|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Successful flight by Blue Origin
I saw this on Twitter this morning. Blue Origin - Historic Rocket Landing - Published on Nov 24, 2015 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pillaOxGCo Yes, I know it's only suborbital, but a successful launch, separation, descent, and landing from 100 km is nothing to sneeze at. Jeff -- "the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Successful flight by Blue Origin
"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
... I saw this on Twitter this morning. Blue Origin - Historic Rocket Landing - Published on Nov 24, 2015 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pillaOxGCo Yes, I know it's only suborbital, but a successful launch, separation, descent, and landing from 100 km is nothing to sneeze at. Jeff Yeah, one step at a time. I hope they make it, but even if they don't, them more trying, the better our odds. -- Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/ CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Successful flight by Blue Origin
On 11/24/15 8:15 PM, JF Mezei wrote :
Question: After MECO, they separate capsule from first stage. Does Capsule have its own engine that brings it higher up or do both continue on inertia to basically same altitude and start to drop down at roughly same time ? Considering that the parachute landing of capsule seemed very rough, why not keep capsule attached to first stage and have both land using engines with a nice smooth landing ? Or would that require too much fuel to slow down the capsule's mass ? Could they use the capsule's parachute to slow down 1st stage+capsule and then detach parachiute as engines start for the landing ? I don't know but I would speculate that they think a vertical rocket landing is too dangerous for a crew. Alain Fournier |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Successful flight by Blue Origin
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Successful flight by Blue Origin
In sci.space.policy message -
september.org, Wed, 25 Nov 2015 09:50:12, Jeff Findley posted: Others have speculated that what SpaceX ought to do is outfit the Falcon 9 Full Thrust first stage with Super Draco engines for final approach and landing. This would allow hover. But, it also increases complexity and adds a significant amount of dry mass (since the Super Dracos use different propellant, they need their own tanks, plumbing, and etc). Increasing the size of tanks adds relatively little weight. SuperDracos are relightable, so if used at landing they might also be used for extra boost at takeoff. -- (c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. Turnpike v6.05 MIME. Merlyn Web Site - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Successful flight by Blue Origin
On 11/24/2015 9:01 PM, Alain Fournier wrote:
On 11/24/15 8:15 PM, JF Mezei wrote : Question: After MECO, they separate capsule from first stage. Does Capsule have its own engine that brings it higher up or do both continue on inertia to basically same altitude and start to drop down at roughly same time ? From what I've seen I believe it is the latter. The separation kick gives them the separation they need on return. Considering that the parachute landing of capsule seemed very rough, why not keep capsule attached to first stage and have both land using engines with a nice smooth landing ? Or would that require too much fuel to slow down the capsule's mass ? Could they use the capsule's parachute to slow down 1st stage+capsule and then detach parachiute as engines start for the landing ? I don't know but I would speculate that they think a vertical rocket landing is too dangerous for a crew. Alain Fournier Agree video shows a pretty rough capsule landing. I think there must be a plan for augmentation of this. Speculation would be some kind of kick thruster that fires just before landing ala Soyuz or maybe a deployable air bag? I think the focus of this test was primarily elsewhere as in... The booster (New Shepard) comes in very fast (hot). I suspect this is by design to overcome cross winds, turbulence etc. in the atmosphere. The fins and vanes used for control are fairly small and probably need the speed to operate effectively. The engine fires at just under 10kft and builds thrust but only rapidly below 1kft. Somewhere between 500-100 feet I suspect the G loading is tremendous. Even if only for a very short period of time probably NOT something an amateur crew of space touristas would want to experience. And I agree I don't think you want all that potential explosive UNDERNEATH you when landing. So I highly doubt that a crewed New Shepard upon landing is in the cards, ever. Otherwise why go to all the trouble of making them separable in the first place? But all-in-all a great achievement. Hats off the the Blue Origin team on accomplishing this historic first milestone*. Dave *Landing a booster intact from "space", i.e. above 300kft. Yes the booster followed the capsule high enough to have considered to have crossed that somewhat imaginary boundary from what I've read... **SpaceX must be peeved that BO snatched this "first" from them! Ahh competition. Soul food! ***Yes Elon is right, there is a big difference between a sub-orbital vs orbital rocket. Problem is, Falcon 9 first stage is not orbital either. Until there is a SSTO rocket, the BO record will stand, heh heh... ****SpaceX can still set the record for a first liquid rocket booster to be recovered from space in reusable condition at sea! (lots of asterisks there...) *****Interesting that BO got the FAA ok to do this test from Van Horn Tx! How/why was BO allowed a fast track here? Was this a first attempt or just all previous attempts when unpublicized? Considering all the machinations SpaceX has done through. Grasshopper - F9R-Dev1 - WSNM - at sea landing attempts - to someday LC-13 at Canaveral. SpaceX could have had this record perhaps a year or more earlier if they had pursued a WSNM F9R-Dev2, or not attempted a known (possibly-actually) destructive F9R-Dev1 test and taken that rocket to WSNM right away? Ahh, barn doors & horses and the road not taken.... |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Successful flight by Blue Origin
In article m,
says... Elon Musk tweeted to congratulate them, but warned that suborbital was orders of magnitudes easer than orbital. However, from poimt of view of first stage, would Blue Origin be submitted to the same difficulties as Falcon 9's first stage ? Or does Blue Origin's smaller size make it fare easier to bring back for successfull landing ? Saw this reference on the ARocket email list. This article about one of the SpaceX first stage landing attempts gives a lot of technical details which illustrate that it goes both higher and much faster than Blue Origin's suborbital stage. http://www.spaceflight101.net/video-...ds-leading-to- falcon-9-booster-crash-landing.html From above: "the 43-meter long first stage started out on its journey immediately after stage separation - firing its thrusters to maneuver out of the exhaust of the second stage and re-orient to an engines-forward posture for the first of three propulsive maneuvers - starting out at an altitude of close to 80 Kilometers and a speed of over 2 Kilometers per second at separation" And: "the booster successfully ignited three of its Merlin 1D engines at around T+4 minutes & 30 seconds - each delivering up to 66,700 Kilogram- force of thrust. This retrograde boost-back burn aimed to reduce the downrange travel distance of the first stage by about 50%, compared with a fully ballistic path not including any maneuvers after separation. The boost back burn also modified the exospheric trajectory of the stage, pushing the apogee below 125 Kilometers." Jeff -- "the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Successful flight by Blue Origin
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Successful flight by Blue Origin
On Saturday, November 28, 2015 at 12:31:55 AM UTC-5, JF Mezei wrote:
Would their use even be permitted for near ground operations ? (considering how toxic hypergolics are). Yes since this is the means for propulsive landing of the Dragon V2 reusable capsule! Wherein the SuperDraco engines, their tankage AND propellant are all part of the crewed capsule! Dave |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Successful flight by Blue Origin
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Blue Origin clue? | Pat Flannery | Policy | 2 | February 1st 11 05:15 AM |
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 |
More details from Blue Origin | Neil Halelamien | Technology | 0 | June 13th 05 11:47 AM |
Blue Origin presentation | semjorka | Policy | 0 | October 30th 04 01:10 AM |