Jump to content

Blue Origin Thread (merged)


Aethon

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Motokid600 said:

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/

Lifting re-entry like pretty much all landing spacecraft to date have used, to varying degrees. This also explains the heavy looking engine cowling; there won't be exhaust to protect the machinery from the inrushing air stream.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FYI: the additional delay on Falcon Heavy is due to an approximate six weeks of further modifications to LC-39A being required. And because LC-39A is in active use for launching Falcon 9 missions right now, they can't make those modifications. They can only make them once they can move Falcon 9 launches back to SLC-40. Which is currently damaged, and is expected to return to service no sooner than August.

So even the most optimistic timeline possible puts the readiness of LC-39A for a Falcon Heavy launch into mid-September, which is indeed the start of autumn/fall (whichever word you prefer). But sometime in October is more likely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somewhere I read the golden rule of announced future spaceflights: "Everything announced beyond two years is a wild guess and is just as likely never to happen. Everything within two years will be delayed by 50 % from the latest announcement."

 

Edited by Codraroll
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

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.

 

Yes, an moving ship is more stable, you will know ship position at touchdown this will not change much. You will get the side wind from the moving ship but that will just be an added wind vector. 
This is with an suicide burn with TWR far higher than one, with hover an moving ship would be hard. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33204101741_4feb9a2c38_o.jpg?itok=f9Pbsg

 

NASA performs Orion abort parachute test.  Sorry, can't find it on YouTube yet.

http://www.space.com/35979-nasa-orion-capsule-parachutes-down-after-abort-sequence-simulation-video.html

 

And the first SLS second stage arrives at the Cape.

 

IMG_1452_7_SLS-ICPS_Ken-Kremer-700x432.j

 

http://www.universetoday.com/132259/1st-sls-2nd-stage-arrives-cape-nasas-orion-megarocket-moon-launch-2018/

Edited by Aethon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...