Beccab Posted July 9, 2021 Share Posted July 9, 2021 40 minutes ago, tater said: Been a while since I read it, but as I recall Jonathan McDowell said that the real line is somewhere above 80km, and below 100km. His metric I believe was the point at which 1 orbit was not possible due to drag. Well, CNBC just released this article with some words from McDowell:https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/09/where-space-begins-bezos-blue-origin-vs-bransons-virgin-galactic.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted July 9, 2021 Share Posted July 9, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, tater said: Been a while since I read it, but as I recall Jonathan McDowell said that the real line is somewhere above 80km, and below 100km. His metric I believe was the point at which 1 orbit was not possible due to drag. I seem to recall a metric where the speed required to generate sufficient lift for aerodynamic flight exceeded orbital velocity. Given that the atmosphere can expand and contract somewhat due to solar events, that line would be variable. Edited July 9, 2021 by StrandedonEarth multipost Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beccab Posted July 9, 2021 Share Posted July 9, 2021 Just now, StrandedonEarth said: I seem to recall a metric where the speed required to generate sufficient lift for aerodynamic flight exceeded orbital velocity. Given that the atmosphere can expand and contract somewhat due to solar events, that line would be variable. That's the line that is roughly (well, averagely) 83.6 km Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted July 9, 2021 Share Posted July 9, 2021 25 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said: I seem to recall a metric where the speed required to generate sufficient lift for aerodynamic flight exceeded orbital velocity. Given that the atmosphere can expand and contract somewhat due to solar events, that line would be variable. It's also variable given that you'd have to choose a hypersonic L/D ratio and those aren't necessarily clear. There's an asymptotic curve but even it is based on assumptions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meecrob Posted July 9, 2021 Share Posted July 9, 2021 4 hours ago, Beccab said: It is just semantics, given that NS goes barely in space as well and both definitions are completely arbitary and not supported by any calculation. The only phisically defined space definition is 83.6 km, which is where the atmosphere becomes too thin for airplane flight. Both VG and BO go above this line, so both this and the definition of spaceship 2 as a "high altitute airplane" is pointless and just an attempt to make VG look bad Agreed. Its especially hilarious considering both BO and VG are messing around in a wading pool, while the big boys are in an olympic-size pool. Talk about trying to be a big fish in a small pond. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SunlitZelkova Posted July 9, 2021 Share Posted July 9, 2021 5 hours ago, Beccab said: What the heck 5 hours ago, sevenperforce said: But making a whole infographic to whine about it seems pointless. I don't think it is that weird. Not that long ago I recall some television advertisement where one company directly compared their product against another (I think it was AT&T talking about how Verizon Wireless is a poor option). So it isn't whining per say, it is advertising. The experience of space itself is good enough no matter the altitude or transport method, so they have to invent or highlight points customers might care about once they learn about them. The fact that they are doing this though makes me think the New Shepard's ticket cost is going to be higher than Virgin Galactic's. They are likely trying to downplay the SpaceShip experience to get people to pay more for New Shepard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhode_Enterprise_By-Matt Posted July 9, 2021 Share Posted July 9, 2021 SpaceShip2 is much Kooler than New Shepard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted July 10, 2021 Share Posted July 10, 2021 (edited) 2 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said: The fact that they are doing this though makes me think the New Shepard's ticket cost is going to be higher than Virgin Galactic's. They are likely trying to downplay the SpaceShip experience to get people to pay more for New Shepard. No, it's all about whether Branson or Bezos flies to space first. I tend to think it was petty as hell for Branson to wait until Bezos picked his date, and then pick a date sooner (and also move forward his own personal trip). But whatever. It's not like Bezos is never petty as hell. Rich people fight over trivial things that only really matter to other rich people. Whose yacht has three helipads, or whose mini-sub can stay under water 30 minutes longer than the others. It's also super petty for SpaceX fans to keep saying things like "orbital class" or "the big boys" to put down both Virgin and Blue Origin. Everybody is petty, sometimes. Edited July 10, 2021 by mikegarrison Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted July 10, 2021 Share Posted July 10, 2021 42 minutes ago, mikegarrison said: No, it's all about whether Branson or Bezos flies to space first. I tend to think it was petty as hell for Branson to wait until Bezos picked his date, and then pick a date sooner (and also move forward his own personal trip). But whatever. It's not like Bezos is never petty as hell. Branson was scheduled to fly on the flight after this one before BO announced their flight. So it’s possible Bezos did that to Branson. 42 minutes ago, mikegarrison said: It's also super petty for SpaceX fans to keep saying things like "orbital class" or "the big boys" to put down both Virgin and Blue Origin. Everybody is petty, sometimes. “Orbital class” is a response to Bezos tweeting “Welcome to the club” at them after the first F9 booster recovery when the two achievements are not really comparable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted July 10, 2021 Share Posted July 10, 2021 (edited) 2 minutes ago, tater said: “Orbital class” is a response to Bezos tweeting “Welcome to the club” at them after the first F9 booster recovery when the two achievements are not really comparable. Arguable. It's not like the Falcon booster ever went to orbit, is it? But like I said, Bezos can be petty too. Edited July 10, 2021 by mikegarrison Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted July 10, 2021 Share Posted July 10, 2021 Just now, mikegarrison said: Arguable. It's not like the Falcon booster ever went to orbit, is it? NS is moving under 1000 m/s. F9 is moving ~2200 m/s at entry. Entry heating scales as the cube of velocity for convective heating, and by the 8th power for radiative heating. Huge difference in heating regimes. Flight path extremely different as well. Far longer path length through air by pitching downrange. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted July 10, 2021 Share Posted July 10, 2021 I double checked. The peak velocity of NS booster otw DOWN is 1165 m/s, under 1000 up. Basically half F9 entry velocity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted July 10, 2021 Share Posted July 10, 2021 But ... it's not orbital. Thus, the insistence that "orbital class" boosters are super-special compared to other boosters is kind of iffy. I have no doubt that F9 booster recovery is more technically challenging than NS booster recovery, but then again getting to 100 km is more technically challenging than getting to 80 km. I see these all as somewhat arbitrary divisions of quantitative differences rather than any true qualitative difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted July 10, 2021 Share Posted July 10, 2021 (edited) Spoiler "Largest windows in space." "You see, Beavis? They use Windows." Spoiler Quote none of our astronauts have an asterisk next to their name Edited July 10, 2021 by kerbiloid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beccab Posted July 10, 2021 Share Posted July 10, 2021 Just now, mikegarrison said: But ... it's not orbital. Thus, the insistence that "orbital class" boosters are super-special compared to other boosters is kind of iffy. I have no doubt that F9 booster recovery is more technically challenging than NS booster recovery, but then again getting to 100 km is more technically challenging than getting to 80 km. I see these all as somewhat arbitrary divisions of quantitative differences rather than any true qualitative difference. There is no technical challenge in getting to 100 km compared to 80 km, just a bit more fuel. F9 is extremely more challenging than NS due the necessity to resist, as @tater said, 8 times more heating when at the NS level it is almost negligible Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SunlitZelkova Posted July 10, 2021 Share Posted July 10, 2021 6 hours ago, mikegarrison said: No, it's all about whether Branson or Bezos flies to space first. I tend to think it was petty as hell for Branson to wait until Bezos picked his date, and then pick a date sooner (and also move forward his own personal trip). But whatever. It's not like Bezos is never petty as hell. Rich people fight over trivial things that only really matter to other rich people. Whose yacht has three helipads, or whose mini-sub can stay under water 30 minutes longer than the others. It's also super petty for SpaceX fans to keep saying things like "orbital class" or "the big boys" to put down both Virgin and Blue Origin. Everybody is petty, sometimes. I never said it was the only reason why they made it. But whether it was their intention or not, it does have such meaning (as an advertisement) and not only as a personal attack. It bears strong resemblance to