Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Quoting Tugger (Thread starter): But in the greater population and media, no one really noticed and followed like has been done with the SpaceX launches and news! Oh well. But the one that was noted and commented on.... well here is an actual pic of the launch: |
Quoting ZaphodHarkonnen (Reply 2): Yeah, on the media relations front Blue Origin is the polar opposite to SpaceX. Where SpaceX is all "Look at what we're doing!!!" Blue Origin is all "... ... ... We flew, that is all ... ... ..." |
Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 3): Maybe when Blue Origin does more than spend 15 years and vast amounts of money for the equivalent of a really big model rocket flight they'll get better headlines. SpaceX started out two years later and is flying half the commercial payloads in the world and it looks like, for a while, most of the space station cargo runs. |
Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 1): which is literally in the middle of nowhere. |
Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 5): No it's not. You have to pass nowhere about a hour before getting to Van Horn. |
Quoting Tugger (Thread starter): .... and what was noticed was that the rocket looks a little.... penis-like I myself was a bit surprised at its girth to length ration, for a rocket it's pretty fat and stubby. I actually like it as it is a bit different than all the other sticks out there. But still it is funny. Ah well, I wish BO (unfortunate initials?) good luck and continued success and progress. |
Quoting Tugger (Thread starter): I myself was a bit surprised at its girth to length ration, for a rocket it's pretty fat and stubby. I actually like it as it is a bit different than all the other sticks out there. But still it is funny. |
Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 6): I've spent some time in Van Horn, believe it or not, I had the fastest hotel internet I've ever seen there. But yes, they are totally isolated out there in West Texas, mostly, I believe, to cover up how many times they fail, and then release positive press when they want to. |
"About 45 seconds after liftoff at about 16,000 feet [5,000 meters], we'll intentionally command escape," Bezos wrote in a blog post last month. "Redundant separation systems will sever the crew capsule from the booster at the same time we ignite the escape motor."
That escape motor, which is mounted beneath the New Shepard capsule, will burn for 2 seconds, blasting the vehicle hundreds of feet away from the rocket. The capsule will coast for a while and then deploy three "drogue" parachutes near the top of its flight path, Bezos added. The main parachutes will open shortly thereafter, allowing New Shepard to touch down softly.
The rocket, which has already flown and landed four times, probably won't be so lucky: The 70,000 lbs. [32,000 kilograms] of force exerted by the capsule's escape motor will knock it off-kilter, making a successful landing unlikely, Bezos wrote.
zanl188 wrote:.I believe this is the first escape test I've seen where the booster survived...
Francoflier wrote:Now, if only the damn thing didn't look like a giant sex toy...
Francoflier wrote:I find it interesting that the booster landing strategy is very different from the SpaceX approach.
The thing literally hovers for a short while before settling down. SpaceX's strategy is to aim right, come in hot and do one mighty retro boost just above the pad.
zanl188 wrote:I believe this is the first escape test I've seen where the booster survived...
SeJoWa wrote:I noticed the capsule slewing heavily upon firing of its rocket - wouldn't want to be cleaning the interior of that capsule after a real life saving abort.
Francoflier wrote:I find it interesting that the booster landing strategy is very different from the SpaceX approach.
The thing literally hovers for a short while before settling down. SpaceX's strategy is to aim right, come in hot and do one mighty retro boost just above the pad.
KarelXWB wrote:Francoflier wrote:I find it interesting that the booster landing strategy is very different from the SpaceX approach.
The thing literally hovers for a short while before settling down. SpaceX's strategy is to aim right, come in hot and do one mighty retro boost just above the pad.
Falcon booster is much larger, I imagine it's more difficult to hover a large, tall object.
GST wrote:A bigger reason for the difference is that the "suicide burn" favoured by Spacex is the most fuel efficient way to slow a descending object to a safe touchdown speed, every litre of fuel that doesn't need to be used for landing can be used for putting a bigger payload into orbit, or into pushing the booster back uprange so that you can head back to the launch site instead of a barge at sea (or other downrange landing site). Most of the Spacex launch schedule is for high energy geosynchronous insertion of big enough payloads which pushes the boosters fairly flat out, so even going for the barge they don't have fuel to mess around with a hover for final position adjustments even if it takes only a couple of seconds.
GST wrote:I forgot to add that when Blue Origin start playing in the orbital arena with reusable hardware, they'll be using ""suicide burns" too I bet.
Tugger wrote:That is the point that Musk has tried to make a few times (somewhat inelegantly I think, a bit too much hubris in him perhaps - earned but still). The New Shepard is just going straight up and then falling back down. It is not doing the extensive navigating that the F9 booster must do to complete its task. But I do not want to take anything away from BO's success and progress. I very much appreciate the very different paths to their goals that the companies are taking.
GST wrote:
A bigger reason for the difference is that the "suicide burn" favoured by Spacex is the most fuel efficient way to slow a descending object to a safe touchdown speed, every litre of fuel that doesn't need to be used for landing can be used for putting a bigger payload into orbit, or into pushing the booster back uprange so that you can head back to the launch site instead of a barge at sea (or other downrange landing site). Most of the Spacex launch schedule is for high energy geosynchronous insertion of big enough payloads which pushes the boosters fairly flat out, so even going for the barge they don't have fuel to mess around with a hover for final position adjustments even if it takes only a couple of seconds.
EDIT: I forgot to add that when Blue Origin start playing in the orbital arena with reusable hardware, they'll be using ""suicide burns" too I bet.
KarelXWB wrote:Blue Origin has released a new video promoting the New Glenn rocket.
Video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTEhohh6eYk
aviationaware wrote:Absolutely HATE that they put noises in the video for the fairing and payload separations & second stage firing in space. I find this lack of attention to detail highly disturbing.
bikerthai wrote:Still, I say it was just the drums.
bt
Both the booster and the capsule reached a maximum altitude of about 62 miles (99 kilometers) before coming back down to Earth, Blue Origin representatives said in a test-flight fact sheet. The rocket made a controlled, vertical touchdown on a designated landing pad, whereas the capsule — and its instrument-laden dummy passenger, "Mannequin Skywalker" — dropped down under parachutes, puffing up a plume of West Texas dirt when it hit the ground.
parapente wrote:I don't see this as remotely possible frankly.
Francoflier wrote:parapente wrote:I don't see this as remotely possible frankly.
I tend to agree. There is too little time to experience weightlessness outside the seat.
That said, It's still a hell of a ride. Weightlessness would be the least interesting part of the experience to me. The thrill of experiencing an actual rocket launch to space(-ish) and return to land on a capsule would make buy that ticket if I could afford it...
...And that view.
Francoflier wrote:Blue Origin performed another flight of the New Shepard rocket and capsule, testing the capsule's emergency escape system at altitude:
https://spacenews.com/blue-origin-succe ... rd-launch/
Another successful test for Blue Origin, which appears to be closer than ever from the first manned flight...
Are they going to beat SpaceX to it? (vastly different programs, granted)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajw7tnS-HzI
DarkKnight5 wrote:So while BlueOrigin might (probably) get a fleshy meat bag over the line first, they’re far far far behind SpaceX in the marathon.
DarkKnight5 wrote:
Every phase of flight becomes more difficult: launch, maneuvering in space (blue origin has zero experience in that phase), reentry.
So while BlueOrigin might (probably) get a fleshy meat bag over the line first, they’re far far far behind SpaceX in the marathon.
zanl188 wrote:“Who will get the first paying fleshy meat bag over the line?” might be a better question.
Tugger wrote:DarkKnight5 wrote:So while BlueOrigin might (probably) get a fleshy meat bag over the line first, they’re far far far behind SpaceX in the marathon.
Of course Blue Origin with this launch/test is the first to fly the same booster to space three times. Spacex boosters have done so only twice so far.
But yes each has a very different approach to how they are developing a reusable launch system path to space.
Tugg
ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:Well they're both jumping to huge rockets with the BFR and New Glenn. They've just come from different directions.