Author Topic: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2  (Read 111505 times)

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #480 on: 11/07/2018 02:25 PM »
I thought that Gradatim was another word for slowly.

It was my mistake.

The reason why made that statement was because SpaceX launched their first orbital-class rocket four years after it was founded, but by the time Blue Origin launches New Glenn, itíll have been twenty years since the company began.
Blue started with goal of RLV, they didn't see any reason to waste resources on ELV. A multi engine Be3 powered RLV was on todo list but somewhere along way they decided  to jump straight to more useful sized NG.

If cashflow was an issue I suspect they would've produced a BE3 RLV or ELV. NS would be flying regularly with paying passengers.





Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4302
  • California
  • Liked: 3746
  • Likes Given: 2298
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #481 on: 11/07/2018 04:21 PM »
If cashflow was an issue I suspect they would've produced a BE3 RLV or ELV. NS would be flying regularly with paying passengers.

Sure, but you need to fly to learn. Saying that you don't fly because you don't have to (we have all the cash we need!), that just points out that having tons of money does not buy you progress.

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #482 on: 11/07/2018 05:52 PM »
If cashflow was an issue I suspect they would've produced a BE3 RLV or ELV. NS would be flying regularly with paying passengers.

Sure, but you need to fly to learn. Saying that you don't fly because you don't have to (we have all the cash we need!), that just points out that having tons of money does not buy you progress.
A smaller orbital RLV would help them learn, but for extra cost of it they could afford to crater a few NGs. Even with smaller predecessor NG would still be new LV with all the associated early flight risks.
Better to go straight to useful NG and budget for a few early failures.


Offline Johnnyhinbos

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1380
  • Boston, MA
  • Liked: 1606
  • Likes Given: 222
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #483 on: 11/07/2018 06:22 PM »
I think this thread is an okay place for folks to vent some occasional steam over the apparent lack of continual progress on the many BO fronts. I too wish things would progress at a more jaunty pace. I mean, I only have so much time on this planet and I'd love to see great things happen during my short stay here.

That said however, here's my hope...

Blue has been working on many fronts for quite some time:
- sub-orbital rocket development
- orbital class engine development
- vacuum capable engine development
- restartable engine development
- orbital class rocket development
- rocket landing technology, both sub-orbital and orbital
- human-rated LSS
- landing ship development (and procurement)
- rocket production / refirb facility development (and buildout)
- tool development
- launch site development


And that's just to name a few. That's a lot of effort on many fronts. Therefore the apparent progress, when looking at any one area, appears quite slow. However I expect a logarithmic progression as these seemingly disparate development efforts converge and it's my thinking that we are standing at the base of a steep vertical climb on the timeline of progress, looking back at the nearly horizontal progress line and lamenting on the lack of progress without realizing the steep vertical progress line that's about to, ahem, rocket up just ahead of us. 


I hope I'm right, but the good thing is time will tell!
John Hanzl. Author, action / adventure www.johnhanzl.com

Online LouScheffer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1907
  • Liked: 2496
  • Likes Given: 279
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #484 on: 11/08/2018 01:49 PM »
That's a lot of effort on many fronts. Therefore the apparent progress, when looking at any one area, appears quite slow. However I expect a logarithmic progression as these seemingly disparate development efforts converge...

That's the problem!   They've confused log() and exp() - with log(), progress gets slower and slower as time goes on, but with exp(), progress is slow at first, then speeds up dramatically.

In all seriousness, I worry that we don't see much experimental work, in areas like hypersonic aerodynamics.  This is super-non-trivial.  For example, *all* Mars probes are exactly the same shape, because it's known to work and no one trusts computational hypersonic aerodynamics enough try any other shape.  Likewise the Soviet Buran was exactly the same shape as the shuttle, for the same reason.

The fins on New Glenn have to work with known control laws at hypersonic speeds.  Likewise they will need to control heating on the hypersonic entry of the first stage, a notoriously tricky computational problem.  So I'd think Blue would be trying a New Shepard with New Glenn style fins, renting time on hypersonic tunnels, etc.  But I don't see any of this, and if you do a full-up design, *then* test it, there is a rather high risk of schedule-busting unexpected developments.

Online Tulse

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #485 on: 11/08/2018 03:42 PM »
In all seriousness, I worry that we don't see much experimental work, in areas like hypersonic aerodynamics. 

[...]

The fins on New Glenn have to work with known control laws at hypersonic speeds.  Likewise they will need to control heating on the hypersonic entry of the first stage, a notoriously tricky computational problem.  So I'd think Blue would be trying a New Shepard with New Glenn style fins, renting time on hypersonic tunnels, etc.  But I don't see any of this, and if you do a full-up design, *then* test it, there is a rather high risk of schedule-busting unexpected developments.
And that is exactly what SpaceX seems to be doing with its "mini-BFS" -- experimentally testing the aerodynamics (and TPS) of its full-sized vehicle.  It would be very heartening to see BO do something similar.

Offline Slarty1080

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 199
  • UK
  • Liked: 55
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #486 on: 11/12/2018 10:38 AM »
In all seriousness, I worry that we don't see much experimental work, in areas like hypersonic aerodynamics. 

[...]

The fins on New Glenn have to work with known control laws at hypersonic speeds.  Likewise they will need to control heating on the hypersonic entry of the first stage, a notoriously tricky computational problem.  So I'd think Blue would be trying a New Shepard with New Glenn style fins, renting time on hypersonic tunnels, etc.  But I don't see any of this, and if you do a full-up design, *then* test it, there is a rather high risk of schedule-busting unexpected developments.
And that is exactly what SpaceX seems to be doing with its "mini-BFS" -- experimentally testing the aerodynamics (and TPS) of its full-sized vehicle.  It would be very heartening to see BO do something similar.

I wonder if BO are fearful of anything ever going wrong on a flight because if it does it might have an adverse effect on their standing due to their stated slow but sure method? Many might assume (wrongly IMO) that slow but sure means no accidents. If so real gaps in human knowledge might take them a long time to overcome. Whereas the SpaceX way of doing it would be very much suck it and see. If it blows up fix it and try again.
The first words spoken on Mars: "Humans have been wondering if there was any life on the planet Mars for many decades Ö well ... there is now!"

Online docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5020
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 2132
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #487 on: 11/13/2018 12:09 AM »
>
I wonder if BO are fearful of anything ever going wrong on a flight because if it does it might have an adverse effect on their standing due to their stated slow but sure method? >

They've lost a vehicle  before, Propulsion Module 2 in 2011, and they had a BE-4 powerpack commit seppuku,  so I doubt it. 
« Last Edit: 11/13/2018 12:12 AM by docmordrid »
DM

Offline ZachS09

Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #488 on: 11/13/2018 12:48 AM »
There was also a landing failure of the first New Shepard constructed; this occurred in April 2015. Despite the Crew Capsule landing safely, a hydraulic failure caused the booster to crash and burn.
Because the Falcon Heavy Test Flight was successful, it has inspired thousands of people to consider changing the future of space travel.

Tags: