Aethon

Blue Origin Thread (merged)

9346 posts in this topic

Just now, RCgothic said:

As a two stage launcher it doesn't quite compare to falcon heavy to LEO or GTO, yet is much bigger. 

Actually the 45 and 13 ton figures are for booster recovery, so it handily beats FH. Expendable LEO payload should be in the region of 70 tons.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

4 minutes ago, Kryten said:

Actually the 45 and 13 ton figures are for booster recovery, so it handily beats FH. Expendable LEO payload should be in the region of 70 tons.

My mistake indeed. It's tricky to keep all these different payload figures straight!

Guess that puts New Glenn squarely in SLS block 1 territory.

Edited by RCgothic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

16 minutes ago, RCgothic said:

if they can stick a third stage on it'll have greater potential beyond earth orbit

There's a 3 stage version, the 3rd stage is cryogenic.

CsKBCT2WIAAFHSi.jpg-large.jpg

EDIT:

"The 82-meter tall two-stage vehicle will be used for heavy-lift missions to Low Earth Orbit while high-energy deliveries to GTO and Beyond Earth Orbit would be handled by a 95-meter tall version sporting a cryogenic third stage powered by a version of Blue’s BE-3 that is already flying on the New Shepard. "

More on: http://spaceflight101.com/blue-origin-shows-off-be-4-engine-announces-first-new-glenn-customer/

Edited by VaPaL
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

 

 

Edited by Kryten
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RCgothic said:

My mistake indeed. It's tricky to keep all these different payload figures straight!

Guess that puts New Glenn squarely in SLS block 1 territory.

Block 1 could probably carry around 95 metric tons to LEO if you wanted it to.

2 hours ago, Kryten said:

Actually the 45 and 13 ton figures are for booster recovery, so it handily beats FH. Expendable LEO payload should be in the region of 70 tons.

And this is their smallest orbital LV...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Motokid600 said:

The moving barge is interesting as well. Could give needed extra stability given the NGs far lesser, uh.. leg stance? Deploy width? Whats the word for that? :P

I guess the barge won't move during the landing attempt.

In the case of SpaceX, the barges can't move themselves (except for keeping themselves exactly at the landing spot), which means that they need tugs to get the platform out into the ocean and back into the harbor. Blue Origin uses instead a ship, which allows them to not need tugs, making the whole procedure simpler (and also they probably need a bigger landing platform for New Glenn than Falcon 9, which would mean bigger tugs).

The only disadvantage is that a ship is probably more expensive, if you risk punching holes into it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

10 minutes ago, Tullius said:

I guess the barge won't move during the landing attempt.

As I understand, from dthe link I posted, it will be moving during the landing.

"One interesting caveat and difference to SpaceX’s ASDS will be that Blue Origin’s booster will land on a moving recovery vessel for added stability."

But I might be misinterpreting this.

Edited by VaPaL
Grammar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, VaPaL said:

As I understand, from de link I posted it will be moving during the landing.

"One interesting caveat and difference to SpaceX’s ASDS will be that Blue Origin’s booster will land on a moving recovery vessel for added stability."

But I might be misinterpreting this.

Ok, didn't thought that they might indeed want to land on a moving ship.

Increases the difficulty, since that gives no predefined landing spot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Tullius said:

Increases the difficulty, since that gives no predefined landing spot.

Thought the same, not only that but it can flip the booster if it suddenly gains lateral speed from a bottom impulse. But probably the speed will very small and it may only start moving few seconds before touchdown.

But I'm still a little intrigued about their decision, let's see how it will go and wait for more details in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A moving ship is more stable than a landing ship. It doesn't make much of a difference in terms of avionics as long as the rocket and the deck are both at the right place at the right time. Everything is relative anyway.

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, VaPaL said:

Thought the same, not only that but it can flip the booster if it suddenly gains lateral speed from a bottom impulse. But probably the speed will very small and it may only start moving few seconds before touchdown.

But I'm still a little intrigued about their decision, let's see how it will go and wait for more details in the future.

You also have that risk, if the ship is standing still. And New Glenn might be able to cope better with it, since it will be programmed that the landing spot will be constantly updated during flight, unlike Falcon 9, where the landing spot is probably somewhat hardcoded before liftoff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Static fire NET today, they had to stand down due to an issue last night. Same window as before 23:00-05:00 UTC

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, I know, what I mean is, a stopped ship has the stabillity problem, a moving ship has the problem of having a different horizontal speed. There are solution for both, I just don't know if there's a good trade off. It might just be the same in the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DarthVader said:

Static fire NET today, they had to stand down due to an issue last night. Same window as before 23:00-05:00 UTC

Any word on what the issue was?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now they have a hat, he must be serious!

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

Any word on what the issue was?

No word, I don't think we'll know 

 

Static fire NET Thursday 18:00-00:00 EST. Launch moved to Tuesday march 14th, 00:34-04:34 EDT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DarthVader said:

Static fire NET Thursday 18:00-00:00 EST. Launch moved to Tuesday march 14th, 00:34-04:34 EDT.

:huh: poop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, DarthVader said:

Static fire NET Thursday 18:00-00:00 EST. Launch moved to Tuesday march 14th, 00:34-04:34 EDT.

Which is the same current NET as the  WGS-9 launch. If WGS-9 doesn't move, that date's not going to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, DarthVader said:

No word, I don't think we'll know 

 

Static fire NET Thursday 18:00-00:00 EST. Launch moved to Tuesday march 14th, 00:34-04:34 EDT.

Source? Not saying your info is wrong, just wondering :) 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, TheEpicSquared said:

Source? Not saying your info is wrong, just wondering :) 

@Nasaspaceflight twitter and forum.nasaspaceflight.com public side Echostar 23 updates thread 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said:

Now they have a hat, he must be serious!

Clearly he also wants the team fortress 2 market

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still can't really believe he's serious.

Curious to see where this goes though.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Whats this all about?     " There are also some significant differences between the vehicles, most notably the aerodynamic control surfaces used to help guide New Glenn's first-stage in for a landing. Reportedly, that negates the need for a re-entry deceleration burn. "      Hows that work?   https://www.engadget.com/2017/03/07/blue-origin-shows-how-new-glenn-rocket-will-fly-and-land/

Edited by Motokid600

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With a 5m fairing, it's not going to hold all that many sats. And they're hardly cubesats, they're 100kg+

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.