some comparative advertisements in other fields of business, albeit those other ads don't make the comparison the main point of the add. NS-16 itself is somewhat of an advertisement/PR event for BO. Now that said, I do agree Bezos likely involves personal feelings in the competition between BO, VG, and SpaceX. And even if the infographic was ordered with the purpose of it being an advertisement, he still probably "feels good" "telling it" to Virgin Galactic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted July 10, 2021 Share Posted July 10, 2021 7 hours ago, Beccab said: There is no technical challenge in getting to 100 km compared to 80 km, just a bit more fuel. F9 is extremely more challenging than NS due the necessity to resist, as @tater said, 8 times more heating when at the NS level it is almost negligible Yeah, I don’t think “orbital-class” is at all nitpicky. It’s not a distinction without a difference. A F9 booster is the first stage of an orbital rocket; the New Shepard booster is the first stage of a suborbital rocket. If Bezos wanted to replace the New Shepard capsule with an orbital rocket stage just to show that it can be done, then perhaps Elon would welcome him to the club. Otherwise it is more like a sounding rocket than anything else. A Falcon 9 booster goes nearly twice as high, I believe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted July 10, 2021 Share Posted July 10, 2021 Quote New Shepard Shepard went suborbital. Should try New Glenn. Otherwise not a real space flight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted July 10, 2021 Share Posted July 10, 2021 8 hours ago, mikegarrison said: But ... it's not orbital. Thus, the insistence that "orbital class" boosters are super-special compared to other boosters is kind of iffy. Yeah, agree, it's not orbital, though F9 B5 stage 1 has some ~9500 m/s dv naked. It could possibly fly itself empty into orbit. There is simply zero comparison between NS and F9 stage 1 in terms of capability. I suppose we could figure out what sort of stage 2 could be put on top of NS in place of the capsule, maybe it could launch a smallsat that way. The NS capsule is actually pretty large. It's lighter than Starliner or Crew Dragon by a lot, but closer to those masses than the mass of a smallsat, for example. That shows the difference in what is needed to launch to orbit. NS is about the size of the F9 stage 2. It would need a F9 booster like stage (shorter, probably because lower mass) to get to orbit. 8 hours ago, mikegarrison said: I have no doubt that F9 booster recovery is more technically challenging than NS booster recovery, but then again getting to 100 km is more technically challenging than getting to 80 km. I see these all as somewhat arbitrary divisions of quantitative differences rather than any true qualitative difference. I agree it's arbitrary in terms of space/not space. Orbit is at least not arbitrary. 1 hour ago, sevenperforce said: A Falcon 9 booster goes nearly twice as high, I believe. Transporter II went to 141 km on boostback (just skimmed the livestream). GPS 3 went to only 117km. Course it was already going 2 km/s. At ~100 km alt, F9 is moving at ~2-2.2 km/s, at 100 km NS is moving ZERO km/s (that's where it turns around). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beccab Posted July 10, 2021 Share Posted July 10, 2021 Well, it was time to start some damage control Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted July 10, 2021 Share Posted July 10, 2021 2 minutes ago, Beccab said: Well, it was time to start some damage control Good cop, bad cop? BO tweets snark, Jeff is magnanimous? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beccab Posted July 10, 2021 Share Posted July 10, 2021 2 minutes ago, tater said: Good cop, bad cop? BO tweets snark, Jeff is magnanimous? Either that or the people who until yesterday were in charge of BO public relations tweeted snark and the people who are in charge now want to look magnanimous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted July 11, 2021 Share Posted July 11, 2021 5 hours ago, Beccab said: Either that or the people who until yesterday were in charge of BO public relations tweeted snark and the people who are in charge now want to look magnanimous Sounds like someone just got promoted to “guy who stands under the engine with a lighter.” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted July 11, 2021 Share Posted July 11, 2021 16 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said: Sounds like someone just got promoted to “guy who stands under the engine with a lighter.” Better than being the guy who has to hold the matches under the business end of a Soyuz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted July 11, 2021 Share Posted July 11, 2021 It feels bad to watch such an unforced error in real time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.