Updates Blue Origin New Shepard News and Updates

[RGClark]

Jeff Bezos' rocket company to begin suborbital test flights this year.
Tuesday, April 7, 2015 Irene Klotz for Reuters
http://newsdaily.com/2015/04/jeff-bezos-rocket-company-to-begin-suborbital-test-flights-this-year/

It's about time considering the money he's spent:

Bezos Investment in Blue Origin Exceeds $500 Million by Jeff Foust — July 18, 2014
http://spacenews.com/41299bezos-investment-in-blue-origin-exceeds-500-million/


Bob Clark

 

[fsci123]

If the Russian situation maintains it current trajectory, Jeff bezos should be able to get a full return on investment from the sale of his rocket engines. The space launch market seems saturated considering we have dozens of proposals and vehicles but only one buyer...It seems light a tight squeeze to fit this into the new space race.

 

[orbitingpluto]

The space launch market seems saturated considering we have dozens of proposals and vehicles but only one buyer...It seems light a tight squeeze to fit this into the new space race.

NASA has that suborbital tourism thing locked up tight, right? No point in private citizens expecting to buy a ticket.

 

[fsci123]

NASA has that suborbital tourism thing locked up tight, right? No point in private citizens expecting to buy a ticket.

I meant orbital spaceflight.... If NASA decides to stop sending people, all these companies will be dead.

 

[Urwumpe]

I meant orbital spaceflight.... If NASA decides to stop sending people, all these companies will be dead.

Not automatically. Also the assumption that NASA can stop is pretty hypothetically.

 

[N_Molson]

A dozen of unmanned tests will be required before man-rating. Good Luck. Might end to be cheaper to buy a private Soyuz LV + SC...

 

[Urwumpe]

Might end to be cheaper to buy a private Soyuz LV + SC...

Buying the rest of the Soyuz ground infrastructure though could be a bit expensive... the CSG launch complex was planned to cost 200 million € and is quite labour intensive compared to the others.

 

[Pipcard]

New Shepard made its first flight yesterday.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEdk-XNoZpA"]First Flight - YouTube[/ame]

 

[PhantomCruiser]

The QA/Safety rep that lives in my head wants to cite the dude at 0:18 for wearing a ball cap under his hardhat. That's a no-no.

Other than that, pretty cool.

 

[Urwumpe]

That looks many orders of magnitudes more professional than the first flight of SpaceX....

Congratulations to Blue Origin!

 

[Pipcard]

It's good to see more and more commercial space activity.

 

[Andy44]

That looks many orders of magnitudes more professional than the first flight of SpaceX....

Man, you've really got it in for SpaceX, don't you? :lol:

 

[Urwumpe]

Man, you've really got it in for SpaceX, don't you? :lol:

Sure I have. When everybody mutates into a SpaceX fanboy, somebody has to keep the eyes open. And of course, who does not remember the first Falcon 1 launch? :lol:

---------- Post added at 06:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:17 PM ----------

BTW... how is the add-on status for it? :hmm:

 

[RGClark]

The rocket stage failed to land successfully because of a loss of hydraulic pressure:

Bezos’ Blue Origin completes first test flight of ‘New Shepard’ spacecraft
Posted on April 30, 2015 by William Harwood
http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/04/3...-first-test-flight-of-new-shepard-spacecraft/

I wonder if they are using an open system like SpaceX on the Falcon 9 for the landing.


Bob Clark

 

[GLS]

That looks many orders of magnitudes more professional than the first flight of SpaceX....

Congratulations to Blue Origin!

My thoughts exactly. I've nothing against SpaceX but the LOX baffle thing... just looks too amateurish.

 

[Urwumpe]

My thoughts exactly. I've nothing against SpaceX but the LOX baffle thing... just looks too amateurish.

Exactly - also the processes shown and the launch infrastructure (especially the close-up of the umbilicals before launch) appear like somebody is really meaning business and expects a profit.

 

[dman]

Exhaust plume is clear

Definitely not RP1

Is the BE-3 fueled by LOX and liquid methane....?

---------- Post added at 12:30 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:27 AM ----------

Apogee 307,000 ft

Did not cross the Von Karman line (100 km - 328,000 ft) .......

 

[Pipcard]

It's LOX/liquid hydrogen, but the BE-4 will be LOX/liquid methane.

---------- Post added at 08:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:33 PM ----------

It's great that they plan to provide great views for the suborbital tourists, but I thought windows on airliners were small for a few reasons (large pressure difference, reducing mass, etc.). Could those large windows withstand the vacuum of space, as well as being exposed to the atmosphere at velocities of up to Mach 3?

Maybe they can? 42.7'' (~108 cm) is 35% larger than the largest window of the ISS cupola (80 cm diameter circle)

(image source)

 

[Urwumpe]

Could those large windows withstand the vacuum of space, as well as being exposed to the atmosphere at velocities of up to Mach 3?

Sure... but at a price. It depends on which function which layer of the window has, how much mass you can dedicate to the seals, etc.

The size on airliners of not that much limited by physical limits as by weight and cost considerations. A large window weights a lot and if you want to offer two such windows for every seat row, weight quickly becomes an issue. Also, many large windows would leave less cabin structure and make the plane instable.

But thats all no big deal on a capsule. Weight is important, but if you are planning suborbital, weight is not as dramatic as for orbital flight.

 

[Thunder Chicken]

It's LOX/liquid hydrogen, but the BE-4 will be LOX/liquid methane.

---------- Post added at 08:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:33 PM ----------

It's great that they plan to provide great views for the suborbital tourists, but I thought windows on airliners were small for a few reasons (large pressure difference, reducing mass, etc.). Could those large windows withstand the vacuum of space, as well as being exposed to the atmosphere at velocities of up to Mach 3?

Maybe they can? 42.7'' (~108 cm) is 35% larger than the largest window of the ISS cupola (80 cm diameter circle)

(image source)

The load on the window depends on the pressurization level. Airliners IIRC can increase cabin altitude to 8,000 ft, which is about 11 psia. At 40,000 ft the outside pressure is something like 3 psia, so you only have an 8 or 9 psi differential, which would be ~1,400 lbs on a 747 window. It's a load, it needs to be accounted for in the design, but a proper thickness of acrylic supported appropriately is easy to fabricate.

Assuming that cabin altitude can be similarly lowered on Blue Origin, the pressure differential is 11 psi, and so the load is over 13,000 lbs. To keep the maximum stress to the same limits as the 747, the windows would need to be nearly 3 times as thick. The pressure window on the 747 is 0.35 inches (there is a secondary interior pane which is 0.22 inches thick). If deflection is an issue (and it might, due to foreshortening), you would need something about 4 times thicker to limit deflection. Aerodynamic loads would need to be examined too.

So Blue Origin windows would need to be a minimum of 1 to 1.5 inches thick, plus the additional framework to support the extra load. It's a 50-80 lb window vs. 3 lb for the 747. But note that the window is also replacing some pressure hull which has weight, so it isn't simply all additional weight.

But what a view! Meh, whatever, you can lift anything if you put a big enough rocket underneath it. I think the proper engineering solution here is MOAR BOOSTERS! :lol:

Note to self: Why do I do so much math when I am not at work? :blink: