Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread

[savuporo]

Blue Origin moves New Shepard from recovery to relaunch with ~$10k in mx costs. Getting very close to rapid repeats. -Bezos #satshow

https://twitter.com/wandrme/status/839106518020665344

Come on hurry up now. When are these rapid repeats happening, in 2 years from now ? Last turnaround time was what, 9 months ?

[Rik ISS-fan]

Do others also think that strong-back (launcher-errector) is relatively thick?

Is the first stage landing on a moving converted oil tanker?
I hope this is an error in the simulation. Landing on a moving ship would increase the difficulty of the landing.

Does any payload approach the capability of New Glenn?
I think a single engine BE-4 stage with a Centaur upper stage would much beter match the now foreseen satellites. I like the name Atlas M. Possibly the Boeing-BO XS-1 contender could be this single engine first stage.

[mme]

...
Is the first stage landing on a moving converted oil tanker?
I hope this is an error in the simulation. Landing on a moving ship would increase the difficulty of the landing.
...

https://twitter.com/WandrMe/status/839110824245473280

 Jeff Bezos narration of video. Confirms ship is moving for landing.

They are using the ship's fin stabilizers to allow landing in rougher seas.

[Lars-J]

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.

[Lar]

We have a new space race, folks!!!!

Congrats to Eutelsat for choosing to be launch customer, and to Blue for their audacious plans

Now we get to see if Amazon-Fast-Follower means that SpaceX should worry....

Good news? EVERYBODY wins in this race.

[Chasm]

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 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.)

[HMXHMX]

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 of Jeff Bezos doing some narration makes the round on twitter.

Moving ship, because it is more stable. (That is also their patent, remember all that controversy.)
There seem to be quite a few design choices to take landing site weather out of the equation. Both the fixed strakes and the moving ship were mentioned.
Certainly not a 1:1 copy pasta job.


The advantage of such a large ship is inertia. It is not going to change speed any time soon. Also don't forget that ships are quite slow.
A container ship or tanker of that size, going full operational speed is what? 20-25kts? The among fastest ones should be the Emma Boston class at 29.2kts, but those are the exeption. Fuel is expensive and shipping rates are only dropping. According to wiki new builds have an operational speed of just 13-18kts. (Hull form affects operational speed and corresponding fuel efficiency. Just dropping speeds helps but is not enough, hull, propeller and to some degree the engine have to be optimized for each other.)

You are correct that being underway is more stable, and launching and/or landing on a vessel that's underway is an old, old idea.  Below, two images from our converted tanker sea-launch study done at Rotary in 1998, and the launch of a Bono VTOL (Ithacus troop transport) from a CVN (about 1965).

[Steven Pietrobon]

Some screen captures. Notice how the umbilicals extend when the strong back leans back.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Jeff Bezos‏Verified account @JeffBezos now10 seconds ago

Adding to the #NewGlenn launch manifest. Agreement with #OneWeb for five launches initially. Happy to work with you @Greg_Wyler

https://twitter.com/JeffBezos/status/839468386530824193

[FutureSpaceTourist]

No press release on either OneWeb's or Blue Origin's websites, but OneWeb does have the attached customised New Glenn graphic and a headline saying: 'Agreement with Blue Origin starting in 2020 [...]'

Edit: oops, wrong attachment!

[AncientU]

The Race is on!
Two big Arianespace customers... one also SpaceX.
(yeah)

[Darkseraph]

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.

[sghill]

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?

[rpapo]

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.

[grakenverb]

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 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

[sghill]

I'm wondering about the safety of the crew who would be required to be aboard a moving ship of that size.  Autonomous ships would fit the bill perhaps.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/transportation/marine/forget-autonomous-cars-autonomous-ships-are-almost-here

Just go below decks to an armored bridge.  Heck, we design warships to survive far more damage.

[edkyle99]

Let's talk about the first stage wings for a moment (not the canards).

Methinks they are going to use the wings to increase surface area, generate a bit of lift for cross-range capability, and eliminate the need for a reentry burn.  Thoughts?

I can't figure out why the two "wings" are needed.  They move the CP forward (on a "backward" flying stage returning to land), which should reduce stability.  Maybe they are needed in combination with the canards to achieve control through transonic conditions? 

It seems to me that adding wings is less than ideal, due to added mass, more surface area exposed to reentry heating, etc.

 - Ed Kyle

[Chasm]

Let's talk about the first stage wings for a moment (not the canards).

Methinks they are going to use the wings to increase surface area, generate a bit of lift for cross-range capability, and eliminate the need for a reentry burn.  Thoughts?

I really would like to have the conference recording of Jeffs keynote.
There are only two fixed wings/strakes. According to articles Jeff said that that they increase range and maneuverability while decreasing loads and wind influence for a ballistic reentry.
Sounds like Blue really doesn't want to scrub launches because of landing site conditions. Taking preflight checks of the landing gear and hovering ability instead of hoverslam into account I think that that Blue is much more interested in successful and gentle landings than performance optimization of the first stage.

The configuration also reminds me a bit of the Aerion AS2, the latest and greatest in supersonic passenger vaporware ...eh, product in need of investors. Which in turn is kind of Starfighter like. Stubby wings are en vogue again.



Going back to the environmental study: "After a successful launch the first stage would return to the Earth
for recovery in the Atlantic Ocean approximately 750 nautical miles downrange in the Atlantic Ocean, east
of and well off the Carolina coast, [....]"
There is not much land out there which again validates the use an oceangoing ship instead of a barge.

If you need crew on the ship it should not be too complicated. They needs an protected area and most importantly a lifeboat in a hardened stand instead of out in the open. (The two orange spots at the stern in the render.) Just buy a free fall fireproof lifeboat, they are build to survive evacuation off an oil rig or tanker through a burning oil slick. There is also the option to operate atmosphere independent for a limited time which should cover most of the problems if the landing gets more exciting than planned.

[Lars-J]

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.

[Gliderflyer]

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.