Bezos' Blue Origin revealed!

On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 09:46:54 -0600, in a place far, far away, Herb
Schaltegger made the
phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 09:29:42 -0600, Jeff Findley wrote
(in article ):

5. Rocket engine demonstrators using more affordable and storable fuel and
oxidizer combinations rather than LOX/LH2. Actually LOX is pretty good, but
I'd like to see more cutting edge engines built with fuels other than LH2.
How about a modern LOX/kerosene, LOX/propane, or LOX/methane engine?

Wasn't the Constellation program initially spec'd with LOX/methane for
the lunar descent stage and RCS when it was announced?

Yes, and they may be slowly drifting back to it, as evidenced by
XCOR's and other contracts for engine development.

In article ,
"Jeff Findley" wrote:

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
One thing you have to keep in mind is that Biosphere 2 was *not* a
scientific experiment - it was a cathedral to enviromentalist
philosphy.

Pretty much. The scientific method was pretty much thrown out of the door
when they designed, built, and ran that abomination. It was a big
disappointment to those of us who actually expected it to produce some sort
of usable scientific data which would apply to the earth.

Yes, that's a shame, because a project like that (if done properly)
COULD produce some useful science related to CELSS, as well as maybe
rekindle some interest in space colonies. But now, the whole idea is
rather tainted -- it'll be a while before anyone with sufficient funds
wants to touch anything like it with a ten-foot pole.

In article ,
"Jeff Findley" wrote:

Arguably, having NASA work on lots of little technology demonstrators would
advance the state of the art of technology, allowing launch providers to use
new "off the shelf" technology. I'd like to see NASA doing things like:

1. Actually flying a linear aerospike engine to provide real flight data.
2. Continued ground research into composite tanks for cryogenic propellants
like LOX and LH2.
3. More research and development of automated engine/vehicle health
monitoring technologies with an actual rocket engine powered flight
demonstrator, perhaps based on the flight proven DC-X/XA.
4. R&D of landing technologies to be used for recovering first stages and
capsules on land with actual demonstrators at Edwards AFB being repeatedly
dropped, recovered, inspected, and refurbished.
5. Rocket engine demonstrators using more affordable and storable fuel and
oxidizer combinations rather than LOX/LH2. Actually LOX is pretty good, but
I'd like to see more cutting edge engines built with fuels other than LH2.
How about a modern LOX/kerosene, LOX/propane, or LOX/methane engine? How
about one of these engines that's got a fairly deep throttling capability?
6. Demonstrator with all electric (no hydraulics) actuators for engine
gimballing, aero surfaces, and etc.
...

If I were in charge, Ares I/V and Orion would be cancelled and replaced by a
CTV for ISS which would fly on any available commercial launcher (start with
Atlas V and Delta IV, but don't limit the design to those launchers). The
remainder of the manned space budget would be redirected into *lots* of
little research programs in support of the still emerging US private launch
industry.

This is what NASA should be doing, but it will not happen. Lots of
relatively small research programs do not employ tens of thousands of
high-school-grad voters. NASA will stagger along for years until the
bulk of its current workforce retires.

Jeff Findley wrote:
Arguably, having NASA work on lots of little technology demonstrators would
advance the state of the art of technology, allowing launch providers to use
new "off the shelf" technology. I'd like to see NASA doing things like:

1. Actually flying a linear aerospike engine to provide real flight data.
2. Continued ground research into composite tanks for cryogenic propellants
like LOX and LH2.
3. More research and development of automated engine/vehicle health
monitoring technologies with an actual rocket engine powered flight
demonstrator, perhaps based on the flight proven DC-X/XA.
4. R&D of landing technologies to be used for recovering first stages and
capsules on land with actual demonstrators at Edwards AFB being repeatedly
dropped, recovered, inspected, and refurbished.
5. Rocket engine demonstrators using more affordable and storable fuel and
oxidizer combinations rather than LOX/LH2. Actually LOX is pretty good, but
I'd like to see more cutting edge engines built with fuels other than LH2.
How about a modern LOX/kerosene, LOX/propane, or LOX/methane engine? How
about one of these engines that's got a fairly deep throttling capability?


All the above sound like worthwhile things that could be done at
comparatively low cost.

6. Demonstrator with all electric (no hydraulics) actuators for engine
gimballing, aero surfaces, and etc.


The Germans tried a bomber on this concept during WW II; it came out
very heavy in comparison to a normally designed one. I think the same
might apply to a modern aircraft or rocket.

...

If I were in charge, Ares I/V and Orion would be cancelled and replaced by a
CTV for ISS which would fly on any available commercial launcher (start with
Atlas V and Delta IV, but don't limit the design to those launchers). The
remainder of the manned space budget would be redirected into *lots* of
little research programs in support of the still emerging US private launch
industry.

You'd necessarily spread the research out over the existing NASA facilities
such that you keep the existing congressional districts that benefit from
NASA funding happy. Not ideal, but politically necessary to gain
congressional support for this about face in NASA policy.


I think NASA's biggest problem at the moment is that as soon as they try
to downsize any of their existing programs to concentrate on something
new, they've stepped on someone's toes, so the funding gets restored.
This leads to all of the programs being always underfunded.

Pat

Jeff Findley wrote:
Pretty much. The scientific method was pretty much thrown out of the door
when they designed, built, and ran that abomination. It was a big
disappointment to those of us who actually expected it to produce some sort
of usable scientific data which would apply to the earth.


I was half expecting it to have dolphins in it. :-)

Pat

In article ,
Pat Flannery wrote:

6. Demonstrator with all electric (no hydraulics) actuators for engine
gimballing, aero surfaces, and etc.

The Germans tried a bomber on this concept during WW II; it came out
very heavy in comparison to a normally designed one. I think the same
might apply to a modern aircraft or rocket.

Motor technology has advanced a LOT since WWII. Another interest of
mine is robotics, and I've seen servos get amazingly strong and light
even in the last few years. I'd bet that this could work.

Of course, it's entirely possible that Jeff Bezos is already building
such a demonstrator...

- Joe

Joe Strout wrote:
Motor technology has advanced a LOT since WWII. Another interest of
mine is robotics, and I've seen servos get amazingly strong and light
even in the last few years. I'd bet that this could work.


I think you'd need a mighty powerful electric motor to get the torque
needed to gimbal a good-sized rocket nozzle, then there's the weight of
the motor's power supply and the gearing needed to consider.
Although the current hydraulic system sounds heavy, in the case of a
LOX/Kerosene engine the working fluid the system uses is the kerosene fuel.
If they'd wanted to, there's no reason they couldn't have made a
electrically driven gimbaling system back in the 1940s.
I assume they didn't due to the weight in comparison to a hydraulic system.
The A4/V-2 used four electric motors to swivel its fin control surfaces
and jet vanes.
I don't know if that same approach was retained in Redstone, but the
hydraulically gimbaled engines were considered a major step forward in
rocket technology.

Pat

Pat

In message , Pat Flannery
writes

First you get squished, then you float around and look out a window for
a minute or so at the Earth and dark sky, then you get squished again,
then you land.
Whoop-de-doo. :-\


With the emphasis on whoops!

There's at least one variation that will make headlines the first time,
but what do you do next?

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

Pretty much. The scientific method was pretty much thrown out of the door
when they designed, built, and ran that abomination.

that and no Jenny Aggutter...

--
Terrell Miller


"Just...take...the...****ing...flower...darlin g"
Terrell's dating style according to OKCupid.com

h (Rand Simberg) wrote:

:On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 10:10:44 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Jeff
:Findley" made the phosphor on my monitor
:glow in such a way as to indicate that:
:
:
:"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
. ..
: h (Rand Simberg) wrote:
:
: :On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 00:58:10 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Greg D.
: :Moore \(Strider\)" made the phosphor
: n my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
: :
: :We don't care about who can or has done worse. We care about those who
: have
: :done better which is exactly who in the past 40 years/
: :
: :Who has been given money to try?
:
: So private industry could do better, if only it wasn't private
: industry at all but was just another baby on the national teat?
:
:Was the airline industry a "baby on the national teat" when it got the
:airmail subsidy?

Did we really want email and was it useful?

:But I only stated that private entities hadn't gotten the money so
:far. I didn't specify where it should come from, or complain that it
:didn't come from the taxpayers. Guess it's that reading comprehension
:thing again.

As your usual bleat about how "if only they got the money instead of
NASA". Guess it's that writing and cognition thing again.

: Sometimes you make very little sense, Rand...
:
:Only to unsensible people, Fred.

Just keep primping that ego, Rand. It seems like it's all you have
going for you.

--
"A brain of feathers, and a heart of lead."
-- Alexander Pope