Blue Origin to launch again later this week

[johnadams]

The FAA just released its second NOTAM regarding flights over Texas. Could happen later this week. http://futuresheet.com/ just broke the story.<br /><br />Adams

 

[holmec]

Looks like their pressing ahead without much fan fair. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[larper]

Dang. I really want to see so footage of that beauty flying. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[josh_simonson]

Ergo, the first flight was either not a catastrophic failure, or they have more than one vehicle in the works. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"Ergo, the first flight..."</font><br /><br />Or... the first flight was something largely or completely expendable intended simply to provide flight dynamic testing, parachute testing, landing impact testing, etc. <br /><br />It's unlikely that they sent a reasonably 'complete' vehicle up on their first flight. Depending on how easy it is to replace the equipment that was launched, they could have completely screwed the pooch, but still be launching again this soon if what went wrong was obvious and any lost equipment was simple to replace.

 

[halman]

mrmorris,<br /><br />I certainly wish them luck. It would be wonderful to hear of a successful private launch. Would this be a sounding type launch, straight up, and then straight back down, or are they attempting suborbital? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[johnadams]

the ceiling is 10,000 feet though; they're probably going for some liftoff. <br />Also, maybe someone near Van Horn could hang around and videotape any launches. No trespassing of course. <br />Put it up on youtube, or futuresheet.com

 

[soyuztma]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>It's unlikely that they sent a reasonably 'complete' vehicle up on their first flight. Depending on how easy it is to replace the equipment that was launched, they could have completely screwed the pooch, but still be launching again this soon if what went wrong was obvious and any lost equipment was simple to replace. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />I would guess the Propulsion Module 1 (PM1) was a reasonable complete vehicle. If they would change the vehicle considerably they would probably need a new experimental permit. Armadillo Aerospace needed permission from the FAA AST to change a few bits. So if you would change the vehicle a lot that would cause a lot of paperwork. And Blue Origin said the first flight was successfull: Blue Origin Update (Cosmic Log) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"I would guess the Propulsion Module 1 (PM1) was a reasonable complete vehicle."</font><br /><br /><i>"PM1 will be a low-altitude demonstrator vehicle, using 2,042 kilograms (4,500 pounds) of hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) as a monopropellant, and is capable of reaching an altitude of no more than 610 meters (2,000 feet) with a mission time of less than one minute. Each PM1 vehicle will take off and land vertically using rocket propulsion. The PM1 vehicle is designed to carry no crew, no space flights participants, and no payload."</i><br /><br />I would guess that your definition of a reasonably complete vehicle and mine are reasonably far apart. <br /><br />In any event -- what I was trying to get across in my post was that the rapid re-launch did <b>not</b> limit the possibilities to the binary solution set that was suggested.

 

[halman]

mrmorris,<br /><br />"PM1 will be a low-altitude demonstrator vehicle, using 2,042 kilograms (4,500 pounds) of hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) as a monopropellant, and is capable of reaching an altitude of no more than 610 meters (2,000 feet) with a mission time of less than one minute. Each PM1 vehicle will take off and land vertically using rocket propulsion. The PM1 vehicle is designed to carry no crew, no space flights participants, and no payload." <br /><br />Well, I am glad that they are not setting their sights too high. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[bpfeifer]

I'm not even sure this is a launch. Wouldn't actual launch permits be public information. I thought this was just an FAA restricted airspace warning. More akin to what you'd do for a drop test, and not a rocket launch. I could be completely wrong here, so if you know something about this that I don't, please let me know. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Brian J. Pfeifer http://sabletower.wordpress.com<br /> The Dogsoldier Codex http://www.lulu.com/sabletower<br /> </div>

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"Well, I am glad that they are not setting their sights too high"</font><br /><br />Just to be perfectly clear.... I'm not bashing Blue Origin. Mind you I'd prefer that they were more open, but I understand perfectly why they aren't. <br /><br />No one really knows what level of completion their craft is at. Their secrecy tends to polarize interested parties near the edges of a spectrum that has 'Powerpoint Slides' on one end and 'Starship Enterprise' on the other. I think of them as Armadillo Aerospace... with more funding and more employees with industry experience (not a slam at either firm... just an observation). Like AA -- they're at the point of strapping some engines and tanks together and lighting them off to see how well they perform, what the avionics are capable of, etc. I'd love to be there to watch, but I don't mistake it for them being anywhere close to a completed vehicle.

 

[soyuztma]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I'm not even sure this is a launch. Wouldn't actual launch permits be public information. I thought this was just an FAA restricted airspace warning. More akin to what you'd do for a drop test, and not a rocket launch. I could be completely wrong here, so if you know something about this that I don't, please let me know. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />I' m pretty sure this is a launch, i don't think the NOTAM would talk about "space operations" if it was only a drop test. And they seem to be focusing on testing the Propulsion Module portion of their vehicle for now (which probably won't even have a parachute onboard), maybe they will do some droptests of the Crew Capsule in the future.<br />The experimental permit application probably contains confidential information and they can ask that the FAA keeps this confidential. Even Armadillo Aerospace's application wasn't made public. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[johnadams]

Like much of the U.S., Texas is having some pretty miserable weather right now. Any launches may have been cancelled.

 

[Boris_Badenov]

Blue Origin rocket reportPosted: Saturday, December 02, 2006 7:25 PM by Alan Boyle<br /><br />The secretive rocket company backed by Amazon.com billionaire Jeff Bezos, Blue Origin, was planning the second test launch at its sprawling West Texas facility sometime between Thursday and today, as reported earlier this week. Air traffic controllers told me that the test didn't go off Thursday or Friday, perhaps due to unacceptable weather - and today they said there were two ignitions, but no liftoff. Because it's Blue Origin's policy not to comment on their tests, we don't yet know whether this was a disappointing fizzle or simply part of the expected testing routine. But stay tuned: Perhaps more information will trickle out. <br /><br /> http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/ <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>