Author Topic: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread  (Read 1241753 times)

Offline zaitcev

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 581
    • mee.nu:zaitcev:space
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
« Reply #60 on: 12/23/2009 12:11 am »
Interestingly, the auxiliary pad (west-south-west of the technical facilities) that I thought was older does not even exist at Terraserver photo, so it is in fact very new.

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

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

-- Pete

Offline Zond

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 228
  • Liked: 56
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
« Reply #61 on: 01/17/2010 12:45 pm »
Blue Origin has build their planned landing pad (in addition to their launch/testing pad) some time in 2008: see this link for a satellite photo: http://www.terraserver.com/view.asp?cx=522734&cy=3479319&proj=32613&mpp=5&pic=img&prov=gx19&stac=1056&ovrl=-1&drwl=-1.
The same aerial or satellite pictures are also used by mapquest: http://www.mapquest.com/mq/9-zADDrvYF

Maybe the new landing pad is for helicopters, they could use helicopters to perform drop tests of the crew capsule.

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 149
Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
« Reply #62 on: 02/01/2010 10:42 pm »
According to this thread, Blue Origin is one of the recipients of funding (initially $3.7 million) to "further the commercial sector's capability to support transport of crew to and from low Earth orbit." Any thoughts on what this might entail? I'd been under the impression that Blue Origin was focusing on suborbital for now, with orbital quite a ways off.
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline Lampyridae

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2641
  • South Africa
  • Liked: 949
  • Likes Given: 2056
Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
« Reply #63 on: 02/01/2010 11:21 pm »
Suborbital crew training would be my guess.

Offline HMXHMX

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1709
  • Liked: 2213
  • Likes Given: 662
Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
« Reply #64 on: 02/02/2010 12:17 am »
According to this thread, Blue Origin is one of the recipients of funding (initially $3.7 million) to "further the commercial sector's capability to support transport of crew to and from low Earth orbit." Any thoughts on what this might entail? I'd been under the impression that Blue Origin was focusing on suborbital for now, with orbital quite a ways off.

From the NASA selection statement:

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

The source means "tractor" instead of "pull" but wasn't aware of the correct terminology, apparently.
« Last Edit: 02/02/2010 01:45 am by HMXHMX »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
« Reply #65 on: 02/02/2010 01:22 am »
So THAT's what OV-106 was talking about.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 149
Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
« Reply #66 on: 02/02/2010 01:53 am »
According to this thread, Blue Origin is one of the recipients of funding (initially $3.7 million) to "further the commercial sector's capability to support transport of crew to and from low Earth orbit." Any thoughts on what this might entail? I'd been under the impression that Blue Origin was focusing on suborbital for now, with orbital quite a ways off.

From the NASA selection statement:

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

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

Where did you see that? I've been looking around and can't find it...
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23394
  • Liked: 1879
  • Likes Given: 1023
Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
« Reply #68 on: 02/02/2010 03:58 am »
According to this thread, Blue Origin is one of the recipients of funding (initially $3.7 million) to "further the commercial sector's capability to support transport of crew to and from low Earth orbit." Any thoughts on what this might entail? I'd been under the impression that Blue Origin was focusing on suborbital for now, with orbital quite a ways off.

From the NASA selection statement:

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

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

Reminds me of MLAS:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=11053.0

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 149
Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
« Reply #69 on: 02/02/2010 10:26 pm »
From the CCDev Source Selection PDF, one of the reasons that Blue Origin was chosen is because it's proposals is "well aligned with the needs of ISS and other commercial customers." This makes me wonder if they're planning on developing their pusher escape system in a way that would be adaptable to the capsules being built by other companies, perhaps even as an alternative to SpaceX developing their own launch escape system for the Dragon capsule.
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
« Reply #70 on: 02/03/2010 12:23 am »

Reminds me of MLAS:


MLAS was a tractor

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
« Reply #71 on: 02/03/2010 12:25 am »
From the CCDev Source Selection PDF, one of the reasons that Blue Origin was chosen is because it's proposals is "well aligned with the needs of ISS and other commercial customers." This makes me wonder if they're planning on developing their pusher escape system in a way that would be adaptable to the capsules being built by other companies, perhaps even as an alternative to SpaceX developing their own launch escape system for the Dragon capsule.

That would be only reason they were chosen.  From an outside point of view

Offline HMXHMX

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1709
  • Liked: 2213
  • Likes Given: 662
Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
« Reply #72 on: 02/11/2010 05:35 pm »
From the on-going FAA/AST conference, it is reported by Hobbyspace:

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

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

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 149
Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
« Reply #73 on: 02/11/2010 05:57 pm »
From the on-going FAA/AST conference, it is reported by Hobbyspace:

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

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

Very interesting. I wonder if the bi-conic crew vehicle is what they got the composite capsule funding for. I also wonder if they're planning on a powered landing, perhaps with parachutes as backup.
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6334
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 4207
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
« Reply #74 on: 02/11/2010 09:44 pm »
t/Space CXV reborn?  If so it could kill two birds with one grant...

or LockMart's CTV concept when they started pushing a human rated Atlas V....
« Last Edit: 02/11/2010 09:56 pm by docmordrid »
DM

Offline HMXHMX

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1709
  • Liked: 2213
  • Likes Given: 662
Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
« Reply #75 on: 02/11/2010 10:29 pm »
t/Space CXV reborn?  If so it could kill two birds with one grant...

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

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

Online robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692
Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
« Reply #76 on: 02/12/2010 02:51 am »
t/Space CXV reborn?  If so it could kill two birds with one grant...

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

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

Smart feature!

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 149
Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
« Reply #77 on: 02/12/2010 03:07 am »
t/Space CXV reborn?  If so it could kill two birds with one grant...

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

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

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

(ADDENDUM) Most info I've found so far is in this post from 2006 by simcosmos: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=709.msg19120#msg19120
« Last Edit: 02/12/2010 03:10 am by neilh »
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline HMXHMX

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1709
  • Liked: 2213
  • Likes Given: 662
Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
« Reply #78 on: 02/12/2010 03:19 am »
t/Space CXV reborn?  If so it could kill two birds with one grant...

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

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

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

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

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

In the end, we can make almost anything work with enough time and money.  I'm not adverse to someone trying a spectrum of options providing the funding is there and everything is judged using equal criteria (such as ride comfort, safety, and the all important metric of cost/price).

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6466
  • Liked: 4572
  • Likes Given: 5136
Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
« Reply #79 on: 02/12/2010 03:50 am »
From the CCDev Source Selection PDF, one of the reasons that Blue Origin was chosen is because it's proposals is "well aligned with the needs of ISS and other commercial customers." This makes me wonder if they're planning on developing their pusher escape system in a way that would be adaptable to the capsules being built by other companies, perhaps even as an alternative to SpaceX developing their own launch escape system for the Dragon capsule.
That would be only reason they were chosen.  From an outside point of view

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

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

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

Is there a disagreement here?  Is Blue Origin being paid to develop a "pusher" LAS that would be adaptable to many systems (like the pictured Lockheed capsule for the Atlas V x01) or a "biconic capsule" (which is not the "Aurora" shape of the CTX capsule) ?
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1