Congratulations, BO. However, the SpaceX live coverage has a far higher quality. Not a single live shot from space here, they didn't even show a video from a previous launch. At BO the view of earth from space doesn't seem to be important. Don't they plan to fly people up there? And they aren't even showing the main attraction?
Quote from: tobi453 on 06/19/2016 03:03 pmCongratulations, BO. However, the SpaceX live coverage has a far higher quality. Not a single live shot from space here, they didn't even show a video from a previous launch. At BO the view of earth from space doesn't seem to be important. Don't they plan to fly people up there? And they aren't even showing the main attraction?But if they add onboard cameras and new views each launch then it will help maintain excitement for subsequent launches.Spacex seems to be doing the same, every launch we get to see a new view. Good marketing in my opinion.
Quote from: GWH on 06/19/2016 09:56 pmQuote from: tobi453 on 06/19/2016 03:03 pmCongratulations, BO. However, the SpaceX live coverage has a far higher quality. Not a single live shot from space here, they didn't even show a video from a previous launch. At BO the view of earth from space doesn't seem to be important. Don't they plan to fly people up there? And they aren't even showing the main attraction?But if they add onboard cameras and new views each launch then it will help maintain excitement for subsequent launches.Spacex seems to be doing the same, every launch we get to see a new view. Good marketing in my opinion.maybe Blue was more interested in the science projects running?
Big thanks to Blue Origin for the webcast, and especially for doing the on-screen graphics the right way, on the sides of the wide-screen HD image so that we could actually see the mostly-vertical launch vehicle in the middle. Are you paying attention SpaceX and ISRO? - Ed Kyle
On our most recent flight, we performed a test to prove the Crew Capsule could safely land with only two of its three parachutes open. On a nominal flight with all three parachutes deployed, the capsule descends at about 16 mph before firing a retrorocket just a few feet above the ground. This retrorocket firing is what creates the large cloud of dust you see just before the capsule lands, and slows the capsule down to 3 mph before it touches the ground. This last bit of speed is absorbed by a ring shaped crushable bumper made of aluminum honeycomb material mounted on the bottom of the capsule. The ring is made of eight segments.On this last mission, with one chute intentionally failed, the capsule was descending at 23 mph before firing its retrorocket. The retrorocket took out most of that velocity, and the crushable ring did the rest of the job. Below, you can see a couple of pictures of the crushable after the flight test. The first picture shows it mounted under the vehicle after we lifted it off the ground post-flight. The second picture shows a side view of the eight segments after we removed them from the vehicle. Even with one chute out, the crushable barely crushed. When new, the crushable is about 5.5 inches high and can crush down to less than one inch high, providing a constant deceleration force as it crushes. After the mission, the crushable was still over 5 inches high along nearly the entire circumference of the ring.We’ve designed the capsule to ensure astronaut safety not just for a failure of one parachute, but even for a failure of two parachutes. In addition to the retrorocket system and the crushable ring, there is an energy absorbing mechanism mounted underneath each seat.
Hm, wouldn't the idea behind a crushable structure to have it absorb energy. And if it doesn't crush, wouldn't that mean it didn't absorb the energy?Or do they want to indicate the touchdown velocity was lower than expected?
Quote from: pippin on 07/20/2016 11:28 pmHm, wouldn't the idea behind a crushable structure to have it absorb energy. And if it doesn't crush, wouldn't that mean it didn't absorb the energy?Or do they want to indicate the touchdown velocity was lower than expected?...or the touchdown velocity was as low as they expected and that these crush structures are there for additional margin - which wasn't needed with one-chute-out.(it is supposed to be survivable with two chutes out, which is quite a feat)
Quote from: Jarnis on 07/21/2016 09:11 pmQuote from: pippin on 07/20/2016 11:28 pmHm, wouldn't the idea behind a crushable structure to have it absorb energy. And if it doesn't crush, wouldn't that mean it didn't absorb the energy?Or do they want to indicate the touchdown velocity was lower than expected?...or the touchdown velocity was as low as they expected and that these crush structures are there for additional margin - which wasn't needed with one-chute-out.(it is supposed to be survivable with two chutes out, which is quite a feat)Not a feat; the Apollo CM was designed for the same requirement and survived a chute stream on Apollo 15.