Aethon

Blue Origin Thread (merged)

Recommended Posts

razark    2814
3 hours ago, munlander1 said:

I THINK a few missions after it had ejection seats.

Enterprise and Columbia were built with ejection seats for the commander and pilot.  Columbia flew with them for STS-1 through STS-4, all of which carried only two crewmembers.  On her next two flights, STS-5 and STS-9, the crew size was increased and the seats, while still installed, were disabled.  By Columbia's next mission, the orbiter had been overhauled and the seats were removed.

 

3 hours ago, munlander1 said:

Don't quote me on the last part though.

Too late.

Edited by razark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Thor Wotansen said:

Have they released the relaunch date yet?

This Saturday, 7am pacific/10 am eastern/can't add right UTC.

Weather looking iffy, but this article says they're finally going for an RTL landing again.:cool:

https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/02/15/weather-could-stand-in-way-of-falcon-9-launch-saturday/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vanamonde    6209

Overlapping threads have been merged. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kerbiloid    2083
5 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

There is hardly any Shuttle hardware in SLS. The only thing I can think of is the engines, and even those are modified.

According to wiki/internet, its solid boosters and main orange tank are shuttle's.

5 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

That would probably put a final nail in the coffin of the whole program though.

Or a roulette chance, if otherwise it can be just closed... again.
Every time I hear about the asteroid mission, it shrinks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sojourner    170
40 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

According to wiki/internet, its solid boosters and main orange tank are shuttle's.

Pretty much in name only.  Large parts of them had to be redesigned for SLS.  Find a better wiki.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill Phil    1450
1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

According to wiki/internet, its solid boosters and main orange tank are shuttle's.

They added a fifth segment to the SRBs, changed the nozzle, added some different materials for different burn rates, and a few other changes. Those SRBs are NOT Shuttle SRBs. They are derived from Shuttle SRBs, but they've changed quite a lot.

As for the ET: it's plumbing and structure have essentially been redone. It's basically completely different, at least in the ways that matter. Vertical stacking is quite a bit different from side stacking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DBowman    235
11 hours ago, _Augustus_ said:

Makes me wonder what they'll do for EM-2 though. Maybe an Inspiration Mars-style mission?

If it can get to a NEO ( as planned for EM-2, http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/nhats ) then it probably has the deltaV for a Venus Mars flyby ( assuming you can jam enough LS into it by dropping crew size etc etc etc ). This Venus Mars flyby I found using @PLAD's Flyby Finder passes Mars during Trump's ( potential ) second term and returns to Earth a couple days before the next President is sworn in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nibb31    2329
1 hour ago, DBowman said:

If it can get to a NEO ( as planned for EM-2, http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/nhats ) then it probably has the deltaV for a Venus Mars flyby ( assuming you can jam enough LS into it by dropping crew size etc etc etc ). This Venus Mars flyby I found using @PLAD's Flyby Finder passes Mars during Trump's ( potential ) second term and returns to Earth a couple days before the next President is sworn in.

Except Orion would be useless for that. It has a maximum flight duration of 30 days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DBowman    235
11 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

Except Orion would be useless for that. It has a maximum flight duration of 30 days.

one of the 'etc's? - they are not going to get to a NEO and back in 30 days - oh duh it's flyby of a captured one in cislunar space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dino1984    3

Stupid question, but I wasn't following issue for some time... did they finally launched retrieved booster??

Doesn't matter, found the answer

Edited by dino1984

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater    5787
17 hours ago, munlander1 said:

I know that STS-1 had ejection seats and I THINK a few missions after it had ejection seats. Don't quote me on the last part though.

The eventually removed the ejection seats. They were always entirely wishful thinking, however. There were 2 shuttle failures. The second would not have been survivable regardless, though I suppose ejection seats (if automated) might have saved crew in Challenger (the crew compartment clearly survived, but it is unclear if anyone, even with an ejection system could have initiated it due to the forces involved---automation in this regard is worrisome, since any failure in that system (wrongly initiating it) could be catastrophic).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater    5787

The issue with SLS is, and has always been launch cadence. I just watched the House Committee meeting (with my old prof, Jack Schmitt as one of the guests), and they also talked about wanting a 2 launch per year cadence---the issue is they have no payloads, of course. I doubt they could bang out 2 Orions (with SM) by 2018 even with massive effort, and to do a manned flight, they'd presumably want an all-up, unmanned test. I suppose the Shuttle model is possible (all up, manned test), but it's clearly more risky than unmanned (though with a LES, it's considerably safer than Shuttle ever was, frankly).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Canopus    124
9 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

Except Orion would be useless for that. It has a maximum flight duration of 30 days.

Well isn't it supposed to work in tandem with some kind of spacecraft? The point that makes the Orion interesting is that it can reenter from beyond low earth orbit  so that a spaceship wouldn't need to decelerate into earth orbit for the crew to be picked up. Reentering straight from an interplanetary trajectory reduces mission complexity a lot.

Edited by Canopus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oliverm001x    102

Launch probability 50% due to unfavourable meteorological conditions for the 18th. Source: http://spaceflightnow.com/2017/02/15/weather-could-stand-in-way-of-falcon-9-launch-saturday/

 

However an update by a source claims it is 60%, however this is an unconfirmed figure.

Edited by Oliverm001x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oliverm001x    102
2 minutes ago, TheEpicSquared said:

Indeed! Looking slightly more favourable, however, if the launch is postponed, it will not bode well with the already infested backlog of delayed contract launches. Iridium Next was delayed recently. Let us hope for clear skies on the day, and manageable jet streams. :) 

Edited by Oliverm001x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nibb31    2329
4 hours ago, tater said:

The eventually removed the ejection seats. They were always entirely wishful thinking, however. There were 2 shuttle failures. The second would not have been survivable regardless, though I suppose ejection seats (if automated) might have saved crew in Challenger (the crew compartment clearly survived, but it is unclear if anyone, even with an ejection system could have initiated it due to the forces involved---automation in this regard is worrisome, since any failure in that system (wrongly initiating it) could be catastrophic).

The two ejection seats were always only for the two-man test flights. The crew members behind the pilots and on the lower deck would have had no way of getting out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
munlander1    476
2 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

The two ejection seats were always only for the two-man test flights. The crew members behind the pilots and on the lower deck would have had no way of getting out.

So if there was an emergency would they use the ejection seats? If they did eject the others would be doomed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kryten    1422
21 minutes ago, munlander1 said:

So if there was an emergency would they use the ejection seats? If they did eject the others would be doomed.

There were no other crew on the flights with the seats fitted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater    5787
1 hour ago, Nibb31 said:

The two ejection seats were always only for the two-man test flights. The crew members behind the pilots and on the lower deck would have had no way of getting out.

Yeah, obviously. I meant that a failure like Challenger might have been survivable for 2 pilots with ejection seats that were fully automated (unlike what they actually had) as an outside possibility as a boundary case. Really, the ejection seats were as I said, wishful thinking. My point is that an all-up SLS test on the first flight with crew would be less dangerous than STS-1 was.

34 minutes ago, munlander1 said:

So if there was an emergency would they use the ejection seats? If they did eject the others would be doomed.

My point was not that Challenger would have been survivable, but that that failure mode might have been survivable for one of the first Shuttle flights that had just the 2 crew with ejection seats. But probably not even then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RCgothic    188

Actually I think there were two flights of Columbia with ejector seats and a crew of more than two. For ethical reasons the mission commander requested they be disabled so that the two on the flight deck would share the fate of the rest of the crew.

 

They would have been of questionable use anyway. Pre SRB burnout there would be a high risk of passing through the fire trail. Post burnout you're going four times the speed of sound at sea level and ejection starts getting dicey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater    5787

The SLS/Orion LES, OTOH, it a much better system, and likely saves the entire crew though a wide range of failure modes.

My first thought is that NASA is far too risk-averse to do EM-1 as a crewed mission, but if you actually think it through, I actually think that it's less risky than any particular Shuttle flight ever was, and certainly less risky than STS-1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Streetwind    3814

For anyone concerned or interested in the cracked turbine blades issue on the Merlin-1D engines:

The Government Accountability Office publicly released a report on schedule concerns of the Commercial Crew program. It asserts that both contractors (SpaceX and Boeing) continue to face comparable delays due to technical issues. But interestingly enough, the turbine cracking issue is not one of the problems holding up human-rating of the Falcon 9. The report does mention that the issue previously existed, but then continues to state that SpaceX has already made changes to the manufacturing process that eliminated the cracking.

So I guess they got a handle on that. Good! Now please finally fix the helium pressurization system issues that have plagued Falcon 9 since its inception and caused both upper stage explosions, okay? :P

Edited by Streetwind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Veeltch    1997
On 16/02/2017 at 5:33 AM, CatastrophicFailure said:

This Saturday, 7am pacific/10 am eastern/can't add right UTC.

Weather looking iffy, but this article says they're finally going for an RTL landing again.:cool:

https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/02/15/weather-could-stand-in-way-of-falcon-9-launch-saturday/

RTL = Return To Land?

Would make sense since it's an LEO mission. I almost typed 'LKO' instead 'LEO' again. Also a daylight launch and landing. Looking forward to that.

Share this post


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