stand on its own feet and become a profitable, sustainable enterprise.

Bezos: Current plan is to board New Shepard at T-30 minutes.

Bezos: Our satellite customers are going to be a super important base for us. Ultimately, most of our flights will be taking people into space. Humans on New Glenn years after first flight (2020).
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: AlexP on 04/06/2017 12:03 am
So by the sounds of it they're still building the next NS article(s), shame that nobody asked when the next test flight might be but hopefully not too much longer.

His idea of sticking an upper stage on for small-sats on puzzled me somewhat, I wouldn't have thought it was viable given the altitude and velocity NS reaches straight up and down.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 04/06/2017 12:57 am
SN article:
http://spacenews.com/blue-origin-still-planning-commercial-suborbital-flights-in-2018/
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 04/06/2017 02:00 am
Quote
.@JeffBezos press conference video on @blueorigin from 2017 Space Symposium via @geekwire #33SS #SpaceSymposium https://www.facebook.com/geekwire/videos/1498700776820330

https://twitter.com/ac_charania/status/849750680684249092 (https://twitter.com/ac_charania/status/849750680684249092)

Bezos' presentation is very good and is worth watching in full.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/06/2017 05:54 am
SN article:
http://spacenews.com/blue-origin-still-planning-commercial-suborbital-flights-in-2018/

It includes refutation of a point I've seen some speculation about:

Quote
Any delay in the development of New Shepard, he said, is not based on the company’s work on the BE-4 engine for both United Launch Alliance’s Vulcan engine and Blue Origin’s own New Glenn orbital launch vehicle. “We’re really not constrained by our BE-4 activities. Both are fully staffed,” he said.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/06/2017 05:57 am
Here's an article by Alan Boyle on the NS capsule:

http://www.geekwire.com/2017/video-blue-origin-new-shepard-spaceship/ (http://www.geekwire.com/2017/video-blue-origin-new-shepard-spaceship/)

Includes this video:

https://youtu.be/K1H6QwxUTR8 (https://youtu.be/K1H6QwxUTR8)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: GWH on 04/07/2017 02:36 am
Regarding the comments on making New Shepard into a booster for small sat launches, they could have a couple advantages over competitors:
1. Cost share, obviously.
2. Stage diameter - at 3+ meters the payloads can be much wider than say the 1.2m Electron.  Small sats could be built with larger arrays and solar panels that don't need to be stowed.  Simplifying the sats and lowering their cost.
3. With the larger stage diameter could come better volumetric efficiency of there upper stage.

The 11,000 lb (49 kN) methalox thruster being proposed for Blue's lunar lander could potentially be used.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/07/2017 06:40 am
Regarding the comments on making New Shepard into a booster for small sat launches, they could have a couple advantages over competitors:
1. Cost share, obviously.
2. Stage diameter - at 3+ meters the payloads can be much wider than say the 1.2m Electron.  Small sats could be built with larger arrays and solar panels that don't need to be stowed.  Simplifying the sats and lowering their cost.
3. With the larger stage diameter could come better volumetric efficiency of there upper stage.

The 11,000 lb (49 kN) methalox thruster being proposed for Blue's lunar lander could potentially be used.

I'd add proven re-usability of the booster and I suspect higher payload capability than some of the proposed smallest launchers.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: GWH on 04/07/2017 12:44 pm
Ah yes of course reuse,  thats a big one. Thinking more about the sats it could lead to a whole new form of micro sats: plate sats (as opposed to cube sats)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: envy887 on 04/07/2017 01:14 pm
Regarding the comments on making New Shepard into a booster for small sat launches, they could have a couple advantages over competitors:
1. Cost share, obviously.
2. Stage diameter - at 3+ meters the payloads can be much wider than say the 1.2m Electron.  Small sats could be built with larger arrays and solar panels that don't need to be stowed.  Simplifying the sats and lowering their cost.
3. With the larger stage diameter could come better volumetric efficiency of there upper stage.

The 11,000 lb (49 kN) methalox thruster being proposed for Blue's lunar lander could potentially be used.

The big disadvantage is that it's horribly optimized for orbital launches. Since it can hover at 20 klbf thrust, it must mass at least 9,000 kg, but it only needs to hold about 20,000 kg of hydrolox to launch the capsule and land (assuming the capsule is 6,000 kg, which is probably a bit high).

I don't think BO wants to throw away a BE-3 for a small-sat launch, so if the upper stage is disposable with a BE-2 it has to have an excellent mass ratio and be quite large to make up for the low staging velocity and poor I_sp. Or they would have to buy in an engine, or bring that 11 klbf methalox thruster online pretty quick.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: AncientU on 04/07/2017 01:49 pm
Regarding the comments on making New Shepard into a booster for small sat launches, they could have a couple advantages over competitors:
1. Cost share, obviously.
2. Stage diameter - at 3+ meters the payloads can be much wider than say the 1.2m Electron.  Small sats could be built with larger arrays and solar panels that don't need to be stowed.  Simplifying the sats and lowering their cost.
3. With the larger stage diameter could come better volumetric efficiency of there upper stage.

The 11,000 lb (49 kN) methalox thruster being proposed for Blue's lunar lander could potentially be used.

I'd add proven re-usability of the booster and I suspect higher payload capability than some of the proposed smallest launchers.

Not sure that any sensible payload can be delivered to orbit by NS.  Someone should do the real calculations behind this concept, but...
1. BE-3 only develops 50tonnes-force at sea level, entire two stage rocket plus payload can only mass about 40t at liftoff.
2. The payload mass fraction of an optimized, reusable orbital rocket is nominally 2-3%, so about one tonne payload max -- again, IF the launcher is optimized for orbital payloads.

But New Shepard is not optimized for orbital launches.

3. Hydrogen is very inefficient as first stage propellant.
4. First stage burns for only 150s, so staging will be very low and slow. (Overcoming gravity losses and additional acceleration place considerable demands on second stage.)
5. Since first stage is optimized for lifting capsule mass objects on sub-orbital flights, we can assume capsule mass is approximately limit of second stage plus payload plus fairing if the existing first stage is to be used as-is.
6. The capsule itself is probably 3-5 tonnes mass; with launch abort system(70,000 lbf thrust for 2s), maybe 5-10 tonnes total.
7. Use a couple tonnes of that for stage tankage plus motor, plus fairing, plus payload (if any), and you have a pitifully small mass budget for propellant -- which will be needed, I think. (I'm no rocket scientist...)

Seems that JB needs someone to tell him that rockets aren't Legos LEGO elements.
He should leave rocket design to his expert team and just keep making trips to the bank.

Edit:  ...what envy887 said
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Chasm on 04/07/2017 02:46 pm
To me it's more that everyone is talking about small sat launchers and Jeff or someone else at Blue asked "Why not?".   Now someone does the numbers finds out what gear and designs they already have.

Perhaps also as an option in the long game. Use aged boosters that are not longer human certified for this. The good old cargo plane conversion. :)
The reverse, launching small sats as acceptance flights, does not feel right. That one should be in human configuration. If they run out of nanorack science ballast payloads just drop the price.


Or Jeff read on NSF that he absolutely had to take a more gradual approach to orbital launch. ;) And learn howto do thermal load calculations.  ;D
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/07/2017 03:12 pm
Article by Eric Berger:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/04/blue-origin-may-begin-second-round-of-new-shepard-tests-by-late-summer/ (https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/04/blue-origin-may-begin-second-round-of-new-shepard-tests-by-late-summer/)

Covers Jeff Bezos' press conference but also extra info gleaned from company president Rob Meyerson. For example:

Quote
Blue Origin is now building three operational propulsion modules and two crew capsules.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 04/07/2017 03:17 pm
From the same article:

Quote from: Eric Berger
A testing program will begin by "late summer or early this fall," Meyerson said. After uncrewed test flights, "test passengers" could be added early in 2018 before customer flights later in the year—if all goes as planned.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: AlexP on 04/07/2017 04:17 pm
Call me cynical but I have a suspicion that Bezos just wants to use it to get something to orbit to counter Musk's "first orbital booster relaunch" claim  ;D

Though to be honest I'm surprised it's feasible, in test flights MECO has occurred at ~45km (going straight up) and about 3,400kph. That's a lot left to get to orbit.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Navier–Stokes on 04/07/2017 05:10 pm
Not sure that any sensible payload can be delivered to orbit by NS.  Someone should do the real calculations behind this concept, but...
Jon did some analysis about a year back (see here (http://selenianboondocks.com/2016/01/random-thoughts-new-shepard-for-pop-up-tsto-nanosat-launch/)) and there doesn't seem to be any real showstoppers. A pop-up TSTO (http://selenianboondocks.com/2008/06/orbital-access-methodologies-part-iii-pop-up-tsto/) with a 8000 lb upper stage and a decent ISP could deliver 100-300 lb to LEO with an achievable pmf. A 11000 lbf engine would be about the right T/W for such a vehicle.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 04/07/2017 08:15 pm
Things about BO:

* Small Sat/microlaunch - unsuitable for both. Small sat requires a more optimized booster/US with lower recovery costs, such that the capabilities for a 100-300kg sat matters. Microlaunch, its too big/costly/requires significant pad, that it wouldn't have the "quick launch" advantages.

* Any kind of orbital launch - NS facilities/range aren't suitable on the downrange to make it to orbital velocity w/o IIP leaving bounds. So you'd have to rebuild, likely  on a coastal/gulf location. And no, can't share facilities with NG because they are too different in requirements.

* Gap in NS activity - they'll resume in late summer / fall. They don't have the staffing levels to allow concurrent programs of NS/BE4/NG/BE3U/other clearly. NS slipped in priority, likely because BE4 went long, and NG needed to be accelerated as well. Normally you'd finish one business off before you'd begin the next, clearly this did not happen.

* Vulcan engine selection - they are drawing fire because Aerojet Rocketdyne appears to be losing (again), and politicians have to cast shade in response. Looking at Tory Bruno's desire to have multiple, independent boards all agree on the results of engine selection (which likely will be very conclusive), there will be considerable push back on BO by the arsenal space side, likely continuing til after Vulcan first flight.

* Lunar ambitions - Musk's "free return" commercial HSF announcement needed to be countered. However, its more in the form of supporting a govt exploration effort through a vehicle that might be fielded with a govt launch via Atlas/Vulcan/SLS, the significance is that an in space stage ala BE3U might not be ready for a NG launch of it (note also that NGL's not depending on BO for tanks and the engine selection has gotten more vague).

add:
It's as if BO wants to extend the CRS to the lunar surface, as if to be a bidder ahead of time on a rescoped ISS like activity on the moon. Boeing/OA wouldn't play there, only BO/SX. In that, BO would have the upper hand on max payload to the surface.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: AlexP on 04/07/2017 08:22 pm
Bezos explicitly said in his Q&A that Shepard and BE-4 are both fully staffed currently.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 04/07/2017 08:23 pm
Bezos explicitly said in his Q&A that Shepard and BE-4 are both fully staffed currently.
Then why is the activity not continuing until "late summer fall"? Duh.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 04/07/2017 08:25 pm
Blue are providing engines for Boeing XS1, so in way they are developing reuseable smallsat launcher.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: meberbs on 04/07/2017 08:45 pm
Bezos explicitly said in his Q&A that Shepard and BE-4 are both fully staffed currently.
Then why is the activity not continuing until "late summer fall"? Duh.
Not "duh." There are 2 statements that you see as conflicting, both are equally official, so either you are accusing them of outright lying (and you have no evidence to back up which statement is the lie) or they aren't actually conflicting.

It seems hard to believe that they aren't fully staffed considering their current headcount vs. a year and a half ago.

As to what the delays are, it seems they want more hardware around before the next set of tests, and they presumably are doing some redesign so the next hardware sets will incorporate lessons learned:
Covers Jeff Bezos' press conference but also extra info gleaned from company president Rob Meyerson. For example:

Quote
Blue Origin is now building three operational propulsion modules and two crew capsules.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Navier–Stokes on 04/07/2017 09:47 pm
Some brief comments by Rob Meyerson regarding New Shepard upgrades:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSJel6Im6yQ
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 04/07/2017 09:58 pm
2:39 - "The more practiced we are on New Shepard, the more time we can spend on New Glenn".

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars-J on 04/07/2017 10:23 pm
Things about BO:

* Small Sat/microlaunch - unsuitable for both. Small sat requires a more optimized booster/US with lower recovery costs, such that the capabilities for a 100-300kg sat matters. Microlaunch, its too big/costly/requires significant pad, that it wouldn't have the "quick launch" advantages.

[presuming this is about using NS as a first stage for a small sat launcher]
I'm not sure this is really a problem, given the absolute lack of any other micro or small sat launchers on the market. If others were flying for cheaper... then yes. But since no others are flying, I don't see the problem.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/08/2017 07:17 am
From the video. The bottom of the ring fin used to have an ablative TPS. This has been replaced by a metallic TPS to save on refurbishment time. Old engine re-ignition altitude was 6600 feet (2010 m) reduced to 3600 feet (1100 m). Saves propellant and so allows higher maximum altitude.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 04/08/2017 03:54 pm
IAF posted the GNF 'A step by step approach to low-cost access to space' presentation recording on it's Youtube account.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1pU9hFieGE

Interesting notes:
BE-4 can throttle down to 30%.
Al numbers on NG are very conservative.
The 3 stage NG will come much later than the two stage version.

Interesting points from the slides:
BE-3U = 120k lbf (530kN)
BE-4U = 640k lbf (2850kN)

[speculation} Delta 2 / Antares replacement on the Blue Engine slide, the intermediate step between NS & NG? {/speculation}

Slightly off topic;
I also watched the GNF 'Proxima Mission Presentation' (https://youtube.com/watch?v=7WYLC3ekYOc). @26:00 there is a slide about the different micro gravity research options.
One idea and three questions popped into my mind:
!) The current NS belongs among the sounding rockets (a very expensive one).
?1) Does Blue Origin still plan to offer NS for experiments. Does it have an advantage to remove the solid escape rocket so the center position also becomes available for experiments?
{the other option is a 2th stage to increase the flight altitude and microG duration.)
?2) Could NG science flight simulate moon and mars G by spinning the capsule?

?3) But NG is developed as a manned suborbital space ride. It holds the capability to do manned experiments during a NG flight. Is BO planning this?
This could be the step between parabolic flights and the ISS for manned missions. I guess for a lot of experiments four (or six) minutes of microG is enough to execute the experiment.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: envy887 on 04/08/2017 06:37 pm
Lots of good tidbits in that video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1pU9hFieGE

Downrange 1st stage landing distance: New Glenn booster will be landing on a ship 400 nautical miles downrange.

Fins (strakes) improve L/D and cross-range.

New Gless's large size is for reuse and robustness. Engines and booster are designed for 100 flights for robustness, but BO does not expect to fly the engines or booster 100 times.

Standard New Glenn fairing is 5.4 meters diameter. Large New Glenn fairing is 7 meters diameter.

2-stage New Glenn is for commercial satellite launches. 3-stage version will be "several years from now" and "be looking for" cislunar and landing missions. New Moon could eventually fly on 3-stage New Glenn.

BE-4 uses LNG because: non-toxic, "green", low carbon emissions, readily available in large quantities, cheap fuel, will save millions of $ in development and test costs.

"We think" BE-4 will be able to throttle down to 30% thrust.

First New Glenn launch anticipated in the second half of 2020.

Manufacturing facility will be building 1st stage, 2nd stage, fairings, and "adapters for the launch vehicle". Facility is planned for completion in December 2017 at a cost of $250M. 750k sq ft total.

Payloads will be encapsulated vertically, then mated horizontally.

Plan to hit cadence of 1 to 2 launches per months within 3 years of operation.

Platform on the landing ship is 50 meters by 60 meters. Ship will be autonomous, they didn't have many volunteers to pilot the ship during landing :D

BE-4 engines on New Glenn will have 5 degrees of gimbal.

No price yet, but "very competitive", want to be market leader in cost/kg.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Navier–Stokes on 04/08/2017 07:08 pm
IAF posted the GNF 'A step by step approach to low-cost access to space' presentation recording on it's Youtube account.
Very interesting presentation. Here are some more notes:

- Average two engine tests per day (cold flow and hot fire)

- BE-4 hot fire "in the coming weeks"

- Lead of Quality & Mission Assurance came over from United Launch Alliance (Linda Tyree)

- ~30% of Blue Origin employees have 20+ years experience, ~30% have 10-20 years experience

- Goal is 95% weather availability for New Glenn landing

- New Glenn 3rd stage variant aimed towards exploration type missions (e.g., cislunar), "several years from now"

- LNG for BE-4 ~95% pure methane, one third to one fourth the cost of RP-1

- Timing for 7 m fairing development for New Glenn will be based on market demand

- Currently excavating concrete at Orbital Launch Site (OLS), "getting ready to lay out the structure for launch facility"

- Machinery to build New Glenn tank domes already in place at Exploration Park facility in annex building

- Payload processing at Astrotech's Payload Processing Facility (PPF), payload encapsulated vertically, transported vertically to OLS, horizontal payload mate at OLS

- Goal in first three years is to achieve up to 12 New Glenn launches per year with capability to fly twice in one month

- Mission control center located at Exploration Park facility

- Some proprietary technologies for in-space maneuvering on New Glenn booster

- "Robust" capability to cislunar for New Glenn

- "Intend to be market leading in terms of cost per kg" with New Glenn

Edit: removed some content already covered by envy887
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Chasm on 04/08/2017 07:18 pm
Some more information from the same video, by topic:
Edit says: I left some repeating stuff in for context, the rest got trimmed.

1024 employees
~30% have 20+ years of experience in the industry
another ~30% 10+ years of experience in the industry
Less than 4% turnover
Several come from outside industries, say a composite guy from the yacht industry. [Some of them go through a heck of a lot of carbon. SeaRay not so much, but the racing an custom builders certainly do.]



Facilities:
Kent
Low rate engine production and development, NS production
850 employees , 5 months ago 800

Van Horn
testing engines, NS flights
>100 people

Arlington office
government relations
~1 dozen

Florida factory, "beyond huge"
Building NG stages, fairings, adapters.
Will have 300-400 employees,

Future engine facility "in another state" to be announced


"Reusability makes sense if you can fly it like an airplane [...] This is really our goal."

First NS flight was an hydraulics failure
"We are barnstorming space."


BE-4 grew from 400 to 500k lbf to meet ULA requirements,
Same engine on both Vulcan and New Glenn. ("single part number" on slide 19)
The test stands slide states >60 preburner starts at the 400k level, 550k up next
550k powerpack on the stand

More than one 550k full engine test cell.
(So they learned from that oopsie. Why build one additional stand if you can have two or more redundant in the same waiting time.)

New Glenn is so large in order to be robust
Landing 400nm downrange, "incredible cross range"


Observations: All slides say that BE-4 is LOX/LNG, methane was mentioned less often then LNG.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Geron on 04/08/2017 07:43 pm
Lng is methane
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: cscott on 04/08/2017 08:30 pm
Lng is methane
LNG is low-purity methane:

"LNG typically contains more than 90 percent methane. It also contains small amounts of ethane, propane, butane, some heavier alkanes, and nitrogen."

If they are making the point of it being a LNG engine, I'm assuming they mean it can tolerate these impurities.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Navier–Stokes on 04/08/2017 08:38 pm
Lng is methane
From Department of Energy (DOE) report (https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2013/04/f0/LNG_primerupd.pdf):
Quote from: Liquefied Natural Gas: Understanding the Basic Facts
Typically, LNG is 85 to 95-plus percent methane, along with a few percent ethane, even less propane and butane, and trace amounts of nitrogen (Figure 2). The exact composition of natural gas (and the LNG formed from it) varies according to its source and processing history.

Clay Mowry implied in the Global Networking Forum presentation that the BE-4 will use high purity LNG (~95% methane). See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1pU9hFieGE&feature=youtu.be&t=31m54s.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Chasm on 04/08/2017 10:34 pm
LNG vs methane is mostly a pet question.


Like crude oil natural gas composition depends a lot on the source. In Europe some types are as low as 80% Methane, up to 5% Ethane, another percent of Propane and Butane. Inert gases up to 1% CO2, 14% N2.

One of the previous questions/assumptions was that they say LNG for because most people know what natural gas is but will use pure methane in operation. I found it interesting that there was so much use of LNG in front of a industry audience.
If the BE-4 can live with the impurities present in the better commercial LNG qualities available in the US that should keep cost down very nicely. Every step of purification adds more costs and a bottleneck. (From Russia would be ~98% methane, under 1% inert gases. The fireworks in Congress would be interesting.)

Even if it is just for the bulk of their test stand work. If they want to see hundred(s) of burns of an engine to get comfortable with it fuel prices matter.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: spacenut on 04/09/2017 12:12 am
I worked in the natural gas pipeline industry.  Ours was routinely about 95% methane with 5% impurities, mostly were burnable.  When you liquify natural gas, some of the impurities will escape as gas, especially nitrogen.  Ethane an butane are heavier than methane and will settle to the bottom.  If the LNG is stored near the launch site, if you tap off the middle, or a little up from the bottom of the LNG storage tank, you get almost pure methane anyway, without much separation to do. 

Also, along the pipeline routes, separators are installed to remove water, and liquids, and only the gas under pressure continues down the pipeline. 
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 04/09/2017 12:59 am
I worked in the natural gas pipeline industry.  Ours was routinely about 95% methane with 5% impurities, mostly were burnable.  When you liquify natural gas, some of the impurities will escape as gas, especially nitrogen.  Ethane an butane are heavier than methane and will settle to the bottom.  If the LNG is stored near the launch site, if you tap off the middle, or a little up from the bottom of the LNG storage tank, you get almost pure methane anyway, without much separation to do. 

Also, along the pipeline routes, separators are installed to remove water, and liquids, and only the gas under pressure continues down the pipeline.
Right, and the other gas liquids like propane generally fetch a higher price anyway, so if you're liquifying the LNG, you might as well sell off the gas liquids that settle to the bottom and use essentially high purity methane as you say. That would make reuse easier, as you have even fewer problems with coking and soot and gunk than the already low level with straight natural gas.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: AlexP on 04/09/2017 01:08 am
I wonder the rate that they intend to build the first stages at, they're targeting 12 launches per year after year 3 and whilst the BE-4 has a planned shelf-life of 100 reuses, he says they aren't intending to use them that many times. I'm sure they intend to increase that flight rate eventually, but going by those figures then with even a fleet of just three, and limiting to half of the designed lifespan, they could service 12 flights a year for over a decade.

Notable that he said the 45 ton to LEO and 13 ton to GTO figures (for the initial two-stage variant) are "conservative" figures. Those launch prices are going to be very interesting when they eventually get released.

Also had to chuckle at the "we're gonna patent some of these technologies" comment!
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 04/09/2017 02:04 am
I worked in the natural gas pipeline industry.  Ours was routinely about 95% methane with 5% impurities, mostly were burnable.  When you liquify natural gas, some of the impurities will escape as gas, especially nitrogen.  Ethane an butane are heavier than methane and will settle to the bottom.  If the LNG is stored near the launch site, if you tap off the middle, or a little up from the bottom of the LNG storage tank, you get almost pure methane anyway, without much separation to do. 

Also, along the pipeline routes, separators are installed to remove water, and liquids, and only the gas under pressure continues down the pipeline.
Right, and the other gas liquids like propane generally fetch a higher price anyway, so if you're liquifying the LNG, you might as well sell off the gas liquids that settle to the bottom and use essentially high purity methane as you say. That would make reuse easier, as you have even fewer problems with coking and soot and gunk than the already low level with straight natural gas.
Replying to myself:
You know, you could actually increase performance by playing games with the ratio of the different constituent gases. The heavier alkanes would sink to the bottom of the tank, and so would be ingested first. That is a good thing, as it gives you a higher density (and thus greater thrust for a given pump pressure) at the cost of slightly lower Isp. The lighter methane stays on top, giving you higher Isp toward the end of the stage's burn, where you can get the most benefit from it. Also, finishing with the lighter methane might help clean out any gunk or soot left by the heavier alkanes (i.e. ethane, propane, or butane).
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 04/09/2017 02:12 am
Lowest price/ kg to orbit. I'm guessing  $2000/kg ($90m) or less?. Unlike other commercial LV developments, the prime investor is not looking recovering R&D money anytime soon if ever. This means launches price only need to cover, LV build and operational costs along with some profit.

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: FishInferno on 04/09/2017 02:20 am
This may have been discussed before, but what is the rationale for keeping the flight rate for NG at 12/year?  From what they've said so far it seems like they don't have a burning desire to keep increasing flight rate, but you basically have to in order to have the type of cislunar economy they're aiming for.

Perhaps they plan to ramp up flight rate with New Armstrong, but I still do not see how a faster NG rate would detract from NA.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: sanman on 04/09/2017 02:44 am
Just wanted to embed Bezos' speech video directly in the thread for convenient viewing. Couldn't find a full version, but here's an excerpt, featuring bathroom-specific inquiries:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1TyxF4omfA
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: launchwatcher on 04/09/2017 06:20 pm
You know, you could actually increase performance by playing games with the ratio of the different constituent gases. The heavier alkanes would sink to the bottom of the tank, and so would be ingested first. That is a good thing, as it gives you a higher density (and thus greater thrust for a given pump pressure) at the cost of slightly lower Isp. The lighter methane stays on top, giving you higher Isp toward the end of the stage's burn, where you can get the most benefit from it. Also, finishing with the lighter methane might help clean out any gunk or soot left by the heavier alkanes (i.e. ethane, propane, or butane).
Any sense of how long you'd have to let the fuel sit after propellant loading for it to sort itself out like that? 
(Seems like the sort of thing you'd want to make ahead of time, in GSE, before launch day, and then just carefully load the fractions in the right order like you're making one of those fancy layered drinks..)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Chasm on 04/09/2017 08:28 pm
12 is basically twice the flight rate of Ariane 5 and NG screams for dual launch capability.
Even if NG works perfectly out of the box and the price beats everyone else it will take time to shift the payloads to them, or expand the market accordingly.


I was thinking more about fuel price and robustness. The ability to -more or less- fly with whatever comes out of the pipeline, as long as you know what went into the stage. Which is not too hard, continuous sampling and analysis is in wide use.
Playing games with longer hydrocarbons and co to argument thrust. Hmm... I thought avoiding stratification is a major goal in rocket cryogenics. Sounds like late game addition. Has anyone a spare pad? ;)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: mme on 04/09/2017 08:30 pm
...

Also had to chuckle at the "we're gonna patent some of these technologies" comment!
Ugh. I haven't watched it yet so I don't know the context or tone of the comment but given one-click and the land a rocket on a boat patent I wouldn't be surprised. It'll make it harder for me to root for them though (not that they care.)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 04/09/2017 09:17 pm
Dual launch is a misfeature. With a reusable vehicle, it's better to have something that flies more frequently.

When you wait for ride share slots to fill up, you can have cancellations and postponements. So your 12/yr will become 6-8/yr.

Suggest that its more likely that BO payloads might get paired with "paying" customers. Not unlike how SX gets dual use out of launch, by reusing excess vehicle performance as LV development.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: MoonRacer531 on 04/09/2017 09:36 pm
New user here. Happened to come upon this forum while googling Blue Origin.

I have a question - when all is good to go and the space tourism flights start, do we have a location for those take-offs yet? I imagine it could be Van Horn if they spruce it up a LOT.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: 2552 on 04/09/2017 10:36 pm
This may have been discussed before, but what is the rationale for keeping the flight rate for NG at 12/year?  From what they've said so far it seems like they don't have a burning desire to keep increasing flight rate, but you basically have to in order to have the type of cislunar economy they're aiming for.

Perhaps they plan to ramp up flight rate with New Armstrong, but I still do not see how a faster NG rate would detract from NA.

I think 12 flights a year is just for the commercial comsat market, then later they'll increase flight rate with their orbital crewed vehicle for space tourism when its ready.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TomH on 04/09/2017 11:49 pm
Lng is methane

I believe that NG straight from the ground averages 95% methane. There are typically about 18 other substances that make up the other 5%. Some trace amounts are toxic, some inert, some combustible other hydrocarbons whose energy potential is usually a little < CH4. Around 2-3% is water. When the NG is liquified, the water is easily bled off. I think that NG in std. commercial use has the H2O removed when simply pressurized. My guess is that they will remove the water (which is cheap to do) regardless of whether they remove the other substances.

I believe SpaceNut was a NG engineer. I will PM him to drop in here.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: AlexP on 04/09/2017 11:59 pm
Ugh. I haven't watched it yet so I don't know the context or tone of the comment but given one-click and the land a rocket on a boat patent I wouldn't be surprised. It'll make it harder for me to root for them though (not that they care.)
It was regarding the return phase of the booster, and he then says "we have a very capable system to be able to do manoeuvring when we're in space". A new kind of RCS thruster or something? Not really sure where else is going to be patent territory at that point of the flight, even for Bezos. Can't be anything to do with the fins or strakes as he was happily talking about those throughout.
Title: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars-J on 04/10/2017 12:43 am
I think the flight rate of 12 is more a limit of their ocean landing mode. That may well be the most they can practically accomplish with one ship.

But it does call into question the economics of the production. They want to get 100 reuses out of a New Glenn stage. So.... are they only planning to build one every 8 years??  Obviously they are hoping to increase the flight rate, but it still means an incredibly anemic production rate. One NG and a spare could last them a decade.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: spacenut on 04/10/2017 01:06 am
As I told TomH in in a private email.  Once natural gas is liquified, heavier hydrocarbons will sink to the bottom, ligher gases such as helium will go to the top.  You can tap the LNG tank in the middle 80% and have almost pure methane.  So liquid methane isn't going to be a major problem.  Our natural gas for an entire state was 95% 99.9% of the time we received it. 
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: RonM on 04/10/2017 01:17 am
I think the flight rate of 12 is more a limit of their ocean landing mode. That may well be the most they can practically accomplish with one ship.

But it does call into question the economics of the production. They want to get 100 reuses out of a New Glenn stage. So.... are they only planning to build one every 8 years??  Obviously they are hoping to increase the flight rate, but it still means an incredibly anemic production rate. One NG and a spare could last them a decade.

Once Blue has enough NG reusable first stages for their fleet, the factory will be busy building the disposable second stage.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars-J on 04/10/2017 01:19 am
I think the flight rate of 12 is more a limit of their ocean landing mode. That may well be the most they can practically accomplish with one ship.

But it does call into question the economics of the production. They want to get 100 reuses out of a New Glenn stage. So.... are they only planning to build one every 8 years??  Obviously they are hoping to increase the flight rate, but it still means an incredibly anemic production rate. One NG and a spare could last them a decade.

Once Blue has enough NG reusable first stages for their fleet, the factory will be busy building the disposable second stage.

True, I forgot about that. They do have the same tank diameter, so the same production line can stay busy. (Just like SpaceX!)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Chasm on 04/10/2017 02:09 am
They design for 100 reuses but it has been confirmed that is not what they expect to reach in operation.

It's not easy to figure out with how many stages they'll start.
NG first stages are big and pricey but they need enough to keep flights going on schedule. It's easy to botch the first landing(s) and even at a slow pace the customers just care about getting their stuff to space. Blue also need enough time to test recovered ones, this will take a while in the beginning.
In order to get better at production they also need to build more than just one. Waiting for launch day, seeing what happens and then starting the next one is not an option.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: old_sellsword on 04/10/2017 02:24 am
New user here. Happened to come upon this forum while googling Blue Origin.

I have a question - when all is good to go and the space tourism flights start, do we have a location for those take-offs yet? I imagine it could be Van Horn if they spruce it up a LOT.

Welcome!

Honestly I'm not sure we have confirmation on a launch site, but I'd imagine Van Horn will be where all New Shepard flights take place.

Someone more knowledgeable will probably correct me.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/10/2017 07:32 am
They design for 100 reuses but it has been confirmed that is not what they expect to reach in operation.

I can imagine someone in the future (hopefully not too far) where some is saying "Just imaging flying a plane a 100 times and then junking it! We're never going to get affordable flight if we continue to do that." Note that the Space Shuttle was designed for 100 uses as well. :-)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: su27k on 04/11/2017 05:31 am
Lots of good tidbits in that video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1pU9hFieGE

First New Glenn launch anticipated in the second half of 2020.

Typo? I thought first launch is 2020 or 2021...
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: 2552 on 04/11/2017 08:07 am
I think the flight rate of 12 is more a limit of their ocean landing mode. That may well be the most they can practically accomplish with one ship.

But it does call into question the economics of the production. They want to get 100 reuses out of a New Glenn stage. So.... are they only planning to build one every 8 years??  Obviously they are hoping to increase the flight rate, but it still means an incredibly anemic production rate. One NG and a spare could last them a decade.

Didn't the ocean landing patent mention transit vessels to take the boosters back to port while the landing ship stays at sea? Maybe they could be faster than the landing ship, and you could have multiple transit vessels and boosters in rotation for a higher flight rate.

Edit: Longer term, they could do Elon's refuel and relaunch from ship back to launch site idea to have RTLS-like turnaround times.

Edit: Speculation, I wonder if the ability to deploy and retract the landing legs is designed with this in mind in addition to being able to test-deploy the legs before launch.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: envy887 on 04/11/2017 12:46 pm
First New Glenn launch anticipated in the second half of 2020.
Typo? I thought first launch is 2020 or 2021...

second half of 2020 = July 2020 through December 2020.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 04/11/2017 04:44 pm
New user here. Happened to come upon this forum while googling Blue Origin.

I have a question - when all is good to go and the space tourism flights start, do we have a location for those take-offs yet? I imagine it could be Van Horn if they spruce it up a LOT.

Welcome to NSF!

According to the Blue Origin website (https://www.blueorigin.com/astronaut-experience) they will do tourist flights on the New Shepard out of their existing West Texas facility.

You thinking of signing up?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: MoonRacer531 on 04/12/2017 03:28 am
New user here. Happened to come upon this forum while googling Blue Origin.

I have a question - when all is good to go and the space tourism flights start, do we have a location for those take-offs yet? I imagine it could be Van Horn if they spruce it up a LOT.

Welcome to NSF!

According to the Blue Origin website (https://www.blueorigin.com/astronaut-experience) they will do tourist flights on the New Shepard out of their existing West Texas facility.

You thinking of signing up?

For a ticket? Much, too much money for my taste. (I don't think we know the price yet, if someone does please correct me, but our competitor SpaceX is offering seats for $150,000 so if it's around the same range no can do!)

Truth be told, I was just doin' a little bit of Google searching one day and came upon Blue Origin. The idea of a co-founder of Paypal vs the CEO of Amazon in a space race really interests me. Well as you can see, the space tourism part mostly.

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: ZachS09 on 04/12/2017 03:49 am
According to the Blue Origin website (https://www.blueorigin.com/astronaut-experience) they will do tourist flights on the New Shepard out of their existing West Texas facility.

You thinking of signing up?

If SpaceX offers $150k per seat, how much does Blue Origin offer? Lower or higher per seat? I'm sort of interested, but not sure.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Comga on 04/12/2017 05:44 am
New user here. Happened to come upon this forum while googling Blue Origin.

I have a question - when all is good to go and the space tourism flights start, do we have a location for those take-offs yet? I imagine it could be Van Horn if they spruce it up a LOT.

Welcome to NSF!

According to the Blue Origin website (https://www.blueorigin.com/astronaut-experience) they will do tourist flights on the New Shepard out of their existing West Texas facility.

You thinking of signing up?

For a ticket? Much, too much money for my taste. (I don't think we know the price yet, if someone does please correct me, but our competitor SpaceX is offering seats for $150,000 so if it's around the same range no can do!)

Truth be told, I was just doin' a little bit of Google searching one day and came upon Blue Origin. The idea of a co-founder of Paypal vs the CEO of Amazon in a space race really interests me. Well as you can see, the space tourism part mostly.

The price of a ticket on New Shepard has not been set.

SpaceX has offered seats to no one except NASA, where the price is for much more than a tourist ride, and for about 500 times that amount.  (And two tourists going cislunar for probably 1000 times as much.)

Virgin Galactic, the other "real" space tourism enterprise, is offering rides for ~$250K, if I recall correctly.  They, too, are going to fly people "next year".  The cynical among us note that this has been true for several years and may stay true for several more. 

And welcome to the forum.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Chasm on 04/12/2017 06:05 am
Sometimes it even sounds as if Jeff has no real idea yet how NS rides will be priced. My guess is that the first ones will be priced high for the novelty factor. Esp. if Virgin is not flying yet. I have no problem with that as long as it is announced up front.

The existing option are the Zero G flights
In the US ~$5000.
In Europe ~€6000, the profits subsidize scientific flights. Includes Mars and Moon gravity.

Also day long events so quite similar though there was a hint that NS might be an overnight event. (Starts in the early morning.)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: sanman on 04/12/2017 06:07 am
This article in The Space Review quotes Bezos as saying he may want to get in on the small launcher business too:

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3213/1


It almost sounds like WalMart/Amazon may be about to muscle out the Mom-n-Pop stores.

Why would he want to focus on the smaller end of the market, rather than allowing the various small/medium enterprises to flourish there. Isn't it premature to pursue consolidation in a market sector that has yet to prove itself? What's his angle? Doesn't he have bigger fish to fry with higher-payload launches?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars-J on 04/12/2017 06:12 am
It almost sounds like WalMart/Amazon may be about to muscle out the Mom-n-Pop stores.

Why would he want to focus on the smaller end of the market, rather than allowing the various small/medium enterprises to flourish there. Isn't it premature to pursue consolidation in a market sector that has yet to prove itself? What's his angle? Doesn't he have bigger fish to fry with higher-payload launches?

Why not? No one is catering to that market. The Mon-n-Pop enterprises seem to be unable to create a vehicle to fill the immense demand that people claim exists.

So why not step in, if the investment isn't very high? (He already has first stage)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/15/2017 09:01 am
Peter B. de Selding article on recent Blue Origin announcements:

https://www.spaceintelreport.com/blue-origins-older-than-spacex-in-more-ways-than-one (https://www.spaceintelreport.com/blue-origins-older-than-spacex-in-more-ways-than-one)

Article starts by contrasting the age and background of Blue Origin & SpaceX workforces.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: MP99 on 04/15/2017 04:49 pm


It can't be either VL or UL.  The port is not sized for them.

Maybe it doesn't have to be. I thought the plan was to transfer the stage to another ship which then takes it to Port Canaveral. The landing ship can dock at another port.

Given that they expect truly airplane like operations, perhaps just refuel it and fly it back to shore.

In order to reduce re-entry heating, possibly it flies back through the atmosphere at lower speeds, and using the fins to provide lift.

"Reusability makes sense if you can fly it like an airplane [...] This is really our goal."

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/21/2017 06:05 pm
Quote
u/Colege_Grad

Hi everyone. I've come across a morsel of information I thought be fun to share. I know someone who has been in the process of organizing a tour of the BO factory in Washington. The BO representative has warned there won't be anything interesting to see after May, which is indicative of the three new boosters (or the last one) being shipped to Texas by then. Just wanted to say that it's good to know we're that much closer to Summer testing :)

https://www.reddit.com/r/BlueOrigin/comments/66is3z/new_boosters_likely_to_arrive_in_texas_sometime/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/BlueOrigin/comments/66is3z/new_boosters_likely_to_arrive_in_texas_sometime/)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Chasm on 04/21/2017 08:29 pm
So we may see some more launches after all. Nice!
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/23/2017 12:55 am
I'm guessing this is a real capsule rather than a mock-up?

Note the number 4 under the feather logo:

Quote
These windows make up 1/3 of the capsule's surface and will be the largest windows in space. What a view that will be 🌎 #BlueOrigin

https://twitter.com/megsylhydrazine/status/855945343401316352 (https://twitter.com/megsylhydrazine/status/855945343401316352)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: AlexP on 04/23/2017 01:15 am
Not sure we can tell, looks like the capsule at the Space Symposium also had a 4 on it (it also had a 3 on the back so it's unclear what they refer to)

Quote
Heading inside the @blueorigin crew capsule! 🚀👩‍🚀 #SpaceSymposium
https://twitter.com/tanyaofmars/status/848979509865066496
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: old_sellsword on 04/23/2017 03:13 pm
Not sure we can tell, looks like the capsule at the Space Symposium also had a 4 on it (it also had a 3 on the back so it's unclear what they refer to)

Quote
Heading inside the @blueorigin crew capsule! 🚀👩‍🚀 #SpaceSymposium
https://twitter.com/tanyaofmars/status/848979509865066496

They're just referring to the quadrants of the vehicle. As seen on their website (https://www.blueorigin.com/technology), the numbers are located 45º between the the Y and Z axes.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Chasm on 04/27/2017 10:02 am
Another talk, this time by A.C. Charania at the Caltech Space Challenge

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WchKy1fS7E


Skipping through the talk
16:14 has rough pricing for the previously announced experiment lockers.
19:37 this slide now includes a half cut of NG.
22:25 Blue Moon wall of text
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: envy887 on 04/27/2017 02:34 pm
Screencap from the video attached. Looks like NG will have common bulkheads with central feed lines. Looks to me like they have the LOX tanks on the bottom, they should need more volume for LOX than for LNG.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Navier–Stokes on 04/27/2017 03:08 pm
Looks to me like they have the LOX tanks on the bottom, they should need more volume for LOX than for LNG.
That would be interesting. It would move the CoG down but could be desirable from a re-entry TPS perspective. Does any other rocket have the LOX tank below the fuel tank?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: rpapo on 04/27/2017 03:24 pm
Looks to me like they have the LOX tanks on the bottom, they should need more volume for LOX than for LNG.
That would be interesting. It would move the CoG down but could be desirable from a re-entry TPS perspective. Does any other rocket have the LOX tank below the fuel tank?
Any rocket that uses fuel less dense (lower specific gravity) than liquid oxygen.  Like hydrogen or methane.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Navier–Stokes on 04/27/2017 03:36 pm
Any rocket that uses fuel less dense (lower specific gravity) than liquid oxygen.  Like hydrogen or methane.
Please correct me if I'm mistaken but it doesn't appear to be as simple as that. Both the Delta IV CBC and SLS core have their LOX tank above the LH tank. However, that configuration is reversed for their second stages (DCSS/ICPS). ITS (methalox) also appears to have its LOX tank on top for both the booster and spaceship.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Chasm on 04/27/2017 04:06 pm
Yes, Delta CBC has lox on top. SLS has Lox on top, Shuttle too.

There is one Vulcan halfcut that I know of, it has LNG on the bottom.
[Slide 14 from Transportation Enabling a Robust Cislunar Space Economy (http://www.ulalaunch.com/uploads/docs/Published_Papers/Commercial_Space/2016_Cislunar.pdf) (Space Access and Northeastern Astronomy Forum April 2016)]

ITS also has the big tank on top. [via the Mars presentation pdf]


So, why did Blue flip tanks?


Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: envy887 on 04/27/2017 04:36 pm
IIRC LNG has lower viscosity than LOX, and it's used at a lower volumetric flowrate, so they save mass on plumbing by piping the LNG rather than LOX all the way down the stage. The LOX plumbing is very short this way.

Moving the CG down gives the engines less pitch/yaw control authority on ascent, but gives the fins more control authority on descent. Since the engines are far more powerful than the fins, maybe that's a trade they like.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: hkultala on 04/30/2017 09:31 am
Looks to me like they have the LOX tanks on the bottom, they should need more volume for LOX than for LNG.
That would be interesting. It would move the CoG down but could be desirable from a re-entry TPS perspective. Does any other rocket have the LOX tank below the fuel tank?
Any rocket that uses fuel less dense (lower specific gravity) than liquid oxygen.  Like hydrogen or methane.

Exactly the opposite. The heavier liquid is preferred to be in top, to have more stability when flying in the atmosphere. (center of gravity should be more front than center of pressure)

For second stage it does not matter so much as it's flying at so high altitudes that atmospheric pressure is negligible.


Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 05/05/2017 12:37 am
Jeff Bezos just sold about $1B in company stock, which is billed as a "planned divestiture":

Amazon CEO Bezos Sells About $1 Billion in Company Stock (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-04/amazon-ceo-bezos-sells-about-1-billion-in-company-stock) - Bloomberg

He sold 1M shares and still has about 80M shares left, so his kids and grandkids could probably keep investing in Blue Origin for various reasons well after Jeff Bezos is gone...
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/08/2017 06:57 am
Interview with Jeff Bezos. Mainly about Amazon but he talks about Blue Origin from the 30 minute mark. Not technical, it's about his vision and what he ultimately wants to achieve and why.

https://youtu.be/LqL3tyCQ1yY (https://youtu.be/LqL3tyCQ1yY)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/21/2017 06:56 am
Quote
Jeff Bezos lays out his vision for building a city on the moon, complete with robots

BY ALAN BOYLE on May 20, 2017 at 5:42 pm

https://www.geekwire.com/2017/jeff-bezos-blue-origin-moon/ (https://www.geekwire.com/2017/jeff-bezos-blue-origin-moon/)

https://youtu.be/YDcYdR0Sav8 (https://youtu.be/YDcYdR0Sav8)

There's more about the Museum of Flight F1 unveiling, and Jeff's talk, at:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28456.0 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28456.0)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: GraniteHound92 on 05/25/2017 04:25 am
Looks to me like they have the LOX tanks on the bottom, they should need more volume for LOX than for LNG.
That would be interesting. It would move the CoG down but could be desirable from a re-entry TPS perspective. Does any other rocket have the LOX tank below the fuel tank?

V-2 had LOX on bottom.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 06/04/2017 06:29 pm
Quote
When will New Shepard test flights resume? [Erika] Wagner: when we’re ready. Have research payloads booked on a number of them. #DPSS17

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/871408048656363520 (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/871408048656363520)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: sanman on 06/10/2017 11:11 am
Quote
When will New Shepard test flights resume? [Erika] Wagner: when we’re ready. Have research payloads booked on a number of them. #DPSS17

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/871408048656363520 (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/871408048656363520)

Just curious - what are they waiting on? Do they still need to do more test-flights, or is the vehicle's design now deemed to be done (ie. not needing further changes)?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 06/10/2017 04:57 pm
If they have parallel/separate teams, wouldn't they proceed on the different activities concurrently?

The only time you don't is if a) conserving resource or b) dependency. Mister Moneybags brags about not needing to be frugal (own experience is that he's a lot cheaper than this suggests).

So - too much on the plate at the moment seems most likely.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars-J on 06/10/2017 09:51 pm
Probably. But the fact that they aren't doing New Shepherd test flights does suggest that they are not serious about the suborbital market.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: pippin on 06/10/2017 09:54 pm
Do they have a flight-ready booster left?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Chasm on 06/10/2017 10:39 pm
They talked so often about building the others that they must have some by now. There was also a mention a while back to do a Kent tour before a given date because much of the hardware would be shipped to the range after that.

Overall it's a bit strange. Jeff insisted that NS is fully staffed and independent from NG yet there is not much public movement.
Has anyone insight into the permitting process? IIRC their current permit has not much time left.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 06/11/2017 05:38 am
Has anyone insight into the permitting process? IIRC their current permit has not much time left.

I believe their permit (attached) expired in February. The only current experimental suborbital permit listed on the FAA website is for grasshopper Dragonfly [Doh!]!

I wonder if Blue are applying for a permit that would permit people to fly? (if only for testing rather than paying customers)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Star One on 06/11/2017 08:38 am
Probably. But the fact that they aren't doing New Shepherd test flights does suggest that they are not serious about the suborbital market.

That seems an overreach in takeaway from this current hiatus in flights.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Chasm on 06/11/2017 09:56 am
I wonder if Blue are applying for a permit that would permit people to fly? (if only for testing rather than paying customers)

Thats basically what I think.
They have a vehicle that works and has demonstrated all the usual safety features.  Nothing new there, a well defined pathway.
The next thing would be humans, but in a commercial operation open to the public. That is new. I still suspect that Blue wants to see a clear pathway with their next permit. Others like Virgin have the same problem to solve.
Makes me wonder if they try to cooperate on the regulatory side or try to block each other.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 06/11/2017 10:47 am
The next thing would be humans, but in a commercial operation open to the public. That is new. I still suspect that Blue wants to see a clear pathway with their next permit. Others like Virgin have the same problem to solve.
Makes me wonder if they try to cooperate on the regulatory side or try to block each other.

Blue has stated (or strongly implied) their next step, which is a license for paying cargo (not people).  Which does not mean that some flights will not still operate under a permit.  However, if they want to carry anything for pay (such as experiments--never mind people) they will need a license.

Blue or Virgin does not have the capability to "block" anyone based on a regulatory objection.  If they meet the requirements, they get their permit, license, whatever.  Not to mention that Virgin has a license, whereas Blue has still been operating under a permit.  What are you inferring?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Chasm on 06/11/2017 07:31 pm
Not really trying to infer anything per se.

The way I see it suborbital tourism is a new era and new regulation will be written.
One company might say "It's obviously a plane, lets regulate it like the other planes before it." while another company might say "It's obviously a rocket, lets regulate it like the other rockets before it.".
Of course chances are that bureaucrats get confused and the rules achieve something totally different.


Apropos cargo. Looks like the prices in the last presentation were real enough.
$5300 for a NanoLab Student experiment has been mentioned again. - Not to be confused with a NanoRack locker. With 2U NanoLab is much smaller, USB power and data. Full lockers were listed at much higher prices. 50-100k for a single, 100-150k for a double locker.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 06/12/2017 03:41 pm
Simple explanation for NS hiatus: NG.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: deruch on 06/12/2017 07:49 pm
Blue has stated (or strongly implied) their next step, which is a license for paying cargo (not people).  Which does not mean that some flights will not still operate under a permit.  However, if they want to carry anything for pay (such as experiments--never mind people) they will need a license.

Yes it does, actually.  Once they get a launch license for the vehicle, all future flights for the same vehicle must be covered under a launch license.  See 51 USC § 50906 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/51/50906), the US code section dealing with experimental permits.  Specifically clause (g), which says,
Quote from: 51 USC § 50906
(g) A permit may not be issued for, and a permit that has already been issued shall cease to be valid for, a particular design for a reusable suborbital rocket after a license has been issued for the launch or reentry of a rocket of that design.

Once you've used a rocket design under a launch license, you can't go back to using the lower regulatory bar of the permits.  Also, they are barred from selling flights while using a permit.  So, paying cargo requires using a license which eliminates any future use of the experimental permitting.  The only exception would be if they altered the vehicle sufficiently that it could be considered a separate vehicle design that needed experimental testing.  But, given the explicitness of the relevant law and its intent, I would imagine that the FAA wouldn't let them get by on a "wink and a nod" change.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: mgeagon on 06/13/2017 04:36 am
Once you've used a rocket design under a launch license, you can't go back to using the lower regulatory bar of the permits.  Also, they are barred from selling flights while using a permit.  So, paying cargo requires using a license which eliminates any future use of the experimental permitting.

It appears that the NS hiatus is the result of its experimental phase being completed, with the expiration of the launch permit this past February, and the need to obtain a launch license prior to any commercial cargo being launched. Does anyone know how long it might take to receive a license from its application forward?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: high road on 06/13/2017 06:25 am
Simple explanation for NS hiatus: NG.

That would be quite disconcerting. Postponing work on an (almost) ready to fly rocket to develop a new, better one gets you nowhere fast. Especially if the most likely reason to skip to the new, bigger rocket already has plans for an even bigger rocket.

But my bet is quite comfortably on people who can lick gravity still being daunted by the paperwork.

edit: I was suggesting perpetually developing new vehicles while never commercially launching anything.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 06/13/2017 06:44 am
Simple explanation for NS hiatus: NG.

That would be quite disconcerting. Postponing work on an (almost) ready to fly rocket to develop a new, better one gets you nowhere fast.
When was the last time Blue was fast? On anything?
Blue does what it wants to do. Their way. What others think of that is of no concern to them.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Svetoslav on 06/13/2017 12:27 pm

When was the last time Blue was fast? On anything?
Blue does what it wants to do. Their way. What others think of that is of no concern to them.


They were fast in 2015 and 2016, when they were showing us real progress.

Now half of 2017 is gone, and the only thing Blue Origin is showing us are museum exhibitions. Space enthusiasts don't care about these, they care about stuff being done.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 06/13/2017 01:09 pm

When was the last time Blue was fast? On anything?
Blue does what it wants to do. Their way. What others think of that is of no concern to them.


They were fast in 2015 and 2016, when they were showing us real progress.

Now half of 2017 is gone, and the only thing Blue Origin is showing us are museum exhibitions. Space enthusiasts don't care about these, they care about stuff being done.

And just before all that "real progress" was a period of time when they were getting their new hardware ready for flight, kinda like now.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: high road on 06/13/2017 03:49 pm

When was the last time Blue was fast? On anything?
Blue does what it wants to do. Their way. What others think of that is of no concern to them.


They were fast in 2015 and 2016, when they were showing us real progress.

Now half of 2017 is gone, and the only thing Blue Origin is showing us are museum exhibitions. Space enthusiasts don't care about these, they care about stuff being done.

And just before all that "real progress" was a period of time when they were getting their new hardware ready for flight, kinda like now.

I guess their 'suborbital vehicles can be launched cheaper and more often, so we learn a lot faster' is biting them when getting new of the same hardware takes longer than their competitors needed to recover after a very disastrous mishap. Hopefully they get around to proving their claims.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Star One on 06/13/2017 03:53 pm

When was the last time Blue was fast? On anything?
Blue does what it wants to do. Their way. What others think of that is of no concern to them.


They were fast in 2015 and 2016, when they were showing us real progress.

Now half of 2017 is gone, and the only thing Blue Origin is showing us are museum exhibitions. Space enthusiasts don't care about these, they care about stuff being done.

I doubt they care what space enthusiasts think on the matter.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: launchwatcher on 06/13/2017 05:17 pm

When was the last time Blue was fast? On anything?
Blue does what it wants to do. Their way. What others think of that is of no concern to them.


They were fast in 2015 and 2016, when they were showing us real progress.

Now half of 2017 is gone, and the only thing Blue Origin is showing us are museum exhibitions. Space enthusiasts don't care about these, they care about stuff being done.
They have customers and orbital launch contracts now; that's more important than what enthusiasts think.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: envy887 on 06/13/2017 05:52 pm
Simple explanation for NS hiatus: NG.

That would be quite disconcerting. Postponing work on an (almost) ready to fly rocket to develop a new, better one gets you nowhere fast.
When was the last time Blue was fast? On anything?
Blue does what it wants to do. Their way. What others think of that is of no concern to them.

They signed launch contracts for GTO launches in 2020, so they risk losing money (and more importantly, customers) if they don't deliver on time.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 06/14/2017 09:10 pm
Moved some posts discussing space tourism:
Space Tourism Predictions? (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43150.0)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: WindnWar on 06/14/2017 09:27 pm
Simple explanation for NS hiatus: NG.

That would be quite disconcerting. Postponing work on an (almost) ready to fly rocket to develop a new, better one gets you nowhere fast.
When was the last time Blue was fast? On anything?
Blue does what it wants to do. Their way. What others think of that is of no concern to them.

They signed launch contracts for GTO launches in 2020, so they risk losing money (and more importantly, customers) if they don't deliver on time.

Those launches are far enough out that if there are delays those customers could easily book a backup flight provider and I doubt Blue would care that much. Especially if it needs more time to make sure its successful.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: deruch on 06/19/2017 01:49 am
Once you've used a rocket design under a launch license, you can't go back to using the lower regulatory bar of the permits.  Also, they are barred from selling flights while using a permit.  So, paying cargo requires using a license which eliminates any future use of the experimental permitting.

It appears that the NS hiatus is the result of its experimental phase being completed, with the expiration of the launch permit this past February, and the need to obtain a launch license prior to any commercial cargo being launched. Does anyone know how long it might take to receive a license from its application forward?

It's certainly possible that this change is partly responsible for the slowdown.  But don't take it as definitive.  There are lots of other potential reasons why they may have temporarily stopped flying.  As for launch licenses, the FAA has an 180-day review period to either approve or deny a application (so, ~6 months).  But there's no reason why BO couldn't apply for a license while they were still operating under the permit.  They just can't have both at the same time. 
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: GWH on 06/19/2017 02:20 am
Isn't it also possible that they are implenting design changes to New Shep for rapid reuse and thats delayed moving to the next round of testing?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 06/19/2017 03:08 am
Blue has stated (or strongly implied) their next step, which is a license for paying cargo (not people).  Which does not mean that some flights will not still operate under a permit.  However, if they want to carry anything for pay (such as experiments--never mind people) they will need a license.

Yes it does, actually.  Once they get a launch license for the vehicle, all future flights for the same vehicle must be covered under a launch license.  See 51 USC § 50906 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/51/50906), the US code section dealing with experimental permits.  Specifically clause (g), which says,
Quote from: 51 USC § 50906
(g) A permit may not be issued for, and a permit that has already been issued shall cease to be valid for, a particular design for a reusable suborbital rocket after a license has been issued for the launch or reentry of a rocket of that design.

Once you've used a rocket design under a launch license, you can't go back to using the lower regulatory bar of the permits.  Also, they are barred from selling flights while using a permit.  So, paying cargo requires using a license which eliminates any future use of the experimental permitting.  The only exception would be if they altered the vehicle sufficiently that it could be considered a separate vehicle design that needed experimental testing.  But, given the explicitness of the relevant law and its intent, I would imagine that the FAA wouldn't let them get by on a "wink and a nod" change.

No it does not.  I  have commented on this previously long ago and at length.

The definition of "rocket design" is undefined.  Commercial providers have been pushing back on this for ages.  Thus we have, e.g., https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/113th-congress/senate-report/318/1.

In short, it is entirely up to the FAA to determine whether a license or permit is allowed or required.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 06/19/2017 09:17 pm
Quote
Celebrating our addition to an epic list of pioneers! @JeffBezos accepts the Collier Trophy for #NewShepard. The after-party:

https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/876803940330766336 (https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/876803940330766336)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Chasm on 06/21/2017 02:01 pm
To put the Blue Origin prices somewhat into perspective, ESA announced the ICE Cubes program at the Paris Air Show. Cubesat sized self contained experiments within the ISS.
€50k buys you 1U for 4+ months duration. Student, educational and other discounts available.
icecubesservice.com (No pricing there yet.)

Apropos cargo. Looks like the prices in the last presentation were real enough.
$5300 for a NanoLab Student experiment has been mentioned again. - Not to be confused with a NanoRack locker. With 2U NanoLab is much smaller, USB power and data. Full lockers were listed at much higher prices. 50-100k for a single, 100-150k for a double locker.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: edkyle99 on 06/21/2017 11:57 pm
Collier trophy.  Musk doesn't have one, despite landing a bigger, faster stage? 

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 06/22/2017 12:15 am
Collier trophy.  Musk doesn't have one, despite landing a bigger, faster stage? 

 - Ed Kyle

No he doesn't. But Blue get it for re-use so maybe SpaceX will get it this year?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Semmel on 06/22/2017 07:24 am
Collier trophy.  Musk doesn't have one, despite landing a bigger, faster stage? 

 - Ed Kyle

No he doesn't. But Blue get it for re-use so maybe SpaceX will get it this year?

Trophies like that are meaningless. Don't know what people see in them. Blue would have done the same with or without the trophy.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: spacenut on 06/22/2017 08:21 am
It's a participation trophy. 
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 06/26/2017 02:25 pm
Quote
Ala. Gov. Kay Ivey announces Blue Origin will build new rocket engine co. in Huntsville. $200M investment. 350 jobs.

https://twitter.com/leeroop/status/879342107701456898 (https://twitter.com/leeroop/status/879342107701456898)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 06/26/2017 02:30 pm
Expect there will be quite a bit of press on this:

Quote
It is an honor to announce that Blue Origin has chosen Alabama to build its BE-4 rocket engines! A $200 million investment and 350 new jobs!

https://twitter.com/governorkayivey/status/879344955889790977 (https://twitter.com/governorkayivey/status/879344955889790977)

Edit to add:

Quote
Had heard this was coming. Shrewd political move for Blue Origin.

https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/879345713154600962 (https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/879345713154600962)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 06/26/2017 02:43 pm
Expect there will be quite a bit of press on this:

Quote
It is an honor to announce that Blue Origin has chosen Alabama to build its BE-4 rocket engines! A $200 million investment and 350 new jobs!

https://twitter.com/governorkayivey/status/879344955889790977 (https://twitter.com/governorkayivey/status/879344955889790977)

Edit to add:

Quote
Had heard this was coming. Shrewd political move for Blue Origin.

https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/879345713154600962 (https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/879345713154600962)

Huntsville?  I'm shocked!  Wait, no I'm not.  That's actually where I thought it would end up.  Because, politics.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Navier–Stokes on 06/26/2017 02:58 pm
Quote from: https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/879351820950192128
Blue Origin‏
@blueorigin 

Excited to select Huntsville AL as the site for our #BE4 rocket engine production #VulcanRocket #GradatimFerociter http://www.hsvchamber.org/rocketcity/  (http://www.hsvchamber.org/rocketcity/)

7:53 AM - 26 Jun 2017

Press Release:
Quote from: http://hsvchamber.org/rocketcity/
BLUE ORIGIN SELECTS HUNTSVILLE, ALABAMA FOR NEW BE-4 MANUFACTURING FACILITY
New 200,000 square feet facility to locate in Cummings Research Park

HUNTSVILLE, ALABAMA—Blue Origin announced plans to manufacture its BE-4 engine in a state-of-the art production facility to be built in Huntsville, Alabama -- the Rocket City.

The new facility will be in Cummings Research Park, the nation’s second-largest research park, and construction can begin once an engine production contract with United Launch Alliance is awarded. The BE-4 is America’s next rocket engine and will power United Launch Alliance’s Vulcan rocket, once down-selected. The production of this engine would end the nation’s dependence on Russia for access to space for critical national security space systems.

Two BE-4s would be used on the Vulcan booster rocket. The BE-4 will also power Blue Origin’s New Glenn reusable launch system with seven BE-4s on the reusable first stage and a vacuum-optimized BE-4U on New Glenn’s second stage. Blue Origin awaits the final public approval processes of the local package by the City and County governments during their respective July meetings.

Using the latest design and manufacturing techniques, the BE-4 is made for both commercial and government missions. The BE-4 uses oxygen-rich staged combustion of liquid oxygen and liquefied natural gas to produce 550,000 lb. of thrust. Development of the BE-4 began in 2011. Testing of the BE-4 is currently underway.

“Alabama is a great state for aerospace manufacturing and we are proud to produce America’s next rocket engine right here in Rocket City,” said Robert Meyerson, President of Blue Origin. “The area’s skilled workforce and leading role in rocket propulsion development make Huntsville the ideal location for our state-of-the-art manufacturing facility.”

Blue Origin will employ up to 342 people in this new facility. The company will make approximately $200 million in capital investment in the state.

"This announcement today is excellent news for our state. I am pleased to see Blue Origin investing in Alabama, and I look forward to working with them and other businesses to continue boosting economic development opportunities,” commended U.S. Senator Richard Shelby.

The announcement took place at the historic Davidson Center for Space Exploration under the Saturn V rocket, a nod to the community’s aerospace heritage. Blue Origin builds on that aerospace heritage and positions the Huntsville/Madison County community in the commercial space industry.

Alabama Governor Kay Ivey said of the announcement, “We are excited to welcome Blue Origin to Alabama. I must commend founder Jeff Bezos and company President Robert Meyerson for their vision to create this innovative company, and for choosing to make Alabama its home sweet home! Because of this investment, more Alabamians can provide a better living for their families, and it helps cement Alabama as the preferred destination for the aerospace industry.”

Many economic development partners contributed to the effort to successfully recruit Blue Origin to the state. These partners include the Governor’s office, the Alabama Department of Commerce, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the City of Huntsville, Madison County, and the Huntsville/Madison County Chamber.

“Blue Origin’s decision to locate its BE-4 engine manufacturing center in Huntsville reflects the deep and longstanding capabilities in the city that became the cradle of the nation’s rocket program,” said Greg Canfield, secretary of the Alabama Department of Commerce. “Huntsville is a hub of innovation in every facet of aerospace, making it the perfect home for this Blue Origin facility.”​

Blue Origin chose Huntsville, Alabama for this project because of the high-tech aerospace manufacturing workforce and ecosystem, including NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, nearly 300 private aerospace and defense contractors, and the University of Alabama in Huntsville, number 14th in NASA research funding in the nation.

“Huntsville is proud to be the nation’s propulsion center of excellence, and we couldn’t ask for a better partner than Blue Origin to join our team. When you look at NASA’s visionary work at the Marshall Space Flight Center, the talent and capacity of Huntsville’s space industry partners, and our expertise in research and development, engineering, and manufacturing, Blue Origin is joining a truly remarkable environment,” said Huntsville Mayor Tommy Battle.

"Today's announcement ensures that our community will continue to be at the center of the world's rocket propulsion development. Jeff Bezos and Blue Origin will build on the legacy of the German rocket team and the Marshall Space Flight Center to power the growing commercial rocket business that will be a critical part of our nation's future space program,” stated Madison County Commission Chairman Dale W. Strong.

In support of Blue Origin, the City of Huntsville, City of Madison, and Madison County have provided funding for their three school systems to launch an experiment on a Blue Origin rocket in Summer 2018. The school systems will determine how to select teams, and then they will work with the Huntsville/Madison County Chamber and Dream Up, an organization that supports space-based learning, to design and develop their payload.

“Blue Origin reinforces our regions’ place as the Rocket City, and a center of excellence for rocket propulsion. Blue Origin’s presence will have a positive impact on our State, our region and our community,” said Chip Cherry, President and CEO of the Huntsville/Madison County Chamber. “This is an important development for Cummings Research Park’s next era of expansion and we look forward to a long and productive relationship with Blue Origin.”

For more information about this announcement, Huntsville/Madison County’s propulsion expertise, and local job opportunities, please visit www.hsvchamber.org/rocketcity and follow #rocketcity on social media.

About Blue Origin
 Blue Origin, LLC (Blue Origin) is a private company developing vehicles and technologies to enable commercial human space transportation. Blue Origin has a long-term vision of greatly increasing the number of people that fly into space so that we humans can better continue exploring the solar system. For more information and a list of job openings, please visit us at www.blueorigin.com.

CONTACT:
 Erin Koshut
[email protected]
(256) 326-2086

Download Press Release (PDF) (http://hsvchamber.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/062617_press_release.pdf) »



Blue Origin FAQ

Blue Origin plans to bring up to 342 jobs to Huntsville, Alabama.

The company will make approximately $200 million in capital investment.

The state and local incentives are in final coordination. Blue Origin awaits the final public approval processes of the local package by the City and County governments during their respective July meetings. All incentives are tied to company performance and capital investment.

The new facility can break ground once an engine production contract with United Launch Alliance is awarded.

The Blue Origin average salary will be $75,000 annually. This is averaged across all employees at the new facility.

All job openings and applications for Blue Origin will be advertised and coordinated by the State of Alabama Industrial Development Training (AIDT). The Chamber will post a link on www.hsvchamber.org/rocketcity when appropriate.

The site location for this facility is in CRP West on Explorer Boulevard.

Economic Development Partners include:
•State of Alabama
•City of Huntsville
•Madison County
•Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
•Industrial Development Board of the City of Huntsville (IDB)
•AIDT
•University of Alabama in Huntsville
•Cummings Research Park Board of Directors
•Huntsville/Madison County Chamber

In support of Blue Origin, the City of Huntsville, City of Madison, and Madison County have provided funding for their three school systems to launch an experiment on a Blue Origin rocket in Summer 2018. The school systems will determine how to select teams, and then they will work with the Huntsville/Madison County Chamber and Dream Up, an organization that supports space-based learning, to design and develop their payload.

Huntsville, Alabama and Cummings Research Park were chosen from multiple sites across the country. The Blue Origin team indicated Huntsville was selected because it’s a proven leader in aerospace manufacturing with the highly skilled workforce, business climate, and leadership we need to produce low-cost rocket engines to protect the nation, explore the universe, and power a future where millions of people live and work in space.

Along with Blue Origin, other rockets and missile companies such as Aerojet Rocketdyne, The Boeing Company, Sierra Nevada, Raytheon, and RUAG, and organizations like NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, the Propulsion Research Center at UAH, the City of Huntsville, Alabama has re-established itself as the #rocketcity. 
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars-J on 06/26/2017 04:07 pm
And this should end the talk of Blue Origin having no interesting in working with/for the government.  :)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 06/26/2017 04:20 pm
And this should end the talk of Blue Origin having no interesting in working with/for the government.  :)

No, working with state authorities is standard for new factories.  This is not the same as working with NASA or the DOD.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars-J on 06/26/2017 04:23 pm
And this should end the talk of Blue Origin having no interesting in working with/for the government.  :)

No, working with state authorities is standard for new factories.  This is not the same as working with NASA or the DOD.

That's not what I meant. You probably disagree, but I think this sends clear signals to certain congressional forces that support its rival AR-1.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: spacenut on 06/26/2017 04:32 pm
ULA makes their rockets down stream of Huntsville at Decatur, Alabama.  This is where they are making Vulcan which will probably use the BE-4 engine.  Also, they may mate the engines at Decatur to the rocket.  Since the engines are smaller than their New Glenn rocket, the engines can easily be shipped to Florida for mating there. 

Alabama has open shop laws on unions, lower cost of living.  TVA's power prices are some of the lowest in the nation.  Huntsville was the most educated city in America at one time. 

So, it all makes sense, more than just politically. 
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 06/26/2017 05:19 pm
Sure, it's not just about politics but it doesn't hurt:

Quote
Great news for Alabama! @BlueOrigin has announced its selection of #Huntsville for new BE4 rocket engine manufacturing facility. #RocketCity

https://twitter.com/senshelby/status/879377780139593729 (https://twitter.com/senshelby/status/879377780139593729)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: GWH on 06/26/2017 06:45 pm
I am thinking this is a political play for more than just the RD180 replacement contracts with AR-1 vs. BE-4.

Building engines in Alabama puts Blue Origin in a much better position politically to offer New Glenn as a lower cost launcher of Orion or any other payload instead of SLS.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: meberbs on 06/26/2017 06:58 pm
And this should end the talk of Blue Origin having no interesting in working with/for the government.  :)

No, working with state authorities is standard for new factories.  This is not the same as working with NASA or the DOD.

That's not what I meant. You probably disagree, but I think this sends clear signals to certain congressional forces that support its rival AR-1.
The AR-1 vs. BE-4 is for Vulcan launches, and no one has ever doubted that Vulcan will launch government payloads. Yes, there is a signal here, but to the extent it is relevant, it is just to not interfere with engine selection for Vulcan.

I don't see how you can take this as a meaningful indication of wanting to directly launch DOD payloads. (They have directly advertised their lunar lander plan to NASA, so that is also a different story.)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars-J on 06/26/2017 07:06 pm
And this should end the talk of Blue Origin having no interesting in working with/for the government.  :)

No, working with state authorities is standard for new factories.  This is not the same as working with NASA or the DOD.

That's not what I meant. You probably disagree, but I think this sends clear signals to certain congressional forces that support its rival AR-1.
The AR-1 vs. BE-4 is for Vulcan launches, and no one has ever doubted that Vulcan will launch government payloads. Yes, there is a signal here, but to the extent it is relevant, it is just to not interfere with engine selection for Vulcan.

I don't see how you can take this as a meaningful indication of wanting to directly launch DOD payloads. (They have directly advertised their lunar lander plan to NASA, so that is also a different story.)

Agree to disagree then.

But I think it is amusing that so many (not you) still view Blue Origin as "pure commercial" that wouldn't touch government money with a 10ft pole.  :) This is so obviously not true, Blue Origin has recieved NASA funding in the past, BE-4 is partially funded through ULA (so indirectly a government investment), and there will be much more of that happening in the future.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 06/26/2017 07:35 pm
Bezos is not above playing politics. Nor is Musk or Bruno. There isn't an apolitical launch provider on the planet - they are all in it up to their eyeballs.  ::)

Launch will always be about politics, especially as the market changes and everyone fights for payloads/"mulligans"(cf solids/NSS/ELC/CRS/...).
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Kabloona on 06/26/2017 08:54 pm
More on the politics of building BE-4 in Huntsville:

https://www.theverge.com/2017/6/26/15873354/blue-origin-be-4-rocket-engine-huntsville-alabama-nasa
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 06/27/2017 06:46 am

Press Release:
Quote from: http://hsvchamber.org/rocketcity/
BLUE ORIGIN SELECTS HUNTSVILLE, ALABAMA FOR NEW BE-4 MANUFACTURING FACILITY
New 200,000 square feet facility to locate in Cummings Research Park
<snip>

Nice thing about the picture is that it confirms that Blue is working hardware rich. Looks like another three all-up BE-4's are in-work.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 06/27/2017 08:43 am

Press Release:
Quote from: http://hsvchamber.org/rocketcity/
BLUE ORIGIN SELECTS HUNTSVILLE, ALABAMA FOR NEW BE-4 MANUFACTURING FACILITY
New 200,000 square feet facility to locate in Cummings Research Park
<snip>

Nice thing about the picture is that it confirms that Blue is working hardware rich. Looks like another three all-up BE-4's are in-work.
The good thing about being HW rich is they don't have to wait months for another test once cause of failure is found. Modify next engine and test. Even if there are 3 failures in a row by time last one is resolved engine 4 probably rolling of production line. One thing is for sure, Bezo has money and patience to make sure BE4 succeeds.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: edkyle99 on 06/27/2017 01:43 pm
Collier trophy.  Musk doesn't have one, despite landing a bigger, faster stage? 

 - Ed Kyle

No he doesn't. But Blue get it for re-use so maybe SpaceX will get it this year?

Trophies like that are meaningless. Don't know what people see in them. Blue would have done the same with or without the trophy.
The Collier Trophy is anything but "meaningless".  Just look at the list of winners.  They gave the award to Glenn Curtiss twice before giving one to Orville Wright!
https://naa.aero/awards/awards-and-trophies/collier-trophy

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Semmel on 06/27/2017 02:33 pm
Trophies like that are meaningless. Don't know what people see in them. Blue would have done the same with or without the trophy.
The Collier Trophy is anything but "meaningless".  Just look at the list of winners.  They gave the award to Glenn Curtiss twice before giving one to Orville Wright!
https://naa.aero/awards/awards-and-trophies/collier-trophy

 - Ed Kyle

How does that make the trophy more meaningful? It didnt help the Wright brothers to fly and it didnt help Glenn Gurtiss to create an aircraft company.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: high road on 06/27/2017 02:53 pm
Trophies like that are meaningless. Don't know what people see in them. Blue would have done the same with or without the trophy.
The Collier Trophy is anything but "meaningless".  Just look at the list of winners.  They gave the award to Glenn Curtiss twice before giving one to Orville Wright!
https://naa.aero/awards/awards-and-trophies/collier-trophy

 - Ed Kyle

How does that make the trophy more meaningful? It didnt help the Wright brothers to fly and it didnt help Glenn Gurtiss to create an aircraft company.

Doesn't sound like there are many 'meaningful' prizes then.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Semmel on 06/27/2017 03:28 pm
Trophies like that are meaningless. Don't know what people see in them. Blue would have done the same with or without the trophy.
The Collier Trophy is anything but "meaningless".  Just look at the list of winners.  They gave the award to Glenn Curtiss twice before giving one to Orville Wright!
https://naa.aero/awards/awards-and-trophies/collier-trophy

 - Ed Kyle

How does that make the trophy more meaningful? It didnt help the Wright brothers to fly and it didnt help Glenn Gurtiss to create an aircraft company.

Doesn't sound like there are many 'meaningful' prizes then.

If there is a competition to grab a price.. then it has some meaning since it spawned interest and action. But the Wright brothers didnt: "Ohh look, there is this price.. lets invent the airplane so we can get one!". You are right, there are not many prices that are meaningful.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: meberbs on 06/27/2017 03:35 pm
[trimmed quote tree]
If there is a competition to grab a price.. then it has some meaning since it spawned interest and action. But the Wright brothers didnt: "Ohh look, there is this price.. lets invent the airplane so we can get one!". You are right, there are not many prices that are meaningful.
By your metric, it seems like the various X-Prize competitions are meaningful, but Nobel Prize is not. I think you'll have trouble finding many who agree with that logic.

(For clarity: X-prize is awesome, it is only the part about Nobel Prize that I expect most people to strongly disagree with.)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: flyright on 06/27/2017 03:54 pm
I guess "meaningless" is in the eye of the beholder.
Few, if any, were motivated by trying to win a Collier trophy. The Collier Trophy is a recognition of significant, game-changing accomplishments.
I grew up in awe of the Collier Trophy winners and their accomplishments.
For me, this trophy is anything but meaningless.

Blue Origin is deserving of the trophy for their accomplishments with New Shepard.
I think SpaceX is deserving also, and hope they are awarded the recognition next year.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: edkyle99 on 06/27/2017 05:57 pm
How does that make the trophy more meaningful? It didnt help the Wright brothers to fly and it didnt help Glenn Gurtiss to create an aircraft company.
It is meaningful to historians because it provides a glimpse of how innovators were recognized by their peers at the time the awards were given.  Curtiss, Wright, Martin, Douglas, Hughes, Yeager, "Kelly" Johnson, the X-15 test pilots, NASA astronauts, Burt Rutan, and now Blue Origin/Jeff Bezos.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Semmel on 06/27/2017 09:07 pm
Yeah, lets stop this meaningful or not discussion. I guess I made my point and its not really contributing to the topic.

PS: I indeed think that the Nobel Price is overrated. And I dont want to convince anyone of that opinion. I met a couple Nobel Price winners in person and hearing them talk to their respective peers. The price gets into their heads pretty good to the point that they become arrogant thuds. Even worse, the highest decorated professors of the university where they gave talks were running after them like interns after CEOs. I have never seen such a slime track in my life before.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: su27k on 07/06/2017 08:07 am
http://spacenews.com/air-force-ask-spacex-ula-to-bid-on-a-five-launch-contract/

Quote
Leon said that approving reusable-rocket technology would require an entirely new certification process, at a time when the military wants to focus certifying things like the Falcon Heavy or new entrants like Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin.

Not sure if this is just a hypothetical example, or if there's real intention behind it. First sign of Blue Origin entering NSS launch market?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/06/2017 01:10 pm
Both FH and NG are going to be reusable from the very get go.

Odd that actual existing/flying RLVs like F9 may have to go through special hoops for certifying for launch, meanwhile DARPA is paying Boeing money to develop an RLV which will almost certainly never be used for orbital launch (just a test bed).
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 07/06/2017 05:09 pm
Both FH and NG are going to be reusable from the very get go.

Odd that actual existing/flying RLVs like F9 may have to go through special hoops for certifying for launch, meanwhile DARPA is paying Boeing money to develop an RLV which will almost certainly never be used for orbital launch (just a test bed).
A lot is to do with cost of payload, F9 could be flying $500m sateĺlite, XS1 a $10m payload.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 07/10/2017 05:36 pm
Quote
Blue Origin To Bring Its Historic, Flown New Shepard Reusable Rocket And Crew Capsule To EAA Airventure Oshkosh 2017

EAA AVIATION CENTER, OSHKOSH, Wisconsin — (July 10, 2017) — EAA AirVenture Oshkosh today announced another “Only in Oshkosh” first as it welcomes commercial space company Blue Origin and its historic New Shepard rocket and astronaut crew capsule the week of July 24-30. The exhibit will be one of the main attractions on Boeing Plaza during the Experimental Aircraft Association’s 65th annual fly-in convention at Wittman Regional Airport in Oshkosh.

“EAA AirVenture Oshkosh has always showcased innovation, imagination, and achievement in flight, which makes Blue Origin’s presence at Oshkosh an excellent fit,” said Jack J. Pelton, EAA CEO and Chairman. “As we salute the accomplishments of the Apollo program this year at AirVenture, it is also fitting that we welcome an organization that is developing the next step in the future of manned spaceflight.”

On Nov. 23, 2015, New Shepard became the first rocket to ascend above the Karman line and successfully return to Earth for a vertical landing. The same booster made four subsequent flights in 2016—on Jan. 22, April 2, June 19 and Oct. 5—successfully demonstrating the reuse of a rocket for the first time. EAA AirVenture Oshkosh attendees will get an up-close look at the historic rocket.

In addition, Blue Origin’s exhibit will feature a 1:1 mockup of New Shepard’s astronaut crew capsule, which has seating for six people. AirVenture guests will be able to climb inside, recline in flight-ready seats and experience a simulated flight to space created with real mission footage from New Shepard’s on board cameras. The crew capsule features the largest windows in spaceflight, which take up more than one-third of the capsule’s surface area offering every astronaut stellar views during flight.

“We are very excited to come to EAA AirVenture Oshkosh 2017 and showcase our reusable New Shepard rocket and crew capsule so everyone can experience what it’s like to be an astronaut,” said Rob Meyerson, president of Blue Origin. “We hope to inspire the explorers of tomorrow, the ones who will help us achieve Blue Origin’s goal of millions of people living and working in space.”

In honor of EAA’s Space Day on July 28, Blue Origin will give away branded merchandise to the first 1,000 visitors to the exhibit on Boeing Plaza beginning at 12:30 p.m.

https://www.eaa.org/en/airventure/eaa-airventure-news-and-multimedia/eaa-airventure-news/eaa-airventure-oshkosh/07-10-2017-blue-origin-to-bring-reusable-rocket-and-crew-capsule-to-airventure-2017 (https://www.eaa.org/en/airventure/eaa-airventure-news-and-multimedia/eaa-airventure-news/eaa-airventure-oshkosh/07-10-2017-blue-origin-to-bring-reusable-rocket-and-crew-capsule-to-airventure-2017)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Rummy on 07/12/2017 03:46 pm
Both FH and NG are going to be reusable from the very get go.

Odd that actual existing/flying RLVs like F9 may have to go through special hoops for certifying for launch, meanwhile DARPA is paying Boeing money to develop an RLV which will almost certainly never be used for orbital launch (just a test bed).

It's logical. Why would a RLV have an identical certification process to an ELV?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 07/17/2017 06:43 am
Quote
Delighted to give the first annual Buzz Aldrin Space Innovation Award to @JeffBezos and @BlueOrigin
https://twitter.com/therealbuzz/status/886778900193431552 (https://twitter.com/therealbuzz/status/886778900193431552)

Quote
Huge thanks from the whole @BlueOrigin team, Buzz
https://twitter.com/jeffbezos/status/886779328096116736 (https://twitter.com/jeffbezos/status/886779328096116736)

I posted about Jeff's speech last night: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41539.msg1703010#msg1703010
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/17/2017 12:32 pm
Now I really have the feeling that Blue Origin no longer works in the aerospace industry, but for museums. What's wrong with BO these days? Half of the year is gone and not even a single flight, only exhibitions, museums and awards.
The only person Bezos has to answer to is himself, courtesy of Bezos having near unlimited funding available from his personal wealth. As a result Bezos is the sole person deciding:
A. What Blue does.
B. When Blue does that.

You repeatedly voicing your frustration over this serves no purpose.
Taxpayers helped fund BE-3, the engine for New Shepard. And also, if I'm not mistaken, the abort system used for New Shepard. And, indirectly, BE-3U which is part of New Glenn.

Taxpayers indirectly helped fund BE-4.

Taxpayers in Alabama are also helping to fund BE-4 production.

But honestly, I do feel we, as a community, should shut off any more awards to Bezos until Blue Origin accomplishes more things, maybe even flying payloads (including, perhaps, self-loading payloads i.e. People) for customers. :D

EDIT: For the record, Bezos can take his own sweet time. They're still doing good things, and I'm not going to demand anything from them.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: savuporo on 07/17/2017 01:00 pm
Now I really have the feeling that Blue Origin no longer works in the aerospace industry, but for museums. What's wrong with BO these days? Half of the year is gone and not even a single flight, only exhibitions, museums and awards.

Certainly have been more awards than flights this year. Which, come to think of it applies also to some previous private spaceflight accomplishments - i think awards to flights ratio for SpaceShipOne was a good 10:1 if not higher
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: high road on 07/17/2017 01:10 pm
Funny, I was just going to add that maybe Bezos liked the buzz about BO competing against SpaceX so much, he might be waiting for VG to catch up some more to create the same buzz about competing for suborbital tourism.

Tongue in cheek of course, but people with 'unlimited' funding are known to be fond of such things.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Svetoslav on 07/17/2017 01:41 pm
How probably could such scenario be? Virgin Galactic is actually conducting flights this year and are once again gaining attention...
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 07/17/2017 02:35 pm
Asking the same things over and over again isn't likely to get you any more information.  Blue will launch again when they're ready.  We've been through many periods of slow news/inscrutable schedules/seeming inaction like this with SpaceX over the years.  Big aerospace projects take time.  I seriously doubt Blue has shut down for a summer awards circuit tour.  Give them a chance to get their work done, and we'll eventually see more pretty videos of launches.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Svetoslav on 07/17/2017 02:43 pm
Star One: Good that you said it :)

However, to answer your question.

I'm a millenial with all associated prejudices about that :) I wouldn't say that I (or people like me) are "entitled". I'd rather prefer the word "demanding". We are literally born in the Age of information and as such, we expect to have it.

I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. It's a cultural change. I just hate when people are putting all of their prejudices right under my nose. I think being demaning in space exploration is a good thing and people should respect that rather than scold people like me.

But no, I'm currently not interested to engaging with Bezos on this issue. Not only he rarely answers his tweets, replying right under the post about Buzz Aldrin would be kinda rude. After all, he's an accomplished guy and deserves the reward.

I am more interested with speaking to fellow space enthusiasts, sharing the same concerns about why it takes so long, occasionally joking about Blue Origin "the museum company". In the end noone is immune to criticism, not even Bezos, not even Virgin Galactic. I've seen many critical posts about why it took so long to develop SpaceShip two here. I can promise that if they can't keep to the schedule Branson recently posted, I'll be critical too. 

Now: I see a mod comment. End of discussion for me. Now to focus on Mayak satellite again, so I have some things to share there.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 07/17/2017 03:14 pm

I am more interested with speaking to fellow space enthusiasts, sharing the same concerns about why it takes so long,

That is the problem.  It isn't taking too long.  Some things take time and there are no short cuts in hardware development.  You have no right in demanding anything unless you are paying for it.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars-J on 07/17/2017 04:02 pm
Because they took the lessons learned from their first couple of flights into the factory and applied changes. I have no insider information but that much seems obvious.

Obvious? No. They also might have lost interest, and have shifted most resources to working on NG. Equally possible IMO.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Chasm on 07/17/2017 05:36 pm
Looks to me like they are not licensed by FAA to launch at this time.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars-J on 07/17/2017 05:58 pm
Looks to me like they are not licensed by FAA to launch at this time.

...and this failure to file the paperwork is either due to a planned delay or lack of interest, so it doesn't tell us much.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Lar on 07/18/2017 02:06 am
That seems more productive than stale back and forth.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 07/18/2017 07:46 pm
Cross posting purely for claimed timescale of NS flight:

Quote
Thomas Driebe, DLR: platforms we use for µg research include Blue Origin’s New Shepard; flying experiments on it in 2nd half 2017. #ISSRDC

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/887391257797865472 (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/887391257797865472)
Title: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Star One on 07/21/2017 04:42 pm
DLR to fly experiments on Blue Origin’s New Shepard

Quote
The German Aerospace Center, Germany’s space agency, will fly two experiments on a suborbital flight by Blue Origin’s New Shepard vehicle later this year as part of an effort to diversify its microgravity research efforts.

Thomas Driebe, head of the physical and material sciences program at the center, known by the German acronym DLR, said in a presentation July 18 at the International Space Station Research and Development Conference here that the center planned to fly the physical sciences experiments under a commercial deal with Blue Origin.

“This is another opportunity for German scientists,” he said in a brief discussion about the mission, scheduled for the second half of this year, during his presentation.

Quote
In a later interview, Driebe said one of the experiments will test a phenomenon known as photophoresis, the movement of particles suspended in a gas triggered by light. In astrophysics, photophoresis plays a role in the formation of planets in protoplanetary disks. The other experiment, he said, will test granular matter dynamics in microgravity.

Quote
Cost is also a factor. “The sounding rockets are rather cost-intensive,” Driebe said. “So this was an opportunity to put small payloads on another platform.” DLR purchased the payload space on the New Shepard flight, he said, but he did not disclose the price the center paid. “Since it’s one of the first flights, as far as I know there was a special discount.”

http://spacenews.com/dlr-to-fly-experiments-on-blue-origins-new-shepard/
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 07/24/2017 05:48 am
Quote
Wow! Look who else is here at #OSH17 - our @blueorigin friends have some flight-tested hardware to show off.

https://twitter.com/nasahistory/status/889283920348491777
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 07/24/2017 07:59 pm
Quote
NASA doesn't get a whole lot of credit for this, but the agency has done a lot to help @blueorigin with crew spacecraft development.

https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/889566218822311943
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Mark K on 07/25/2017 07:50 pm
Quote
Wow! Look who else is here at #OSH17 - our @blueorigin friends have some flight-tested hardware to show off.
Stood next to it during Barenaked Ladies concert last night. A night to remember. Heard it is the vehicle that was used to test capsule escape. Why it is so beat up. It looks like it is built like a tank.

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 07/27/2017 01:54 pm
Quote
Jeff Bezos Surpasses Bill Gates as World's Richest Person
By Shelly Hagan and Spencer Soper
27 July 2017, 14:32 GMT+1

    His net worth climbs more than $1 billion in intraday trading
    Gates has held top spot on Bloomberg wealth index since 2013

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-27/bezos-surpasses-gates-as-world-s-richest-ahead-of-amazon-results (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-27/bezos-surpasses-gates-as-world-s-richest-ahead-of-amazon-results)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Eerie on 07/27/2017 02:53 pm
Quote
Jeff Bezos Surpasses Bill Gates as World's Richest Person
By Shelly Hagan and Spencer Soper
27 July 2017, 14:32 GMT+1

    His net worth climbs more than $1 billion in intraday trading
    Gates has held top spot on Bloomberg wealth index since 2013

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-27/bezos-surpasses-gates-as-world-s-richest-ahead-of-amazon-results (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-27/bezos-surpasses-gates-as-world-s-richest-ahead-of-amazon-results)

Whether Bezos has $80b or $90b has no real impact on Blue Origin.
Title: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Star One on 07/27/2017 04:50 pm
Quote
Jeff Bezos Surpasses Bill Gates as World's Richest Person
By Shelly Hagan and Spencer Soper
27 July 2017, 14:32 GMT+1

    His net worth climbs more than $1 billion in intraday trading
    Gates has held top spot on Bloomberg wealth index since 2013

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-27/bezos-surpasses-gates-as-world-s-richest-ahead-of-amazon-results (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-27/bezos-surpasses-gates-as-world-s-richest-ahead-of-amazon-results)

More details from the Financial Times.

 https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/ebc815f6-72d9-11e7-93ff-99f383b09ff9
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: alhenry1231 on 07/28/2017 04:23 pm
Some pictures of new Shepard and crew capsule Oshkosh 2017.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: AncientU on 07/28/2017 11:57 pm
Quote
Wow! Look who else is here at #OSH17 - our @blueorigin friends have some flight-tested hardware to show off.
Stood next to it during Barenaked Ladies concert last night. A night to remember. Heard it is the vehicle that was used to test capsule escape. Why it is so beat up. It looks like it is built like a tank.

It is a tank.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Zed_Noir on 07/29/2017 02:36 am
Quote
Wow! Look who else is here at #OSH17 - our @blueorigin friends have some flight-tested hardware to show off.
Stood next to it during Barenaked Ladies concert last night. A night to remember. Heard it is the vehicle that was used to test capsule escape. Why it is so beat up. It looks like it is built like a tank.

It is a tank.

Bezos must get inspiration from watching the BSG TV series on the Sci-Fi cable channel.  :)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Req on 07/29/2017 04:54 am
Quote
Wow! Look who else is here at #OSH17 - our @blueorigin friends have some flight-tested hardware to show off.
Stood next to it during Barenaked Ladies concert last night. A night to remember. Heard it is the vehicle that was used to test capsule escape. Why it is so beat up. It looks like it is built like a tank.

It is a tank.

Bezos must get inspiration from watching the BSG TV series on the Sci-Fi cable channel.  :)

I'm pretty sure "It is a tank" was a bit tongue-in-cheek. :P
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Eric Hedman on 07/29/2017 05:57 am
Friday shortly after noon, Jeff Bezos was in Oshkosh showing his New Shepard rocket to Buzz Aldrin, Jim Lovell, Walter Cunningham, Gene Kranz, Frank Borman, Fred Haise, Al Worden, and Joe Engle.  Stan Lee of Marvel Comics fame was also included.  Jeff spoke to the crowd.  He said New Glenn should fly in 2020.  None of the Blue Origin people had any info on when New Shepard will fly with passengers.  Nor do they know what the ticket price will be.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: su27k on 07/29/2017 07:11 am
Blue Origin Offers Priority for Repeat Riders (http://m.aviationweek.com/oshkosh-2017/blue-origin-offers-priority-repeat-riders#slide-0-field_images-1664561)

Quote
The next test flight will likely be before the end of the year, featuring a capsule with real panoramic windows instead of the test article’s plain cabin walls, says Ariane Cornell, head of Astronaut Strategy & Sales for Blue Origin.

Looks like we need to wait for a while longer...
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Soleil_Deimos on 07/31/2017 12:55 am
That isn't the original engine installed on it right? Why is it so warped?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: alhenry1231 on 07/31/2017 01:11 am
I asked someone manning the display in a Blue Origin outfit. They said the engine nozzle did warp from use but couldn't say if they have to change out the nozzles between reuse.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: alhenry1231 on 07/31/2017 12:47 pm
During the crew capsule demonstration it was stated that it would be a soft landing. When asked if it was "Russia soft" or "America soft" the answer was America. Also the parachutes are double redundant, if two parachutes fail to deploy crew is safe with crushable seats.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/31/2017 01:10 pm
During the crew capsule demonstration it was stated that it would be a soft landing. When asked if it was "Russia soft" or "America soft" the answer was America. Also the parachutes are double redundant, if two parachutes fail to deploy crew is safe with crushable seats.
Best question evar. 😂
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Eric Hedman on 07/31/2017 06:57 pm
I asked someone manning the display in a Blue Origin outfit. They said the engine nozzle did warp from use but couldn't say if they have to change out the nozzles between reuse.
I asked if the engine was still in.  He said it had been removed.  I looked from beneath the nozzle and there was a plug in the throat.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 08/03/2017 01:10 am
Blue Origin

Commercial Space Capabilities Collaboration (CSCC) Space Act Agreement (SAA)   

Technical Exchanges

o Radiation Tolerance and Avionics Design
o SLS Structures: Design, Materials, and Analytical Techniques
o Fire Safety (SAFFIRE outbrief)
o Environmental Corrosion Test Site Capabilities (KSC)
o Hot Gas Facility Capabilities (MSFC)
o Navigation Development (GSFC)
o Milestone #3: May 2017 
   - Progress Review of New Shepard Subscale Crew Transportation System (Blue Origin Facility)

Data Exchange
o Various software requests and technical documentation exchanges in work

Look Ahead
o Milestone #4, Nov 2017
  - Progress Review of Rocket Propulsion Systems
o Continued Technical and Data Exchange   

See slide 22:
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/ccp_nac_july24_2017.pdf
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Comga on 08/03/2017 05:17 am
Blue Origin

Commercial Space Capabilities Collaboration (CSCC) Space Act Agreement (SAA)   

Technical Exchanges

o Radiation Tolerance and Avionics Design
o SLS Structures: Design, Materials, and Analytical Techniques
o Fire Safety (SAFFIRE outbrief)
o Environmental Corrosion Test Site Capabilities (KSC)
o Hot Gas Facility Capabilities (MSFC)
o Navigation Development (GSFC)
o Milestone #3: May 2017 
   - Progress Review of New Shepard Subscale Crew Transportation System (Blue Origin Facility)

Data Exchange
o Various software requests and technical documentation exchanges in work

Look Ahead
o Milestone #4, Nov 2017
  - Progress Review of Rocket Propulsion Systems
o Continued Technical and Data Exchange   

See slide 22:
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/ccp_nac_july24_2017.pdf (https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/ccp_nac_july24_2017.pdf)
So Bezos is first building a rocket to launch very small people?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 08/03/2017 12:28 pm
New Glenn will be bigger and presumably have more room for people in its capsule.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: envy887 on 08/03/2017 12:37 pm
Still, I thought the "subscale" part was odd. Does that mean a tiny version of New Shepard? Or that New Shepard is a tiny version of something else?

New Shepard isn't really a "crew transportation system", either.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: high road on 08/03/2017 01:11 pm
Still, I thought the "subscale" part was odd. Does that mean a tiny version of New Shepard? Or that New Shepard is a tiny version of something else?

New Shepard isn't really a "crew transportation system", either.

New Shepard is a functional crew transportation system of which the booster is too small to do any actual transporting, making it subscale.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: envy887 on 08/03/2017 01:36 pm
Still, I thought the "subscale" part was odd. Does that mean a tiny version of New Shepard? Or that New Shepard is a tiny version of something else?

New Shepard isn't really a "crew transportation system", either.

New Shepard is a functional crew transportation system of which the booster is too small to do any actual transporting, making it subscale.

IIRC the ECLSS is only suitable for a few minutes of flight, and I doubt the heat shield would survive an orbital entry. It's more like a very high roller coaster than actual transportation.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 08/03/2017 03:59 pm
There orbital vehicle uses a Biconic capsule, last time released any info on it. Totally different beast to NS capsule.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: saliva_sweet on 08/05/2017 09:09 am
When asked if it was "Russia soft" or "America soft" the answer was America.

Water landing confirmed?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: alhenry1231 on 08/05/2017 01:12 pm
My interpretation of the conversation was the method (drogue, 3 parachutes, thruster burn, touchdown) of decelerating the capsule was quite a bit gentler than Russia, albeit still on land.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: alhenry1231 on 08/05/2017 01:24 pm
Could the large diameter of the ring behind Andy be New Glenn work?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Chasm on 08/05/2017 07:01 pm
Looks about right.
I get somewhere between 8 and 10m diameter. (Taking measurements from a similar high res arstechnica picture. Spot the Werner 6205. ;) )


Edit says:
The yellow railing of the tall fixture on the left side is at ~13m.
It is ~165 pixel in the twitter pic, the part as a full circle is ~97 pixel. Call it ~7.7m diameter.

The big sliding door in the back has a normal door. Using 2m for it gives ~10m for the part.

The part itself sits between both measurements. So my guess is tooling. Which makes sense. No need to wait for the new factory to get finished to start building tools.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 08/09/2017 06:40 pm
Quote
Sen. Bill Nelson at @BlueOrigin KSC facility: "We're going to have several launches a week and, in some cases, two launches a day."

https://twitter.com/emrekelly/status/895350739513597952

Edit to add: http://www.wmfe.org/senator-nelson-visits-blue-origin-oneweb-manufacturing-facilities/76496 (http://www.wmfe.org/senator-nelson-visits-blue-origin-oneweb-manufacturing-facilities/76496)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 08/28/2017 11:13 pm
New Shepherd flights a step closer:

FAA has now issued a revised New Shepherd launch license that permits carrying of passive or active payloads.

We should keep payload discussion to the original thread, but I think the issue of the revised license is a promising sign that more flights are not too far off.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Star One on 09/06/2017 02:16 pm
You can find some updates regarding New Shepherd in my post about the BBC show The 21st Century Race for Space in this thread.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43647
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 09/12/2017 09:07 am
Finally some news:

Quote
Stephen Clark‏ @StephenClark1 8m8 minutes ago

Blue Origin's Mowry: Next version of New Shepard suborbital booster shipped to West Texas launch site to fly before end of this year.

https://twitter.com/StephenClark1/status/907528860568313858 (https://twitter.com/StephenClark1/status/907528860568313858)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 09/12/2017 09:30 am
Funding update:

Quote
Peter B. de Selding‏ @pbdes 3m3 minutes ago

Clay Mowry @blueorigin: 'Jeff Bezos is committing $2.5-billion of his own resources to fund New Glenn. We dont depend on govt funding.'

https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/907535993376530432 (https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/907535993376530432)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 09/12/2017 09:49 am
Quote
Ariane Cornell‏ @arianecornell 20s20 seconds ago

http://Www.blueorigin.com  got a refresh! Check out details on #newshepard, #newglenn, our engine tech & Blue careers

https://twitter.com/arianecornell/status/907541239343579136 (https://twitter.com/arianecornell/status/907541239343579136)
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: GWH on 09/12/2017 01:39 pm
Note that the payload is listed underneath the 3 stage variant, as 13 tonnes to GTO. A breakout between the 2 variants isn't shown.
 Either this is poor placement in behalf of the web designer or the expected performance of the 3 stage is much less than people expected,  as I thought that was  what was listed as the 2 stage performance?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: envy887 on 09/12/2017 01:50 pm
Note that the payload is listed underneath the 3 stage variant, as 13 tonnes to GTO. A breakout between the 2 variants isn't shown.
 Either this is poor placement in behalf of the web designer or the expected performance of the 3 stage is much less than people expected,  as I thought that was  what was listed as the 2 stage performance?

The payload doesn't seem to be attributed to the 3-stage version, it's just part of a random smattering of facts about New Glenn in general.

I still expect the 2-stage version to get 10-13 tonnes to GTO, and the 3-stage to be used for higher energy orbits.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: HMXHMX on 09/12/2017 06:02 pm
Note that the payload is listed underneath the 3 stage variant, as 13 tonnes to GTO. A breakout between the 2 variants isn't shown.
 Either this is poor placement in behalf of the web designer or the expected performance of the 3 stage is much less than people expected,  as I thought that was  what was listed as the 2 stage performance?

The payload doesn't seem to be attributed to the 3-stage version, it's just part of a random smattering of facts about New Glenn in general.

I still expect the 2-stage version to get 10-13 tonnes to GTO, and the 3-stage to be used for higher energy orbits.

Is there an explicit Blue pronouncement for the mass of the LEO payload for the 2-stage anywhere to be found?  I see 45 MT reported but it isn't clear if that is for the 2 or 3 stage variant.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: envy887 on 09/12/2017 06:19 pm
Note that the payload is listed underneath the 3 stage variant, as 13 tonnes to GTO. A breakout between the 2 variants isn't shown.
 Either this is poor placement in behalf of the web designer or the expected performance of the 3 stage is much less than people expected,  as I thought that was  what was listed as the 2 stage performance?

The payload doesn't seem to be attributed to the 3-stage version, it's just part of a random smattering of facts about New Glenn in general.

I still expect the 2-stage version to get 10-13 tonnes to GTO, and the 3-stage to be used for higher energy orbits.

Is there an explicit Blue pronouncement for the mass of the LEO payload for the 2-stage anywhere to be found?  I see 45 MT reported but it isn't clear if that is for the 2 or 3 stage variant.

Yes.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=10685.msg1671643#msg1671643

See 19:35 into this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WchKy1fS7E

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 09/13/2017 01:24 am
An update:
http://spacenews.com/blue-origin-enlarges-new-glenns-payload-fairing-preparing-to-debut-upgraded-new-shepard/
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: ZachS09 on 09/15/2017 12:04 pm
If New Glenn IS able to lift 13 tons to GTO, is there a chance that it could do dual payload launches similar to Ariane 5?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Kryten on 09/18/2017 08:38 am
 No statement from the company yet, but Bob Smith (formerly CTO of Honeywell) is now listed as Blue CEO on linkedin;
https://www.linkedin.com/in/bob-smith-55411310/
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 09/18/2017 04:10 pm
Some SAAs signed by Blue Origin:
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2017/09/03/nasa-space-act-agreements/
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 09/18/2017 09:50 pm
Nothing funded (for anyone listed), here's the actual document (https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/domestic_nonfed_saa_listing_active_as_of_6_30_2017.pdf) - SpaceX and SNC are the only funded agreements.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 09/19/2017 04:57 pm
If New Glenn IS able to lift 10-13 tons to GTO, is there a chance that it could do dual payload launches similar to Ariane 5?
That is the plan according to Blue Origin's web site, made possible by the 7 meter shroud.

Meanwhile, Arianespace with Ariane 6 is reverting back to single-payload missions (at least with Ariane 6-2).  The world keeps changing!

 - Ed Kyle
As will Ariane "next" and New Glenn, the latter depending on the BE-4 fortunes on the test stand.

As you should have some relevant, related experience with ...
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Rocket Surgeon on 09/26/2017 12:57 am
Updates for Blue Origin from IAC 2017:
- New GEO Launch added to the manifest for 'mu space' from Thailand
- Factory in Florida 'nearly done'
- They will be 'moving there folks in in early December'
- 'Intergration' of first New Glenn's to begin soon after
- Didn't take the BE-3 out of the New Shepard between the first 3 flights
- Customers wanted the 7m fairing
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Mike Jones on 09/26/2017 06:32 am
Which company is supposed to build mu Space GEO satellites ? I am not aware that they ordered any sats yet. In fact, it is highly doubtful that they raised enough money to buy both a satellite and a launch on New Glenn after 1 month of official existence. Good PR though.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 09/26/2017 06:38 am
Quote
mu Space partners with Blue Origin to launch geostationary satellite
September 26, 2017

BANGKOK (mu Space PR) — mu Space Corp today announced at the 68th Annual International Astronautical Congress that they have entered into an agreement with Blue Origin to partner on a future launch of a geostationary satellite aboard their New Glenn orbital rocket. The launch is set to happen early in the next decade.

Commenting on the new partnership, mu Space CEO James Yenbamroong says, “We’ve decided to go with Blue Origin because we’re impressed with the company’s vision and engineering approach.”

In September last year, Blue Origin announced publicly the plan to build New Glenn, its orbital launch vehicle that will carry people and payloads to low-Earth orbit destinations and beyond. Named after the first American astronaut to orbit the Earth, John Glenn, the launch vehicle is designed to be reusable which enables lower cost access to space for Blue Origin’s customers.

“We look forward to launching mu Space on New Glenn to serve the people of Thailand and to be a part of expanding mu Space’s imprint on the Asia Pacific region,” says Robert Meyerson, Blue Origin’s President.

The company is working to support the growing demand in Asia-Pacific for broadband, mobile, broadcasting and smart city services using space based solutions.

According to mu Space’s long term plan, the company will launch its own geostationary orbit satellite in 2021. It also plans to become the first company to offer space tourism in Asia.

“mu Space also shares Blue Origin’s vision of developing space technologies that will accelerate the adoption of innovative technologies,” James added. “We want to deliver equitable access to communication services for all and improve quality of life on Earth.”

The agreement marks the first-time Blue Origin has partnered with an Asian launch customer.

https://www.muspacecorp.com/news/mu-space-partners-blue-origin-launch-geostationary-satellite/
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Lar on 09/26/2017 06:56 am
1 month old company to do satellites AND space tourism... OK then.

... Blue is reaching for news with that one.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 09/26/2017 08:17 am
1 month old company to do satellites AND space tourism... OK then.

... Blue is reaching for news with that one.
Their space tourism may just be to act as middleman in Asia for Blue.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Semmel on 09/26/2017 08:21 am
1 month old company to do satellites AND space tourism... OK then.

... Blue is reaching for news with that one.

Why is Blue partnering with such a young company? That seems like a desperate move. All the best for mu space corp of course and I hope they are successful in their mission. But this company can hardly be regarded as a boastworthy customer for Blue. What is going on here?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Rocket Surgeon on 09/26/2017 09:53 am
1 month old company to do satellites AND space tourism... OK then.

... Blue is reaching for news with that one.

Why is Blue partnering with such a young company? That seems like a desperate move. All the best for mu space corp of course and I hope they are successful in their mission. But this company can hardly be regarded as a boastworthy customer for Blue. What is going on here?

Not sure... but the presentation was by Robert Meyerson, Blue's President, and mu space's CEO was there and even up on stage as well so they're serious.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: matthewkantar on 09/26/2017 03:20 pm
Is it just Mu saying they aspire to have a hand in space tourism, or is Blue involved with this? The quotes above say Blue will launch a sat for Mu, and that Mu is interested in space tourism, but not that Blue and Mu are teaming up on tourism, correct?

Matthew
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Star One on 09/26/2017 04:39 pm
 Here be the SN article with the relevant quotage.

Blue Origin signs up third customer for New Glenn

Quote
“We have entered into an agreement with mu Space on a future launch of a geostationary satellite aboard New Glenn early in the next decade,” Meyerson said. “We look forward to launching mu Space to serve the people of Thailand and the Asia-Pacific region.”

Quote
“We’ve decided to go with Blue Origin because we’re impressed with the company’s vision and engineering approach,” said James Yenbamroong, chief executive of mu Space, in a statement. “We want to deliver equitable access to communication services for all and improve quality of life on Earth.”

Quote
“The response to New Glenn has been phenomenal,” said Meyerson. He reiterated plans announced earlier this month that, based on customer feedback, the company would move directly to a payload fairing 7 meters in diameter, skipping an interim 5.4-meter fairing.

http://spacenews.com/blue-origin-signs-up-third-customer-for-new-glenn/
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Lar on 09/26/2017 05:25 pm
Thanks, Star One. the previous post[1] had most of that but not the "the response ... has been phenomenal" boasty part.

1 - https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=10685.msg1726912#msg1726912
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 09/26/2017 06:20 pm
Started a thread just for Mu Space:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43829
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: AncientU on 09/26/2017 10:07 pm
Congrats to Blue for another order. 
Looks like there is another viable competitor in the commercial sector!

Starting to build New Glenn in the new year is hopeful, too.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 09/27/2017 04:24 am
Don't count your manifest before you make it to orbit the first time.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: LouScheffer on 09/27/2017 12:21 pm
Don't count your manifest before you make it to orbit the first time.
True, but there has definitely been a change in attitude.  A lot of folks assumed SpaceX would fail, as space was too technically unforgiving for a startup.  Now most are thinking BO will succeed.  And they are not even counting out RocketLab, a much smaller private startup.  Now we are arguing about economics, not possibility - that's a big improvement.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 09/27/2017 07:09 pm
Don't count your manifest before you make it to orbit the first time.
True, but there has definitely been a change in attitude.
(Presents too tempting a target - must resist.  Oh well, resistance is futile, this time.)

More significant is the change in altitude, not attitude, this time.

Quote

A lot of folks assumed SpaceX would fail, as space was too technically unforgiving for a startup.
They did/have failed (a lot!). Have by many been unforgiven, still. 

It all comes down to payloads on orbit. Not what "lot of folks think". True most of all for ULA.

Quote
Now most are thinking BO will succeed.  And they are not even counting out RocketLab, a much smaller private startup.  Now we are arguing about economics, not possibility - that's a big improvement.
Understand.

Suggest a different read. That many "threaten" to become LV providers. In such an environment, some might.

Once they actually succeed at launch, they have the chance to perfect the skills to let them "build out" into a launch provider, serving some portion of the then launch market.

As to arguing about economics vs possibility - that's yet to come. As you see with Antares, it's a hard fought battle that stretches a decade or more. SX is still wrestling with economics - with both examples here the early launch failures cause things to stretch out considerably.

Merlin, NK-33, RD-181 ... made it to/through the test stand (with notable failures). You can't wish that obstacle away. Even after that, first flight challenges weren't insignificant. When is a LV "developed enough", such that it provides a reasonable expectation of use (Ed Kyle does this with the entire F9 flight run to get Proton-like expectation of use, while others view as separate vehicles and get different).

And, we have still a lot of "manifest hoppers".
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: GWH on 09/28/2017 03:45 pm
1 month old company to do satellites AND space tourism... OK then.

... Blue is reaching for news with that one.

Why is Blue partnering with such a young company? That seems like a desperate move. All the best for mu space corp of course and I hope they are successful in their mission. But this company can hardly be regarded as a boastworthy customer for Blue. What is going on here?

"Partner" is most likely just a marketing word for "customer".  Nothing to read into more than that - Blue needs to continue to market themselves as a legitimate launch service provider, and Mu space needs to demonstrate that they have a contract to launch. They both benefit from saying "hey everyone we are going to space".
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Lar on 09/28/2017 05:29 pm
Don't count your manifest before you make it to orbit the first time.
True, but there has definitely been a change in attitude.  A lot of folks assumed SpaceX would fail, as space was too technically unforgiving for a startup.  Now most are thinking BO will succeed.  And they are not even counting out RocketLab, a much smaller private startup.  Now we are arguing about economics, not possibility - that's a big improvement.

Definitely a change in attitude. Blue is benefiting from fast follower. SpaceX blunted a lot of the skepticism by delivering payloads... (it's still out there, despite SpaceX haveing lifted 30% of the total mass off planet so far this year with reusable first stages and a bit more with expendables). Blue benefits, basically for freeeeeeee. Bezos is smart that way.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: matthewkantar on 09/28/2017 07:13 pm
Don't count your manifest before you make it to orbit the first time.
True, but there has definitely been a change in attitude.  A lot of folks assumed SpaceX would fail, as space was too technically unforgiving for a startup.  Now most are thinking BO will succeed.  And they are not even counting out RocketLab, a much smaller private startup.  Now we are arguing about economics, not possibility - that's a big improvement.

Definitely a change in attitude. Blue is benefiting from fast follower. SpaceX blunted a lot of the skepticism by delivering payloads... (it's still out there, despite SpaceX haveing lifted 30% of the total mass off planet so far this year with reusable first stages and a bit more with expendables). Blue benefits, basically for freeeeeeee. Bezos is smart that way.

But Blue started first, can you really call them a "follower," fast or otherwise?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: guckyfan on 09/28/2017 07:17 pm
But Blue started first, can you really call them a "follower," fast or otherwise?

Blue was founded earlier. But as SpaceX has done orbital and first stage reuse first, Blue is the follower.

Edit: You can dispute the "fast" part of fast follower.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Semmel on 09/28/2017 07:37 pm
But Blue started first, can you really call them a "follower," fast or otherwise?

Blue was founded earlier. But as SpaceX has done orbital and first stage reuse first, Blue is the follower.

Edit: You can dispute the "fast" part of fast follower.

Just replace the "fast" with "first" and its correct.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Lar on 09/28/2017 09:54 pm
fast for space... maybe not fast for new phone app development.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 09/29/2017 05:41 pm
fast for space... maybe not fast for new phone app development.
Very true for "Firephone". Bezos never understood that either.

"Gradatim" more than "follower". He doesn't want to learn from Musk (cf BE4) nor from Apple/Google either. Ego.

Unlike Amazon, where they relentlessly listen/listened to retailers like Walmart/Sears/Dart Group/... "ferociter".
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: deruch on 09/30/2017 03:25 am
Definitely a change in attitude. Blue is benefiting from fast follower. SpaceX blunted a lot of the skepticism by delivering payloads... (it's still out there, despite SpaceX haveing lifted 30% of the total mass off planet so far this year with reusable first stages and a bit more with expendables). Blue benefits, basically for freeeeeeee. Bezos is smart that way.

But Blue started first, can you really call them a "follower," fast or otherwise?

Would it make you feel better to call them a "lagging leader"? 
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: ChaoticFlounder on 09/30/2017 06:03 pm
I'll be honest, i don't think we should get too fussed about whether Blue Origin or SpaceX are ahead in the development of their next gen lift system.

Looking ahead,

did we get anything new from Blue out of IAC, other than a new customer?

Any new technical details about their launch vehicle and propulsion system?

have we gotten any updated information on what year an expected first flight might be in?

Cheers,

C
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: meekGee on 10/01/2017 12:15 am
I dunno.  If there's a change in attitude due to SpaceX's success, it doesn't really reflect on BO.

SpaceX earned their keep.  Early supporters put their trust in SpaceX because they like the companies attitude towards tech and market challenges.  Later supporters put their trust in SpaceX because of their track record.

BO, IMO, is misfiring.  It's not just the BE4 mishap and follow-on silence.  There's just something wrong about the tune.
Too much money maybe.

Logos, Emblems, Latin Mottos, Prizes, Flyboy pictures - and yet very little to show for it.  Almost VG style.

Maybe they're hiding a lot of accomplishment somewhere and will suddenly reveal themselves to be a real player.  But so far, meh.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 10/01/2017 12:39 am
fast for space... maybe not fast for new phone app development.
Very true for "Firephone". Bezos never understood that either.

"Gradatim" more than "follower". He doesn't want to learn from Musk (cf BE4) nor from Apple/Google either. Ego.

Unlike Amazon, where they relentlessly listen/listened to retailers like Walmart/Sears/Dart Group/... "ferociter".

I attended a talk by one of Amazon's former hardware designers - kind of like a Jony Ive type guy. He did not have a high opinion about the ability of Jeff Bezos regarding design choices, and listening to the hired help.

Hopefully that is not the case with Blue Origin...
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: ChaoticFlounder on 10/01/2017 01:40 am
Thinking about the implications of blues business moves lately (close to factory completion in Florida, I don't know the status of engine production facilities in Huntsville but that was a smart political move), I don't think we have much to worry about on the matter of "if" they will get some flights in of new Glenn

When blue says they're going to do something their technology readiness level is at a different point in the program than spacex
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: ChaoticFlounder on 10/01/2017 01:45 am
P.s. The CEO is not the individual to make design decisions, that is for the director of engineering, the CEO gets to decide how much money every body gets
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: meekGee on 10/01/2017 04:49 am
P.s. The CEO is not the individual to make design decisions, that is for the director of engineering, the CEO gets to decide how much money every body gets

That's exactly what's wrong with so many companies, and nobody seems to learn.

Remember when Apple brought that CEO from Pepsi?  (Scully?)  Yeah.

And on the flip side:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dieter_Zetsche

CEOs should be leaders, not accountants.

EDIT: I'm responding to the quoted claim.  This is not a dig at Bezos.  I can't get a read as to his level of involvement at BO beyond owenership.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 10/01/2017 05:18 am
P.s. The CEO is not the individual to make design decisions, that is for the director of engineering, the CEO gets to decide how much money every body gets

My story about Bezos was from "the horses mouth" for Amazon, and I'm sure we've all read stories of Steve Jobs doing the same (a friend who worked at Apple confirmed that too). Elon Musk is the founder, CEO and lead designer at SpaceX, so you know he's involved with all design decisions.

But those are exceptions, and yes normally CEO's shouldn't be involved at that level.

What is common between those three examples is that they started their companies, and they have all been instrumental in their ultimate success. And they have all created products and services that didn't work out as intended, so maybe it's OK to fail once in a while...
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: DJPledger on 10/01/2017 08:17 am
I dunno.  If there's a change in attitude due to SpaceX's success, it doesn't really reflect on BO.

SpaceX earned their keep.  Early supporters put their trust in SpaceX because they like the companies attitude towards tech and market challenges.  Later supporters put their trust in SpaceX because of their track record.

BO, IMO, is misfiring.  It's not just the BE4 mishap and follow-on silence.  There's just something wrong about the tune.
Too much money maybe.

Logos, Emblems, Latin Mottos, Prizes, Flyboy pictures - and yet very little to show for it.  Almost VG style.

Maybe they're hiding a lot of accomplishment somewhere and will suddenly reveal themselves to be a real player.  But so far, meh.
BO will only announce something when they are ready. Maybe they have already started work on NA and may make a surprise announcement of it in the not too distant future in an attempt to upstage SpX.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: meekGee on 10/01/2017 08:38 am
I dunno.  If there's a change in attitude due to SpaceX's success, it doesn't really reflect on BO.

SpaceX earned their keep.  Early supporters put their trust in SpaceX because they like the companies attitude towards tech and market challenges.  Later supporters put their trust in SpaceX because of their track record.

BO, IMO, is misfiring.  It's not just the BE4 mishap and follow-on silence.  There's just something wrong about the tune.
Too much money maybe.

Logos, Emblems, Latin Mottos, Prizes, Flyboy pictures - and yet very little to show for it.  Almost VG style.

Maybe they're hiding a lot of accomplishment somewhere and will suddenly reveal themselves to be a real player.  But so far, meh.
BO will only announce something when they are ready. Maybe they have already started work on NA and may make a surprise announcement of it in the not too distant future in an attempt to upstage SpX.
You mean like the New Glenn video?

Sure.

But that puts them in the same league as other companies that "who knows, might surprise us".

But so far, they have shown in suborbital program whose only claim to fame is that it seems to have outpaced VG, and a rocket motor whose status is unknown.

Since they have unlimited money, there is no upper bound to how long you can wait for the great reveal.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Star One on 10/01/2017 08:43 am
I dunno.  If there's a change in attitude due to SpaceX's success, it doesn't really reflect on BO.

SpaceX earned their keep.  Early supporters put their trust in SpaceX because they like the companies attitude towards tech and market challenges.  Later supporters put their trust in SpaceX because of their track record.

BO, IMO, is misfiring.  It's not just the BE4 mishap and follow-on silence.  There's just something wrong about the tune.
Too much money maybe.

Logos, Emblems, Latin Mottos, Prizes, Flyboy pictures - and yet very little to show for it.  Almost VG style.

Maybe they're hiding a lot of accomplishment somewhere and will suddenly reveal themselves to be a real player.  But so far, meh.

Blue Origin clearly like to do all their development out of the public eye and when they do show stuff it’s on their terms. This attitude is common across Amazon when they announced their new Alexa devices recently they only announced the media event on the day. They don’t need to display their working to public view and we need to respect that and not immediately jump to negative conclusions.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: meekGee on 10/01/2017 08:47 am
I dunno.  If there's a change in attitude due to SpaceX's success, it doesn't really reflect on BO.

SpaceX earned their keep.  Early supporters put their trust in SpaceX because they like the companies attitude towards tech and market challenges.  Later supporters put their trust in SpaceX because of their track record.

BO, IMO, is misfiring.  It's not just the BE4 mishap and follow-on silence.  There's just something wrong about the tune.
Too much money maybe.

Logos, Emblems, Latin Mottos, Prizes, Flyboy pictures - and yet very little to show for it.  Almost VG style.

Maybe they're hiding a lot of accomplishment somewhere and will suddenly reveal themselves to be a real player.  But so far, meh.

Blue Origin clearly like to do all their development out of the public eye and when they do show stuff it’s on their terms. This attitude is common across Amazon when they announced their new Alexa devices recently they only announced the media event on the day. They don’t need to display their working to public view and we need to respect that and not immediately jump to negative conclusions.
They say they like to do so...

But they bragged about an engine that clearly wasn't well tested, have publicised a rocket that has no propulsion, and are now touting shady customers.

In reality, they very much talk about things that are not ready.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Star One on 10/01/2017 09:23 am
I dunno.  If there's a change in attitude due to SpaceX's success, it doesn't really reflect on BO.

SpaceX earned their keep.  Early supporters put their trust in SpaceX because they like the companies attitude towards tech and market challenges.  Later supporters put their trust in SpaceX because of their track record.

BO, IMO, is misfiring.  It's not just the BE4 mishap and follow-on silence.  There's just something wrong about the tune.
Too much money maybe.

Logos, Emblems, Latin Mottos, Prizes, Flyboy pictures - and yet very little to show for it.  Almost VG style.

Maybe they're hiding a lot of accomplishment somewhere and will suddenly reveal themselves to be a real player.  But so far, meh.

Blue Origin clearly like to do all their development out of the public eye and when they do show stuff it’s on their terms. This attitude is common across Amazon when they announced their new Alexa devices recently they only announced the media event on the day. They don’t need to display their working to public view and we need to respect that and not immediately jump to negative conclusions.
They say they like to do so...

But they bragged about an engine that clearly wasn't well tested, have publicised a rocket that has no propulsion, and are now touting shady customers.

In reality, they very much talk about things that are not ready.

Well if you want to spin it that way then of course it sounds more negative. All three of your statements are more supposition than cast iron facts.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/01/2017 12:24 pm
BO will only announce something when they are ready. Maybe they have already started work on NA and may make a surprise announcement of it in the not too distant future in an attempt to upstage SpX.

That’s possible, but in my view until Blue get to orbit with NG anything they say about plans beyond that won’t have much impact. SpaceX get much more benefit of the doubt because of their track record.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: tea monster on 10/01/2017 01:09 pm
I have no idea what is going on in their labs and factories, but with their current track record, it does appear that their engineering team know what they are doing.

Space is hard and I don't expect any development program to go smoothly. That is why it's a development program after all. Yes, they lost a rocket engine in test. Again, this is what a test program is about. Things go wrong, sometimes spectacularly, and you learn and adapt the design and process accordingly.

NASA also had access to an obscene amount of money and engineering talent and look what 'problems' occurred during the Apollo program!


Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: meekGee on 10/01/2017 01:24 pm
I dunno.  If there's a change in attitude due to SpaceX's success, it doesn't really reflect on BO.

SpaceX earned their keep.  Early supporters put their trust in SpaceX because they like the companies attitude towards tech and market challenges.  Later supporters put their trust in SpaceX because of their track record.

BO, IMO, is misfiring.  It's not just the BE4 mishap and follow-on silence.  There's just something wrong about the tune.
Too much money maybe.

Logos, Emblems, Latin Mottos, Prizes, Flyboy pictures - and yet very little to show for it.  Almost VG style.

Maybe they're hiding a lot of accomplishment somewhere and will suddenly reveal themselves to be a real player.  But so far, meh.

Blue Origin clearly like to do all their development out of the public eye and when they do show stuff it’s on their terms. This attitude is common across Amazon when they announced their new Alexa devices recently they only announced the media event on the day. They don’t need to display their working to public view and we need to respect that and not immediately jump to negative conclusions.
They say they like to do so...

But they bragged about an engine that clearly wasn't well tested, have publicised a rocket that has no propulsion, and are now touting shady customers.

In reality, they very much talk about things that are not ready.

Well if you want to spin it that way then of course it sounds more negative. All three of your statements are more supposition than cast iron facts.
Well of course they are, since there aren't any cast iron achievements - and that's the point.

It"s not as if BO has a track record of only revealing big things "once they are ready". They are not shy at all.

Regular companies, if they can't deliver for >10 years (13?), they shut down.

BO is an exception, so we can only speculate.

But all I'm saying is that there isn't any evidence of either secret achievement or of some sort of reluctance to boast.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Svetoslav on 10/01/2017 01:28 pm


Blue Origin clearly like to do all their development out of the public eye and when they do show stuff it’s on their terms. This attitude is common across Amazon when they announced their new Alexa devices recently they only announced the media event on the day. They don’t need to display their working to public view and we need to respect that and not immediately jump to negative conclusions.

If Blue Origin really wants to work that way, then it should work that way.

What happened is that Jeff Bezos promised a manned flight until the end of 2017, while in reality there's not even a single unmanned test this year.

It's just normal to ask what went wrong with that company. Are they serious to work on suborbital tourism?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Darkseraph on 10/01/2017 01:32 pm
There seems to be a perception on the internet that Blue Origin must be doing very little because they are not frequently releasing teaser information to excite people who follow these topics. But, their end goal is not temporarily exciting people online through press releases, it's to permanently lower the cost of access to space. Likes and retweets don't pay the bills and given the backing they have from Bezos they don't really have to hype their product yet. I suspect the company is heads down, hands on quietly working away at the problem of making a large reusable launcher and will announce something new when they're ready to.

So far they haven't made too many dramatic announcements that they later have to retract and descope and that's probably a good thing. People often say space is hard, but it's also slow. Nothing changes overnight and anyone believing it will is going to be dissapointed Anything of importance in spaceflight takes years to get done. Just look at the protracted developments of Falcon Heavy (or actually any other space program)



Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Svetoslav on 10/01/2017 01:39 pm
There seems to be a perception on the internet that Blue Origin must be doing very little because they are not frequently releasing teaser information to excite people who follow these topics. But, their end goal is not temporarily exciting people online through press releases, it's to permanently lower the cost of access to space. Likes and retweets don't pay the bills and given the backing they have from Bezos they don't really have to hype their product yet. I suspect the company is heads down, hands on quietly working away at the problem of making a large reusable launcher and will announce something new when they're ready to.

So far they haven't made too many dramatic announcements that they later have to retract and descope and that's probably a good thing. People often say space is hard, but it's also slow. Nothing changes overnight and anyone believing it will is going to be dissapointed Anything of importance in spaceflight takes years to get done. Just look at the protracted developments of Falcon Heavy (or actually any other space program)


The problem is that BO showed us quite a lot of things in 2015 and 2016. Their lack of progress in 2017 is worrisome.

They executed all necessary steps before a manned flight, including an in-flight abort test. There's no rational reason why BO abruptly stopped not only with meaningful press releases, but also with rocket launches.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: AlexP on 10/01/2017 01:47 pm

If Blue Origin really wants to work that way, then it should work that way.

What happened is that Jeff Bezos promised a manned flight until the end of 2017, while in reality there's not even a single unmanned test this year.

It's just normal to ask what went wrong with that company. Are they serious to work on suborbital tourism? Or is it scam?
Not sure how on earth you can bring the word "scam" into this. They aren't taking money and have launched the craft into space multiple times. If schedule slippage was all it takes for something to be labelled a scam then spaceflight is all one hell of a con job.

By the sounds of it, they've altered aspects of the design of New Shepard from the lessons learned earlier in testing. Maybe it's taking a little longer than they initially thought. More information would be welcome but it's not really warranted to be throwing accusations around.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: spacenut on 10/01/2017 01:49 pm
I think they have been concentrating on the BE-4 engine.  From what I have read here, they have had two explosions in testing.  They also may work like the old school companies, 40 hour work weeks and slow moving. 
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Svetoslav on 10/01/2017 01:58 pm

If Blue Origin really wants to work that way, then it should work that way.

What happened is that Jeff Bezos promised a manned flight until the end of 2017, while in reality there's not even a single unmanned test this year.

It's just normal to ask what went wrong with that company. Are they serious to work on suborbital tourism? Or is it scam?
Not sure how on earth you can bring the word "scam" into this. They aren't taking money and have launched the craft into space multiple times. If schedule slippage was all it takes for something to be labelled a scam then spaceflight is all one hell of a con job.

By the sounds of it, they've altered aspects of the design of New Shepard from the lessons learned earlier in testing. Maybe it's taking a little longer than they initially thought. More information would be welcome but it's not really warranted to be throwing accusations around.

Well, for me lack of evidence in this case is almost equal to an argument for non-existence.

When they show me the rockets and start conducting flights again, I'll be glad to be proven wrong.
Title: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Star One on 10/01/2017 02:03 pm


Blue Origin clearly like to do all their development out of the public eye and when they do show stuff it’s on their terms. This attitude is common across Amazon when they announced their new Alexa devices recently they only announced the media event on the day. They don’t need to display their working to public view and we need to respect that and not immediately jump to negative conclusions.

If Blue Origin really wants to work that way, then it should work that way.

What happened is that Jeff Bezos promised a manned flight until the end of 2017, while in reality there's not even a single unmanned test this year.

It's just normal to ask what went wrong with that company. Are they serious to work on suborbital tourism? Or is it scam?

I have a suspicion their answer would be at this time it’s none of our business. Also using the word scam in this context is just silliness and prepared to be proved very wrong. In that case I would hope you’d be big enough to come on here and apologise for using the term, being as you well know employees from these companies look in on here.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Svetoslav on 10/01/2017 02:21 pm
The scam word was included in a question, not statement. If it sounds unacceptable, please accept my apology.
The other notes however remain.

EDIT: Looks like I'm indeed wrong due to language barrier. I checked into a dictionary, and the first result was "a fraudulent business scheme". This was never my intention to ask. My confusion was due to the word used to describe so called "scam emails" I should avoid opening, without knowing the full meaning of this either. Again, it's my fault for using a term (even if it's in a question and not a claim) without first checking its true meaning. Please accept my sincere apology for that.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: DJPledger on 10/01/2017 04:14 pm
I dunno.  If there's a change in attitude due to SpaceX's success, it doesn't really reflect on BO.

SpaceX earned their keep.  Early supporters put their trust in SpaceX because they like the companies attitude towards tech and market challenges.  Later supporters put their trust in SpaceX because of their track record.

BO, IMO, is misfiring.  It's not just the BE4 mishap and follow-on silence.  There's just something wrong about the tune.
Too much money maybe.

Logos, Emblems, Latin Mottos, Prizes, Flyboy pictures - and yet very little to show for it.  Almost VG style.

Maybe they're hiding a lot of accomplishment somewhere and will suddenly reveal themselves to be a real player.  But so far, meh.

Blue Origin clearly like to do all their development out of the public eye and when they do show stuff it’s on their terms. This attitude is common across Amazon when they announced their new Alexa devices recently they only announced the media event on the day. They don’t need to display their working to public view and we need to respect that and not immediately jump to negative conclusions.
They say they like to do so...

But they bragged about an engine that clearly wasn't well tested, have publicised a rocket that has no propulsion, and are now touting shady customers.

In reality, they very much talk about things that are not ready.

Please don't forget that BO are around the same stage with NG as SpaceX were before F9 1st launched.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Star One on 10/01/2017 04:18 pm
The scam word was included in a question, not statement. If it sounds unacceptable, please accept my apology.
The other notes however remain.

EDIT: Looks like I'm indeed wrong due to language barrier. I checked into a dictionary, and the first result was "a fraudulent business scheme". This was never my intention to ask. My confusion was due to the word used to describe so called "scam emails" I should avoid opening, without knowing the full meaning of this either. Again, it's my fault for using a term (even if it's in a question and not a claim) without first checking its true meaning. Please accept my sincere apology for that.

That’s fine and I should remember that not everyone has English as their first language and is going to know the precise meanings of every English word.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: DJPledger on 10/01/2017 04:19 pm
I think they have been concentrating on the BE-4 engine.  From what I have read here, they have had two explosions in testing.  They also may work like the old school companies, 40 hour work weeks and slow moving. 
BE-4 dev. is likely going more smoothly than a lot of other rocket engine programs through history. Only two explosions so far during dev. of BE-4 is not bad going. SpaceX have said that they blew up a lot of Merlin hardware, and F-1, and SSME dev. also had their fair share of explosions before they were made to work.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: AlexP on 10/01/2017 04:29 pm
When was the second explosion announced?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Svetoslav on 10/01/2017 04:32 pm
That’s fine and I should remember that not everyone has English as their first language and is going to know the precise meanings of every English word.

Since now we cleared the meaning of the terms, we should note the following: Every leading space entrepreneur has made bold claims in the past and promises he wasn't able to meet on-time. So in a sense, if you make a prediction that doesn't come true, you're misleading the public. And it generates disappointment.

Criticizing a business model, calling a business model bad or misleading is something entirely different. I don't care about business. This is not something I'm personally interested in. But I know a successful model is critical for a company to succeed. After all, the goal of each company is to make money.

Thus said, I should note that if some day Blue decides that the space tourism is too risky for them to do, I will understand them. I'll be extremely disappointed (I want to go to space and not just watch pictures, damnit!), of course, but I'll understand them.

So, back on topic. Last year the company made some significant steps ahead with the New Shepherd program. 2017 was supposed to have been the fruition of the program. What we saw however was museum tours, New Glenn announcement and the mishap with the BE-4 engine.

This was not what I personally expected and what (I guess) many sincere enthusiasts expected.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: meekGee on 10/01/2017 04:37 pm
I dunno.  If there's a change in attitude due to SpaceX's success, it doesn't really reflect on BO.

SpaceX earned their keep.  Early supporters put their trust in SpaceX because they like the companies attitude towards tech and market challenges.  Later supporters put their trust in SpaceX because of their track record.

BO, IMO, is misfiring.  It's not just the BE4 mishap and follow-on silence.  There's just something wrong about the tune.
Too much money maybe.

Logos, Emblems, Latin Mottos, Prizes, Flyboy pictures - and yet very little to show for it.  Almost VG style.

Maybe they're hiding a lot of accomplishment somewhere and will suddenly reveal themselves to be a real player.  But so far, meh.

Blue Origin clearly like to do all their development out of the public eye and when they do show stuff it’s on their terms. This attitude is common across Amazon when they announced their new Alexa devices recently they only announced the media event on the day. They don’t need to display their working to public view and we need to respect that and not immediately jump to negative conclusions.
They say they like to do so...

But they bragged about an engine that clearly wasn't well tested, have publicised a rocket that has no propulsion, and are now touting shady customers.

In reality, they very much talk about things that are not ready.

Please don't forget that BO are around the same stage with NG as SpaceX were before F9 1st launched.
Yup , that's about where they are.  13 years after starting out, 7-8 years after said F1.

But to read the thread, they're about to launch the world's largest rocket. 

I'd like some extraordinary evidence first, is all.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: daveklingler on 10/02/2017 02:53 am
That’s fine and I should remember that not everyone has English as their first language and is going to know the precise meanings of every English word.
This was not what I personally expected and what (I guess) many sincere enthusiasts expected.

If your largest concern is buying a ride on New Shepherd, there's a distinct possibility that you will be disappointed.  If BO decides that their orbital efforts are far enough along, and they've learned enough about operations from NS testing, they might just abandon NS as a product. 

After all, the price of orbital flights (on BO or another carrier) might just be close enough to suborbital that New Shepherd isn't worth pursuing.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: high road on 10/02/2017 11:31 am
That’s fine and I should remember that not everyone has English as their first language and is going to know the precise meanings of every English word.
This was not what I personally expected and what (I guess) many sincere enthusiasts expected.

If your largest concern is buying a ride on New Shepherd, there's a distinct possibility that you will be disappointed.  If BO decides that their orbital efforts are far enough along, and they've learned enough about operations from NS testing, they might just abandon NS as a product. 

After all, the price of orbital flights (on BO or another carrier) might just be close enough to suborbital that New Shepherd isn't worth pursuing.

So all their hyping about starting with a suborbital system in order to 'launch cheap, launch often' to learn about operating a rocket is now invalid on both arguments?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 10/02/2017 11:23 pm
New Shepard is in bringing to market phase, BE-4 is in full engine testing phase. BO is building it's orbital launcher factory in Florida. Continuation of New Glenn and New Armstong can only take place after the specs of BE-4 are fully known. (For NG the 1.8MN engines would most likely have been better.)
Isn't SpX awkwardly silent about Dragon 2 and Falcon Heavy development?
Most companies ar quite about their products during development. At the start of a product development they make fuzz to test if there is market for their product and to raise money. They also make fuzz when a product is going to market.
I hope this clarifies the silence from BO a bit. They have funding so no need to make nice presentations at the start of a development project.

I think there has been a setback in bringing New Shepard to market. I expect that there aren't many learning points to learn by launching NS for NG. So without paying customers launching NS is a waist of money.
BO has announced they improved the design of NS to improve it's reusability and decrease it's operating cost. Most likely this takes longer than expected. I also think another problem has occurred,  it could be that the FAA didn't give the operational launch licence. Also the payload demand could be less then expected. But slow development could also explain the NS situation.
I also think BO is short on cash this year, giving priority to BE-4 and the florida factory above NS.

In my oppinion demanding 60h work weeks constantly is a very bad business practice.
People work to live, they don't live to work!
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: DJPledger on 10/03/2017 11:22 am
I also think BO is short on cash this year, giving priority to BE-4 and the florida factory above NS.
BO are very unlikely to be short on cash as they are funded by JB who is the 2nd richest man in the world who has enough money to fund NASA for around 5 years on his own.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Star One on 10/03/2017 11:55 am
I also think BO is short on cash this year, giving priority to BE-4 and the florida factory above NS.
BO are very unlikely to be short on cash as they are funded by JB who is the 2nd richest man in the world who has enough money to fund NASA for around 5 years on his own.

This recent article addresses the matter of BO’s funding.

Quote
Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos said today that he plans to sell $1 billion worth of stock in the e-commerce giant every year to help fund his spaceflight company Blue Origin, according to SpaceNews. As the world’s second richest person with a net worth of more than $78 billion, behind only Bill Gates, Bezos certainly has the financial resources to do that for many more decades. That bolsters the chances that Blue Origin will stay competitive with Elon Musk’s SpaceX as the two companies continue to pioneer privatized space transportation, both for the commercial and tourism industries.

https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/5/15200102/jeff-bezos-amazon-stock-blue-origin-space-travel-funding
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: LouScheffer on 10/04/2017 12:41 am
I dunno.  If there's a change in attitude due to SpaceX's success, it doesn't really reflect on BO.

SpaceX earned their keep.  Early supporters put their trust in SpaceX because they like the companies attitude towards tech and market challenges.  Later supporters put their trust in SpaceX because of their track record.

BO, IMO, is misfiring.  It's not just the BE4 mishap and follow-on silence.  There's just something wrong about the tune.
Too much money maybe.

Logos, Emblems, Latin Mottos, Prizes, Flyboy pictures - and yet very little to show for it.  Almost VG style.

Maybe they're hiding a lot of accomplishment somewhere and will suddenly reveal themselves to be a real player.  But so far, meh.
I share this worry.  There is nothing like public exposure to force honesty on where you stand relative to the competition.  Behind closed doors, it's far too easy to convince yourself you are competitive, and not work as urgently as required.   It's also easy to convince yourself you are 90% done, then find that when you need to deliver there was more left than you thought.

Working "as fast as possible" comes in many flavors.  The top few gears require serious sacrifices, and are hard to motivate.  Public exposure of inferior engineering ability of one of the few things that can force this.  (Wartime is another.) 

BO is entirely within their rights to remain silent.  But I worry they may be fooling themselves as to how far they are along.  In theory a super-disciplined internal effort could mitigate these effects.  But in my experience that's almost impossible. It's going against human nature to treat internal deadlines as seriously as external ones.

I don't think BO is alone in this.  I strongly suspect the black world is riddled with similar situations, where the team thinks they are doing great, but public exposure would show otherwise.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 10/04/2017 02:07 am
I also think BO is short on cash this year, giving priority to BE-4 and the florida factory above NS.
BO are very unlikely to be short on cash as they are funded by JB who is the 2nd richest man in the world who has enough money to fund NASA for around 5 years on his own.

This recent article addresses the matter of BO’s funding.

Quote
Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos said today that he plans to sell $1 billion worth of stock in the e-commerce giant every year to help fund his spaceflight company Blue Origin, according to SpaceNews. As the world’s second richest person with a net worth of more than $78 billion, behind only Bill Gates, Bezos certainly has the financial resources to do that for many more decades. That bolsters the chances that Blue Origin will stay competitive with Elon Musk’s SpaceX as the two companies continue to pioneer privatized space transportation, both for the commercial and tourism industries.

https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/5/15200102/jeff-bezos-amazon-stock-blue-origin-space-travel-funding
For the record, I believe Bezos has passed Gates to become THE richest person in the world. Meaning, even with whatever burn rate BO costs him, he’s still getting richer.

I think he can afford to float his pet project a bit longer...
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Steve G on 10/04/2017 02:36 am
Most of the posters in this thread are suffering from the Instant Gratification Syndrome. BO stated that NS will be taking passengers into space. And it will. Taking passengers into space is a tremendous responsibility, and they certainly aren't rushing to become the first spaceflight company facing a board of inquiry over an inflight fatality. They will move forward with NS when they are certain they have mitigated every risk to a minimum.

They admitted a power plant failure with the BE-4, and they will move forward from that. BO has always been secretive, and don't expect them to change. They are a private company, and they are in a very competitive industry vying for a limited market. And JB has EM and his ambitions that he has to mitigate and adjust to.

Remember that for BO made a bid for commercial crew supply with their biconic capsule, and there is no reason to believe they won't progress with that, or another iteration of it, for the New Glenn. I like the secrecy, it brings back the 60's and 70's wondering what the Soviets were up to.

Posters must be patient for BO to move at its own pace, and respect its desire to keep the cards close to their chest. There is no deadline, no race to push these guys into making a mistake because some people are impatient.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 10/04/2017 02:55 am
Most of the posters in this thread are suffering from the Instant Gratification Syndrome.

Totally... it really is ridiculous for anyone to think a company should be actually selling something 17 years after it is founded. Give 'em some time!
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Star One on 10/04/2017 07:08 am
I dunno.  If there's a change in attitude due to SpaceX's success, it doesn't really reflect on BO.

SpaceX earned their keep.  Early supporters put their trust in SpaceX because they like the companies attitude towards tech and market challenges.  Later supporters put their trust in SpaceX because of their track record.

BO, IMO, is misfiring.  It's not just the BE4 mishap and follow-on silence.  There's just something wrong about the tune.
Too much money maybe.

Logos, Emblems, Latin Mottos, Prizes, Flyboy pictures - and yet very little to show for it.  Almost VG style.

Maybe they're hiding a lot of accomplishment somewhere and will suddenly reveal themselves to be a real player.  But so far, meh.
I share this worry.  There is nothing like public exposure to force honesty on where you stand relative to the competition.  Behind closed doors, it's far too easy to convince yourself you are competitive, and not work as urgently as required.   It's also easy to convince yourself you are 90% done, then find that when you need to deliver there was more left than you thought.

Working "as fast as possible" comes in many flavors.  The top few gears require serious sacrifices, and are hard to motivate.  Public exposure of inferior engineering ability of one of the few things that can force this.  (Wartime is another.) 

BO is entirely within their rights to remain silent.  But I worry they may be fooling themselves as to how far they are along.  In theory a super-disciplined internal effort could mitigate these effects.  But in my experience that's almost impossible. It's going against human nature to treat internal deadlines as seriously as external ones.

I don't think BO is alone in this.  I strongly suspect the black world is riddled with similar situations, where the team thinks they are doing great, but public exposure would show otherwise.

It’s very easy for you to say this when you know very well that in the case of the black world that by its very nature no one well ever be able to contradict you.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: meberbs on 10/04/2017 07:57 am
I don't think BO is alone in this.  I strongly suspect the black world is riddled with similar situations, where the team thinks they are doing great, but public exposure would show otherwise.

It’s very easy for you to say this when you know very well that in the case of the black world that by its very nature no one well ever be able to contradict you.
Actually counter examples from the black world are well known. Skunk Works in particular is an example of some particularly effective development methods to encourage innovation.

Generally though, there is no reason to think black world is different than the rest of comparable industries. The main difference is the government oversight that is involved by definition. Again, you can compare this to non-black gov't contracting e.g. NASA. This source of slowdown is clearly irrelevant to the original point though.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Star One on 10/04/2017 08:06 am
I don't think BO is alone in this.  I strongly suspect the black world is riddled with similar situations, where the team thinks they are doing great, but public exposure would show otherwise.

It’s very easy for you to say this when you know very well that in the case of the black world that by its very nature no one well ever be able to contradict you.
Actually counter examples from the black world are well known. Skunk Works in particular is an example of some particularly effective development methods to encourage innovation.

Generally though, there is no reason to think black world is different than the rest of comparable industries. The main difference is the government oversight that is involved by definition. Again, you can compare this to non-black gov't contracting e.g. NASA. This source of slowdown is clearly irrelevant to the original point though.

I’d argue that you can get some good examples such as the rapid capabilities office’s running of the B-21 & X-37B programs as far as we can tell they seem to be run well.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Svetoslav on 10/04/2017 08:28 am
Most of the posters in this thread are suffering from the Instant Gratification Syndrome. BO stated that NS will be taking passengers into space. And it will. Taking passengers into space is a tremendous responsibility, and they certainly aren't rushing to become the first spaceflight company facing a board of inquiry over an inflight fatality. They will move forward with NS when they are certain they have mitigated every risk to a minimum.


What you say is somewhat right. We're the generation of instant gratification. We're spoiled by instantaneous photos of space missions which give us a feeling that we're virtual astronauts.

But even if what you say it's true, the fact is that within a decade the USA implemented three manned programs - Mercury, Gemini and Apollo, and started preliminary studies on the Space Shuttle.

Fast forward to 2017. Ten years have passed since SpaceX launched their first Falcon 1 rocket, and there's not even a single manned flight.

Blue Origin looked right on track. They completed all tests required before a manned spaceflight - even an in-flight abort test. Bezos announced he expected to launch its own astronauts in 2017.

Nobody anticipated this kind of gap.

OK, I understand that hardware is tricky and it's "rocket science". But should it really take it that long? Again, we're talking about a manned test flight, not about launching customers yet.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: whatever11235 on 10/04/2017 07:51 pm

For the record, I believe Bezos has passed Gates to become THE richest person in the world. Meaning, even with whatever burn rate BO costs him, he’s still getting richer.

I think he can afford to float his pet project a bit longer...

We can only speculate how much of his fortune is available to be invested in BO and not tied up in assets (like stock position in Amazon).

Musks net worth is >20B and yet he is short on cash and needs to raise money to fund SpaceX.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: envy887 on 10/04/2017 08:06 pm

For the record, I believe Bezos has passed Gates to become THE richest person in the world. Meaning, even with whatever burn rate BO costs him, he’s still getting richer.

I think he can afford to float his pet project a bit longer...

We can only speculate how much of his fortune is available to be invested in BO and not tied up in assets (like stock position in Amazon).

Musks net worth is >20B and yet he is short on cash and needs to raise money to fund SpaceX.

Not really; he's selling Amazon gradually.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/04/jeff-bezos-sells-940-million-in-amazon-stock.html
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 10/04/2017 08:11 pm
I also think BO is short on cash this year, giving priority to BE-4 and the florida factory above NS.

This recent article addresses the matter of BO’s funding.

Quote
Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos said today that he plans to sell $1 billion worth of stock in the e-commerce giant every year to help fund his spaceflight company Blue Origin, according to SpaceNews. As the world’s second richest person with a net worth of more than $78 billion, behind only Bill Gates, Bezos certainly has the financial resources to do that for many more decades. That bolsters the chances that Blue Origin will stay competitive with Elon Musk’s SpaceX as the two companies continue to pioneer privatized space transportation, both for the commercial and tourism industries.

https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/5/15200102/jeff-bezos-amazon-stock-blue-origin-space-travel-funding

I totally agree with watever11235.
@Envy 887 it looks like JB is selling ~1mln shares at once. may 2016, forbes (https://www.forbes.com/sites/kerryadolan/2016/05/06/jeff-bezos-sells-1-of-his-amazon-stake-for-671-million/#46a48b8f36f3). That the stocks sell higher is good for Jeff Bezos and BO, because more can be spend on BO.

According to forbes (https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/list/#version:realtime) Jeff Bezos is now worth $82.2 Billion (10^9). But this is nearly all controlling shares in Amazon.
Shares are hard to sell at large quantities. If a lot off shares are sold at once, the share value drops. This is basic availability-demand economics. Controlling shares are even more difficult to sell, because the owner losses control over the company. For the stability of a company the majority of the controlling shares should be owned by investors that back the board.

So Jeff Bezos has huge amounts of Amazon shares, and he can sell some to invest into BO. JB sold 1mln shares in May, raising 941mln. I don't expect he will do another huge selling round this year.
BO is investing ~300mln in the Florida Factory. They have the labor force and setbacks with BE-4 development. And they improved the design of NS for the operational system. Lots of cost and work.
The value of BO is dependent for a large part on the succes of BE-4. The company will most likely become profitable when they win the BE-4 supply contract for the ULA Vulcan rocket. When BE-4 is developed succesfully BO needs to invest at least another billion to develop NG and it's launch site.
I expect the margin on suborbital payload flights in minimal at best, more likely is a negative business case.   Most likely they aren't launching, because the vehicles and the operational launch licence aren't available jet. I expect we can enjoy watching several NS launches next year.

I really hope and expect BE-4 (2400kN SL) gets developed successfully. But if it doesn't work out, they could fall back on the 1800kN version. (Most likely they need to reduce it's weight for a flight version). BE-4 is years ahead in development of both AR-1 and Raptor. (Admitting that Raptor is most likely ahead of AR-1).

As comment to the note that BO doesn't sell a product after 17 years.
Don't forget that BO have changed their plans at least one time. First they wanted to develop a HTP RP-1 launcher. They developed the BE-1 and BE-2 engines for this. After the failure of PM-2 and missing the Nasa Crew Transportation contract their plans changed. BO started development of BE-3 and BE-4; the design for NS changed. And as orbital launcher they came up with NG, first with 1800kN BE-4, later for Vulcan this changed to 2400kN BE-4's.

BO isn't taking the easy path, but the most environmental friendly one.
I expect they don't use toxic hypergolic igniters; They use oxygen-rich combustion to eliminate shoot production. The choice for LOx; Hydrogen and Methane. HTP and RP-1 aren't bad ether when burned oxygen rich.
This is the mayor difference between SpX and BO; BO want's to expand humanities reach off this planet to better humanity (this earth). SpaceX aim is to make humans a multi planetary species SSAP.
I prefer the BO goal and approach.
 
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars-J on 10/04/2017 08:37 pm
I totally agree with watever11235.
@Envy 887 it looks like JB is selling ~1mln shares at once. may 2016, forbes (https://www.forbes.com/sites/kerryadolan/2016/05/06/jeff-bezos-sells-1-of-his-amazon-stake-for-671-million/#46a48b8f36f3). That the stocks sell higher is good for Jeff Bezos and BO, because more can be spend on BO.

But it is also potentially a problem if so much of his fortune is tied up in Amazon. If Amazon's stock takes a big hit for some reason, BO funding will be constricted. This is the problem with operating BO without another income supporting it, but hopefully ULA's selection of BE-4 should stabilize that somewhat.

I really hope and expect BE-4 (2400kN SL) gets developed successfully. But if it doesn't work out, they could fall back on the 1800kN version. (Most likely they need to reduce it's weight for a flight version). BE-4 is years ahead in development of both AR-1 and Raptor. (Admitting that Raptor is most likely ahead of AR-1).

I also hope to see BE-4 being completed very soon, but BE-4 is certainly NOT *years* ahead of Raptor... With recent setbacks for BE-4, I think it is an open question to whether or not BE-4 or Raptor is the furthest along. That you would place Raptor as barely ahead of AR-1 is pretty astounding to me.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 10/04/2017 11:37 pm
The problem with having lot of money is learning how to spend it properly. Takes time.

Too bad you can't buy time.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: matthewkantar on 10/05/2017 01:04 am
Of course money can buy you time, the time of others to build rockets and stuff. Bezos needs no more time, what he needs is a deadline.

Matthew
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: envy887 on 10/05/2017 01:29 am
I really hope and expect BE-4 (2400kN SL) gets developed successfully. But if it doesn't work out, they could fall back on the 1800kN version. (Most likely they need to reduce it's weight for a flight version). BE-4 is years ahead in development of both AR-1 and Raptor.

Blue can't easily drop the 2400 kN BE-4, as ULA needs it to meet Vulcan performance requirements.

I would't say BE-4 is years ahead of Raptor. Raptor may not be operating at full thrust, but it's an all-up engine running a full cycle apparently with good reliability for more than a year now. Blue has only done preburner testing.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: su27k on 10/05/2017 02:23 am
And as orbital launcher they came up with NG, first with 1800kN BE-4, later for Vulcan this changed to 2400kN BE-4's.

Interesting, this is the first time I saw the 1800kN number, it's pretty close to the 1700kN of the new Raptor, coincidence or convergent evolution?

Also when BE-4 was 1800kN what was NG like? Smaller than current version or more engines?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: DJPledger on 10/05/2017 11:37 am
And as orbital launcher they came up with NG, first with 1800kN BE-4, later for Vulcan this changed to 2400kN BE-4's.

Interesting, this is the first time I saw the 1800kN number, it's pretty close to the 1700kN of the new Raptor, coincidence or convergent evolution?

Also when BE-4 was 1800kN what was NG like? Smaller than current version or more engines?
We will likely never know what NG would have been like if ULA had not stepped in and asked for a BE-4 upgrade to 2.4MN from 1.8MN. NG may either have been smaller or may have had 9 engines like F9.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: DJPledger on 10/05/2017 11:43 am
I also think BO is short on cash this year, giving priority to BE-4 and the florida factory above NS.
BO are very unlikely to be short on cash as they are funded by JB who is the 2nd richest man in the world who has enough money to fund NASA for around 5 years on his own.

This recent article addresses the matter of BO’s funding.

Quote
Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos said today that he plans to sell $1 billion worth of stock in the e-commerce giant every year to help fund his spaceflight company Blue Origin, according to SpaceNews. As the world’s second richest person with a net worth of more than $78 billion, behind only Bill Gates, Bezos certainly has the financial resources to do that for many more decades. That bolsters the chances that Blue Origin will stay competitive with Elon Musk’s SpaceX as the two companies continue to pioneer privatized space transportation, both for the commercial and tourism industries.

https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/5/15200102/jeff-bezos-amazon-stock-blue-origin-space-travel-funding
For the record, I believe Bezos has passed Gates to become THE richest person in the world. Meaning, even with whatever burn rate BO costs him, he’s still getting richer.

I think he can afford to float his pet project a bit longer...
Also Bezos has plenty of money to afford to dev. an engine with more thrust than the F-1 for NA 1st stage. 2nd stage of NA could be powered by a cluster of up to 7 BE-4U's.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Semmel on 10/05/2017 01:27 pm
Also Bezos has plenty of money to afford to dev. an engine with more thrust than the F-1 for NA 1st stage. 2nd stage of NA could be powered by a cluster of up to 7 BE-4U's.

Your fixation with the F-1 engine and everyone should make an engine just like the F-1 is starting to get tiring.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: AncientU on 10/05/2017 03:21 pm
At NSC meeting "Blue Origin in discussions concerning certifying NG for NSS payloads.'

(!)

Quote
Smith: in talks with nat’l security community and NASA on certifying New Glenn for their missions.
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/915959780979740673
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: envy887 on 10/05/2017 07:28 pm
Blue has only done preburner testing.
Succeeded at. (They also claim full power head/pack).

That we know, as Lar said too. (What we don't know but is likely is the CFD model and actual engine are being "worked" to "meet in the middle".)

BO likes everything to be consistently improving that is communicated externally/publically. There can be stages of engine development where you take one step forward, and then two (or three) back. Disconcerting.
The consensus is that the last failure was powerpack and not full engine testing, correct? So they have neither a reliable powerpack nor a reliable full engine (yet), while Raptor has had both for over a year.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 10/05/2017 07:52 pm
Blue has only done preburner testing.
Succeeded at. (They also claim full power head/pack).

That we know, as Lar said too. (What we don't know but is likely is the CFD model and actual engine are being "worked" to "meet in the middle".)

BO likes everything to be consistently improving that is communicated externally/publically. There can be stages of engine development where you take one step forward, and then two (or three) back. Disconcerting.
The consensus is that the last failure was powerpack and not full engine testing, correct?
Unsure. Semantics.

The way I read it is that they tested the powerpack before at rated output that would support engine start-up/shutdown.

Then something failed on the powerpack while handling a full scale engine on the test stand. Up to this part I think we're all in agreement.

My SWAG (The test was powerpack with injectors, possibly combustion chamber, so likely the effect while technically on the powerpack might be due to the conditions created by other components in the system under test.)

Like you'd expect when you'd go to use the rest of the hardware set.

(So technically you have had a working powerpack with the requisite mass flows, but in the context of a working engine it does not function as designed. Where likely both powerpack and injectors/combustion chambers need to be reworked to go forward.)

This is both good and bad. Good because you found problems early, bad because you have to "fix" both to try again, and that eats time.

Quote
So they have neither a reliable powerpack nor a reliable full engine (yet), while Raptor has had both for over a year.
Bottom line - correct. That's again the "bad" we suspect. We don't know the "good" - how close they got to "working".

You can see why all of them - SX/BO/AJR - aren't talking much. SX because of fear of reversal of fortune, BO because of possible "free fall", AJR because of not yet reaching the stage where things go "boom" yet.

All fear the "optics".
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: PahTo on 10/05/2017 08:20 pm


The way I read it is that they tested the powerpack before at rated output that would support engine start-up/shutdown.

Then something failed on the powerpack while handling a full scale engine on the test stand. Up to this part I think we're all in agreement.

All fear the "optics".

Concur--nice summary SG1962
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/06/2017 02:48 am
At NSC meeting "Blue Origin in discussions concerning certifying NG for NSS payloads.'

(!)

Quote
Smith: in talks with nat’l security community and NASA on certifying New Glenn for their missions.
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/915959780979740673
(Bold mine)
Anyone catch that?

I'm old enough to remember when people scoffed at the idea that Blue Origin would do national security launches...
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 10/06/2017 02:52 am
... or any launches.

Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: su27k on 10/06/2017 02:59 am
At NSC meeting "Blue Origin in discussions concerning certifying NG for NSS payloads.'

(!)

Quote
Smith: in talks with nat’l security community and NASA on certifying New Glenn for their missions.
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/915959780979740673
(Bold mine)
Anyone catch that?

I'm old enough to remember when people scoffed at the idea that Blue Origin would do national security launches...

There were indication of this from the Air Force months ago, this is the first time Blue admitted it themselves though.

I guess people could still argue that there're some sort of non-compete agreement between Blue and ULA, something like Blue would only go after launches that ULA would lose to SpaceX anyway.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Semmel on 10/06/2017 11:26 am
And there is an article by Jeff Foust:

http://spacenews.com/blue-origin-shows-interest-in-national-security-launches/
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Rebel44 on 10/06/2017 01:37 pm
At NSC meeting "Blue Origin in discussions concerning certifying NG for NSS payloads.'

(!)

Quote
Smith: in talks with nat’l security community and NASA on certifying New Glenn for their missions.
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/915959780979740673
(Bold mine)
Anyone catch that?

I'm old enough to remember when people scoffed at the idea that Blue Origin would do national security launches...

There were indication of this from the Air Force months ago, this is the first time Blue admitted it themselves though.

I guess people could still argue that there're some sort of non-compete agreement between Blue and ULA, something like Blue would only go after launches that ULA would lose to SpaceX anyway.
I doubt such non-compete would be legal - let alone enforceable.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: envy887 on 10/06/2017 01:51 pm
At NSC meeting "Blue Origin in discussions concerning certifying NG for NSS payloads.'

(!)

Quote
Smith: in talks with nat’l security community and NASA on certifying New Glenn for their missions.
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/915959780979740673
(Bold mine)
Anyone catch that?

I'm old enough to remember when people scoffed at the idea that Blue Origin would do national security launches...

There were indication of this from the Air Force months ago, this is the first time Blue admitted it themselves though.

I guess people could still argue that there're some sort of non-compete agreement between Blue and ULA, something like Blue would only go after launches that ULA would lose to SpaceX anyway.
I doubt such non-compete would be legal - let alone enforceable.

And it would hardly be the first time a hardware supplier has competed directly with their own customers.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 10/06/2017 09:28 pm
For the two versions of BE-4 I use SI-units instead of Imperial. Initially BE-4 was at 400k lbf if I'm not mistaken (1780kN), this was the power rating where the powerpack was tested for. For ULA they improved the power to 550k lbf (2450kN).
I'm not so sure the 1MN (1000kN) Raptor is a FFSC. I'm expecting it's a GG cycle engine like Merlin 1D, burning oxygen rich or fuel rich. If they have the GG and turbine running reliable oxygen and fuel rich; I think SpaceX needs to develop a new combustion chamber and two new turbopumps.
BE-4 is definitely with a full version on the test stand. (though it didn't work reliably jet)
AR-1 is also testing pre-burners and turbines / turbo-pumps.

I wrote a post about BO wanting to offer it's NG to US institutions in the Vulcan topic.
Sorry, for posting this idea multiple times.

According to a DLR study on TSTO VTVL configurations (Prometheus & Callisto topic) for ArianeNext:
- a 5.5m diameter 75.3m long launcher.
- with a take of weight of 885mT;
- LOxLCH4 stages with 1th: 648mT and 2th: 142mT of propallent.
- Stage vacuum thrust of 1th: 13900kN and 2th 1390kN (GG cycle engines; 11x 1th 1x 2th).
- Would be able to orbit a 7490kg payload to GTO -1500m/s

They found the performance model to be in line with the performance of Falcon 9 and NG.
So a NG powered by 7x~1780kN and 1x ~2000kN would be more powerful then this ArianeNext.
I don't know of any Comsat that was heaver then 7.5mT. So a NG with 1800kN engines would be able to orbit all comsat's with 1th stage downrange landing.
The NG with 2450kN engines is able to orbit all satellites ever developed (except for the Space shuttle; Buran; Skylab and Apollo missions). My opinion is that the NG is already far to much launcher for nearly all payloads. Most likely a NG with reusable 2th stage/shuttle would also be able to orbit practically all payloads. I'm hopeful this is where BO will end up with around 2030.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 10/06/2017 09:39 pm
There were indication of this from the Air Force months ago, this is the first time Blue admitted it themselves though.

I guess people could still argue that there're some sort of non-compete agreement between Blue and ULA, something like Blue would only go after launches that ULA would lose to SpaceX anyway.
I doubt such non-compete would be legal - let alone enforceable.

I think su27k means a agreement between BO and ULA to don't compete. If Vulcan uses BE-4, BO gets revenue both when Vulcan or NG are used. (though using NG would bring more revenue to BO)
For this reason it wouldn't make sense for BO to let NG compete with Vulcan. Thus the gentleman's agreement to don't let New Glenn compete with Vulcan.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: cppetrie on 10/06/2017 10:46 pm
...
I'm not so sure the 1MN (1000kN) Raptor is a FFSC. I'm expecting it's a GG cycle engine like Merlin 1D, burning oxygen rich or fuel rich. If they have the GG and turbine running reliable oxygen and fuel rich; I think SpaceX needs to develop a new combustion chamber and two new turbopumps.
...
How can an engine designed to be a FFSC be run as a GG cycle engine? I legitimately don’t know if that’s possible, but got the impression it wasn’t. If not possible, you’re suggesting that SpaceX is not actually showing us the raptor they say they are. I have been under the impression that the raptor is exactly what has been described and running exactly as intended although not built to the scale previously announced and perhaps not at the full thrust or duration as intended for use in BFR. But otherwise it is operating just as the final engine will.

What am I missing/misunderstanding?
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: envy887 on 10/06/2017 11:49 pm
...
I'm not so sure the 1MN (1000kN) Raptor is a FFSC. I'm expecting it's a GG cycle engine like Merlin 1D, burning oxygen rich or fuel rich. If they have the GG and turbine running reliable oxygen and fuel rich; I think SpaceX needs to develop a new combustion chamber and two new turbopumps.
...
How can an engine designed to be a FFSC be run as a GG cycle engine? I legitimately don’t know if that’s possible, but got the impression it wasn’t. If not possible, you’re suggesting that SpaceX is not actually showing us the raptor they say they are. I have been under the impression that the raptor is exactly what has been described and running exactly as intended although not built to the scale previously announced and perhaps not at the full thrust or duration as intended for use in BFR. But otherwise it is operating just as the final engine will.

What am I missing/misunderstanding?

The demo Raptor is definitely running the complete FFSC. They tested the preburners and powerpack years ago.

Blue has also tested the preburners and powerpack, but we don't know that Blue has tried to fire a full engine yet. The powerpack failure might just have been a powerpack, or it might have been a full engine.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 10/07/2017 12:00 am
Up-scaling a FFSC engine means redeveloping 2x pre-burners; 2x turbine/turbo-pump assemblies & new combustion chamber. With a GG cycle engine the GG can become a pre-burner. When a single shaft turbine/dual TP GG is used; the oxygen rich turbine can become the turbine for the Oxidizer side; The fuel rich turbine can become the fuel side turbine. Now only the two turbopumps (using the tested turbines) and the combustion chamber need to be developed. So with a GG subscale engine you prove 4 systems; leaving 3 to be developed instead of 5 completely new systems. And they reused the Merlin hardware for this sub-scale Raptor demonstrator.
(Neglecting the engine controller and a lot or other stuf that needs to be redesigned for every rocket engine.)
That's my reasoning for doubting 1MN Raptor is FFSC. But I could be wrong.

In that case the full size raptor is years away from introduction. All components have to be redesigned, tested and qualified. BE-4 400 => 550 lbf = 1.375x; Raptor 1MN => 1.7MN = 1.7x

1.  This thread is not about Raptor.
2.  Unless you have any evidence the Raptor being tested isn't FFSC you should probably stop making that claim.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars-J on 10/07/2017 05:07 am
...
I'm not so sure the 1MN (1000kN) Raptor is a FFSC. I'm expecting it's a GG cycle engine like Merlin 1D, burning oxygen rich or fuel rich. If they have the GG and turbine running reliable oxygen and fuel rich; I think SpaceX needs to develop a new combustion chamber and two new turbopumps.
...
How can an engine designed to be a FFSC be run as a GG cycle engine? I legitimately don’t know if that’s possible, but got the impression it wasn’t. If not possible, you’re suggesting that SpaceX is not actually showing us the raptor they say they are. I have been under the impression that the raptor is exactly what has been described and running exactly as intended although not built to the scale previously announced and perhaps not at the full thrust or duration as intended for use in BFR. But otherwise it is operating just as the final engine will.

What am I missing/misunderstanding?

You aren't missing anything. Rik ISS-fan is in fantasy land when it comes to Raptor.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: hkultala on 10/16/2017 09:34 am
[offtopic]

For the two versions of BE-4 I use SI-units instead of Imperial.

Good, but could you then use those SI units correctly? millitesla is not a unit of mass. Tonne and megagram are SI units for mass.

Quote
I'm not so sure the 1MN (1000kN) Raptor is a FFSC. I'm expecting it's a GG cycle engine like Merlin 1D, burning oxygen rich or fuel rich. If they have the GG and turbine running reliable oxygen and fuel rich; I think SpaceX needs to develop a new combustion chamber and two new turbopumps.

Everybody else is sure. What you are speculating makes absolutely no sense at all. GG and FFSC require totally different turbopumps, there is no way how GG engine could be used as "prototype to FFSC engine", and making such totally different intermediate engine would not make any sense. it would be a dead end.

[/offtopic]
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: high road on 10/16/2017 06:34 pm
Just realized that BO's last test is now over a year ago. A great time to review the entire flight 4 webcast and laugh at all their hyperbole about why a suborbital rocket is better/faster/cheaper/can do more test flights/etc. Luckily they toned that down for the in flight escape test. With all the statements that never materialized before they got beat to the punch, this video would make a great drinking game.

Maybe a good idea for their next test flight later this year. Or SpaceX's fourth reuse of a single core. Or the unlikely event that Virgin leapfrogs them with a first manned flight. Great times to live in!
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: JDTractorGuy on 10/17/2017 01:15 pm
To any mod, can I make a request that we have a separate discussion and update thread for BO?  I like coming on here and just checking any updates, and sometimes it's difficult to see them with all the discussion mixed in.

Thanks.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Svetoslav on 10/17/2017 01:43 pm
I like coming on here and just checking any updates

Same. Dropping a message to say I agree with you.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: saliva_sweet on 10/17/2017 03:35 pm
Need some help here. Where is the discussion of the Spacenews article "Blue Origin shows interest in national security launches". I'd like to read it, but I can't find it. I know it has been discussed somewhere on these forums.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Lar on 10/17/2017 06:52 pm
I doubt such non-compete would be legal - let alone enforceable.
It would be fairly hard to detect, and it might not actually be an agreement, just good business sense. Gas stations don't collude, they just often happen to be at the same price if across the street from each other because it makes good business sense. And not every gas station has diesel. Or CNG. Because it makes good business sense.

I like coming on here and just checking any updates

Same. Dropping a message to say I agree with you.

Report to mod works better for that. I happened to notice these comments skimming this thread looking for well informed speculation and updates.

Also, this thread isn't about Raptor. Or the F-1.
Title: Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/17/2017 07:02 pm
Wow.

816,526 views for this thread! Time for a new one.

Thread 2:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43998.0