Blue Origin photo

[DuhFly]

Its about time.<br /><br />http://public.blueorigin.com/index.html

 

[MeteorWayne]

Nice!! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[larper]

*sniff*<br /><br />Now that is how a spaceship is supposed to land. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[DuhFly]

Thats was a beautiful flight. Hopefully, it does not take too long for them to put up information on the next flight.

 

[no_way]

just so people actually click the link, they have a VIDEO not just photos.<br /><br />Damn, im sending my CV in.

 

[soyuztma]

It's much larger then what i tought it would be. And Bezos sounds like a complete space nut <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DuhFly]

That vehicle is called "Goddard". <br />http://www.hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php<br /><br />I suspect the New Shepard will be much larger.

 

[spacefire]

that's a big bottom beauty!<br /><br />I assume most of the descent phase will be under parachute and the thrusters are used just for landing? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[DuhFly]

I like the fact that you don't have to worry about it tipping over like the DCX.

 

[mrmorris]

The videos are great, the craft appears a lot more polished than I'd have expected. I wish I had more faith in Blue Origin, I really do. I simply can't get around the basic physics that a VTO/VL spacecraft simply doesn't <b>scale</b> worth a floop. Given what they showed in that video, I think BO could make one <b>heckuva</b> lunar lander. However, even suborbital hops on Earth just raise too many questions in my mind -- mainly propellant requirements. I'd love to find out in a couple of years that they figured out brilliant ways to solve the issues, though. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[spacefire]

I don't think they can afford to build hardware if it can't, at least in theory, reach space. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[mrmorris]

Well... theories aren't <b>quite</b> as common as opinions... but close. In theory, X-33 was going to be an SSTO... until engineering realities trumped mathematical possibilities. I'm sure that there's a set of numbers that someone has calculated somewhere that says they need X m/s of dv to reach their altitude goal and Y m/s of dv to land. They've then added 10% to that and calculated what volume of H2O2 is required for that, and what size tanks are required and so forth. Said somebody has a figure written down that shows it to be possible.<br /><br />I spent some time hunting around (unsuccessfully) for the calculations I needed to voodoo up a reasonable approximation of the figures. I'm extremely curious just what ballpark range of hydrogen peroxide we're talking about for this. I'd <b>really</b> like to try to calculate what kind of mass of H2O2 is required for landing operations.<br /><br />It's entirely possible that they have an Ace of Pentagons* up their sleeve. However, my gut feeling is that it'll all end in tears.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />* This would be the 'Fifth Ace' that no one ever expects. Somewhat like the Spanish Inquisition.

 

[radarredux]

Very cool !!<br /><br />Armadillo Aerospace might have some serious competition at next year's X Prize fly off. I can't imagine TGV making much progress attracting money now that Blue Origin already has some altitude under its belt.

 

[no_way]

Huh, SSTO is not an only option for VTVL vehicle, you can easily have two or three stages.<br />Get yourself a copy of "Rocket Company" or something

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Armadillo Aerospace might have some serious competition at next year's X Prize fly off.</font>/i><br /><br />Side note: I went to check Armadillo, and they some nice wallpaper photos for your computer:<br />http://www.armadilloaerospace.com/n.x/Armadillo/Home/Gallery/Wallpapers</i>

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"Huh, SSTO is not an only option for VTVL vehicle..."</font><br /><br />And I didn't say it was -- read my post. I was talking about theory vs. reality. No comparison between the design of X-33 and BO's craft was made or implied.

 

[soyuztma]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I wish I had more faith in Blue Origin, I really do. I simply can't get around the basic physics that a VTO/VL spacecraft simply doesn't scale worth a floop. Given what they showed in that video, I think BO could make one heckuva lunar lander. However, even suborbital hops on Earth just raise too many questions in my mind -- mainly propellant requirements.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Could you explain this? I faill to see why a VTVL wouldn't work. I hope you realize they aren't planning on using just peroxide for their craft? They are planning to use peroxide/kerosene for the New Shepard (according to the EA). And some people even claim that peroxide/kerosene is even better than LOX/LH2 for an SSTO because kerosene and peroxide are very dense so you don't have to design big tanks. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DuhFly]

They are not trying to got to orbit. They are working on a sub-orbital vehile. If you get to 200,000 at mach 3, you can just coast to space. You won't orbit, but you will see the curvation of earth like SS1.

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"Could you explain this? I faill to see why a VTVL wouldn't work."</font><br /><br />I haven't (and won't ) say that it *can't* work. However, a powered landing adds a <b>lot</b> of mass -- even if parachutes are used for the majority of descent. It also adds failure modes and makes a soft touchdown not only possible, but *critical* (seeing as you're going to have excess propellant in the tanks).<br /><br />I simply feel more comfortable with the methodologies of SpaceX and Bigelow. Both are using tech largely already developed by others and are simply engineering it to be better and more economically viable. I wish BO all the luck in the world.

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"They are not trying to got to orbit."</font><br /><br />And I didn't say they were. Read the post. You'll note I said they needed X dv 'to reach their altitude goal'. If I was referring to orbits, I'd have said they need X dv to reach their orbital velocity.

 

[DuhFly]

Sorry for the mixup. I just don't want this to turn into another single-stage-to-orbit arguement. Let's keep the discussion sub-orbital.

 

[soyuztma]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I haven't (and won't ) say that it *can't* work. However, a powered landing adds a lot of mass -- even if parachutes are used for the majority of descent. It also adds failure modes and makes a soft touchdown not only possible, but *critical* (seeing as you're going to have excess propellant in the tanks). <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />The number most often quoted for landing propellant mass for a vertical landing is 10% of landing weight. Which doesn't seem to be too bad. A parachute system however is a lot lighter (3% ?). But i think for operational reasons VL may be better: you can land your vehicle exactly where you want it to, if you can get your parachute vehicle to land within 1 km of the landing point, you have a very good parachute landing system. And getting your vehicle to land upright so you don't damage anything is also not very easy with parachutes. Maybe it makes sense for orbital vehicles to use parachutes to save mass but suborbital isn't that mass critical and if you land right back at the pad you can just refuel the vehicle and you are off again. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">But i think for operational reasons VL may be better: you can land your vehicle exactly where you want it to</font>/i><br /><br />Yes, if you want want fast turn around times (for multiple launches per week), this is a nice design.</i>

 

[comga]

duhfly- "I like the fact that you don't have to worry about it tipping over like the DCX. "<br /><br />Why do you say that? These legs may be fixed, but they look like they are made to be retractable at some point.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Why do you say that? These legs may be fixed, but they look like they are made to be retractable at some point.</font>/i><br /><br />The Blue Origin prototype has a fairly wide base and potentially a low center of gravity. It is relatively short and stubby. While a leg might give out or fail to extend, it probably wouldn't tip over; it would just settle on its wide butt.</i>