New Glenn: Blue Origin Announcement of Orbital Rocket Plan

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/thefavoritist/status/1601879715790430208

Blue Origin placed a New Glenn fairing in the water at Kennedy Space Center to test a SpaceX style recovery method. This method allows the fairings to splash down in the ocean and later be recovered by a ship.

Video from Space Coast Live.

📺:

[DrHeywoodFloyd]

Blue Origin placed a New Glenn fairing in the water at Kennedy Space Center to test a SpaceX style recovery method. This method allows the fairings to splash down in the ocean and later be recovered by a ship.

I am sorry if these questions might have been asked before, but I will ask them:
1. After separation, surely the fairings would not survive re-entry: would the atmospheric heating and aerodynamic loads rip them apart? How do they protect them through the upper atmosphere?
2. At what speed will these fairing hit the water? Will they deploy a parachute before they hit the water?

[Tommyboy]

Blue Origin placed a New Glenn fairing in the water at Kennedy Space Center to test a SpaceX style recovery method. This method allows the fairings to splash down in the ocean and later be recovered by a ship.

I am sorry if these questions might have been asked before, but I will ask them:
1. After separation, surely the fairings would not survive re-entry: would the atmospheric heating and aerodynamic loads rip them apart? How do they protect them through the upper atmosphere?
2. At what speed will these fairing hit the water? Will they deploy a parachute before they hit the water?

1. Probably the same as SpaceX: use cold gas thrusters to orient them correctly, and thermal shielding in the essential/vulnerable spots (probably the nose)
2. Probably the same as SpaceX: use steerable parachutes/aerofoils to direct the fairings to a predetermined landing location for a soft splashdown (I'd guess a few m/s)

[JCRM]

I am sorry if these questions might have been asked before, but I will ask them:
1. After separation, surely the fairings would not survive re-entry: would the atmospheric heating and aerodynamic loads rip them apart? How do they protect them through the upper atmosphere?

[/quote]
Fairings have a habit of turning up in large pieces

2. At what speed will these fairing hit the water? Will they deploy a parachute before they hit the water?

That remains to be seen.

[rpapo]

Blue Origin placed a New Glenn fairing in the water at Kennedy Space Center to test a SpaceX style recovery method. This method allows the fairings to splash down in the ocean and later be recovered by a ship.

I am sorry if these questions might have been asked before, but I will ask them:
1. After separation, surely the fairings would not survive re-entry: would the atmospheric heating and aerodynamic loads rip them apart? How do they protect them through the upper atmosphere?
2. At what speed will these fairing hit the water? Will they deploy a parachute before they hit the water?

This is a solved problem, but it really depends on whether Blue Origin wants to attempt to cut corners or alter their design in any way.

(1) The fairing can survive reentry if it can maintain its orientation.  This may be possible to do passively by altering the center of gravity, or actively with thrusters.  The latter solution has been proven.  Both solutions require the fairing to weigh more than if no recovery was planned.

(2) That depends on whether or not Blue Origin wants to invest the time, money and weight in parachutes.  Without the parachutes, the impact speed will probably be more than the structure can withstand, especially since the surface of the ocean is not likely to be glassy smooth.

But there is another problem here: notice that the fairing goes straight up from where it joins the rocket.  This greatly increases the likelihood that water will enter the fairing, even with a perfect landing.  The proven concept has a "transom", so to speak, where it spreads out from the rocket body.  This provides at least minimal protection from water entering the fairing, at least with a moderate sea state and a good landing.

[robert_d]

This is a solved problem, but it really depends on whether Blue Origin wants to attempt to cut corners or alter their design in any way.

(1) The fairing can survive reentry if it can maintain its orientation.  This may be possible to do passively by altering the center of gravity, or actively with thrusters.  The latter solution has been proven.  Both solutions require the fairing to weigh more than if no recovery was planned.

(2) That depends on whether or not Blue Origin wants to invest the time, money and weight in parachutes.  Without the parachutes, the impact speed will probably be more than the structure can withstand, especially since the surface of the ocean is not likely to be glassy smooth.

But there is another problem here: notice that the fairing goes straight up from where it joins the rocket.  This greatly increases the likelihood that water will enter the fairing, even with a perfect landing.  The proven concept has a "transom", so to speak, where it spreads out from the rocket body.  This provides at least minimal protection from water entering the fairing, at least with a moderate sea state and a good landing.

Excellent inclusion of the currently functional use-case without bias.

[Robert_the_Doll]

But there is another problem here: notice that the fairing goes straight up from where it joins the rocket.  This greatly increases the likelihood that water will enter the fairing, even with a perfect landing.  The proven concept has a "transom", so to speak, where it spreads out from the rocket body.  This provides at least minimal protection from water entering the fairing, at least with a moderate sea state and a good landing.

I believe that is what the test was about: how well the fairing floats without any special modifications. The various markings are probably to determine how far water actually flows inside, and in the video you can make out briefly that the fairing was flooded a good 15-16 meters along its length inside and to a depth of at least 1 meter. I suspect that they did not let it get too far down otherwise the weight of the water would have made it very difficult or impossible for the crane to lift it back up again.

[deadman1204]

Blue Origin placed a New Glenn fairing in the water at Kennedy Space Center to test a SpaceX style recovery method. This method allows the fairings to splash down in the ocean and later be recovered by a ship.

I am sorry if these questions might have been asked before, but I will ask them:
1. After separation, surely the fairings would not survive re-entry: would the atmospheric heating and aerodynamic loads rip them apart? How do they protect them through the upper atmosphere?
2. At what speed will these fairing hit the water? Will they deploy a parachute before they hit the water?

This is a solved problem, but it really depends on whether Blue Origin wants to attempt to cut corners or alter their design in any way.

(1) The fairing can survive reentry if it can maintain its orientation.  This may be possible to do passively by altering the center of gravity, or actively with thrusters.  The latter solution has been proven.  Both solutions require the fairing to weigh more than if no recovery was planned.

(2) That depends on whether or not Blue Origin wants to invest the time, money and weight in parachutes.  Without the parachutes, the impact speed will probably be more than the structure can withstand, especially since the surface of the ocean is not likely to be glassy smooth.

But there is another problem here: notice that the fairing goes straight up from where it joins the rocket.  This greatly increases the likelihood that water will enter the fairing, even with a perfect landing.  The proven concept has a "transom", so to speak, where it spreads out from the rocket body.  This provides at least minimal protection from water entering the fairing, at least with a moderate sea state and a good landing.

This is VERY misleading.
SpaceX has solved the problem, Blue HAS NOT. It is NOT a "solved problem" because each company must figure it out.
Building lunar space suits is a "solved problem", because its been done. But no one knows how to do this that is alive. Claiming "solved problem" is a way to dismiss something as unimportant, event when its quite significant.

[edzieba]

Blue Origin placed a New Glenn fairing in the water at Kennedy Space Center to test a SpaceX style recovery method. This method allows the fairings to splash down in the ocean and later be recovered by a ship.

I am sorry if these questions might have been asked before, but I will ask them:
1. After separation, surely the fairings would not survive re-entry: would the atmospheric heating and aerodynamic loads rip them apart? How do they protect them through the upper atmosphere?
2. At what speed will these fairing hit the water? Will they deploy a parachute before they hit the water?

This is a solved problem, but it really depends on whether Blue Origin wants to attempt to cut corners or alter their design in any way.

(1) The fairing can survive reentry if it can maintain its orientation.  This may be possible to do passively by altering the center of gravity, or actively with thrusters.  The latter solution has been proven.  Both solutions require the fairing to weigh more than if no recovery was planned.

(2) That depends on whether or not Blue Origin wants to invest the time, money and weight in parachutes.  Without the parachutes, the impact speed will probably be more than the structure can withstand, especially since the surface of the ocean is not likely to be glassy smooth.

But there is another problem here: notice that the fairing goes straight up from where it joins the rocket.  This greatly increases the likelihood that water will enter the fairing, even with a perfect landing.  The proven concept has a "transom", so to speak, where it spreads out from the rocket body.  This provides at least minimal protection from water entering the fairing, at least with a moderate sea state and a good landing.

This is VERY misleading.
SpaceX has solved the problem, Blue HAS NOT. It is NOT a "solved problem" because each company must figure it out.
Building lunar space suits is a "solved problem", because its been done. But no one knows how to do this that is alive. Claiming "solved problem" is a way to dismiss something as unimportant, event when its quite significant.

"Solved problem" means that the problem has proven to have a solution. This is the case, as fairings have been recovered. It makes no claims over who has done the solving or what their solution is.

[Tommyboy]

Blue Origin placed a New Glenn fairing in the water at Kennedy Space Center to test a SpaceX style recovery method. This method allows the fairings to splash down in the ocean and later be recovered by a ship.

I am sorry if these questions might have been asked before, but I will ask them:
1. After separation, surely the fairings would not survive re-entry: would the atmospheric heating and aerodynamic loads rip them apart? How do they protect them through the upper atmosphere?
2. At what speed will these fairing hit the water? Will they deploy a parachute before they hit the water?

This is a solved problem, but it really depends on whether Blue Origin wants to attempt to cut corners or alter their design in any way.

(1) The fairing can survive reentry if it can maintain its orientation.  This may be possible to do passively by altering the center of gravity, or actively with thrusters.  The latter solution has been proven.  Both solutions require the fairing to weigh more than if no recovery was planned.

(2) That depends on whether or not Blue Origin wants to invest the time, money and weight in parachutes.  Without the parachutes, the impact speed will probably be more than the structure can withstand, especially since the surface of the ocean is not likely to be glassy smooth.

But there is another problem here: notice that the fairing goes straight up from where it joins the rocket.  This greatly increases the likelihood that water will enter the fairing, even with a perfect landing.  The proven concept has a "transom", so to speak, where it spreads out from the rocket body.  This provides at least minimal protection from water entering the fairing, at least with a moderate sea state and a good landing.

This is VERY misleading.
SpaceX has solved the problem, Blue HAS NOT. It is NOT a "solved problem" because each company must figure it out.
Building lunar space suits is a "solved problem", because its been done. But no one knows how to do this that is alive. Claiming "solved problem" is a way to dismiss something as unimportant, event when its quite significant.

"Solved problem" means that the problem has proven to have a solution. This is the case, as fairings have been recovered. It makes no claims over who has done the solving or what their solution is.

The problem has been solved for the SpaceX fairing, not for the BO fairing which has a completely different geometry and probably weight distribution.

[deadman1204]

Blue Origin placed a New Glenn fairing in the water at Kennedy Space Center to test a SpaceX style recovery method. This method allows the fairings to splash down in the ocean and later be recovered by a ship.

I am sorry if these questions might have been asked before, but I will ask them:
1. After separation, surely the fairings would not survive re-entry: would the atmospheric heating and aerodynamic loads rip them apart? How do they protect them through the upper atmosphere?
2. At what speed will these fairing hit the water? Will they deploy a parachute before they hit the water?

This is a solved problem, but it really depends on whether Blue Origin wants to attempt to cut corners or alter their design in any way.

(1) The fairing can survive reentry if it can maintain its orientation.  This may be possible to do passively by altering the center of gravity, or actively with thrusters.  The latter solution has been proven.  Both solutions require the fairing to weigh more than if no recovery was planned.

(2) That depends on whether or not Blue Origin wants to invest the time, money and weight in parachutes.  Without the parachutes, the impact speed will probably be more than the structure can withstand, especially since the surface of the ocean is not likely to be glassy smooth.

But there is another problem here: notice that the fairing goes straight up from where it joins the rocket.  This greatly increases the likelihood that water will enter the fairing, even with a perfect landing.  The proven concept has a "transom", so to speak, where it spreads out from the rocket body.  This provides at least minimal protection from water entering the fairing, at least with a moderate sea state and a good landing.

This is VERY misleading.
SpaceX has solved the problem, Blue HAS NOT. It is NOT a "solved problem" because each company must figure it out.
Building lunar space suits is a "solved problem", because its been done. But no one knows how to do this that is alive. Claiming "solved problem" is a way to dismiss something as unimportant, event when its quite significant.

"Solved problem" means that the problem has proven to have a solution. This is the case, as fairings have been recovered. It makes no claims over who has done the solving or what their solution is.

I agree that the phrase can mean there is a possible solution. My concern is that its often thrown around to dismiss the issue as semi trivial.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

We got a look at Relativity's Terran 1 rocket on the pad from both the air and the ground, spotted evidence that a New Glenn first stage might be in testing, plus we try to figure out what on Earth SpaceX is doing at its Cidco Road facility.

Use code "Flyover18" to get 10% off in the Merch store: https://shop.nasaspaceflight.com

Previous Flyover:   

 • How Will SpaceX S... 

Video and Pictures from Stephen (@spacecoast_stve), Julia (@julia_bergeron), Thomas (@TGMetsFan98), Nic (@NicAnsuini), Starbase LIve and Space Coast Live. Additional video from CNSA and Relativity.

Narrated by Sawyer (@thenasaman). Script by Adrian (@BCCarCounters), Harry (@Harry__Stranger), Jack (@theJackBeyer), and Sawyer. Edited by Sawyer.

All content copyright to NSF. Not to be used elsewhere without explicit permission from NSF.

[rpapo]

I agree that the phrase can mean there is a possible solution. My concern is that its often thrown around to dismiss the issue as semi trivial.

And all I meant was that somebody had solved the problem, thereby proving that it was possible.  For engineers, knowing that a problem has a solution is often enough to lead them to a solution of their own.  I was only outlining some of the issues that Blue Origin will have to address in coming up with their solution.  They may have to alter their design, and most any alteration is going have an effect on overall system performance.

But that is one of the main lessons of reusability, to my point of view, is that you need to build heavier and larger than you might have done otherwise.  That flies afoul of the classic mentality of rocketry, which is to build exactly to the needs, not one ounce heavier.

[Robotbeat]

...
But that is one of the main lessons of reusability, to my point of view, is that you need to build heavier and larger than you might have done otherwise.  That flies afoul of the classic mentality of rocketry, which is to build exactly to the needs, not one ounce heavier.

Is that a lesson or an assumption? Falcon 9 has incredibly good mass fraction. Merlin 1D has better thrust to weight ratio than any rocket engine ever, and it's also highly reusable (dozens of uses).

[chopsticks]

...
But that is one of the main lessons of reusability, to my point of view, is that you need to build heavier and larger than you might have done otherwise.  That flies afoul of the classic mentality of rocketry, which is to build exactly to the needs, not one ounce heavier.

Is that a lesson or an assumption? Falcon 9 has incredibly good mass fraction. Merlin 1D has better thrust to weight ratio than any rocket engine ever, and it's also highly reusable (dozens of uses).

Well you have to add more "stuff". Grid fins, landing legs, RCS, structural reinforcements(?), etc. Obviously F9 would have a better mass fraction ratio without this stuff.

I don't know if @rpapo is referring to extra recoverability hardware or perhaps structural reinforcements (extra mass) that may be necessary to facilitate resuability. Maybe you could clarify?

[butters]

This sounds like one of those situations where management isn't happy with the schedule estimates on a longer-term project and wants at least part of its feature set pulled forward into an earlier product release.

If Jarvis won't be ready until NET 202X, can we at least see if we can do the fairing recovery from the water thing like SpaceX does? And maybe engineering says, um, not with the way our fairing is shaped. And management is like, gosh, just take it out to the freakin' turn basin and try it okay?!

[rpapo]

...
But that is one of the main lessons of reusability, to my point of view, is that you need to build heavier and larger than you might have done otherwise.  That flies afoul of the classic mentality of rocketry, which is to build exactly to the needs, not one ounce heavier.

Is that a lesson or an assumption? Falcon 9 has incredibly good mass fraction. Merlin 1D has better thrust to weight ratio than any rocket engine ever, and it's also highly reusable (dozens of uses).

Well you have to add more "stuff". Grid fins, landing legs, RCS, structural reinforcements(?), etc. Obviously F9 would have a better mass fraction ratio without this stuff.
I don't know if @rpapo is referring to extra recoverability hardware or perhaps structural reinforcements (extra mass) that may be necessary to facilitate reusability. Maybe you could clarify?

Both.  If you want your hardware to survive more than one use, you build it stronger (i.e. more mass).  And with the current state of the art, recovery does require extra hardware (i.e. more mass).  Parachutes, thrusters and guidance hardware are currently needed to recover the fairings.  Extra fuel is required for boost-back, reentry and landing burns.  Fins of some sort are required for precision in return, and landing legs are currently required for the vertical landing.  Finally, while having just one or two big engines saves weight, and theoretically improves reliability, it makes it impossible to reduce the minimum thrust down to something manageable during a landing.

I agree that if Falcon 9 were optimized to the pre-reuse standards, it would probably have the best mass fraction by far of any rocket built up to now.  With re-use, they have had to settle for merely "very good".

Re-use has enabled optimization to an extent never before accomplished with orbital class rockets.  Getting most of the rocket back after use is surely a gold-mine for the engineers.  And I am sure Blue Origin's engineers are looking forward to seeing their creation come home one day as well, for much the same reasons.

That said, I don't believe for one minute that they will succeed on the first try.

[Robert_the_Doll]

I noticed that in the Blue Origin "Origin Stories: Carmen L. De Leon-Acosta" video that at 1:56 that you can actually see inside the horizontal aft engine module. Despite much of what is there being blocked by the work stands, you can make out details such as what appears to be the beginnings of what looks to be engine compartment structures. Unfortunately, no clear view of any propellant plumbing or thrust structures.

[Comga]

I noticed that in the Blue Origin "Origin Stories: Carmen L. De Leon-Acosta" video that at 1:56 that you can actually see inside the horizontal aft engine module. Despite much of what is there being blocked by the work stands, you can make out details such as what appears to be the beginnings of what looks to be engine compartment structures. Unfortunately, no clear view of any propellant plumbing or thrust structures.

That’s the Interstage, which has been shown before, not the engine section.

Every time I see a new post in this thread there is this hope that it will show significant flight hardware.
This is another disappointment.

[Robert_the_Doll]

I noticed that in the Blue Origin "Origin Stories: Carmen L. De Leon-Acosta" video that at 1:56 that you can actually see inside the horizontal aft engine module. Despite much of what is there being blocked by the work stands, you can make out details such as what appears to be the beginnings of what looks to be engine compartment structures. Unfortunately, no clear view of any propellant plumbing or thrust structures.

That’s the Interstage, which has been shown before, not the engine section.

Every time I see a new post in this thread there is this hope that it will show significant flight hardware.
This is another disappointment.

You are very wrong. This is the interstage. Please note the lack of the large, white-painted landing gear wells, different body shape, different access panels, the fin mount points, and GSE: