-
#260
by
Nindalf
on 23 Oct, 2014 14:10
-
It’s 1768 and Jeff Bezos’s ancestor wants to patent the following: a four-wheeled carriage that moves without the employment of animals or human beings to pull or push it.
...
If this patent had been granted and upheld, Nicolas-Joseph Cugnot would have had to go to court to gain the right to market “the first steam powered automobile capable of human transportation,” which he successfully demonstrated in 1769 (Wikipedia). Cugnot had a working invention that showed the feasibility of horseless carriages. It would take over a hundred years before they became more than curiosities.
Back in ye olde dayes, people found ways around more troublesome patents, like this cheesy workaround of patents involving the crank:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_and_planet_gearThe thing about patents is that they are supposed to be how-to-do, not what-to-do. When somebody patents a what-to-do, it's generally only good for legal thuggery.
One thing SpaceX has is fierce legal representation. Of the various possible outcomes of the patent conflict, I think we can be pretty sure there won't be a court ruling that the Blue Origin patent is valid and covers any and all methods of propulsively landing a rocket on anything in the water.
If the patent isn't struck down entirely, a sufficiently clear and narrow interpretation of it should be established for SpaceX to work around it.
-
#261
by
GORDAP
on 23 Oct, 2014 14:23
-
I think that if SpaceX is unsuccessful against BO's patent in court, there might be several ways around it, such as:
1) Use GPS. I know that the problem is that barges drift due to current, wind, etc., so the exact GPS coordinates for landing will not be known ahead of time. Therefore, have the barge periodically tell the stage what its present updated coordinates are. Would this still constitute a 'beacon' in the normal sense of the word?
2) Use GPS to aim the stage for the (rough) initially known coordinates of the barge. When the stage is in the 'neighborhood' of the barge, have cameras on the stage optically find the barge in the ocean, and zero in on the prominent black and white 'bulls-eye' painted on the deck. I'd think that optical processing state of the art could easily accomplish this, don't you (especially in clear weather conditions)? I don't think even BO could make the case that 'using reflected ambient light for the purpose of locating an object' (i.e. 'seeing') constitutes a 'beacon'. :-)
-
#262
by
cambrianera
on 23 Oct, 2014 16:30
-
A jack-up barge would be out of the scope of Blue Origin patent, isn't it?
-
#263
by
gosnold
on 23 Oct, 2014 17:11
-
You could have the barge stay precisely at gps position defined before flight. All you need is several sets of propellers (one for each direction) or pod propellers. If you use gps on the rocket for positioning during the final descent, you get a very good accuracy (as good as differential gps)
-
#264
by
Space Ghost 1962
on 23 Oct, 2014 17:33
-
A jack-up barge would be out of the scope of Blue Origin patent, isn't it?
Answer it for yourself.
Look at the claims - the single, most important part of the patent. Do the claims as stated appear to address a landing on a jack-up barge?
Among other things, the claims address the boundary of infringement, usually in a grey zone way - "litigation cross sectional area" if you will.
My read is that they do.
Enough on patents - start another thread. Back to where "solid surface" landings will occur.
My guess is back to the usual suspects prior to the barge distraction - anyone care to dispute this?
-
#265
by
cambrianera
on 23 Oct, 2014 18:19
-
A jack-up barge would be out of the scope of Blue Origin patent, isn't it?
Answer it for yourself.
Look at the claims - the single, most important part of the patent. Do the claims as stated appear to address a landing on a jack-up barge?
Among other things, the claims address the boundary of infringement, usually in a grey zone way - "litigation cross sectional area" if you will.
My read is that they do.
Enough on patents - start another thread. Back to where "solid surface" landings will occur.
My guess is back to the usual suspects prior to the barge distraction - anyone care to dispute this?
Well, "solid surface" is quoted because the thread originator, Kabloona, was willing to discuss barge landings (see reply #2).
-
#266
by
Kabloona
on 23 Oct, 2014 18:31
-
My guess is back to the usual suspects prior to the barge distraction - anyone care to dispute this?
I would not care to dispute Space Ghost.
But the premise of this thread is now pretty much out the window (ie that #14 or #15 would be a solid surface landing, per SpaceX July 22 statement). Clearly it won't be either of those missions.
Hans' comments make it sound like we're back to square one, ie working with Range Safety to get approval for RTLS at the Cape. He didn't say the word "Cape," but it's hard to imagine FAA/Range approving any other site.
-
#267
by
abaddon
on 23 Oct, 2014 18:49
-
There's always Vandenberg...
-
#268
by
Kabloona
on 23 Oct, 2014 19:18
-
There's always Vandenberg...
Yes, but the vast majority of upcoming launches will be from the Cape.
-
#269
by
Space Ghost 1962
on 23 Oct, 2014 19:36
-
Hans' comments make it sound like we're back to square one, ie working with Range Safety to get approval for RTLS at the Cape. He didn't say the word "Cape," but it's hard to imagine FAA/Range approving any other site.
Technically, any region that has
ever fallen under the scope/administration/"jurisdiction" of CCAFS/KSC.
Does not need to be in the current boundaries of CCAFS/KSC, but if outside the boundaries must be under exclusive use (possible with lease/rent).
-
#270
by
RanulfC
on 23 Oct, 2014 19:53
-
True statement, but I don't see the logic. "We're challenging the patent and therefore we cannot land on a barge as we had planned to do before we decided to challenge the patent?"
When submitting to the authority of a court, perhaps the most disrespectful thing you can do is proceed as if the court's decision doesn't matter.
Historically, (McDonalds Coffee-case for one specific case) that's very much true. Blow off the notion that whatever the court decides is beside the point and you in all likely-hood lost the case before it starts
Randy
-
#271
by
guckyfan
on 23 Oct, 2014 19:56
-
There's always Vandenberg...
Yes, but the vast majority of upcoming launches will be from the Cape.
Yes but what they need is proof of concept. If they get permission for Vandenberg and fly successfullly it is unlikely they will be denied at the Cape or Brownsville.
-
#272
by
RanulfC
on 23 Oct, 2014 20:01
-
It’s 1768 and Jeff Bezos’s ancestor wants to patent the following: a four-wheeled carriage that moves without the employment of animals or human beings to pull or push it. The motive power for this device is an engine that uses a combustible gas or fuel. This “horseless carriage” can be steered from its “stable” to a variety of destinations where its operator can stop its engine and station it. This destination can either be flat terrain or an inclined surface. In the latter case, the horseless carriage requires a device to “rein” its motion; this device is called its “bridle” or “brake”. When the operator desires to return the horseless carriage to its stable, he first resupplies it with fuel and then ignites the engine. By means of a steering mechanism, he guides it back along the same path that he traveled to reach his destination. Upon reaching the stable, he steers the horseless carriage into its designated resting place and stops the engine.
If this patent had been granted and upheld, Nicolas-Joseph Cugnot would have had to go to court to gain the right to market “the first steam powered automobile capable of human transportation,” which he successfully demonstrated in 1769 (Wikipedia). Cugnot had a working invention that showed the feasibility of horseless carriages. It would take over a hundred years before they became more than curiosities. Imagine if Old Bezos had been able to profit from his mere concept of a horseless carriage, possibly hindering the development of a real technology.
History has examples of this actually
One of the more irritating portions of the Wright-Curtiss airplane foolishness was that the Wrights lawyers and investors were backed by a Federal Judge who had earlier upheld a obviously bogus "patent" claim on "internal combustion engines" that was being touted as THE patent that covers ALL ICE power plants and that everyone, everywhere owed the patent holder fees before they could build an ICE. Like the Wright claim to patenting all types of controls for aircraft Europe simply ignored the claim for the ICE but in the US it caused all sorts of issues because the people like Henry Ford had to fight this patent while trying to revolutionize car manufacturing. (I don't think anyone ever pointed out the afore mentioned Judge that his ruling should have meant the Wrights were liable for patent infringment due to building their own ICEs though
My main contention with the BO patent is simply that it trys far to hard to be far to inclusive while ignoring a great deal of "previous" art that was never patented but obviously assumed to be a non-patent issue. Similarly to the someone who tried right after the winning of the X-Prize to "patent" adventure flight by claiming patent to any and all possible "suborbital adventure trajectories"... Anyone recall that one?
Randy
-
#273
by
RanulfC
on 23 Oct, 2014 20:07
-
You could have the barge stay precisely at gps position defined before flight. All you need is several sets of propellers (one for each direction) or pod propellers. If you use gps on the rocket for positioning during the final descent, you get a very good accuracy (as good as differential gps)
If it had propellers it wouldn't be a barge. It would be a boat. Maintaining exact position and orientation is hard enough for a real ship that isn't specially equipped for it.
IIRC azmi-pods (GPS based thruster pods) can be used on barges without them being registered as boats.
Randy
-
#274
by
CameronD
on 24 Oct, 2014 03:06
-
You could have the barge stay precisely at gps position defined before flight. All you need is several sets of propellers (one for each direction) or pod propellers. If you use gps on the rocket for positioning during the final descent, you get a very good accuracy (as good as differential gps)
If it had propellers it wouldn't be a barge. It would be a boat. Maintaining exact position and orientation is hard enough for a real ship that isn't specially equipped for it.
IIRC azmi-pods (GPS based thruster pods) can be used on barges without them being registered as boats.
Randy
You mean "azi-pods".. and I'd expect barges so fitted would still need to be registered as such.
A "landing platform" fitted with 4 x azi-pods and a precision nav system similar to those used for cable-laying is still a fairly specialised custom-built piece of kit and, unlike a jack-up, is not going to be something you can hire from just down the road. It'd still be no good for landing a rocket on in anything other than flat calm sea, but may well be an option SpX might choose to look into.
-
#275
by
Kabloona
on 24 Oct, 2014 15:02
-
There's always Vandenberg...
Yes, but the vast majority of upcoming launches will be from the Cape.
Yes but what they need is proof of concept. If they get permission for Vandenberg and fly successfullly it is unlikely they will be denied at the Cape or Brownsville.
Of course, the reverse is equally true. Is there reason to believe permission would be easier to obtain at Vandenberg than at the Cape?
-
#276
by
Dudely
on 24 Oct, 2014 16:53
-
They are constructing a landing platform at a shipyard in louisiana
dimensions:
300' X 170'
"We are going to try to land on that on the next flight"
"50% chance or less of landing on the platform"
"80-90% likely that one of the upcoming flights will do it."
Edit: source : MIT Aeronautics and Astronautics Department's 2014 Centennial celebration Centennial Symposium
-
#277
by
mmeijeri
on 24 Oct, 2014 16:56
-
Heheh, I thought they were going to lease a jack-up barge. Clearly not impressive enough for Elon Musk!
-
#278
by
mr. mark
on 24 Oct, 2014 18:17
-
Can someone look that up on satellite imagery? possible?
-
#279
by
Joel
on 24 Oct, 2014 18:22
-
Sounds like a modified (stripped down) LSD from Huntington Ingalls in Louisiana
Care to elaborate? Is this something that would not only be useful for the landing, but something that could ferry the landed stage back to the launch site?
