Aethon

Blue Origin Thread (merged)

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, HebaruSan said:

If only they had cool whimsical names, like Atlantis, Challenger, Columbia, Discovery, and Endeavour.

The PR department was practically the only one to use those names. Most people who worked on the Orbiters called them OV-102, OV-99, OV-103, OV-104, and OV-105.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill, Bob, Jeb...

(Btw, what was the "B" name of shuttles?
A-tlantis, B-?, C-hallenger/C-olumbia, D-iscovery, E-nterprise)

Edited by kerbiloid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/12/2017 at 3:44 AM, wumpus said:
On 1/31/2017 at 11:18 PM, YNM said:

I... Just noticed something - Perhaps this is for his Hyperloop.

It's a really bad sign if it is (see above).

Well, that hole is the size of a TBM... Even an Underground train could fit (?)

/off : anyway, is Hyperloop meant not to be powered the whole journey ? They'd need explosive powers to send it then...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Bill, Bob, Jeb...

(Btw, what was the "B" name of shuttles?
A-tlantis, B-?, C-hallenger/C-olumbia, D-iscovery, E-nterprise)

The "B" name was the original shuttle prototype, nicknamed the "Bloody Brilliant Idea". :P 

Spoiler

^ That's a joke. In case you couldn't tell.

 

Edited by TheEpicSquared

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Streetwind said:

Well, SpaceX gives their cores a number based on when it was produced. The CRS flight 8 core is the 23rd Falcon 9 first stage that was produced, so it is numbered "0023". Most times. these numbers coincide with the flight number (CRS flight 8 was the 23rd Falcon 9 launch). But in a few cases, cores were swapped between flights when something needed fixing. And, of course - once first stages start getting reused, the flight number will start climbing faster than the production number.

CRS-8 core is B1021, flight was designated F9-023.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheEpicSquared said:

The "B" name was the original shuttle prototype, nicknamed the "Bloody Brilliant Idea". :P 

The first "prototype" was OV-101 Enterprise, but there was a mockup for clearance testing (to develop procedures for handling and fitting the orbiters) called Pathfinder, that later received the "OV-98" registration. There was also a scale model called Independence that received the "OV-100" number. There's an OV-95 that was a mockup for crew training, STA-96 and STA-97 that were test articles, and MPTA-98, which was a "main propulsion test assembly" (basically an engine frame), but none of those have any christening names.

Edited by Nibb31

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(I also missed Endeavour).

As the barges autonomous drone ships are named "Just Read The Instructions" and "Of Course I Still Love You", they should choose some short and clear names from sci-fi and for rockets.

For example, from Niven's Ringworld. Let them be "Halrloprillalar Hotrufan" and "Karawesksenjojak",

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

(I also missed Endeavour).

As the barges autonomous drone ships are named "Just Read The Instructions" and "Of Course I Still Love You", they should choose some short and clear names from sci-fi and for rockets.

For example, from Niven's Ringworld. Let them be "Halrloprillalar Hotrufan" and "Karawesksenjojak",

Something like "A Short and Clear Name" would be more in line with the names from the Culture novels by Iain M. Banks. Btw. I just checked and I think "Cargo Cult" and "So Much For Subtlety" would make excellent names for the first MCT / ITS / what's-it-called-today -s.

Share this post


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

(I also missed Endeavour).

As the barges autonomous drone ships are named "Just Read The Instructions" and "Of Course I Still Love You", they should choose some short and clear names from sci-fi and for rockets.

For example, from Niven's Ringworld. Let them be "Halrloprillalar Hotrufan" and "Karawesksenjojak",

Lewis and Clark? Galileo?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I would guess Elon is trying to become the "Ford" of space travel with the "Model T" of boosters 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, StrandedonEarth said:

Well, I would guess Elon is trying to become the "Ford" of space travel with the "Model T" of boosters 

That's what the shuttle tried to do, but the analogy was the Douglas DC-3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

The first "prototype" was OV-101 Enterprise, but there was a mockup for clearance testing (to develop procedures for handling and fitting the orbiters) called Pathfinder, that later received the "OV-98" registration. There was also a scale model called Independence that received the "OV-100" number. There's an OV-95 that was a mockup for crew training, STA-96 and STA-97 that were test articles, and MPTA-98, which was a "main propulsion test assembly" (basically an engine frame), but none of those have any christening names.

OV-95 was the SAIL (Shuttle Avionics Integration Laboratory), used for software and avionics development and testing, not crew training.  (It received an OV number because it was managed under the same configuration control system and standards as the flight vehicles.)  Independence is a non flight replica and has no official NASA number.

A full list of the official designations can be found here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting a little off-topic, but I believe the OV-0 series were never intended for flight, and the OV-1 series were supposed to be the operational vehicles. Except it was more cost effective to rebuild STA-099 (Challenger) into a proper orbiter than OV-101 (Enterprise), which then never flew to orbit and wasn't retroactively renumbered, but Columbia was upgraded to OV-99.

Edited by RCgothic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RCgothic said:

Getting a little off-topic

"A little"? :P

Well, here's something on topic:

Yes, you are seeing correctly: a "No Earlier Than" date was moved... to an earlier date! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spacex launch date creeping ever closer :) @TheEpicSquared

SES10 is going to be a vital mission, I have to point out. The reuse of the 1st stage! The excitement is accumulating and has been for a long time to say the least!! :):P:D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Oliverm001x said:

Spacex launch date creeping ever closer :) @TheEpicSquared

SES10 is going to be a vital mission, I have to point out. The reuse of the 1st stage! The excitement is accumulating and has been for a long time to say the least!! :):P:D 

You pinged me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Oliverm001x said:

Spacex launch date creeping ever closer :) @TheEpicSquared

SES10 is going to be a vital mission, I have to point out. The reuse of the 1st stage! The excitement is accumulating and has been for a long time to say the least!! :):P:D 

Wait, this is a re-used first stage!?

I may have to take a day off work to watch this one...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mitchz95 said:

Wait, this is a re-used first stage!?

I may have to take a day off work to watch this one...

No, this is CRS-10, and will use a new first stage. SES-10, sometime in march, will reuse the CRS-8 first stage. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Mitchz95 said:

I may have to take a day off work to watch this one...

Have fun explaining that to your boss!

6 hours ago, TheEpicSquared said:

SES-10, sometime in march, will reuse the CRS-8 first stage

Glad to hear that they are finally relaunching an F9 1st stage. By the way, is the CRS-8 being used for any technical reason or just for good luck?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, LetsGoToMars! said:

Glad to hear that they are finally relaunching an F9 1st stage. By the way, is the CRS-8 being used for any technical reason or just for good luck?

I assume that they looked at all their first stages and determined that they wanted to go with this one for reasons that would fill a 320-page report to the FAA. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/a25232/nasa-considers-astronauts-sls-launch/

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/02/nasa-looking-to-accelerate-first-crewed-orion-launch-to-as-early-as-2019/?comments=1

I see no reason why not. The DCSS and Orion have already flown unmanned together, and the modified Shuttle hardware was proven on 135 flights.

Even if there is something wrong during ascent, Orion has a LES. The Shuttle flew manned on its first flight and it had no crew safety measures!

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

Edited by _Augustus_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/10/2014 at 11:38 AM, GreeningGalaxy said:

This thing can go to Mars??

Not a landing there, obviously, but if it can really get to Mars orbit/flyby and back with its crew still alive (which I doubt, but still) that would be impressive.

Whenever I see pictures of the SLS, I catch myself trying to identify KSP NASA parts. :sticktongue:

EDIT:

Wikipedia says that the Orion spacecraft is designed to go to Mars, but doesn't elaborate.

The NASA website does something similar. ...okay?

Anyone got better info?

It will carry a lander eventually possible one of my designs (I am very optimistic)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or a struggle for funds food gets more keen.
 

 

Edited by Frybert

Share this post


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