Author Topic: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2  (Read 105708 times)

Online Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4209
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2867
  • Likes Given: 3705
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #240 on: 05/14/2018 12:45 AM »
Casey handmer posted this tweet.
https://twitter.com/cjhandmer/status/993965300147146752?s=21

This is an odd chart.

Why are in-space nuclear power and Space Solar power located on the way to "habitats"?
why is "human spaceflight" on the way to "propellant depots"?
(just to pick two)

Just to focus on what they see if required for space habitats, they think cryogenic composites and in-space resource utilization is required before space habitats, which makes me wonder if they only see space habitats as needed only for deep space applications?

I would think space habitats would be needed much closer to Earth and would not need either cryogenics or material from space in order to become a reality.

Sure would be nice to understand the assumptions behind this chart...
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 Chasm

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 393
  • Liked: 180
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #241 on: 05/14/2018 08:44 PM »
The order makes some sense.
For example Blue Moon (a lander) -> reusable lander
I think availability is a part of the puzzle. Perhaps they have some items like cyro propellant transfer already on shelf or at least in higher readiness than all the parts for autonomous docking.


Online gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3780
  • US
  • Liked: 3132
  • Likes Given: 1842
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #242 on: 05/22/2018 08:36 PM »
FCC File Number 0911-EX-ST-2018
Quote
Please explain the purpose of operation:    This application is for Flight #10 of the New Shepard space launch booster and capsule; receipt of telemetry data from the vehicles during flight.


Requested Period of Operation  Operation Start Date:   09/15/2018

Offline Bubbinski

Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #243 on: 05/23/2018 03:00 AM »
Interesting, Flight 7 in December 2017, flight 8 in April 2018, flight 9 in June, flight 10 in September if I understand those FCC posts correctly. About once every 3 months. If this schedule holds, would flight 11 (December 2018?) be the first crewed flight? Or would flight 10 be crewed?

Edit: I did some further reading on the 2 FCC links. They have a period of 6 months where the license is good, and June and September are just the starting points. Hmm....flight 9 in late summer, flight 10 in the late fall? We’ll see.
« Last Edit: 05/23/2018 03:16 AM by Bubbinski »
I'll even excitedly look forward to "flags and footprints" and suborbital missions. Just fly...somewhere.

Offline Darkseraph

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 587
  • Liked: 281
  • Likes Given: 121
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #244 on: 05/23/2018 09:36 PM »
Interesting interview with Jeff Bezos on 'Day One' in the space industry

Key points in it are:

- Blue intend to work on second stage reuse after first stage reuse has been achieved.
- "The three big ideas for Blue Origin and New Glenn are reducing cost, improving reliability and improving  availability."
- New Glenn’s booster is designed for 25 flights, and the BE-4 engine is designed for 100 missions.
- "Taking a long-term approach has always been one of Amazon’s strengths. And I think it is one of Blue Origin’s strengths as well"
-  They want to enable faster upgrades of satellite hardware through cheaper, frequent launches, unlike the 15-20 year cycle of current satellites.
- New Glenn can tolerate a single fault and still launch, for example a faulty sensor or leg.
 

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." R.P.Feynman

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8653
  • Australia
  • Liked: 3586
  • Likes Given: 843
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #245 on: 05/24/2018 01:55 AM »
improving availability

For example, by making it available at all.
I hear those things are awfully loud. It glides as softly as a cloud. What's it called? Monowhale!

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8498
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 4996
  • Likes Given: 1588
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #246 on: 05/24/2018 07:09 AM »
improving availability

For example, by making it available at all.


Yes, they would be well advised to talk (even) less and launch more.

Offline Darkseraph

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 587
  • Liked: 281
  • Likes Given: 121
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #247 on: 05/24/2018 10:24 AM »
improving availability

For example, by making it available at all.


Yes, they would be well advised to talk (even) less and launch more.

Blue Origin is frequently criticized for being tight lipped about their plans. And that is very true, they don't publish many powerpoints or press releases filled with grand promises of the future that are later cancelled. But for those who are bothered that they are so quiet, the article is a rare discussion of their plans and intents.

Up until very recently a company we won't mention here by name actually didn't launch very frequently at all and frankly had problems meeting any schedule or not exploding their vehicles. The established companies accused them of 'talking but not launching' over and over, underestimating them. That's very reminiscent of the tone of comments now made about Blue Origin. It's right now at the beginning of its orbital plans and will take a few years to get to a high launch rate. As a future disruptive force in the launch industry, they are being grossly underestimated.

If Blue are to create a reliable booster that is reusable from day one, they obviously cannot launch ahead of its current scheduled first flight in 2020. As we can see from the building of a giant rocket factory in Florida and successful tests of the biggest methalox engine in the world, they're doing a lot more than talking!


"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." R.P.Feynman

Offline noogie

  • Member
  • Posts: 38
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #248 on: 05/24/2018 12:02 PM »

If Blue are to create a reliable booster that is reusable from day one, they obviously cannot launch ahead of its current scheduled first flight in 2020. As we can see from the building of a giant rocket factory in Florida and successful tests of the biggest methalox engine in the world, they're doing a lot more than talking!

I think the point of many about Blue Origin is that you only get good at rocketry by flying rockets. The BE-4 thread shows a very, perhaps excessive graditim approach.
 

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4617
  • Liked: 2535
  • Likes Given: 1395
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #249 on: 05/24/2018 12:44 PM »

If Blue are to create a reliable booster that is reusable from day one, they obviously cannot launch ahead of its current scheduled first flight in 2020. As we can see from the building of a giant rocket factory in Florida and successful tests of the biggest methalox engine in the world, they're doing a lot more than talking!

I think the point of many about Blue Origin is that you only get good at rocketry by flying rockets. The BE-4 thread shows a very, perhaps excessive graditim approach.

Blue is flying rockets.

They tackled reuse first, instead of orbital launch. If SpaceX had an unlimited supply of money they might have done the same thing.

It's quicker and easier to solve a huge problem by breaking it up into manageable chunks, instead of taking the whole thing in one go (e.g. STS). Blue's method is just another way of breaking down the problem.

Offline johnfwhitesell

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 319
  • Liked: 105
  • Likes Given: 198
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #250 on: 05/24/2018 01:08 PM »
As a future disruptive force in the launch industry, they are being grossly underestimated.

Allow me to present a counter example to Blue being "grossly underestimated":

The BE-4 engine "is unproven at the required size and power," the letter stated. The Congressmen seemed to be pushing Aerojet because the company had promised to produce its AR-1 engine in Huntsville, Alabama, (...)
This is the kind of bias that SpaceX has had to fight for the better part of a decade
(emphasis added by me)

This was being written at a time when Blue was expected to do a full scale test by April last year and certify by the end of the 2017.  They did a full scale partial power test in October.  It's five months into 2018 and they are at 70% power full duration tests.  Blue wasn't being grossly underestimated, a completely accurate assessment was passed off as "bias".  These pessimists predicted that ULA would put itself at risk of delays and those delays are happening!  Of course really this shouldn't surprise us.  Delays are completely typical in the aerospace industry.  I'm sure that if they had gone with the AR-1 it would also be delayed.
 The difference is that if ARJ had gone silent while the predicted time came and passed, we would have assumed serious problems.    But Blue was able to fall completely silent and people assumed that in the absence of information everything must be going well.

Offline erikdurn

  • Member
  • Posts: 8
  • Florida
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 0

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4617
  • Liked: 2535
  • Likes Given: 1395
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #252 on: 05/24/2018 01:57 PM »
As a future disruptive force in the launch industry, they are being grossly underestimated.

Allow me to present a counter example to Blue being "grossly underestimated":

The BE-4 engine "is unproven at the required size and power," the letter stated. The Congressmen seemed to be pushing Aerojet because the company had promised to produce its AR-1 engine in Huntsville, Alabama, (...)
This is the kind of bias that SpaceX has had to fight for the better part of a decade
(emphasis added by me)

This was being written at a time when Blue was expected to do a full scale test by April last year and certify by the end of the 2017.  They did a full scale partial power test in October.  It's five months into 2018 and they are at 70% power full duration tests.  Blue wasn't being grossly underestimated, a completely accurate assessment was passed off as "bias".  These pessimists predicted that ULA would put itself at risk of delays and those delays are happening!  Of course really this shouldn't surprise us.  Delays are completely typical in the aerospace industry.  I'm sure that if they had gone with the AR-1 it would also be delayed.
 The difference is that if ARJ had gone silent while the predicted time came and passed, we would have assumed serious problems.    But Blue was able to fall completely silent and people assumed that in the absence of information everything must be going well.

That't not the bias Eric is talking about in that quote.

BE-4 being unproven is no basis to choose AR-1 or AeroJet, as they are no more proven, and in fact are far behind Blue in producing a full-scale staged combustion hydrocarbon engine.

Also, there's no evidence that BE-4 has delayed ULA in any way. BE-4 is still on track for delivery in 2019. The slip from late 2019 to mid 2020 for Vulcan was ascribed by ULA to Centaur upgrades so that they can immediately do heavy DoD launches on Vulcan.

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6544
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 6249
  • Likes Given: 1880
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #253 on: 05/24/2018 02:06 PM »
https://www.innovationaus.com/2018/05/Bezos-offers-moon-to-space-agency

Headline from Jeff Foust:

Quote
This story about a Blue Origin exec’s comments at an Australian meeting suggests there will be a “group announcement” with Jeff Bezos and perhaps multiple nations at the IAC in Germany in October. “We’re going back to the moon and we’re going to stay.”

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/999643637771309057

Offline Aurora

  • Member
  • Posts: 38
  • USA
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #254 on: 05/24/2018 02:58 PM »
This is unusual for Blue Origin and Jeff Bezos to "pre-announce" an upcoming event/announcement.  Usually prefers to upstage everyone at a conference.    This will now be difficult to contain discussions and comments until IAC in September.

Offline meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1789
  • Liked: 1615
  • Likes Given: 389
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #255 on: 05/24/2018 03:22 PM »
As a future disruptive force in the launch industry, they are being grossly underestimated.

Allow me to present a counter example to Blue being "grossly underestimated":

The BE-4 engine "is unproven at the required size and power," the letter stated. The Congressmen seemed to be pushing Aerojet because the company had promised to produce its AR-1 engine in Huntsville, Alabama, (...)
This is the kind of bias that SpaceX has had to fight for the better part of a decade
(emphasis added by me)

This was being written at a time when Blue was expected to do a full scale test by April last year and certify by the end of the 2017.  They did a full scale partial power test in October.  It's five months into 2018 and they are at 70% power full duration tests.  Blue wasn't being grossly underestimated, a completely accurate assessment was passed off as "bias".  These pessimists predicted that ULA would put itself at risk of delays and those delays are happening!  Of course really this shouldn't surprise us.  Delays are completely typical in the aerospace industry.  I'm sure that if they had gone with the AR-1 it would also be delayed.
 The difference is that if ARJ had gone silent while the predicted time came and passed, we would have assumed serious problems.    But Blue was able to fall completely silent and people assumed that in the absence of information everything must be going well.
In addition to what envy887 noted above, you should also note that AR-1 has not been officially eliminated yet, but they didn't plan to qualify their engine until next year anyway, so they don't even have their engine on a test stand yet. AR-1 was a guaranteed delay to Vulcan even if AR-1 had not more delays itself.

See this article from May 2017 about the AR-1.
Quote
The engine design team has now successfully completed a series of 22 component Critical Design Reviews leading up to an engine system Critical Design Review to support engine qualification and certification in 2019.

Offline johnfwhitesell

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 319
  • Liked: 105
  • Likes Given: 198
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #256 on: 05/24/2018 04:36 PM »
Guys, I explicitly said in my post that I am sure the AR-1 would have been delayed too.

Offline su27k

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1141
  • Liked: 844
  • Likes Given: 75
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #257 on: 05/24/2018 05:54 PM »
improving availability

For example, by making it available at all.


Yes, they would be well advised to talk (even) less and launch more.

Blue Origin is frequently criticized for being tight lipped about their plans. And that is very true, they don't publish many powerpoints or press releases filled with grand promises of the future that are later cancelled. But for those who are bothered that they are so quiet, the article is a rare discussion of their plans and intents.

Up until very recently a company we won't mention here by name actually didn't launch very frequently at all and frankly had problems meeting any schedule or not exploding their vehicles. The established companies accused them of 'talking but not launching' over and over, underestimating them. That's very reminiscent of the tone of comments now made about Blue Origin. It's right now at the beginning of its orbital plans and will take a few years to get to a high launch rate. As a future disruptive force in the launch industry, they are being grossly underestimated.

If Blue are to create a reliable booster that is reusable from day one, they obviously cannot launch ahead of its current scheduled first flight in 2020. As we can see from the building of a giant rocket factory in Florida and successful tests of the biggest methalox engine in the world, they're doing a lot more than talking!

I agree, we want Blue Origin to be more open, we'd like to hear more about their plans, so I'd be glad to see a more talkative Blue, what's wrong with talk more and launch more?

Online TrevorMonty

Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #258 on: 05/24/2018 06:59 PM »
https://www.innovationaus.com/2018/05/Bezos-offers-moon-to-space-agency

Headline from Jeff Foust:

Quote
This story about a Blue Origin exec’s comments at an Australian meeting suggests there will be a “group announcement” with Jeff Bezos and perhaps multiple nations at the IAC in Germany in October. “We’re going back to the moon and we’re going to stay.”

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/999643637771309057
Looks like Blue want to setup base in Australian. Would be ideal location for NS tourism flights.

Not so sure about orbital launch sites for NG.

Here is extract from article.



Blue Origin, Amazon founder and CEO Jeff Bezos’ ambitious, privately-funded aerospace venture company has formally invited the Federal Government’s nascent national space agency to play a role in its mission to achieve space tourism and establish a lunar presence.

Blue Origin commercial director, Ted McFarland, this week used the Australasian Satellite forum in Sydney as a platform to issue the invitation and told InnovationAus.com that it was more than just a goodwill gesture on the company’s part.

“We would really like to explore it,” Mr McFarland said. “There’s a lot of talent here. There’s a lot of land here. So, if I want to put in a space tourism business, I think you’ve got some land available and I think you’ve got some great people to work on the problem. So, yeah, this is a formal invitation to discuss.”



Offline meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1789
  • Liked: 1615
  • Likes Given: 389
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #259 on: 05/24/2018 09:40 PM »
Guys, I explicitly said in my post that I am sure the AR-1 would have been delayed too.
You need to read what I said more carefully. The problem is the phrasing "would have." This is a conditional, that you based on the engine selection for Vulcan. Since the selection hasn't happened yet, your statement doesn't make sense. You can instead go to the AR-1 thread and look at what the status of that engine is.

Your statement doesn't address envy887's points at all.

Tags: