Author Topic: Blue Origin and Operational Reusability (no audio)  (Read 10853 times)

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10796
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 7720
  • Likes Given: 5556
Re: Blue Origin and Operational Reusability (no audio)
« Reply #20 on: 11/05/2017 02:05 PM »
Its smarmy comments like these from Blue and Bezos that make me "dislike" them a little. They are unwarranted and unnecessary.
They have a lot to learn and a long way to go. Building an engine is one thing, launching and returning it is another leap.

If Blue want to score points then build and launch this thing and less talk.

Very cringey video with a lot of underhand comments. If any of the stories about Bezos and his management teams at Amazon are true, I would expect the same culture at BO and this video is not suprising at all.

Say what you will about ULA, but Tory Bruno, their CEO, congratulates his competition when they do significant things. Bezos (and his management team, and people in the trenches, as Vaporcobra found out on Twitter) throw shade...

Sad, really.
« Last Edit: 11/05/2017 02:06 PM by Lar »
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4311
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2940
  • Likes Given: 3884
Re: Blue Origin and Operational Reusability (no audio)
« Reply #21 on: 11/05/2017 03:11 PM »
The problem is that Bezos has too much money. No sense of urgency. No parlay it all and make it work.

I thought it was interesting in the video where Ariane Cornell says "As you see, we've taken our time, and we've been very patient with this process of building operational reusability into our systems."

Then the next sentence she says is "Our motto at Blue Origin is Gradium Ferociter, or step by step ferociously, this is the mentality we have at Blue..."

But then she admits that they get asked a lot about the lack of visible progress they are making. So it seems like are being a bit defensive about the perception of their rate of progress.
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 FishInferno

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 107
  • Liked: 61
  • Likes Given: 110
Re: Blue Origin and Operational Reusability (no audio)
« Reply #22 on: 11/06/2017 07:48 AM »
Quote from: Blue Origin
"This is not a rocket where we decided to slap some legs on and see if we can land it."

While SpaceX did not simply "slap some legs on" the F9, even if they did, who cares?  SpaceX is currently the only entity in spaceflight with a reusable orbital booster; they are walking the walk while BO is still talking the talk.
« Last Edit: 11/06/2017 07:49 AM by FishInferno »
Comparing SpaceX and SLS is like comparing paying people to plant fruit trees with merely digging holes and filling them.  - Robotbeat

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 937
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 240
  • Likes Given: 134
Re: Blue Origin and Operational Reusability (no audio)
« Reply #23 on: 11/06/2017 09:38 AM »
Quote from: Blue Origin
"This is not a rocket where we decided to slap some legs on and see if we can land it."

While SpaceX did not simply "slap some legs on" the F9, even if they did, who cares?  SpaceX is currently the only entity in spaceflight with a reusable orbital booster; they are walking the walk while BO is still talking the talk.
But it remains to be seen if Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy are affordably reusable!
In my opinion SpaceX has a lot to improve on their landing leg design and stage recovery operations.

Blue is now working on their third and fourth orbital rocket designs. The first two RP-1 HTP and Reusable multiple BE-3 for CCP were not developed for reason's I can only guess. For the reusable multi BE-3 rocket design, not winning CCiCap was most likely a mayor reason for not getting developed.
I think that Blue is at a normal development phase. We here on NSF are just very impatient.
I agree that it's unfortunate that Blue couldn't find a faster path to market. From ISS R&D conference papers I could conclude that Blue has a full manifest for three New Shepard flights. They just had more development work left to do then we here on NSF expected.

I think that the BO motto: "Grandim Ferociter" can also be interpreted as: 'we do large development steps; Engines; New Shepard; New Glenn; Lunar lander, but we don't cut corners. So prove that a design works before proceeding. This makes there development take longer, but there is less chance for a mishap.
I still doubt if any company can industrialize a reusable rocket while making a healthy profit. I expect this would be easier on a smaller rocket system, because it can launch more often. All depends on LEO ComSat constellations becoming a reality. If not, launch rates will be to low for reusable orbital launchers on serial production.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8686
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 5458
  • Likes Given: 1788
Re: Blue Origin and Operational Reusability (no audio)
« Reply #24 on: 11/06/2017 11:35 AM »
In my opinion SpaceX has a lot to improve on their landing leg design and stage recovery operations.
<snip>
This is a thread dedicated to the subject of Blue Origin. I suggest you leave SpaceX out of it.
« Last Edit: 11/06/2017 11:58 AM by woods170 »

Offline DreamyPickle

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 200
  • Home
  • Liked: 84
  • Likes Given: 21
Re: Blue Origin and Operational Reusability (no audio)
« Reply #25 on: 11/06/2017 12:05 PM »
Quote
"This is not a rocket where we decided to slap some legs on and see if we can land it."

You can't ask people to "leave SpaceX out of it" when the video contains deliberate jabs against them. It's 100% on-topic.

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10796
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 7720
  • Likes Given: 5556
Re: Blue Origin and Operational Reusability (no audio)
« Reply #26 on: 11/06/2017 12:15 PM »
But it remains to be seen if Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy are affordably reusable!

100% twaddle. Unless you are ready to put forward that SpaceX are spending the same amount on recover/refurbishment as a brand new stage, which is utterly ridiculous... and makes you sound like you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

But this is not the thread for that discussion. Take it to "Reusability effect on costs". Yes, Blue is being snarky against SpaceX. So what. Let them talk. SpaceX is meanwhile busily capturing the launch market.
« Last Edit: 11/06/2017 12:15 PM by Lar »
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Re: Blue Origin and Operational Reusability (no audio)
« Reply #27 on: 11/06/2017 12:38 PM »
People usually act snarky when they can't deal with their insecurities... I wonder if the same can be applied for companies.
Some perspective:
Blue Origin has yet to achieve 'operational' status, never mind reusability. SpaceX is very well operational, has achieved orbital reusability in real missions and has a self-sustainable development path towards operational reusability.
They actively learn about operational reusability in the real life environment where it actually has to work: orbital flight. They're the only entity in the world currently capable of acquiring this kind of data. Even Bezos' billions can't buy that, and F9 RLV data is arguably SX's most valuable asset right now. The question is: can you achieve operational reusability from the start without this data, just by throwing money at it? Since it's something that has't been done before, and you can't buy the 'know-how' from anyone other than SX, I bet the answer is no. No organization in the world is closer to operational reusability than SpaceX is, and I wonder if not having any lessons on how well NG reusability model will work in real life other than NS is the reason of Blue Origin's insecurity.
It's likely that New Glenn will struggle to achieve what F9 will already have, and instead of talking about alternative realities where they're better positioned than SX, BO should prepare to this future.
« Last Edit: 11/06/2017 12:47 PM by AbuSimbel »
Failure is not only an option, it's the only way to learn.
"Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the custody of fire" - Gustav Mahler

Offline AlexP

  • Member
  • Posts: 54
  • Liked: 40
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: Blue Origin and Operational Reusability (no audio)
« Reply #28 on: 11/06/2017 12:48 PM »
She made a single tongue in cheek comment. After Blue had completed their first NS landing, Elon put out a "congrats on your VTOL" tweet, then put out the XKCD comic explaining how much harder orbital is, followed by a comment that SpaceX had already gone suborbital 6 times with Grasshopper.

"ElonMusk: @JeffBezos Not quite "rarest". SpaceX Grasshopper rocket did 6 suborbital flights 3 years ago & is still around."

It's almost like they're two very competitive groups that want to push their own achievements first and foremost, and occasionally get snipey when others get more attention.

And on the point of congratulating their competition, let's not pretend he never does that either, shall we:

"Jeff Bezos: Impressive launch and @SpaceX will soon make Falcon 9 landings routine – so good for space! Kudos SpaceX!"

Offline jpo234

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1155
  • Liked: 1061
  • Likes Given: 164
Re: Blue Origin and Operational Reusability (no audio)
« Reply #29 on: 11/06/2017 02:01 PM »
She made a single tongue in cheek comment.

There where a few more jabs.

And it depends on the setting. ISPCS is a major symposium, Twitter is... Twitter.
« Last Edit: 11/06/2017 02:08 PM by jpo234 »
You want to be inspired by things. You want to wake up in the morning and think the future is going to be great. That's what being a spacefaring civilization is all about. It's about believing in the future and believing the future will be better than the past. And I can't think of anything more exciting than being out there among the stars.

Offline AAPSkylab

  • Member
  • Posts: 16
  • Fortville, Indiana
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 25
Re: Blue Origin and Operational Reusability (no audio)
« Reply #30 on: 11/06/2017 02:23 PM »
Quote
She made a single tongue in cheek comment. After Blue had completed their first NS landing, Elon put out a "congrats on your VTOL" tweet, then put out the XKCD comic explaining how much harder orbital is, followed by a comment that SpaceX had already gone suborbital 6 times with Grasshopper.

"ElonMusk: @JeffBezos Not quite "rarest". SpaceX Grasshopper rocket did 6 suborbital flights 3 years ago & is still around."

It's almost like they're two very competitive groups that want to push their own achievements first and foremost, and occasionally get snipey when others get more attention.

And on the point of congratulating their competition, let's not pretend he never does that either, shall we:

"Jeff Bezos: Impressive launch and @SpaceX will soon make Falcon 9 landings routine – so good for space! Kudos SpaceX!"

Good post by Alex P
Seems like many are looking for a list of perceived slights and keeping score.  These are two very competitive companies started by two very competive people which is historically normal in the aerospace industry (and virtually all other industries).

In regards to the ISPCS 2017 video, the two major points of what they learned from the New Shepard vehicle were spray-on foam TPS and reusing the engine without removing it from the vehicle for inspection/refurbishment.  I would like to ask some questions.

Is there any spray-on foam that is applicable for reentry from orbital velocities as the primary TPS?  I am not aware of any.

Is their major lesson learned from the BE-3 engine that the propellent combination they chose is not suitable for a re-usable booster stage and the engine itself is not usable for a booster stage?

Is there anything they learned from the NS reentry profile that is applicable to NG except the final landing sequence which itself seems to use an inefficent, protracted hover?

The reentry sequence shown in their NG videos is completely different from anything they themselves have any experience at.  It seems quite possible that before NG even comes close to being an operational orbital system it may have to go through an extended development phase just as the NS is currently.  For NS, how long has this development phase lasted?  We still haven't seen a truly operational version.

So when will BO actually really deliver something that is operational and reusable?

They have yet to field even a suborbital system that meets this criteria let alone an orbital system.

edit:  grammar, spelling
« Last Edit: 11/06/2017 03:08 PM by AAPSkylab »

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 937
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 240
  • Likes Given: 134
Re: Blue Origin and Operational Reusability (no audio)
« Reply #31 on: 11/06/2017 04:10 PM »
If rumors are correct, there is a NS03 booster at BO's Van Hoorn facility. NS04 is rumored to be human rated.
NS03 and NS04 are the fourth iteration of a suborbital booster for BO. (Charon we neglect, PM0 Goddard, PM2, NS01&NS02 preceded). Already with PM2 [youtube] BO is working with deploy-able landing legs. On NS and NG the landing legs can also retract automatically.
I think BO changed the design of the NS booster for improved re-usability and human-rating requirements.
I think BO had a lot of work left to do on their capsule and payload system for NS, mean while they are also working on crewed capsules. 
If I my understanding of the business case for NS is correct, Blue Origin plans to make a small fleet of NS boosters and capsules. This will be a small batch production. After this batch they stop building until new boosters or capsules are required to replace the operational fleet.

For New Glenn I expect the same as with Falcon 9 v1.2. From the first launch onwards they will try to recover the booster (first stage) but they most likely plan for expendable launches the first ~10 launches. I would be surprised if BO tries to fully recover the NG first stage on the maiden flight. I think they will try a ocean landing at first before risking destroying a ship (a lot more expensive asset than a DP-2 barge, with gets damaged often). After a successful reentry and ocean landing they start landing on the ship, that will also require some attempts before they succeed most likely.
I think the reentry heating can be reduced by altering a reentry approach. I think SpX made it hard by choosing a very vertical reentry path. BO will most likely glide a lot more. But I could be wrong on this part.
Launch cadence will determine if serial production or batch production has to be chosen. If serial production is chosen at a to low rate, the launch service gets expansive. This is what I mean with Industrialization of a launch system.
« Last Edit: 11/06/2017 05:33 PM by Rik ISS-fan »

Online TrevorMonty

Re: Blue Origin and Operational Reusability (no audio)
« Reply #32 on: 11/06/2017 04:51 PM »
I'd be surprised if they didn't attempt ship landing of NG booster on maiden flight. Why develop such a large RLV and not try to land it first time. Damaging ship is not big deal and should be designed to handle the odd bad landing.

NG production facilities will be busy, need to build fleet of boosters with odd lost in first few flights along with expendable 2nd stage. There are expendable 3rd stages and lunar landers plus a reuseable 2nd stage eventually. After that it will be NA booster and 2nd stage. Not sure about 3rd stage either NG 2nd or larger BE3 powered version.

 Blue goal is low cost human access to space which requires large crew vehicles.
NG could deliver a 6 man vehicle to lunar orbit but for LEO they need a larger 20 man vehicle to maximise NG performance.

Offline whatever11235

  • Member
  • Posts: 35
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 30
Re: Blue Origin and Operational Reusability (no audio)
« Reply #33 on: 11/06/2017 05:14 PM »
Blue is now working on their third and fourth orbital rocket designs.

No they are not. They are working on their first orbital rocket design.

Offline calapine

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 217
  • Linz, Austria
  • Liked: 177
  • Likes Given: 129
Re: Blue Origin and Operational Reusability (no audio)
« Reply #34 on: 11/06/2017 07:23 PM »
The problem is that Bezos has too much money. No sense of urgency. No parlay it all and make it work.

Design specifications were released in Sept 2016.

Now in November 2017 the factory construction is in full progress, the ceiling cranes have been installed.

First flight if planned for 2020.

Doesn't seem slow to me at all, especially considering the size of scope of a launcher project like New Glenn
« Last Edit: 11/06/2017 07:23 PM by calapine »

Online abaddon

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1733
  • Liked: 1204
  • Likes Given: 1046
Re: Blue Origin and Operational Reusability (no audio)
« Reply #35 on: 11/06/2017 08:26 PM »
If rumors are correct, there is a NS03 booster at BO's Van Hoorn facility. NS04 is rumored to be human rated.
"Human rated" by ... whom?

Offline AlexP

  • Member
  • Posts: 54
  • Liked: 40
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: Blue Origin and Operational Reusability (no audio)
« Reply #36 on: 11/06/2017 08:32 PM »
"Human rated" by ... whom?
Well, it's the booster they're planning on using for manned test flights. Not rumours either, Clay Mowry said it a couple of months back - http://spacenews.com/blue-origin-enlarges-new-glenns-payload-fairing-preparing-to-debut-upgraded-new-shepard/

Tags: