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.
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.
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.
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)
and some "weather station" (I think that was their codeword for the McGregor, TX test site they later bought, but I could be wrong).
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.
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.
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.
Space.com has a new article on Blue Origin and the New Shepard vehicle.
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/081208-blue-origin-stern.html
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?
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?
Larger server farms for Amazon.comAnother 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.
???
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.
Can't imagine Boeing letting go of anything like Delta Clippers advanced avionics unless they had a stake in or licensed it.
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...
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. :)
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.
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.
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.
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
Yeah sure, Jim, its all figments....
a) air launched manned suborbitals have distinctly different trajectories (and much cooler exhausts),
a) air launched manned suborbitals have distinctly different trajectories (and much cooler exhausts),
What says they are airlaunched? SS1 is not an example.
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)
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.
Why go through such an elaborate way to get them in there and then no real way to extract the team?
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.
Why go through such an elaborate way to get them in there and then no real way to extract the team?
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.
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
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.
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)
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.
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.
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:
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.
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
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....
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.
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.
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
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
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!
A massive solar flare could cause a failure of redundant systems.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.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.
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 viewFrom 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) ?
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...A massive solar flare could cause a failure of redundant systems.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.
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.
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
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.
MLAS was a tractor
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.
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!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?
MLAS was a NASA launch, not Blue Origin. See http://www.nasa.gov/centers/wallops/missions/mlas.html
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?
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?
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?
Doesn't do much good for an off-trajectory landing, does it?
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.
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 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.
QuoteI 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).
http://crusr.arc.nasa.gov/files/BlueOrigin-NASA-CRuSR-RFI-Response-Mod-2.pdf"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."
Haven't seen this posted yet.
http://crusr.arc.nasa.gov/files/BlueOrigin-NASA-CRuSR-RFI-Response-Mod-2.pdf"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."
Haven't seen this posted yet.
So its H2O2 and RP-1 then. Does anyone know if Goddard was the same?
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?
QuoteI 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"? ;)
It's really starting to feel like that wave of optimism in human spaceflight has dissipated and is becoming an inexorable tide or flood.
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?
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.
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)
Looks like Bono's Pegasus/Ithacus
I guess this is what New Shepard will look like.
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.
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)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.
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)
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)
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
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.
Is there a way to challenge patent applications?
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
Just to mix things up even more: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.
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
http://crusr.arc.nasa.gov/files/BlueOrigin-NASA-CRuSR-RFI-Response-Mod-2.pdf"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."
Haven't seen this posted yet.
So its H2O2 and RP-1 then. Does anyone know if Goddard was the same?
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.
I don't know how "orange" H2O2xRP1 exhaust is supposed to look, maybe this is their "emergency escape solid rocket motor".
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.
Phase 3B: Big Bob: Develop a big H2O2/RP pop-up booster. Engine TBD but
Consider a likely phased approach:
System concept is bi-conic space vehicle launched on Atlas V 402
http://crusr.arc.nasa.gov/files/BlueOrigin-NASA-CRuSR-RFI-Response-Mod-2.pdf"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."
Haven't seen this posted yet.
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,QuoteBNI 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 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 engineBlue Origin CCDEV SAA (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/471971main_NNJ10TA02S_blue_origin_SAA_R.pdf)
From the CCDev thread, just in case anyone wants to see real photos of actual Blue Origin hardware, starts at page 9: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)
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".
Conduct test firing of full scale demonstration SRMAccording 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
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.
Why do you think they are dropping the suborbital part? They are promoting New Shepard for research.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:QuoteSystem 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...
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 vehicleBlue Origin CCDEV SAA (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/471971main_NNJ10TA02S_blue_origin_SAA_R.pdf)
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...
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:QuoteSystem 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...
Recall that DreamChaser was originally meant as a suborbital vehicle, but is now totally orbital-focused.
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.
Can anyone tell me the reasoning behind Blue Origins approach to their levels of secrecy?
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
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)
Good mention of Blue Origin in this document from NASA, page 25:Looks more purple than blue on my monitor...
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/524774main_COOKE.pdf
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.
Good mention of Blue Origin in this document from NASA, page 25:Looks more purple than blue on my monitor...
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/524774main_COOKE.pdf
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.
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.
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?
I saw that ronsmytheiii uploaded CCDev briefing videos for 3 of the 4 companies today:There was, but it had an audio issue.
http://www.youtube.com/user/Ronsmytheiii
Was there one for Blue Origin?
I wonder if the crew capsule is the second stage? That would provide a lot of flexibility if combined with a hydrolox depot architecture...
And looks like it's now fixed?ronsmytheiii uploaded CCDev briefing videosThere was, but it had an audio issue.
Was there one for Blue Origin?
21 May 06, 2011 PM 2 Blue Origin West Texas Flight Test
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.
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
QuoteBlue 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
Mr. Mango said all but Blue Origin propose to meet the requirements NASA gives them.
[The presentation can be found here as PDF:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/552848main_Commercial_Crew_Program_Overview_Collura.pdf
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.
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.
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.
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.
Small note, Dual Engine Centaur was flown 8 years ago for one of the Echostar launches. It does not need to be developed.
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.
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.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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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 don't know..... what's the advantage of their capsule being biconic? :)
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.
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).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.
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).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.
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.
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).
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.shtmlQuoteThe 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).
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.shtmlQuoteThe 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.
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.
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...
How about a separate thread for Blue Origin on technical issues, and leave this one for updates?
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.
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.shtmlQuoteThe 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. ;)
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.shtmlQuoteThe 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)
Although, the information in the article makes it sound like SpaceX, it's more likely related to Blue Origin:Yes, that's very exciting stuff.
http://www.hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=30642#c
http://www.themonitor.com/news/spaceport-52431-talks-county.html
Huh? Pretty sure most of their workforce and facilities are in the Seattle area.
Huh? Pretty sure most of their workforce and facilities are in the Seattle area.Noted and edited.
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
Well, there has been a bit a recession between now and 2006, so Bezos's funds might not have been as forthcoming as planned.Blue Origin isn't just competing for suborbital... That's just a fraction of what they're going for.
Still, as long as Scaled/VG and Xcor are delayed too, Blue Origin isn't that far behind...
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, there has been a bit a recession between now and 2006, so Bezos's funds might not have been as forthcoming as planned.Blue Origin isn't just competing for suborbital... That's just a fraction of what they're going for.
Still, as long as Scaled/VG and Xcor are delayed too, Blue Origin isn't that far behind...
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/
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:QuoteRyssdal: 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.
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 has a flight planned in the next few days.Beginning Date and Time : August 24, 2011 at 1200 UTC
Most likely suborbital.
Blue Origin has a flight planned in the next few days. Most likely suborbital.
http://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_1_3552.html
LOL who knows what Blue Origin has or does not have? They seem to be just behind Area 51 in the openness department.
I remember making those kinds of websites... Makes me miss my dad.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 ;-)
Propulsion Module 2?
Peacock Mauler 2?
Poetry Machine 2?
Practicality Missing 2?
Petunia Missile 2?
What does "PM2" stand for?
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/launch_data/current_permits/
What does "PM2" stand for?
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/launch_data/current_permits/
New Shepard Propulsion Module (PM) PM1 (also known as Goddard), PM2, PM3, PM4
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.
Blue Origin crash?
Bezos-Funded Spaceship Misfires (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904716604576546712416626614.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)
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?
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.
Blue Origin crash?
Bezos-Funded Spaceship Misfires (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904716604576546712416626614.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)QuoteThe 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?QuoteThe 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.
The latest event, however, isn't expected to have a direct impact on Blue Origin's access to federal dollars, government officials said...
The article is a little longer now, but it may actually be worseQuoteThe latest event, however, isn't expected to have a direct impact on Blue Origin's access to federal dollars, government officials said...
The exact nature and cause of the failure were unclear, but remnants of the spacecraft could provide clues for investigators.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Successful Short Hop, Set Back, and Next Vehicle (http://www.blueorigin.com/letter.htm)QuoteThree 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.
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.
Successful Short Hop, Set Back, and Next Vehicle (http://www.blueorigin.com/letter.htm)QuoteThree 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.
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.
Successful Short Hop, Set Back, and Next Vehicle (http://www.blueorigin.com/letter.htm)
QuoteThree 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.
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.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'm glad they went with the update, seems like the right thing to do. Here's to more openness!Awesome!
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.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.
Let it become contaminated, and it can easily blow up on you, like any other oxidizer.
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.
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.
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.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
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....
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.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.
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.
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.
QuoteThree 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
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
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.
I guess they act as canards on the way down, with the 'drag curtin' deployed. Maybe they're steerable?
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.
This gives a better look (I adjusted the levels from their muddy pic)
I guess you don't consider SpaceX to be "New Space" then....
So it cratered within hours of the Progress failure. Any better ideas out there about exactly WHEN it hit the ground?
Any idea how big that thing is?
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
Why?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?
This gives a better look (I adjusted the levels from their muddy pic)
Any idea how big that thing is?
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.
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.
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.
A flight instability drove an angle of attack that triggered our range safety system to terminate thrust on the vehicle
Small nit, owned by the same parent company... There is a difference.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.
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.”
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/awst/2011/09/12/AW_09_12_2011_p39-366720.xmlQuoteThe 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)
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.
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.
A visit to the crash site:
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=76459 (http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=76459)
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.
RBS is way different due to different fuel, although it may use some of the same design decisions, e.g. the fins and skirt.
I think the idea was Lox/H2 for both stages of the RBS.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 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.
What, no New Horizons? It's pretty much the same sort of trajectory as Voyager 2...
Quotelaunched during the 20th century
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
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?
Yeah, these are suborbital flights. It'd be another story for orbital flights.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!
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.
I see. But suborbital still goes downrage a bit, right? Bezos must own a boatload of land out there!
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 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.
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).
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 ;)
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.
...
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?
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?
They've posted two videos of the hop test earlier this year: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).
http://www.blueorigin.com/updates/updates-2011-11-17-video-of-the-short-hop-flight.html
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...
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
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.
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
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
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.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
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.
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
Is there any good reason -to- give out these details?
>Blue Origin's drawn artwork showed a similar paddle airfoil at the rear, so the inference could be made.
As for the biconic I wonder if it steers in the same way as the ESA IXV.
>
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Aviation Week says kerosene and hydrogen peroxide but I'm not aware that Blue Origin has confirmed it
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.
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.
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.
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.
why what?
What's the reason of their behavior.
What's the reason of their behavior.Jeff Bezos.
What's the reason of their behavior.Jeff Bezos.
As long as his space hero is not Hugo Drax.
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.
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 is the guy who walks around with a $1.6M/year security detail. Paranoid, perhaps?
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.
"space goods, services, or activities provided by private sector enterprises that bear a reasonable portion ofthe investment risk andresponsibility 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.
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?
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.
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.
As long as his space hero is not Hugo Drax.What's the reason of their behavior.Jeff Bezos.
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.
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
Will this be a test of Blue Origin's reusable hydrolox engine? Is that what "BE-3" means?
Can we assume that's just the pressure vessel?
Composite?
The FAA AST recently posted the active launch permits and licenses on their website. They also posted the permit for PM2:Ah! Lots of information revealed there.
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.
As long as his space hero is not Hugo Drax.What's the reason of their behavior.Jeff Bezos.
apace wins the thread. :)
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.
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
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
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.
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.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...
Yes, I spent way too much time watching Bond films.
Charlie Bolden (r) & Steve Knowles of Blue Origin look at Blue's BE-3 engine on a test stand @NASAStennis
QuoteCharlie Bolden (r) & Steve Knowles of Blue Origin look at Blue's BE-3 engine on a test stand @NASAStennishttp://twitpic.com/9c38fp (http://twitpic.com/9c38fp)
Any more information about this engine?
QuoteCharlie Bolden (r) & Steve Knowles of Blue Origin look at Blue's BE-3 engine on a test stand @NASAStennishttp://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).QuoteCharlie Bolden (r) & Steve Knowles of Blue Origin look at Blue's BE-3 engine on a test stand @NASAStennishttp://twitpic.com/9c38fp (http://twitpic.com/9c38fp)
Any more information about this engine? A quick google search unveil not a lot about it.
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.
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.
Falcon 9 has nine engines, so that's not a show-stopper.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.
I don't understand.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.
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.
??? ??? ??? ???
It's a project by Jeff Bezos, the Amazon.com guy (another billionaire, richer than Elon Musk).
10 times. Elon's got more than $2 billion now according to Forbes. Clearly both men of means.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.
My guess is that they'll be at roughly the same level within 3 years.
10 times. Elon's got more than $2 billion now according to Forbes. Clearly both men of means.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.
My guess is that they'll be at roughly the same level within 3 years.
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.In 3 years: Tesla a ten bagger. Solar City a triple. SpaceX equity at least a double.
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.
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.In 3 years: Tesla a ten bagger. Solar City a triple. SpaceX equity at least a double.
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.
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.1) Chevy Volt is not predictive of Tesla sales imo.
3) We are waaaaay OT.
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.
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).
They're working with peroxide because it's a convenient propellant for suborbital operations.
Remember, Blue Origin slurped up a bunch of DC-X folks.
TSTO VTVL RLV
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2012/04/commercial-space-shuttle-wind-tunnel-testing/
TSTO VTVL RLV
Should I be happy I understood this, or concerned? :-)
Here is some general news.
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/05/07/secretive-blue-origin-reveals-new-details-spacecraft-plans/
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.
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.
Blue Origin's first flying vehicle "Charon" will be displayed at the Museum of Flight.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 :)
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)
Close up picture. Yes, those are jet engines.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? :)
http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2012/05/private-spaceflight
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.
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.
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 )QuoteAnother 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?
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 )QuoteAnother 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.
Close up picture. Yes, those are jet engines.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2012/05/private-spaceflight
fromThat looks more like the New Shepherd capsule than the biconic one, see pic below.
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 )QuoteAnother 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?
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)
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)
Thanks. :)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.
Intriguing poster: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?
http://instagram.com/p/NO06dDCf69/ (http://instagram.com/p/NO06dDCf69/)
Intriguing poster: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?
http://instagram.com/p/NO06dDCf69/ (http://instagram.com/p/NO06dDCf69/)
Here is some general news.
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/05/07/secretive-blue-origin-reveals-new-details-spacecraft-plans/
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.
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.
add the large pic to enjoySweet.
RELEASE: 12-362I 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.
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
Is the ISP for Blue Origin's BE-3 engine known? I wonder how it compares to the RL-10.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Air-startable implies restartable.
I meant the other way and edited it soon after posting... you must have caught it before I edited it!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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
Pusher escape test, with video :)
http://www.blueorigin.com/updates/updates-2012-10-22-Great-Day-in-West-Texas.html
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.)
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.
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.
I was simply going by exhaust colour . Am I wrong to assume that?I was just looking for confirmation. Neilh shows that you're probably right.
Jb
I was simply going by exhaust colour . Am I wrong to assume that?
Jb
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?The Shenzhou capsule uses landing rockets.
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.
The Shenzhou capsule uses landing rockets.I think the Shenzhou is more or less a direct Soyuz copy.
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 don't see any information on Aerojet in that article.
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.
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
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.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.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?
Citation needed.I thought their orbital ship was going to be Bi-conic & come down nose first.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?
not for a launch abort.
I thought I saw somewhere that the test was in relation to the New Shepherd suborbital vehicle.You're exactly right.
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.
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 thought their orbital ship was going to be Bi-conic & come down nose first.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?
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.
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?
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 thought their orbital ship was going to be Bi-conic & come down nose first.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?
not for a launch abort.
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)That seems to show the LAS embedded in the heat shield.
[1] http://www.blueorigin.com/updates/updates-2012-10-22-Great-Day-in-West-Texas.html
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)
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
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.
Thanks
While that document is no longer available at that link, this was quoted:QuoteBlue 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?
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.
Astronaut Nick Patrick joins Blue Origin:
http://www.bis-space.com/2012/11/19/7627/nick-patrick-joins-blue-origin
Astronaut Nick Patrick joins Blue Origin:
http://www.bis-space.com/2012/11/19/7627/nick-patrick-joins-blue-origin
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?
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]
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.
I think Bezos can afford to inject money into Blue Origin whenever he wants...
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?
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.
Not to say Bezos is giving Blue Origin a billion a year, but he could.
That their current businessplan does not require a billion dollars a year?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?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?
...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.
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.
...
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?
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.
They may already have it if BO would actually say what they were doing.Is there any more information available about that engine? Isp, T/W, etc?
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.
...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.
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.
...
http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/22/14623551-jeff-bezos-blue-origin-spaceship-company-aces-pad-escape-test?liteGood article.
Gradatim Ferociter!"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That last phrase is Blue Origin's motto, which is Latin for "Step by Step, Courageously."
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.Soyuz uses peroxide. ;)
Peroxide as an oxidizer for main propulsion seems to be a great choice, but its subtle flaws make it suboptimal.
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.
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.
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?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.
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.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?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.
Is there any more information available about that engine? Isp, T/W, etc?
Cool thanks for the info! Yes sl thrust is slightly higher than Merlin 1Cs 95,000 lbs.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?).
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.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.
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.The Brits would like to "discuss" your opions vis-a-vis successful use of H2O2 :)
Peroxide as an oxidizer for main propulsion seems to be a great choice, but its subtle flaws make it suboptimal.
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.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.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?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.
Not just planning ahead but precisely and explicitly the purpose of the rocket engine.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.
Yes, but to my understanding, they are going to use it in the suborbital vehicle first.Not just planning ahead but precisely and explicitly the purpose of the rocket engine.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.
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.Not just planning ahead but precisely and explicitly the purpose of the rocket engine.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.
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.
And, of course, now it's hydrolox!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!
What evidence do you have the upperstage isn't already hydrolox? That would make by far the most sense.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.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 kind of rocket designer would use hydrogen for first stage but something with worse Isp for the second stage?
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 second stage would be far too heavy if it was filled with anything BUT hydrolox.
What evidence do you have the upperstage isn't already hydrolox? That would make by far the most sense.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.
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.
never flew.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
....
Well put, I hope you are right. I look forward to BE-4!
That was what I was assuming as well. Would make sense...
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
A regular octagon has points right across (symmetry).
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.
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.
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 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.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.
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 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).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.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.
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.
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).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.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.
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.
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.
But that is of course highly speculative.
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...
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.
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?
Well since they clearly aren't making frequent unmanned flights to prove their system....
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 $50-Million of annual discretionary funding he provides now.
NASA's CCDev2 selection statement.NASA or some other large customer looking to take BO seriously would not commit Billions of dollar$ 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?
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
And they've been going for, what 5 years now? So about a quarter billion dollars so far?Blue Origin was founded in 2000.
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 is interested in Shiloh area on KSC property:"Blue Origin said it plans about 12 orbital launches a year, on average, but offered no timeframe ." interesting
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 is interested in Shiloh area on KSC property:"Blue Origin said it plans about 12 orbital launches a year, on average, but offered no timeframe ." interesting
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 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)How is that possible? I dont think that this would hold when challenged. TGV would certainly want a word in that.
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.
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.
Over the course of the day Erika Wagner, Business Development Manager at Blue Origin, presented recent progress of Jeff Bezos's alter-ego company.
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.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)How is that possible? I dont think that this would hold when challenged. TGV would certainly want a word in that.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Blue Origin's extended CCDev2 SAA with the three new unfunded milestones (to be accomplihed in 2013 and 2014) has now been posted:
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
@spacecom: Wagner: Blue Origin founded in 2000, now has over 200 employees mostly in Seattle area, test site in Texas. #NSRC2013
@spacecom: Wagner: New Shepard can fit three or more people in capsule or equivalent experiment racks. Totally automated, no pilot #NSRC2013
@jeff_foust: Wagner: previous test vehicle used several peroxide/RP engines. New one will use a single BE-3 LOX/LH2 engine. #NSRC2013
@jeff_foust: Wagner on Blue Origin's pad escape test last fall: no denying that's a pretty good kick in the pants. #NSRC2013
@jeff_foust: Wagner: BE-3 engine (so named as it's their third engine): deep throttlable for landings, restartable, reusable. #NSRC2013
@spacecom: Wagner: first Blue Origin BE3 engine is now on the test stand, did a test firing in March. Showing the video. #NSRC2013
@phalanx: Wagner: work with NASA accelerated @blueorigin LOX/LH2 engine by about a year. #NSRC2013
@wikkit: Blue Origin developed their LOX/Hydrogen turbopumps in-house. Bold. Probably the first new hydrogen turbopump in decades. #nsrc2013
@spacecom: Wagner: Looking at altitudes of 100 km or so w/ 3 or 4 minutes of micro gravity. #NSRC2013
@jeff_foust: Wagner: "ultimately" plan to have payload specialists flying with experiments; also open to having passengers as expt subjects #NSRC2013
@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
@spacecom: Wagner: we are hiring like gang busters. Lots of open positions on Blue Origin website #NSRC2013
@spacecom: Wagner: Not marketing tickets to tourists at the moment. Philosophy is to bring out systems when they are ready. #NSRC2013
@spacecom: Brett Alexander: The only customers Blue Origin has are the three beta experimenters at the time. #NSRC2013
@spacecom: Alexander: focused initially on doing one flight per day early morning due to wind. Anticipate accommodating higher winds later #NSRC2013
@jeff_foust: Wagner: will not use the West Texas site for orbital flights; would seek a coastal range for those later vehicles. #NSRC2013
Suborbital vehicle is a close version of the upper stage of orbital system
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: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.
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=101342 (http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=101342)
Engine/stage test stand? What purpose are the towers playing?
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]
Blue Origin anticipates being ready to perform its own orbital launches by 2018, Meyerson said.
QuoteBlue 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-
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
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
...
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.
....
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 ?
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.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.
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
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.
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?
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
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.
Sounds like a likely candidate for upper stage replacement for RL10. I would surprised if it also wasn't considerably cheaper
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.
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?
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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.
Absolutely. I guess I missed that context.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.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.
BE3 for Antares could be a strategic move by Orbital to enable Antares to orbit their comsats.
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.
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
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?
Makes me increasingly think BO is the mystery tenant at Melbourne Airport...
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.Unsubstantiated
If they do fly, expect them to be price competitive with SpaceX.
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.
Makes me increasingly think BO is the mystery tenant at Melbourne Airport...
It isn't. You idea was disproved.
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.Unsubstantiated
If they do fly, expect them to be price competitive with SpaceX.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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/)
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.”
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
“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.”
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.”
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. ;)
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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/)
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
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.
...Notice the author of the article is one Andy Pasztor, ::) surprise, surprise.QuoteOn 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)
...
17 September 2014
Headline:QuoteAmazon 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
17 September 2014
Headline:QuoteAmazon 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:QuoteOn 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.
17 September 2014
Headline:QuoteAmazon 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:QuoteOn 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.
Report: Blue Origin Joined Boeing Commercial Crew Bid
>
>
A partnership between BO and ULA should result in a RLV.
Those Unicorns in the engine exhausts are looking more real by the day.
Oh, maybe they will be getting those unicorns to orbit on trampolines? :DA 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.
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.
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.
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.
Source: Jeff Bezos and Tory Bruno, new CEO of United Launch Alliance, will announce Blue Origin-ULA partnership on a new engine tomorrow.
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 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.
Now that the CCtCAP annoucement is out of the way it's clear that Blue Origin had nothing to do with it.It may weaken the argument that Boeing rely on Russian rocket engines, since they are starting working on a replacement already ......
Is ULA going to announce a new rocket tomorrow? The space business hasn't been been this exciting in decades.
If they can get the US taxpayer to foot the bill, they'll do all of those things.
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."
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.
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.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?
Also have to consider deliberate cosine lossin thrust if you gimbals the engine outward. Like about 65 degrees from vertical.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.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?
Also have to consider deliberate cosine lossin thrust if you gimbals the engine outward. Like about 65 degrees from vertical.
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.”
Blue Orgin has added three new milestones to its CCDev2 agreement:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/news/releases/2014/release-20141114.htmlQuoteBlue 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.”
Blue Orgin has added three new milestones to its CCDev2 agreement:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/news/releases/2014/release-20141114.htmlQuoteBlue 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.
I knew that.Blue Orgin has added three new milestones to its CCDev2 agreement:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/news/releases/2014/release-20141114.htmlQuoteBlue 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.
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.
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.
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.I think Trevormonty meant commercial crew certificate just as the case of spaceship 2 and xcor lynx.
What type of certificate are you talking about????
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?
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.
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.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.
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.
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
Scott Henderson, Blue Origin: Shiloh commercial launch site "best of both worlds" by being at NASA KSC but outside the gate. Easy access.
Scott Henderson, Blue Origin: Shiloh could be commercial orbital launch site. Other sites "almost as good." Will announce within 3 months.
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
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?
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.
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.
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 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 :).
That's because nobody will be taking them really serious until they actually launch something into orbit.
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.
Reminiscent of SpaceX being laughed at until the first succesfull orbital mission of Falcon 1 in september 2008.
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....
Some clues are in L2. But if those are correct it is a pretty strong clue.That's because nobody will be taking them really serious until they actually launch something into orbit.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
They can also afford to achieve nothing for a decade, like the last decade.
OK.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).
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).
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.
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.
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!?!
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.
Loose lipped? Was it confidential information? If so, what was it doing on L2?
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.
Sounds like this may be developing into an American version of the Sergio Korolev and Vladimir Chelomei story :)
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.
Issue Date : April 13, 2015 at 1629 UTChttp://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_5_6644.html (http://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_5_6644.html)
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
1h
Jeff Foust @jeff_foust
Nield: Blue Origin will be flying their suborbital RLV in the next few weeks, “watch the news for that."
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?
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?
Customers, either tourists or payload operators, will arrive at the launch site several days in advance for final training and vehicle familiarization.
Jeff Foust reporting comments from FAA's George Nield at National Academies' ASEB meeting:Quote1h
Jeff Foust @jeff_foust
Nield: Blue Origin will be flying their suborbital RLV in the next few weeks, “watch the news for that."
The door seems to be open for tourist flights:QuoteCustomers, 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.
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."
Issue Date : April 22, 2015 at 1724 UTChttp://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_5_1252.html (http://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_5_1252.html)
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
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.
VideoHmmm.
VideoHmmm.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
Nice. Very Big Brother and Falcon 9 are looking like the DC-8 and 707 of launch vehicles.
Rather expensive cigar you're talking about. Musk: "Mine's bigger" ;)
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.Rather expensive cigar you're talking about. Musk: "Mine's bigger" ;)
Bezos: "I'm going to ride on mine before you ride on yours." ;)
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?
Look in the last paragraph of the new page: https://www.blueorigin.com/technologyWell, 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.
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.
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.
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!!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
BO does seem to be pursuing the same powered landing RTLS or Return-to-Barge as SpaceX is trying to show will work.
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.
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.)
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.
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!!
...
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.
....
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.
Why would Blue even bother with developing a station?
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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?
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?
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.)Nice summary
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.
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.
...
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.
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?
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.
Rockets, Legos, yada yada yada.
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).
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.
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!
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.
Rockets, Legos, yada yada yada.Quote from: Jeff BezosIn 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.
On a side note Blue Origin has come out saying they prefer that people use Blue instead of BO.And how many tourists do those Kiwi amateurs plan to send up?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.
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.
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.
On a side note Blue Origin has come out saying they prefer that people use Blue instead of BO.
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.
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.
...BE-3 is tap-off, not staged combustion.
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.
Is it merely gravity-deployed? Looks as though retraction is also possible based on the CG video, which suggests pneumatic, hydraulic, or electric.
Why so secretive? Are they afraid that some other billionaire is going to rip off and clone their rocket engine?
“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.”
.
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.
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 don't have cause and effect switched, I'm just hoping the PR blitz (which is the effect) will further focus their endeavor.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.QuoteBlue 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.
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 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.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.
Suborbital is small potatoes.
The only way that could be true is if you include point-to-point which is essentially orbital anyway.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 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 small potatoes.
There's still some who think it's the bigger market.
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.The only way that could be true is if you include point-to-point which is essentially orbital anyway.Suborbital is small potatoes.
There's still some who think it's the bigger market.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I understood that he said that Blue is ahead of SpaceX on VTVL. Obviously behind in the rest. I contend that specific part.
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.
By all rights, Blue Origin should be well ahead of SpaceX on VTVL...
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.
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.
Basically, that's what I meant.
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.
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.Basically, that's what I meant.
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.
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).
What sequence of goals is Bezos likely to pursue on his way out from Earth?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:
manned suborbital => manned orbital => manned lunar missions => manned mars missions?
What other major goals/milestones of note would be seen in between?
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.
...BE-3 is tap-off, not staged combustion.
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-4 is supposed to be staged combustion, but has not been finished (same with the Raptor).
They most certainly DID get money to develop their rocket engine! They got over $10 million for their RBS, read here: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: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....
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/679671main_CCDev2_Public_August2012_508.pdf
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.
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)
I think it's not useful to say that SpaceX is "ahead" of Blue Origin until we know more about what Blue is doing....you just basically answered yourself.
...
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.
...
I think it's not useful to say that SpaceX is "ahead" of Blue Origin until we know more about what Blue is doing....you just basically answered yourself.
...
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.
...
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.I think it's not useful to say that SpaceX is "ahead" of Blue Origin until we know more about what Blue is doing....you just basically answered yourself.
...
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.
...
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.I think it's not useful to say that SpaceX is "ahead" of Blue Origin until we know more about what Blue is doing....you just basically answered yourself.
...
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.
...
I don't think "beyond suborbital" is specific enough to say much of anything about their plans.
I hope Blue Origin catches up. We can only hope Bezos devotes more energy to Blue Origin.
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.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.I think it's not useful to say that SpaceX is "ahead" of Blue Origin until we know more about what Blue is doing....you just basically answered yourself.
...
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.
...
I don't think "beyond suborbital" is specific enough to say much of anything about their plans.
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.
...
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.
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.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.I think it's not useful to say that SpaceX is "ahead" of Blue Origin until we know more about what Blue is doing....you just basically answered yourself.
...
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.
...
I don't think "beyond suborbital" is specific enough to say much of anything about their plans.
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.
...
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 ::)
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.
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.
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.
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),QuoteOrbital 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.
So, does anyone think Blue Origin has any BEO ambitions or are they going to stay strictly Suborbital and LEO?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Blue's orbital rocket will not compete with the Vulcan.
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.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.
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?
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.
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.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.
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.
>
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.
If Blue can develop a low reusable launch system eg $1000kg to 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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.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.
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.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.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.
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.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.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.
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.
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!
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.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.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.
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 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.
... 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.
Parabolicarc.com @spacecom · 39 mins 39 minutes ago'Alexander' being Blue's Brett Alexander.
Alexander: will be flying the New Shepard in the next couple of months. #SpaceTechExpo
"self-loading waterThere. Fixed that for ya.carbonpayloads"
"self-loading waterThere. Fixed that for ya.carbonpayloads"
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.
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 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?
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.
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.
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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)
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
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
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
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.
I can't run the video that shows the legs from here. Would someone mind posting a .jpg of the LV with legs?
Thanks
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
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 :)
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 :)
The landing had already been shown at 3m10s of this video:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=10685.msg1376081#msg1376081
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
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!
:)
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.
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.Nope.
Oh, and there are certain reasons methane/LNG wasn't done before for LV - we've still a way to go here.
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?
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.
James Dean @flatoday_jdean 18m18 minutes ago
Bezos to visit Cape on Sept. 15 for "significant announcement regarding the emerging commercial launch industry."
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
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?
Almost all of those apply equally to hydrogen, which is definitely a trickier fuel.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.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.
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.)
thx for the linkageBlue 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/
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
From the BlueOrigin.com website (https://www.blueorigin.com/technology).
(https://d3p0rr00ppgdfa.cloudfront.net/themes/site_theme/images/technology/orbital-spaceflight.jpg)
From the BlueOrigin.com website (https://www.blueorigin.com/technology).
(https://d3p0rr00ppgdfa.cloudfront.net/themes/site_theme/images/technology/orbital-spaceflight.jpg)
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.
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.... :)
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)
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.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.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).
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.
... The rocket industry is also a high tech industry that is only going to expand in the future...
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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 wouldn't be surprised to see ULA and BO operating this new reusable launch vehicle together in some 'alliance'.BLUnited Launch Alliance?
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?
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'.
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 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.
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?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?
Suggest that another way to not be competitive is to be complementary.
We could move the entire thread into Commercial Space? Like this post if a good idea.Yes, Dream Chaser should also be moved IMHO.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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).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.
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
.. 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... 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
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).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.
- Ed Kyle
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.
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
That was a lot of political backslapping... They really should ban politicos from doing speeches... :P
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.
....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.
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?
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.
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).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.
- 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.That's a much earlier image though, I wouldn't put much stock into it. It predates the BE-4 reveal by years.
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... 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
....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.
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?
- Ed Kyle
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?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?
Suggest that another way to not be competitive is to be complementary.
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."
post announcement article:
Why space? Battle of billionaires Bezos, Branson and Musk
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.
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.
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.
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:QuoteHe 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.
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.
I doubt that overlap is at the Vulcan's lower payload range.
Also in Jeff Foust's article is this sentence:Perhaps Bezos found Musk's original (2003?) arguments persuasive and he will use five BE-4s on the first stage.QuoteBezos 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.
Also in Jeff Foust's article is this sentence:Perhaps Bezos found Musk's original (2003?) arguments persuasive and he will use five BE-4s on the first stage.QuoteBezos 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.
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.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.
Also in Jeff Foust's article is this sentence:Perhaps Bezos found Musk's original (2003?) arguments persuasive and he will use five BE-4s on the first stage.QuoteBezos 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.
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.
Bezos hasn't said no to commercial satellites or cargo. Needs to prove the orbital LV with some payload.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.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.
Speaking of which, anyone know the thrust limits of LC-36's trench(s)?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.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 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.
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.
From the web site:
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?
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.From the web site:
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.Blue Origin make extensive use of rocket engine simulation SW . These tests would help verify and improve this simulation software.
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.
Nope.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.Blue Origin make extensive use of rocket engine simulation SW . These tests would help verify and improve this simulation software.
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.
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.
I always thought mr Bezos was aiming for the moon. Would he not optimize for this goal from the beginning?
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
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.Does anybody know where New Shepard is built.Presumably their facilities in Kent, WA, given there's only test infrastructure at Van Horn.
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/
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
They aren't funded by revenues, but by a fixed annual stipend. No acceleration, just eventual, incremental progress. "Gradatim ferociter".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.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.
They aren't funded by revenues, but by a fixed annual stipend. No acceleration, just eventual, incremental progress. "Gradatim ferociter".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.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.
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.
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.
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.
The next 12-18 months are going to be really interesting for Blue Origin.
~Jon
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?
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.
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.
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, 2015QuoteBlue 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.
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?
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, 2014He 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.
So what's SX/ULA at for people each? Few thousand each? What were both doing when they were at the same size?
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
Quote from: Andrew MartonikAmazon 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, 2014He 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.
When is considerate pragmatism "negativism"?Quote from: Andrew MartonikAmazon 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, 2014He 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.
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.
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?
When is considerate pragmatism "negativism"?Quote from: Andrew MartonikAmazon 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, 2014He 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.
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
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.
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.
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?
When is considerate pragmatism "negativism"?
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?To be fair, historically, that figure has been close to zero for most of the history of aviation.
...
Historically, that number has been (frighteningly?) low for manned spaceflight. Shuttle was zero. So was SS2 and will be Lynx.
Bezos will buy as a going concern, or purchase the bankrupt assets of, Bigelow. Problem solved for both parties...Unlikely.
I'm curious, how many flights (in a row) would you want to see before you would fly on their rocket?To be fair, historically, that figure has been close to zero for most of the history of aviation.
...
Historically, that number has been (frighteningly?) low for manned spaceflight. Shuttle was zero. So was SS2 and will be Lynx.
So are you saying you would ride on the next flight?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.
We did a lot of things in history that we wouldn't do now. People tested parachutes for the first time manned
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.Soyuz has put theirs to test at least once with a pad fire, it worked.
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.
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.
So are you saying you would ride on the next flight?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.
We did a lot of things in history that we wouldn't do now. People tested parachutes for the first time manned
@Savuporo: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.
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...
How about the Gemini and SR-71 profiles? Just curious.
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.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.
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.Soyuz has put theirs to test at least once with a pad fire, it worked.
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.
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.
Don't start me on Shuttle.
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.
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.
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.QuoteSo 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.
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!
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 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.
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.
How many people have those silly little lifevests ever saved,
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.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
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.
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/
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 [...]
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.
DC-X :PQuoteNo 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 :PQuoteNo 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.
Or Early Blue Origin or Masten or Armadillo Aerospace or...
DC-X :PQuoteNo 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.
Or Early Blue Origin or Masten or Armadillo Aerospace or...
These rockets/spacecrafts didn't make it to space.
I meant space as including sub-orbital space.Well, Stig made it to some definition of space.
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!
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.
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
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.
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.Who has landed a 24t booster from orbit on a 200m^ pad ? I'd like to see that comparison
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
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
And BTW, I still ask them the question now and then, waiting for a change in response ... ah pride ...
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.
I just want to see the F9 landing as promised, that's all. Just once.
...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.
...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.
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.
...
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.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.
...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.
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
...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.
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.
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.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
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.
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.
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.
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 ::)
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 ::)
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.
Decelerating from mach six to mach three via drag is doable, every crewed vehicle has done so.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.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.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.
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. ;)
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?
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.
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?
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
Third flight coming soon? Tomorrow through Friday, it looks like.
QuoteFDC 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
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);
Patrick BrownSecond 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.
@phhbrown
.@blueorigin View of the West Texas sky this morning. #blueorigin
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."
Lots of axial rotation on that ascent, or is that just wind shear?Strangest wind shear I've ever seen.
Lots of axial rotation on that ascent, or is that just wind shear?Strangest wind shear I've ever seen.
In their previous November landing video, the trail behind the booster has that helical pattern, albeit viewed from a different angle.Could that trail patten be from the engine gimbaling? Seems to be from the video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pillaOxGCo at the 1:07 mark.
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.
"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."
I wander, what would the capabilities be of a LOx-Methane powered rocket the size of New Shepherd.
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.
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..?
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.
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!
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Well...
Blue Origin to ramp up New Shepard tests (http://spacenews.com/blue-origin-to-ramp-up-new-shepard-tests/)
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.”
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.
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
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.
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.
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.QuoteI 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.
Looks like Blue's current production may be at this site: 21218 76th Ave S, Kent, WA 98032 (47.410426, -122.237142).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
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 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.
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.
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.
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?Musk didn't say that.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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
RikI also wouldn't be surprised to see SpaceX use the BE-3 for an upper stage engine in the future. ;)
You can add an BE3 upper stage for OrbitalATK Next LV to projects Blue are working on.
RikI also wouldn't be surprised to see SpaceX use the BE-3 for an upper stage engine in the future. ;)
You can add an BE3 upper stage for OrbitalATK Next LV to projects Blue are working on.
RikI also wouldn't be surprised to see SpaceX use the BE-3 for an upper stage engine in the future. ;)
You can add an BE3 upper stage for OrbitalATK Next LV to projects Blue are working on.
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?
RikI also wouldn't be surprised to see SpaceX use the BE-3 for an upper stage engine in the future. ;)
You can add an BE3 upper stage for OrbitalATK Next LV to projects Blue are working on.
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?
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.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.
In regards to BE2 comments above it does produce 32klbs has per their website. BE1 was 11,000
Blue Origin @blueorigin
BE-4 forgings, assemble! Full engine testing later this year to support @ulalaunch Vulcan 1st flight in 2019.
Blue Origin tweeted an image of a BE-4 nozzle forge/mold: https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/694562259775819776QuoteBlue Origin @blueorigin
BE-4 forgings, assemble! Full engine testing later this year to support @ulalaunch Vulcan 1st flight in 2019.
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.Blue Origin tweeted an image of a BE-4 nozzle forge/mold: https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/694562259775819776QuoteBlue 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.Blue Origin tweeted an image of a BE-4 nozzle forge/mold: https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/694562259775819776QuoteBlue 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?
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
So she's about 5' 5".see my amended post now with the latest attached infographic
So she's about 5' 5".see my amended post now with the latest attached infographic
I got itSo she's about 5' 5".see my amended post now with the latest attached infographic
Sorry, poor attempt at humor.
Great nozzle picture..C:1) yes and yes
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?
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
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.
I assume this is in reference to the booster and not the capsule...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.
If they are flying tourist flights out of the cape then the capsule will need to land somewhere regardless.
If they are flying tourist flights out of the cape then the capsule will need to land somewhere regardless.
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
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
Article on Blue Origin's plans for manufacturing facility, with comment clip from launch site director Scott Henderson:Yes, they're targeting a first flight of their Orbital Launch Vehicle in 2019 from Pad-36.
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?
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
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.
...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.
...
Save taxpayer moneyVulcan 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 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.
Some goodies in there: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.QuoteSave taxpayer moneyVulcan 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 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.
Some goodies in there: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.QuoteSave taxpayer moneyVulcan 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 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.
Some goodies in there:Who is this message targeted at? Congress? That's kind of how it reads to me...QuoteSave taxpayer moneyVulcan 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 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.
Who is this message targeted at? Congress? That's kind of how it reads to me...Pentagon decision makers and Congress, likely.
What does two BE-4's cost relative to one RD-180 and a solid? Does anyone know?
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.
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.
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.
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.
McAlister: unfunded CCDev space act agreement with Blue Origin set to end this month; could be extended again.
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
Perhaps we need to standardize a "sarcasm" smiley.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. :)
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.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.
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/
edit: Also, which vehicle is this up on the mural? I can't recall.
https://youtu.be/TgjIYVUfkE4 (https://youtu.be/TgjIYVUfkE4)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.
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.
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/)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.
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]
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/)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.
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 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.
100 flights a year comes out to a 6000 passenger-per-year throughput...
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.
...
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)
...
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.
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?
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!"
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.
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.
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.
Gee, this logo (coat-of-arms?) seems like a story in itself:The logo rocket is interesting.
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.
Gee, this logo (coat-of-arms?) seems like a story in itself:The logo rocket is interesting.
- Ed Kyle
Oh! Yes. That must be it. But Milky Way escape is so low?
It would only take something like 22,000 years to get to Proxima Centauri at that speed!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....
Blue Origin started before SpaceX.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.
Gee, this logo (coat-of-arms?) seems like a story in itself:The logo rocket is interesting.
- Ed Kyle
Blue Origin started before SpaceX.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.
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 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?
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)
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
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.
2years ahead if all goes to plan. BE4 flight ready in 2017 while AR1 will be flight ready in 2019.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.
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.
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/)
...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.
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.
Yeah, a Story of two Ferocious Turtles: Lack of Taste and Lack of Humility.
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. ;)
...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.
Yeah, a Story of two Ferocious Turtles: Lack of Taste and Lack of Humility.
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. ;)
2years ahead if all goes to plan. BE4 flight ready in 2017 while AR1 will be flight ready in 2019.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.
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?
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?
Interview with Jeff Bezos about Blue and space:
http://www.geekwire.com/2016/interview-jeff-bezos/
Meyerson: significant testing of BE-4 components is underway. Full engine tests starting in the 4th quarter this year.
Rob Meyerson of Blue Origin calls the BE-4 “America’s new booster engine that will replace the RD-180.
George Nield, FAA/AST: expect Blue Origin to fly a dozen or so additional test flights of their New Shepard vehicle in year ahead.
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
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.
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.
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.Yes.
Yes.
They may eat ULA's lunch "by accident" as sort of an afterthought rather than a deliberate plan. :)
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.
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
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...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.
Isn't that also pretty much what SpaceX did? Nobody can say F9 was designed with national security launch requirements in mind.
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...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.
@JongoffThat 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.
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....
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
I think launch is not the predominant cost, building the satellites and ground infrastructure are much more the cost drivers.
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.
“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.”
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
Assuming we haven't over-populated it by then.
Hopefully our manufacturing capacity wouldn't be taken off line by a solar flare.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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
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.
That won't be as cheap as ocean transport.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.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
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.I wouldn't use payload prices as basis for passenger ticket prices. VG prices are better basis as this is NS direct competition.
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 $$$
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.
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/
Same with the Ariane 5 launch yesterday.
Same with the Ariane 5 launch yesterday.
What was wrong with that launch?
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?
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 really didn't see or hear anything in the stream that could be considered a jab. Unless you are biased about it.
I really didn't see or hear anything in the stream that could be considered a jab. Unless you are biased about it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
Think you meant "sub-orbital tourism vehicle"!
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.
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.
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 ?
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".Um, this sort of discussion belongs in the discussion thread.
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.
How is the weird shape of the Blue Origin rocket advantageous for suborbital spaceflight?
Greetings,
I would finally dare to ask this question.
How is the weird shape of the Blue Origin rocket advantageous for suborbital spaceflight?
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.
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 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?
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.To some extent, they already do. Soyuz style.
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.
How many people were on the road spectating?
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.
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.
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. ::)
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.
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.
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).
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.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.
Blue isFixed 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.morepurely rocket + capsule. AndI would guessthey could use the crewed orbital historyleveraged.
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.It's unrelated to the BO effort. So pragmatically you might not get a broad answer here for HSF suborbital vehicles.
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.
Gerst: also entered into a new unfunded Space Act Agreement with Blue Origin regarding its plans for orbital human space transport system.
McAlister: signed new unfunded Space Act Agreement with Blue Origin rather than continuing to extend older CCDev award, but similar goals.
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.
Orbital cargo delivery? To where...ISS? Or future space stations and deep space habitats?
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.
Our next flight is going to be dramatic, no matter how it ends.If you don't want to read all that, here's a quick summary;
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
Blue Origin is looking to develop a launch and engine testing site at LC-11 in addition to LC-37.Should be SLC 36, not 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.
https://permitting.sjrwmd.com/epermitting/jsp/Search.do?theAction=searchDetail&permitNumber=147362EDIT: 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.
Edit - no landing pad - will new Blue Origin rocket land on a barge?
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?
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.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.
EDIT: from January http://spacenews.com/blue-origin-to-ramp-up-new-shepard-tests/
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.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.
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.
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 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.
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.
...
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?
...
§437.91 For-hire prohibition.
No permittee may carry any property or human being for compensation or hire on a reusable suborbital rocket.
§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.
...
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.
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....
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:QuoteSubpart 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)
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.
https://permitting.sjrwmd.com/epermitting/jsp/Search.do?theAction=searchDetail&permitNumber=147362In '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.
Edit - no landing pad - will new Blue Origin rocket land on a barge?
1.1 PURPOSE AND DESCRIPTIONThe 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.
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 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.
Orbital LV booster stages will be recovered by an ocean-going platform off the coast of Carolina, ~750nm downrange...
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?QuoteOrbital 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.
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.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?QuoteOrbital 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.
QuoteOrbital 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?QuoteOrbital 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.
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.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?QuoteOrbital 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.
I'll let others take the first shot at guessing what this would imply.
... or more passive braking.
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.... 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.
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.
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.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?QuoteOrbital 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.
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.
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.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.
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.
Mowry leaving Arianespace for Blue Origin:This does suggest Blue are going after commercial satellite launches in addition to NG prime purpose of HSF.
http://spacenews.com/mowry-leaving-arianespace-for-blue-origin/
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.htmlQuoteBut 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.
Mowry leaving Arianespace for Blue Origin:
http://spacenews.com/mowry-leaving-arianespace-for-blue-origin/
Who isn't going to Blue?. Their website stated they had 60 propulsion engineers from industry leader (Aerojet?).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. ;-)
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.
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.
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
I started this debate by being to lazy to quote exactly from Blue website and guessed "industry leader ". Still think its valid though.Who isn't going to Blue?. Their website stated they had 60 propulsion engineers from industry leader (Aerojet?).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. ;-)
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.
'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.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?
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.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.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.
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.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
I'm thinking more about base heating during ascent.QuoteI 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.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.
- Ed Kyle
Ah. Is it usual practice in hypersonic wind tunnel testing to vent gas out the nozzles to simulate the flow and recirculation?I'm thinking more about base heating during ascent.QuoteI 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.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.
- Ed Kyle
- Ed Kyle
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.
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.
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.
QuoteI 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.
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.
Do we have a thread for this launch?
No, really, shouldn't there be a thread for the flight on Tuesday?Just created an update thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41362.0) and included the above links. Thanks for compiling those, ChrisC.
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)
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?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".
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".
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.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.
Do they simulate the weight of the passengers in these tests? Surely their weight isn't negligible.
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
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
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
Jeff Foust – @jeff_foust
Meyerson: doubled size of company in last year from 400 to 800 employees; hiring 100s more. #ISPCS2016
Jeff Foust – @jeff_foust
@fre_towers They have not disclosed ticket prices yet.
100's of hours and tens of thousands of dollars to recover and refurbish booster.
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
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!
Jeff Foust – @jeff_foust
Latest Blue Origin email update from Jeff Bezos: “Underappreciated Engine Components - The Ox Boost Pump”
Underappreciated no more…
The question is how often can they fly from single site, given a fleet of vehicles. Weather will be deciding factor.
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.
I spy the New Sheppard (sans fins) and four aircraft turbine-looking objects hanging in the back room.
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.
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.
Area-man-does-good story in Ontario newspaper reveals a few new details about Blue Origin’s New Shepard plans: http://bit.ly/2l5aboW
.@JeffBezos' @blueorigin space venture has plans for big expansion of Seattle-area HQ: http://www.geekwire.com/2017/jeff-bezos-blue-origin-hq/
I think the article has some new photos?
Edit: added another example new(?) photo
QuoteArea-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. ;)QuoteArea-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?
Woo! Blue Origin wins the AvWeek Laureate space award. Proud, as always, to be part of this team.
Winner, Space: @blueorigin for successful reuse of the New Shepard suborbital booster on a total of five flights.
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.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.
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
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
Honored to receive the @AviationWeek Laureate Award for Space for #NewShepard, the 1st rocket to fly to space and be reused
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.
[...]
Talking of staying tuned:QuoteJeff 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.
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?
Talking of staying tuned:QuoteJeff 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.
Jeff Foust @jeff_foust
.@blueorigin making its presence known at #SATShow
https://mobile.twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/838798635081039873
...
Jeff Bezos: now over a 1,000-person team working at Blue Origin. #SATSHOW
QuoteBlue 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)
Cross-posting as suspect more people follow here, follow-ups in original thread:QuoteBlue 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...
Blue Origin moves New Shepard from recovery to relaunch with ~$10k in mx costs. Getting very close to rapid repeats. -Bezos #satshow
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.”
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
@JeffBezos 15m15 minutes agoRumor is that the 3rd person with beard is actually our own Roadie trying to gather L2 level intell.
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.
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
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...Cross-posting as suspect more people follow here, follow-ups in original thread:QuoteBlue 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...
QuoteBlue 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)
...
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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
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.
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
Let's talk about the first stage wings for a moment (not the canards).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?
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?
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?
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.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.
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.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.
Congratulations @blueorigin New Shepard Team on receiving Goddard Trophy. So well deserved! Bravo! Keep inspiring! #GoddardDinner @ClayMowry
This is a team award. Individuals don't make great progress in space. It's too hard - @JeffBezos accepts Goddard Trophy for @blueorigin team
#FridayFunFact - did you know that @JeffBezos 15-year-old son's name is Goddard after Dr. Robert Goddard
#GoddardDinner #SpaceProm
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.
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...
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.
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.
As a naval architect I note with interest that their 'barge' looks like a converted VLCC (very large crude carrier - an oil supertanker).
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.
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.
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/IvebeenfurtherevenAs a naval architect I note with interest that their 'barge' looks like a converted VLCC (very large crude carrier - an oil supertanker).
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/IvebeenfurtherevenAs a naval architect I note with interest that their 'barge' looks like a converted VLCC (very large crude carrier - an oil supertanker).
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/IvebeenfurtherevenAs 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:
Crude Carriers have the bridge located at the end of the deck, which is the location on Blue's rocket carrier:
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.
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.
ULCC exampleDraft shouldn't be issue as ship is empty.
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
It can't be either VL or UL. The port is not sized for them.
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.
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.
Wouldn't you want to ballast it down with water for stability? Guess you could de-ballast it when entering port.ULCC exampleDraft shouldn't be issue as ship is empty.
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
It can't be either VL or UL. The port is not sized for them.
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.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.
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.
I thought the plan was to transfer the stage to another ship which then takes it to Port Canaveral.
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 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?
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?
...
The predecessor vehicle (also called New Shepard? Can't remember) was lost during ascent when it veered off course and was terminated like F9dev1.
...
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.
We're trying to get to our first human flights within the next year. That's a laser focus for the team right now
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)QuoteWe're trying to get to our first human flights within the next year. That's a laser focus for the team right now
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.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.
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.
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?The technology that makes orbital flights <$1M will make suborbital <$50k. Price difference will always be there.
I am right in remembering NG is only first stage reuse?
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?The technology that makes orbital flights <$1M will make suborbital <$50k. Price difference will always be there.
I am right in remembering NG is only first stage reuse?
“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.
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.
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
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)
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?
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.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
Blue Origin wins the 2016 National Aeronautic Association’s Collier Trophy for its work on New Shepard: bit.ly/2nB6tEu
NAA is proud to announce that Blue Origin New Shepard has been named as the recipient of the 2016 Collier Trophy
Impossible to express how personally meaningful this is. A dream. Huge kudos to @BlueOrigin team that worked so hard naa.aero/userfiles/file…
A dream indeed @JeffBezos – we’re smiling at Blue today and very proud to receive the @NatlAero #CollierTrophy for #NewShepard
Quote from: Blue Origin Crew Capsule sneak peekOur 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)
..The lack of flights lately bothers me, but the hype is growing for sure. ..
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.”
... 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.
Greetings from Colorado Springs. The trees sure look weird here.
As darkness falls, the @blueorigin exhibit takes shape at #33SS
.@blueorigin crew working late getting capsule and booster display ready for #SpaceSymposium
Overheard at #33SS: "Is this the one that landed on the barge?"
..The lack of flights lately bothers me, but the hype is growing for sure. ..
So what happened ? 6 Months later ..
Posting this as it's a great close-up but mainly because it made me laugh :)QuoteOverheard 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)
Phillip Swarts @PFSwarts
New space appears to continue its aversion to media. @blueorigin event is first I've been refused entry to at #SpaceSymposium.
Jeff Bezos appears in front of Blue Origin’s New Shepard at #33ss
Bezos: we’ll put people on New Shepard when it’s ready and not a second sooner. #33SS
Bezos: still hoping to fly people on New Shepard in 2018. #33ss
Bezos: don’t know what ticket price will be yet. Have time, since not ready to start selling tickets for a while. #33SS
Bezos: it would be interesting to put a small second stage on New Shepard and use it as a smallsat launcher. #33SS
Bezos: current business model for Blue Origin is I sell $1B a year in Amazon stock and invest it in the company.
Bezos: I estimate it’ll cost $2.5b to develop New Glenn orbital launcher. #33SS
Bezos: We could see commercial passengers in 2018. #SpaceSymposium #33SS
It's a mistake to rush to make some deadline when you're talking about flying people into space - @JeffBezos @blueorigin #SpaceSymposiumhttps://twitter.com/spacechelle/status/849737872257232901 (https://twitter.com/spacechelle/status/849737872257232901)
Expect only a day of training for passengers. Have designed the system to facilitate this. - @JeffBezos @blueorigin #SpaceSymposiumhttps://twitter.com/spacechelle/status/849738452748861440 (https://twitter.com/spacechelle/status/849738452748861440)
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 2017https://twitter.com/spacechelle/status/849739722981343232 (https://twitter.com/spacechelle/status/849739722981343232)
.@JeffBezos press conference video on @blueorigin from 2017 Space Symposium via @geekwire #33SS #SpaceSymposium https://www.facebook.com/geekwire/videos/1498700776820330
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)
SN article:
http://spacenews.com/blue-origin-still-planning-commercial-suborbital-flights-in-2018/
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.
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.
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.
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.
Blue Origin is now building three operational propulsion modules and two crew capsules.
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.
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.
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.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.
Covers Jeff Bezos' press conference but also extra info gleaned from company president Rob Meyerson. For example:QuoteBlue Origin is now building three operational propulsion modules and two crew capsules.
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.
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:
Lng is methaneLNG is low-purity methane:
Lng is methaneFrom Department of Energy (DOE) report (https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2013/04/f0/LNG_primerupd.pdf):
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.
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.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.
Also, along the pipeline routes, separators are installed to remove water, and liquids, and only the gas under pressure continues down the pipeline.
Replying to myself: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.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.
Also, along the pipeline routes, separators are installed to remove water, and liquids, and only the gas under pressure continues down the pipeline.
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?
...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.)
Also had to chuckle at the "we're gonna patent some of these technologies" comment!
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.
Lng is methane
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.
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.
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.
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.
They design for 100 reuses but it has been confirmed that is not what they expect to reach in operation.
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.
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.
