Author Topic: New Shepard Discussion Thread  (Read 98930 times)

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: New Shepard Discussion Thread
« Reply #20 on: 12/14/2019 08:01 pm »
Several promotional style NS videos just released by Blue (see updates thread).

Hopefully a sign that passenger, as opposed to just payload, operations are not far away.

No it’s not
Promotional videos are not evidence of anything.

After a dozen ASDS landings, SpaceX came up with the Octograbber, a machine to deal with landed boosters.
For operations, Blue will need some machine to swiftly fetch the booster and put it back on the launch mount.
At least they have to anchor it. It’s a big, light sail with a narrow base, waiting for a stiff breeze to tip it over.
We can guess what they use but I don’t think we have seen any evidence of it.
When your customers end their quarter million dollar ride in the Texas scrub, Blue will not want to leave them hanging there with the Texas sun shining through the “largest windows ever in a spacecraft”. 
But they haven’t even practiced chasing the capsule, never mind showing a vehicle that would achieve the passenger experience they go on about. Pickup trucks won’t do.
In short, we haven’t seen any evidence of preparations for commercial operations.
Blue use modified truck similar to missile launcher to retrieve booster, watch the videos you will see it delivering NS to launch site.

 These are adventure tourists, they won't have problem with Blue using SUV to retrieve them.

Offline PADave

  • Member
  • Posts: 40
  • York PA
  • Liked: 44
  • Likes Given: 313
Re: New Shepard Discussion Thread
« Reply #21 on: 12/17/2019 04:22 pm »

You may need someone to ensure passengers return to their seats before zero G ends.

But does that person have to be on board?

I thought deceleration peaked at around 5g? You can easily kill people at that level. Even if your waivers are legally watertight it really isnt good for product image. Id want crew in the capsule.

I've always wondered how they were going to manage seating. Strapping yourself into a flight seat properly quickly isn't easy even on the ground without a pressure suit. Their customers are inexperienced with some basic training on the ground and no time spent in microgravity before. The time above the atmosphere is very short as it is, with a three minute safety window to get back to your seat there'll be nothing left of it. If you wanted to do it properly, you'd even need crew to check everything as they do in airplanes.

I look at this as a kind of like high performance roller-coaster. They will need a seat restraint system that's basically idiot proof like they do on the roller-coasters, but instead of having an attendant verify that they actually pulled the restraints in place they will have training for the passengers and then be able to remotely monitor that all restraints are in place from the ground and communicate any needed adjustments to the passengers real-time. Just like on roller-coasters they need restraints that can be secured in just a few seconds since after ~3 minutes of floating they will have just a minute or so to get secured in the seats again. Unlike a roller-coaster there will be an element of real risk that won't be 100% avoidable.

Does any one know how fast the Gee forces build? How long is it between the point when there is 0.1 G and 1.0 G as the capsule begins to rub the upper atmosphere? If there's a couple of minutes as it slowly builds then it may be easier to get in the seats with a little acceleration vs. full micro gravity.

edit: I found someone who posted some telemetry online from the 4th flight of NS 2 (19 June 2016). Looks like about:
202 s(seconds) of weightlessness
21 s of build to 1G
6 s from 1 to 3G
5 s from 3 to 5G
Peeking at about 5 to 6G for about 10 s
« Last Edit: 12/17/2019 05:18 pm by PADave »

Offline gaballard

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 619
  • Los Angeles
  • Liked: 1495
  • Likes Given: 1174
Re: New Shepard Discussion Thread
« Reply #22 on: 12/17/2019 10:24 pm »
I wonder if they haven't realized all these safety issues (and things like how long it takes to be properly strapped in as mentioned upthread) are going to be not insignificant to solve, and that's why they haven't really been pushing forward with flying humans...
« Last Edit: 12/17/2019 10:25 pm by gaballard »
"I venture the challenging statement that if American democracy ceases to move forward as a living force, seeking day and night by peaceful means to better the lot of our citizens, fascism will grow in strength in our land." FDR

Offline testguy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 606
  • Clifton, Virginia
  • Liked: 625
  • Likes Given: 594
Re: New Shepard Discussion Thread
« Reply #23 on: 12/18/2019 12:19 am »
I don't know if it has been expressed in this thread or another but here goes.  I'm kinda glad that especially suborbital space tourism has been slow rolled by BO and Virgin.  I'm afraid I just don't see the risk being worth the reward.  It certainly is not pushing the state of the art,  I don't believe it will greatly excite the public, and the return on investment will not be significant.  I suspect the market will be limited.  My speculation is the sub orbital launch providers may believe this also and therefore have delayed the tourism roll out.

My very real concern is there will be mishaps resulting in fatalities and the public will be unforgiving.   I would hate to see fatalities during joy rides that impact  human space exploration.  Yes loss of life in the space program has occurred in the past and will occur in the future.  Let's hope it only occurs on worth while missions where the risk is worth the reward and not just for a thrill ride.  The more flights that occur only increases the probability of an unwanted out come.

Ok I lit the fuze.  Have at it.
« Last Edit: 12/18/2019 04:04 pm by testguy »

Offline Nomadd

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8827
  • Solomon Islands
  • Liked: 60356
  • Likes Given: 1292
Re: New Shepard Discussion Thread
« Reply #24 on: 12/18/2019 12:41 am »
I don't know if it has been expressed in this thread or another but here goes.  I'm kinda glad that especially suborbital space tourism has been slow rolled by BO and Virgin.  I'm afraid I just don't see the risk being worth the reward.  It certainly is not pushing the state of the art,  I don't believe it will greatly excite the public, and the return on investment will not be significant.  I suspect the market will be limited.  My speculation is the sub orbital launch providers may believe this also and therefore have delayed the tourism roll out.

My very real concern is there will be mishaps resulting in fatalities and the public will be unforgiving.   I would hate to see fatalities during joy rides that impact  human space exploration.  Yes loss of life in the space program has occurred in the past and will occur in the future.  Let's hope it only occurs on worth while missions where the risk is worth the reward and not just for a thrill ride.  The woylmore flights that occur only increases the probability of an unwanted out come.
Ok I lite the fuze.  Have at it.
It's a tired old cliche but, if you have to ask  you wouldn't understand.
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who couldn't hear the music.

Online meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14098
  • N. California
  • Liked: 13957
  • Likes Given: 1389
Re: New Shepard Discussion Thread
« Reply #25 on: 12/18/2019 03:25 am »
I don't know if it has been expressed in this thread or another but here goes.  I'm kinda glad that especially suborbital space tourism has been slow rolled by BO and Virgin.  I'm afraid I just don't see the risk being worth the reward.  It certainly is not pushing the state of the art,  I don't believe it will greatly excite the public, and the return on investment will not be significant.  I suspect the market will be limited.  My speculation is the sub orbital launch providers may believe this also and therefore have delayed the tourism roll out.

My very real concern is there will be mishaps resulting in fatalities and the public will be unforgiving.   I would hate to see fatalities during joy rides that impact  human space exploration.  Yes loss of life in the space program has occurred in the past and will occur in the future.  Let's hope it only occurs on worth while missions where the risk is worth the reward and not just for a thrill ride.  The more flights that occur only increases the probability of an unwanted out come.

Ok I lite the fuze.  Have at it.
I am not sure if they realize it or not (or at what level within the companies) but I agree with the rest of the analysis almost word for word.
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline krsears

  • Member
  • Posts: 48
  • Indiana
  • Liked: 99
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: New Shepard Discussion Thread
« Reply #26 on: 12/18/2019 04:25 am »
I don't know if it has been expressed in this thread or another but here goes.  I'm kinda glad that especially suborbital space tourism has been slow rolled by BO and Virgin.  I'm afraid I just don't see the risk being worth the reward.  It certainly is not pushing the state of the art,  I don't believe it will greatly excite the public, and the return on investment will not be significant.  I suspect the market will be limited.  My speculation is the sub orbital launch providers may believe this also and therefore have delayed the tourism roll out.

My very real concern is there will be mishaps resulting in fatalities and the public the press will be unforgiving.   I would hate to see fatalities during joy rides that impact  human space exploration.  Yes loss of life in the space program has occurred in the past and will occur in the future.  Let's hope it only occurs on worth while missions where the risk is worth the reward and not just for a thrill ride.  The more flights that occur only increases the probability of an unwanted out come.

Ok I lite the fuze.  Have at it.

I fixed your small error.  The public will be mostly uncaring, it is the press - looking for sensational copy - that will excoriate any injuries or fatalities that may occur with space tourism.  The Nanny Staters are just salivating for the opportunity to over-regulate the New Space industry, any human injury (no matter how minor) will give them exactly what they need to paint space ventures as unwarranted and unjustified.

Kendall

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8809
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10155
  • Likes Given: 11883
Re: New Shepard Discussion Thread
« Reply #27 on: 12/18/2019 04:29 am »
I don't know if it has been expressed in this thread or another but here goes.  I'm kinda glad that especially suborbital space tourism has been slow rolled by BO and Virgin.  I'm afraid I just don't see the risk being worth the reward.

OK, but you may not be the target audience.

Quote
It certainly is not pushing the state of the art,  I don't believe it will greatly excite the public, and the return on investment will not be significant.

Only the last part of your sentence matters, since sub-orbital rides are businesses, not charities. As long as there are enough paying customers, it really doesn't matter what the general public thinks.

Quote
I suspect the market will be limited.

Of course it will be limited. If $250,000 sub-orbital rides on Virgin Galactic are any indication of what the cost will be for sub-orbital rides on New Shepard, the available market of people with disposable income like that is VERY limited.

Quote
My speculation is the sub orbital launch providers may believe this also and therefore have delayed the tourism roll out.

I don't know, but my guess is that because of the tremendous overhead they have when they are not operational, that there was no financial incentive to purposely delay starting operations. Delaying for safety reasons would be a reason though.

Quote
My very real concern is there will be mishaps resulting in fatalities and the public will be unforgiving.

I don't think so, and for a very simple reason - pretty much everything we do in our modern world has the chance of death, and yet we carry on our lives. People die in airline crashes, yet we are setting records on the number of people that fly on airlines, and people die climbing Mount Everest, yet there are record amounts of people attempting to summit Mount Everest.

People died testing the Virgin Galactic vehicle, and they still have a healthy backlog of customers waiting. MANY people died in two Boeing 737 MAX crashes, yet airlines still are ordering them.

Humans are very good about rationalizing risk if the perceived personal rewards are high.

Quote
The more flights that occur only increases the probability of an unwanted out come.

That literally applies to every transportation system. However I think this old adage is relevant here:

"A ship in harbor is safe, but that is not what ships are built for."

My $0.02
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Online meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14098
  • N. California
  • Liked: 13957
  • Likes Given: 1389
Re: New Shepard Discussion Thread
« Reply #28 on: 12/18/2019 09:19 am »
I don't know if it has been expressed in this thread or another but here goes.  I'm kinda glad that especially suborbital space tourism has been slow rolled by BO and Virgin.  I'm afraid I just don't see the risk being worth the reward.  It certainly is not pushing the state of the art,  I don't believe it will greatly excite the public, and the return on investment will not be significant.  I suspect the market will be limited.  My speculation is the sub orbital launch providers may believe this also and therefore have delayed the tourism roll out.

My very real concern is there will be mishaps resulting in fatalities and the public the press will be unforgiving.   I would hate to see fatalities during joy rides that impact  human space exploration.  Yes loss of life in the space program has occurred in the past and will occur in the future.  Let's hope it only occurs on worth while missions where the risk is worth the reward and not just for a thrill ride.  The more flights that occur only increases the probability of an unwanted out come.

Ok I lite the fuze.  Have at it.

I fixed your small error.  The public will be mostly uncaring, it is the press - looking for sensational copy - that will excoriate any injuries or fatalities that may occur with space tourism.  The Nanny Staters are just salivating for the opportunity to over-regulate the New Space industry, any human injury (no matter how minor) will give them exactly what they need to paint space ventures as unwarranted and unjustified.

Kendall
The hysterical press and nanny state are also what didn't accept losses and regulated the airline industry.

But - with these terms you're introducing politics into the thread, and that's a one way road to losing it...
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12077
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18010
  • Likes Given: 12026
Re: New Shepard Discussion Thread
« Reply #29 on: 12/18/2019 07:28 pm »
I don't know if it has been expressed in this thread or another but here goes.  I'm kinda glad that especially suborbital space tourism has been slow rolled by BO and Virgin.  I'm afraid I just don't see the risk being worth the reward.  It certainly is not pushing the state of the art,  I don't believe it will greatly excite the public, and the return on investment will not be significant.  I suspect the market will be limited.  My speculation is the sub orbital launch providers may believe this also and therefore have delayed the tourism roll out.

My very real concern is there will be mishaps resulting in fatalities and the public the press will be unforgiving.   I would hate to see fatalities during joy rides that impact  human space exploration.  Yes loss of life in the space program has occurred in the past and will occur in the future.  Let's hope it only occurs on worth while missions where the risk is worth the reward and not just for a thrill ride.  The more flights that occur only increases the probability of an unwanted out come.

Ok I lite the fuze.  Have at it.

I fixed your small error.  The public will be mostly uncaring, it is the press - looking for sensational copy - that will excoriate any injuries or fatalities that may occur with space tourism.  The Nanny Staters are just salivating for the opportunity to over-regulate the New Space industry, any human injury (no matter how minor) will give them exactly what they need to paint space ventures as unwarranted and unjustified.

Kendall
The hysterical press and nanny state are also what didn't accept losses and regulated the airline industry.

But - with these terms you're introducing politics into the thread, and that's a one way road to losing it...
Regulation in the airline industry has failed to prevent Boeing 737 MAX disasters from happening. Regulation does not prevent casualties happening. At best regulation has been helpfull in lowering the number of accidents and fatalities.

Online meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14098
  • N. California
  • Liked: 13957
  • Likes Given: 1389
Re: New Shepard Discussion Thread
« Reply #30 on: 12/18/2019 07:31 pm »
I don't know if it has been expressed in this thread or another but here goes.  I'm kinda glad that especially suborbital space tourism has been slow rolled by BO and Virgin.  I'm afraid I just don't see the risk being worth the reward.  It certainly is not pushing the state of the art,  I don't believe it will greatly excite the public, and the return on investment will not be significant.  I suspect the market will be limited.  My speculation is the sub orbital launch providers may believe this also and therefore have delayed the tourism roll out.

My very real concern is there will be mishaps resulting in fatalities and the public the press will be unforgiving.   I would hate to see fatalities during joy rides that impact  human space exploration.  Yes loss of life in the space program has occurred in the past and will occur in the future.  Let's hope it only occurs on worth while missions where the risk is worth the reward and not just for a thrill ride.  The more flights that occur only increases the probability of an unwanted out come.

Ok I lite the fuze.  Have at it.

I fixed your small error.  The public will be mostly uncaring, it is the press - looking for sensational copy - that will excoriate any injuries or fatalities that may occur with space tourism.  The Nanny Staters are just salivating for the opportunity to over-regulate the New Space industry, any human injury (no matter how minor) will give them exactly what they need to paint space ventures as unwarranted and unjustified.

Kendall
The hysterical press and nanny state are also what didn't accept losses and regulated the airline industry.

But - with these terms you're introducing politics into the thread, and that's a one way road to losing it...
Regulation in the airline industry has failed to prevent Boeing 737 MAX disasters from happening. Regulation does not prevent casualties happening. At best regulation has been helpfull in lowering the number of accidents and fatalities.
It's not perfect, but even with the recent failure, aviation is unreasonably safe.

ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline matthewkantar

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2043
  • Liked: 2487
  • Likes Given: 2172
Re: New Shepard Discussion Thread
« Reply #31 on: 12/18/2019 07:35 pm »
The 737 mess represents an aberration in regulation, not the standard that has consistently increased aviation safety for decades. There is a HUGE difference between folks trying to catch a flight for work and a pioneer taking a personal risk for thrills or glory, or to push humanity further.

Offline b0objunior

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 261
  • Liked: 162
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: New Shepard Discussion Thread
« Reply #32 on: 12/18/2019 09:09 pm »
I don't know if it has been expressed in this thread or another but here goes.  I'm kinda glad that especially suborbital space tourism has been slow rolled by BO and Virgin.  I'm afraid I just don't see the risk being worth the reward.  It certainly is not pushing the state of the art,  I don't believe it will greatly excite the public, and the return on investment will not be significant.  I suspect the market will be limited.  My speculation is the sub orbital launch providers may believe this also and therefore have delayed the tourism roll out.

My very real concern is there will be mishaps resulting in fatalities and the public the press will be unforgiving.   I would hate to see fatalities during joy rides that impact  human space exploration.  Yes loss of life in the space program has occurred in the past and will occur in the future.  Let's hope it only occurs on worth while missions where the risk is worth the reward and not just for a thrill ride.  The more flights that occur only increases the probability of an unwanted out come.

Ok I lite the fuze.  Have at it.

I fixed your small error.  The public will be mostly uncaring, it is the press - looking for sensational copy - that will excoriate any injuries or fatalities that may occur with space tourism.  The Nanny Staters are just salivating for the opportunity to over-regulate the New Space industry, any human injury (no matter how minor) will give them exactly what they need to paint space ventures as unwarranted and unjustified.

Kendall
The hysterical press and nanny state are also what didn't accept losses and regulated the airline industry.

But - with these terms you're introducing politics into the thread, and that's a one way road to losing it...
Regulation in the airline industry has failed to prevent Boeing 737 MAX disasters from happening. Regulation does not prevent casualties happening. At best regulation has been helpfull in lowering the number of accidents and fatalities.
Stop talking through your hat.

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8809
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10155
  • Likes Given: 11883
Re: New Shepard Discussion Thread
« Reply #33 on: 12/18/2019 10:30 pm »
Regulation in the airline industry has failed to prevent Boeing 737 MAX disasters from happening. Regulation does not prevent casualties happening. At best regulation has been helpfull in lowering the number of accidents and fatalities.
It's not perfect, but even with the recent failure, aviation is unreasonably safe.

While that is true today, it wasn't the situation when the first winged airline started in 1913. Crashes and deaths were NOT uncommon as they are today, yet the value of flying vs ground transportation allowed people to accept the risks.

Circling back specifically to New Shepard, the market for sub-orbital personal flights is likely to be very small, but the rich have been frequent customers of early innovations, including crash-prone airlines.

Personally I don't see enough value in New Shepard to buy a ticket myself, and I don't think sub-orbital flights will be a long-term business. But it might be a worthy intermediary step towards eventually moving people to other planets.

My fingers will be crossed every time they fly, and I hope they end up with a very good safety record.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline Prettz

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
  • O'Neillian
  • Atlanta, GA
  • Liked: 259
  • Likes Given: 30
Re: New Shepard Discussion Thread
« Reply #34 on: 12/18/2019 10:56 pm »
Regulation in the airline industry has failed to prevent Boeing 737 MAX disasters from happening. Regulation does not prevent casualties happening. At best regulation has been helpfull in lowering the number of accidents and fatalities.
What you're talking about, what happened, is known as "regulatory capture". It's extensively talked about before the 737 MAX and extensively talked about after. You should know about this.

Offline kendalla59

  • Member
  • Posts: 62
  • Portland, Oregon
  • Liked: 134
  • Likes Given: 172
Re: New Shepard Discussion Thread
« Reply #35 on: 12/21/2019 08:50 am »
Regulation in the airline industry has failed to prevent Boeing 737 MAX disasters from happening. Regulation does not prevent casualties happening. At best regulation has been helpfull in lowering the number of accidents and fatalities.
What you're talking about, what happened, is known as "regulatory capture". It's extensively talked about before the 737 MAX and extensively talked about after. You should know about this.
I entered the term into my search engine and was rewarded with an enlightening twenty minutes of economic theory and history about which I was completely unaware. Thanks for the pointer. I believe that understanding where well-functioning systems are degraded and corrupted is the key to keeping them healthy.

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1511
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 604
  • Likes Given: 210
Re: New Shepard Discussion Thread
« Reply #36 on: 12/21/2019 09:56 am »
Do others share the though:
 That manrating new Shephard will be more valuable for micro-gravity science, than for space tourism. ?
« Last Edit: 12/21/2019 09:57 am by Rik ISS-fan »

Offline Eric Hedman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2290
  • The birthplace of the solid body electric guitar
  • Liked: 1935
  • Likes Given: 1126
Re: New Shepard Discussion Thread
« Reply #37 on: 12/21/2019 02:48 pm »
Do others share the though:
 That manrating new Shephard will be more valuable for micro-gravity science, than for space tourism. ?
This idea has passed through my mind a few times.  Time will tell.  At the price point of a couple hundred thousand per person, I don't know if suborbital tourism will be anything more than a short lived fad.  If the price has to come down significantly, the big question is can anybody make money providing the service.  Nobody knows the answers with complete certainty.  I would not be surprised if micro-gravity experiments dominate the market.

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: New Shepard Discussion Thread
« Reply #38 on: 12/21/2019 06:54 pm »
The bigger than you think, Virgin took down payments on 700 seats at $250k without being operational. Thats $1.5M a vehicle flight.

If Blue can get NS to airplane type reuseability then their operational costs per flight should few $100k, even under $100K. Not sure retro rockets for landing are expendable SRBs or reuseable liquid fuel engines.

Suborbital tourism can help foster more expensive orbital tourism. For some it may put them off space flight altogether especially if they lose their breakfast.

Offline gaballard

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 619
  • Los Angeles
  • Liked: 1495
  • Likes Given: 1174
Re: New Shepard Discussion Thread
« Reply #39 on: 12/23/2019 07:59 pm »
The bigger than you think, Virgin took down payments on 700 seats at $250k without being operational. Thats $1.5M a vehicle flight.

If Blue can get NS to airplane type reuseability then their operational costs per flight should few $100k, even under $100K. Not sure retro rockets for landing are expendable SRBs or reuseable liquid fuel engines.

Suborbital tourism can help foster more expensive orbital tourism. For some it may put them off space flight altogether especially if they lose their breakfast.

IMO, Virgin's down payments are more the result of Branson smooth talking people who don't know much about the spaceflight industry than anything representative of the market.
"I venture the challenging statement that if American democracy ceases to move forward as a living force, seeking day and night by peaceful means to better the lot of our citizens, fascism will grow in strength in our land." FDR

Tags:
 

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