Bezos' Blue Origin revealed!

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

Jonathan Goff wrote:

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.



I don't know if they'll reply, but I've contacted them to ask.

Pat

In article ,
Pat Flannery wrote:
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...

Depends enormously on how pure the peroxide is, whether there are any
other ingredients (don't forget that the Me163 peroxide was catalyzed by a
trickle of permanganate solution, not a solid catalyst bed), and not
least, what the ambient humidity is. With high-grade peroxide, solid
catalysts, and a dry environment, the exhaust is quite invisible.

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.

A very minor one, kept under control with a bit of industrial ablator.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

Henry Spencer wrote:

Depends enormously on how pure the peroxide is, whether there are any
other ingredients (don't forget that the Me163 peroxide was catalyzed by a
trickle of permanganate solution, not a solid catalyst bed), and not
least, what the ambient humidity is. With high-grade peroxide, solid
catalysts, and a dry environment, the exhaust is quite invisible.

Since it may be of interest to any chemists in the group, here's what
T-stoff, C-stoff, and Z-stoff consisted of in a chemical sense.
(T-stoff and Z-stoff were used in the Me-163A; T-stoff and C-stoff in
the operational Me-163B fighter)
T-stoff : 80% Hydrogen Peroxide plus Oxyquinoline or Phosphate as a
stabilizer, and the remainder water.
C-stoff: 57% methanol + 30% hydrazine hydrate + 13% water, with small
amounts of either cupro-potassium cyanide or copper oxide added as a
stabilizer.
Z-stoff: An aqueous solution of either sodium or calcium permanganate
(the Germans used both during the war)
Since we're doing "stoffs" here, here's the others:
http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/fuels.html
I have also seen liquid oxygen referred to as "saurstoff".
There's a nifty website devoted to the German hydrogen peroxide motors he
http://www.walter-rockets.i12.com/walter/walter.htm
And data on Black Arrow (which used the same kerosene/H2O2 as Blue
Origin is going to use)
he http://www.fathom.com/course/21701717/index.html
And other British H2O2 rocket engines he
http://www.spaceuk.org/htp/htp.htm
That whole website's fun; here's its homepage:
http://www.spaceuk.org/index.htm

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:

If it was just running pure peroxide, I think you'd see a lot more
steam;

And here is Armadillo running H2O2, notice the lack of steam after
warming up?

http://media.armadilloaerospace.com/...BoostedHop.mpg

wrote:

And here is Armadillo running H2O2, notice the lack of steam after
warming up?

http://media.armadilloaerospace.com/...BoostedHop.mpg



I checked with Blue Origin; it's indeed running on just pure hydrogen
peroxide.

Pat

Damon Hill wrote:




But overall, pretty darned cool.



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



New article on Encyclopedia Astronautica BTW:
http://www.astronautix.com/craftfam/newurism.htm

Pat

Hmm, this VTVL idea seems to me to be a deliberate attempt by Bezos to
position his endeavor for eventually taking a trip to the moon. First
they go for LEO trips, and then later on they extend the use of this
same spacecraft to touch down on the Moon.

After awhile, they could set up a small base, then eventually a
Disneyland/Hotel/etc.
Then they could have REAL space tourism. Like Bigelow said, people
don't want to just get a fleeting glimpse of space, they want to hang
around and do stuff there.

So IMHO, Bezos is planning his tech tree carefully. That means this
spacecraft is not intended as a prelude to SSTO. It's intended as an
upper stage and eventual moon lander.
That's why Bezos wants Delta-IV engineers, so that he can build a
comparable booster on which to perch this spacecraft, to get to LEO.
Then later he uses it for moon landings.

I know that sounds like over-imaginative speculation, but isn't it a
fact that most of the energy required to get to the Moon is already
achieved by rockets which can make high Earth orbit?

I think Bezos is planning development of his current platform for a lot
of extensibility.

wrote:

I know that sounds like over-imaginative speculation

No, it sounds like drug induced hallucinations based on your own
fantasies being projected onto Blue Origin.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

wrote in news:1167979175.039166.163990
@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com:

I know that sounds like over-imaginative speculation, but isn't it a
fact that most of the energy required to get to the Moon is already
achieved by rockets which can make high Earth orbit?

New Shepard will not come remotely close to orbital velocity, nor
will it be capable of a reentry at such speeds. It's strictly a
suborbital hopper for ten minute joyrides into near-space.

You're getting way, way ahead of the curve.

--Damon