First New Glenn launch anticipated in the second half of 2020.Typo? I thought first launch is 2020 or 2021...
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.
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?
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?
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.
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?
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.
"Reusability makes sense if you can fly it like an airplane [...] This is really our goal."
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 :)
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
Heading inside the @blueorigin crew capsule! 🚀👩🚀 #SpaceSymposiumhttps://twitter.com/tanyaofmars/status/848979509865066496
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)QuoteHeading inside the @blueorigin crew capsule! 🚀👩🚀 #SpaceSymposiumhttps://twitter.com/tanyaofmars/status/848979509865066496
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.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.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.
Any rocket that uses fuel less dense (lower specific gravity) than liquid oxygen. Like hydrogen or methane.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?
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
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?
When will New Shepard test flights resume? [Erika] Wagner: when we’re ready. Have research payloads booked on a number of them. #DPSS17
QuoteWhen 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)
Has anyone insight into the permitting process? IIRC their current permit has not much time left.
Probably. But the fact that they aren't doing New Shepherd test flights does suggest that they are not serious about the suborbital market.
I wonder if Blue are applying for a permit that would permit people to fly? (if only for testing rather than paying customers)
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.
(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.
Simple explanation for NS hiatus: NG.
When was the last time Blue was fast? On anything?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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
When was the last time Blue was fast? On anything?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.
Blue does what it wants to do. Their way. What others think of that is of no concern to them.
When was the last time Blue was fast? On anything?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.
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.
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?
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.
Celebrating our addition to an epic list of pioneers! @JeffBezos accepts the Collier Trophy for #NewShepard. The after-party:
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.
Collier trophy. Musk doesn't have one, despite landing a bigger, faster stage?
- Ed Kyle
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?
Ala. Gov. Kay Ivey announces Blue Origin will build new rocket engine co. in Huntsville. $200M investment. 350 jobs.
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!
Had heard this was coming. Shrewd political move for Blue Origin.
Expect there will be quite a bit of press on this:QuoteIt 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:QuoteHad heard this was coming. Shrewd political move for Blue Origin.
https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/879345713154600962 (https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/879345713154600962)
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
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.
And this should end the talk of Blue Origin having no interesting in working with/for the government. :)
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.
Great news for Alabama! @BlueOrigin has announced its selection of #Huntsville for new BE4 rocket engine manufacturing facility. #RocketCity
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.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.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.
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.)
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>
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.
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 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!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.
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
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.
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.
[trimmed quote tree]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.
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.
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.
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.
Both FH and NG are going to be reusable from the very get go.A lot is to do with cost of payload, F9 could be flying $500m sateĺlite, XS1 a $10m payload.
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).
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.
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).
Delighted to give the first annual Buzz Aldrin Space Innovation Award to @JeffBezos and @BlueOriginhttps://twitter.com/therealbuzz/status/886778900193431552 (https://twitter.com/therealbuzz/status/886778900193431552)
Huge thanks from the whole @BlueOrigin team, Buzzhttps://twitter.com/jeffbezos/status/886779328096116736 (https://twitter.com/jeffbezos/status/886779328096116736)
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.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.
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.
I am more interested with speaking to fellow space enthusiasts, sharing the same concerns about why it takes so long,
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.
Looks to me like they are not licensed by FAA to launch at this time.
QuoteThomas 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)
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.
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.
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.”
Wow! Look who else is here at #OSH17 - our @blueorigin friends have some flight-tested hardware to show off.
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.
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.QuoteWow! Look who else is here at #OSH17 - our @blueorigin friends have some flight-tested hardware to show off.
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
QuoteJeff 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)
QuoteJeff 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)
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.QuoteWow! 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.QuoteWow! Look who else is here at #OSH17 - our @blueorigin friends have some flight-tested hardware to show off.
It is a tank.
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.QuoteWow! Look who else is here at #OSH17 - our @blueorigin friends have some flight-tested hardware to show off.
It is a tank.
Bezos must get inspiration from watching the BSG TV series on the Sci-Fi cable channel. :)
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.
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. 😂
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.
Blue OriginSo Bezos is first building a rocket to launch very small people?
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)
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.
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.
When asked if it was "Russia soft" or "America soft" the answer was America.
Sen. Bill Nelson at @BlueOrigin KSC facility: "We're going to have several launches a week and, in some cases, two launches a day."
FAA has now issued a revised New Shepherd launch license that permits carrying of passive or active payloads.
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.
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.'
Ariane Cornell @arianecornell 20s20 seconds ago
http://Www.blueorigin.com got a refresh! Check out details on #newshepard, #newglenn, our engine tech & Blue careers
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?
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.
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.
As will Ariane "next" and New Glenn, the latter depending on the BE-4 fortunes on the test stand.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
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.
1 month old company to do satellites AND space tourism... OK then.Their space tourism may just be to act as middleman in Asia for Blue.
... Blue is reaching for news with that one.
1 month old company to do satellites AND space tourism... OK then.
... Blue is reaching for news with that one.
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?
“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.”
“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.”
“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.
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.
(Presents too tempting a target - must resist. Oh well, resistance is futile, this time.)Don't count your manifest before you make it to orbit the first time.True, but there has definitely been a change in attitude.
They did/have failed (a lot!). Have by many been unforgiven, still.
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.Understand.
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?
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.
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?
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.
fast for space... maybe not fast for new phone app development.Very true for "Firephone". Bezos never understood that either.
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?
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".
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
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
I dunno. If there's a change in attitude due to SpaceX's success, it doesn't really reflect on BO.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.
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.
You mean like the New Glenn video?I dunno. If there's a change in attitude due to SpaceX's success, it doesn't really reflect on BO.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.
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 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.
They say they like to do so...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...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.
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.
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.
Well of course they are, since there aren't any cast iron achievements - and that's the point.They say they like to do so...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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
Please don't forget that BO are around the same stage with NG as SpaceX were before F9 1st launched.They say they like to do so...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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yup , that's about where they are. 13 years after starting out, 7-8 years after said F1.Please don't forget that BO are around the same stage with NG as SpaceX were before F9 1st launched.They say they like to do so...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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I dunno. If there's a change in attitude due to SpaceX's success, it doesn't really reflect on BO.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.
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.
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 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.QuoteAmazon 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
Most of the posters in this thread are suffering from the Instant Gratification Syndrome.
I dunno. If there's a change in attitude due to SpaceX's success, it doesn't really reflect on BO.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.
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.
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.
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.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.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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.QuoteAmazon 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.
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 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.
And as orbital launcher they came up with NG, first with 1800kN BE-4, later for Vulcan this changed to 2400kN BE-4's.
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.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?
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.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 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.QuoteAmazon 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 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.
Smith: in talks with nat’l security community and NASA on certifying New Glenn for their missions.https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/915959780979740673
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.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.
Unsure. Semantics.The consensus is that the last failure was powerpack and not full engine testing, correct?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.
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".
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".
At NSC meeting "Blue Origin in discussions concerning certifying NG for NSS payloads.'(Bold mine)
(!)QuoteSmith: in talks with nat’l security community and NASA on certifying New Glenn for their missions.https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/915959780979740673
At NSC meeting "Blue Origin in discussions concerning certifying NG for NSS payloads.'(Bold mine)
(!)QuoteSmith: in talks with nat’l security community and NASA on certifying New Glenn for their missions.https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/915959780979740673
Anyone catch that?
I'm old enough to remember when people scoffed at the idea that Blue Origin would do national security launches...
I doubt such non-compete would be legal - let alone enforceable.At NSC meeting "Blue Origin in discussions concerning certifying NG for NSS payloads.'(Bold mine)
(!)QuoteSmith: in talks with nat’l security community and NASA on certifying New Glenn for their missions.https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/915959780979740673
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.At NSC meeting "Blue Origin in discussions concerning certifying NG for NSS payloads.'(Bold mine)
(!)QuoteSmith: in talks with nat’l security community and NASA on certifying New Glenn for their missions.https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/915959780979740673
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.
There were indication of this from the Air Force months ago, this is the first time Blue admitted it themselves though.I doubt such non-compete would be legal - let alone enforceable.
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.
...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.
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.
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.
...
What am I missing/misunderstanding?
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
...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.
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.
...
What am I missing/misunderstanding?
For the two versions of BE-4 I use SI-units instead of Imperial.
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.
I like coming on here and just checking any updates
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.