Bezos' Blue Origin revealed!

In article , wrote:
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archi.../03/26062.aspx
http://public.blueorigin.com/index.html
They've got the busiest insignia you ever laid eyes on Galapagos
tortoises, winged hour glasses, an alchemist's sun, and something
cylindrical I don't understand, but it might be the solar system in a
coffee can.

Shucks, didn't you know that the sky is being held up by tortoises?
The blue & yellow thingy looks like a graphic of atmospheric levels, or ...
maybe a giant firecracker with the fuse lit?
Is that a dueling epee or a rocket on the right side? And what's with the
giant candy cane across the bottom? (Of course that may be the 'Do Not
Cross' barrier at the edge of the world)

Rocket looks like a huge Corona film dump capsule crossed with a DC-X
You half expect them to slide it into Verne's moon cannon, but it's
flown successfully, and there's film of the flight on the website.

I noticed that the flight videos make it look like there is frost on
the launch area, maybe they are using LOX & alcohol for fuel.

(Mmmm. Smoked salmon & whiskey for fuel.) :?P


Pat

Fox2

Fox2 wrote:

In article , wrote:


http://public.blueorigin.com/index.html



Go to this address, not the MSNBC one, it may have a virus of some sort
in it, as it screws up Netscape, and makes it crash.
I canceled the messages with that address in them.
According to Wikipedia, they said it was H2O2 and kerosene:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Origin_New_Shepard
They can up the ISP a bit by chilling the H2O2, or maybe the weather was
just cold that morning.

Pat

Fox2,

I noticed that the flight videos make it look like there is frost on
the launch area, maybe they are using LOX & alcohol for fuel.

Nope, I'm pretty sure it's just pure peroxide. Of the three companies
I know doing LOX/Alcohol lately (Armadillo, XCOR, and us here at
Masten Space Systems), none of our plumes have looked anything
like that. But all the guys I know who've done peroxide (John Carmack,
my boss Dave, some of the ERPS guys, etc) say it looks just like a
peroxide engine. Maybe that was steam, not frost?

But overall, pretty darned cool.

~Jon Goff

Jonathan Goff wrote:

But all the guys I know who've done peroxide (John Carmack,
my boss Dave, some of the ERPS guys, etc) say it looks just like a
peroxide engine. Maybe that was steam, not frost?

But overall, pretty darned cool.


Black Arrow had the same H2O2/RP-1 combo propellents, and its exhaust
was almost invisible:
http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/p/prospero.jpg

Pat

In article , wrote:


Fox2 wrote:

In article , wrote:


http://public.blueorigin.com/index.html



Go to this address, not the MSNBC one, it may have a virus of some sort
in it, as it screws up Netscape, and makes it crash.
I canceled the messages with that address in them.
According to Wikipedia, they said it was H2O2 and kerosene:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Origin_New_Shepard
They can up the ISP a bit by chilling the H2O2, or maybe the weather was
just cold that morning.

Pat

Yup. I went back and looked at the bleacher pic & everyone is wearing coats.
Must have been the temp.

The vid from the under camera also showed lateral control because they
moved the craft back over the landing circle.

I'm impressed! If the Govt will keep their fingers out of the project,
they just might get this thing into LEO.

Fox2

"Jonathan Goff" wrote in news:1167872622.531215.282180@
11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com:

Nope, I'm pretty sure it's just pure peroxide. Of the three companies
I know doing LOX/Alcohol lately (Armadillo, XCOR, and us here at
Masten Space Systems), none of our plumes have looked anything
like that. But all the guys I know who've done peroxide (John Carmack,
my boss Dave, some of the ERPS guys, etc) say it looks just like a
peroxide engine. Maybe that was steam, not frost?

I'm inclined to agree; it's a simple way to test the general
vehicle concept without getting into the cost and expense of
a bipropellant engine. Otherwise they're either running oxidizer
rich or have excellent mixture control and burning; I'd expect
to see some yellow (carbon) in the exhaust otherwise.

But overall, pretty darned cool.

Yes, indeed. Best thing since DC-X. Imagine if that program
had continued to be funded.

--Damon

Fox2 wrote:

The vid from the under camera also showed lateral control because they
moved the craft back over the landing circle.



Yes, the landing looked very precise.
I'd be a little concerned about a hard landing with H2O2 on board, as
Me-163 Komets used to explode if they made too rough of a landing and
any remaining hydrogen peroxide got shaken up.

Pat

Damon Hill wrote:

I'm inclined to agree; it's a simple way to test the general
vehicle concept without getting into the cost and expense of
a bipropellant engine. Otherwise they're either running oxidizer
rich or have excellent mixture control and burning; I'd expect
to see some yellow (carbon) in the exhaust otherwise.



If it was just running pure peroxide, I think you'd see a lot more
steam; here's a photo of a German Me-163A using just hydrogen peroxide
decomposition for propulsion with no combustion of fuel with the
resulting oxygen going on:
http://tanks45.tripod.com/Jets45/His...63/Me163_2.jpg
As this color photo shows, other than some shock diamonds, the
H2O2/Kerosene exhaust is pretty much invisible:
http://content.answers.com/main/cont...Blackarrow.jpg




But overall, pretty darned cool.



Yes, indeed. Best thing since DC-X. Imagine if that program
had continued to be funded.



That one had a real problem with frying its rear end on landing.

Pat

Pat
As this color photo shows, other than some shock diamonds, the
H2O2/Kerosene exhaust is pretty much invisible:
http://content.answers.com/main/cont...Blackarrow.jpg

And since you couldn't even see shock diamonds...

Come on Pat, the evidence is pretty strong that *this*
vehicle is just peroxide monoprop, not HTP/RP-1. All
the people I know who've actually done work with peroxide
rocketry say it looks just like what they've seen with
peroxide monopropellant work, and not like what you see
with a peroxide/RP biprop.

~Jon

Pat Flannery wrote:
Fox2 wrote:

The vid from the under camera also showed lateral control because they
moved the craft back over the landing circle.

Yes, the landing looked very precise.
I'd be a little concerned about a hard landing with H2O2 on board, as
Me-163 Komets used to explode if they made too rough of a landing and
any remaining hydrogen peroxide got shaken up.

This is not correct. If the Komet landed hard enough to cause failure
of the propellant tanks and mixing of the hypergolic propellants, then
yes, it would catch fire. Hydrogen peroxide getting shaken up had
nothing to do with it.

-jake