![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() 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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() 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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]() 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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Jake McGuire wrote: 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. Hydrogen peroxide can undergo a cascade type of decomposition, where the heat released by some of it decomposing can cause more of it to decompose even faster, until you end up with a steam/oxygen pressure tank rupture due to pressure. This is generally caused by impurities in it, or contact with organics or metal starting the decomposition process... once heat is being generated at a rate faster that the storage tank can radiate it, you end up with a runaway reaction that will generate enough pressure to blow the tank up. Since the temperature of the H2O2 is now probably beyond its boiling point from pressure in the tankage acting like a pressure cooker prior to its rupture, this can be pretty violent. I assume their intended New Shepard rocket's kerosene and H2O2 propellants are meant to be hypergolic, and so you'd be facing the potential problem of plumbing fractures and explosion that you would with the Komet's C stoff and T stoff. The problem they face is that in using the engines for vertical landing as well as ascent, they have to keep some propellants on board all the way to landing. If they had used parachutes or wings for a gliding descent, they could have flushed their kerosene and H2O2 tankage out in flight, to jettison the vast majority of the materials, and make a hard landing only dangerous from a g-load and structural point of view. With their present concept, a hard landing could well result in a explosion and major fire, as the unused propellants combine and react. I've got photos of a Komet that exploded during its takeoff run, and it's a complete wreck; the wings are identifiable, but the fuselage has been blasted over a wide area in very small pieces. New Shepard is apparently going to be equipped with a crew escape pod for situations like this, but I don't know if it just separates from the vehicle during flight, or uses some form of solid rockets to let it separate during a incipient failed landing also, like a zero-zero ejection seat. Pat |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]() 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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]() 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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
bezos blue origin | BlagooBlanaa | Policy | 0 | July 24th 06 06:42 AM |
More details from Blue Origin | Neil Halelamien | Policy | 0 | June 13th 05 11:47 AM |
Blue Origin's suborbital plans revealed | Neil Halelamien | Policy | 18 | January 21st 05 12:20 AM |
Blue Origin presentation | semjorka | Policy | 0 | October 30th 04 01:10 AM |
Blue Origin on Monster... | Scott Lowther | Policy | 17 | May 25th 04 08:28 PM |