Blue Origin thread.

[KSK]

16 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

Wait. Just wait. Is the New Shepard booster really named "First Step"? I mean, isn't that a bit insulting to Yuri?

I guess it’s the first step for Blue Origin, with New Glenn being the second and New Armstrong the third, assuming that NA is still more than a twinkle in Jeff’s eye.

Pretty much on-brand that they don’t seem to have considered the wider ramifications though.

 

Edited October 14, 2021 by KSK

[mikegarrison]

"Let's fly Wally Funk! Let's fly Captain Kirk! Let's screw up the PR from both of them by focusing on Jeff!"

[SpaceFace545]

29 minutes ago, KSK said:

I guess it’s the first step for Blue Origin, with New Glenn being the second and New Armstrong the third, assuming that NA is still more than a twinkle in Jeff’s eye.

Pretty much on-brand that they don’t seem to have considered the wider ramifications though.

 

I always thought New Armstrong was supposed to be a fully reusable vehicle, I have a feeling that Jarvis is de facto NA.

[KSK]

21 minutes ago, SpaceFace545 said:

I always thought New Armstrong was supposed to be a fully reusable vehicle, I have a feeling that Jarvis is de facto NA.

Possibly? I thought New Armstrong was intended to be their moon rocket (makes sense with that name), whilst Jarvis is intended to be an upgraded upper stage for New Glenn, to make it fully reusable?

If you’ll excuse the comparison, New Armstrong would be to New Glenn as Starship is to Falcon 9.

You could be right though - I’m just guessing.

Edited October 14, 2021 by KSK

[SpaceFace545]

6 minutes ago, KSK said:

Possibly? I thought New Armstrong was intended to be their moon rocket (makes sense with that name), whilst Jarvis is intended to be an upgraded upper stage for New Glenn, to make it fully reusable?

If you’ll excuse the comparison, New Armstrong would be to New Glenn as Starship is to Falcon 9.

You could be right though - I’m just guessing.

same here. most BO stuff is just speculation

[tater]

For a Moon rocket, they either make a huge partially reusable rocket (giant reusable booster, expended upper stage(s)), or they go SS. In the latter case, perhaps Jarvis is a LEO version to sort it out. That said, assuming a similar initial dv given to the vehicle by the booster as F9/SS (2.x-<3 km/s), any reusable upper stage that has an on-orbit refilling option can be a Moon vehicle.

[Mr.dobsonian]

On 9/9/2021 at 10:35 AM, Lewie said:

And yet they’ve accomplished....what? A joyride for the uber-rich?

Yes, BO has a good vision but their progress/pr has yet to reflect that

In roughly half that time NASA landed men on the moon, sent many probes to two other planets and the moon, preformed manned docking manoeuvres in space and had people go on EVA.

[Lewie]

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the success of the aerospace business....

But BO doesn't really have anything to support  

[mikegarrison]

https://www.theonion.com/william-shatner-90-becomes-oldest-person-to-travel-to-1847865251

[Spaceception]

Neat little video, more of a promo though. We get some shots of New Glenn - either the pathfinder or actual vehicle. I'm not exactly sure if there's anything new shown, but they do talk about launching BO specific payloads, which at a minimum could be Kuiper? I know that's Amazon, but I imagine there could be some overlap, and possibly lunar missions adjacent to Artemis.

They also talk about launching more payload to space than 'anybody else,' that can't be the case with only New Glenn though, unless Starship utterly fails, so 'New Armstrong' may be apart of that?

 

[Beccab]

5 minutes ago, Spaceception said:

They also talk about launching more payload to space than 'anybody else,' that can't be the case with only New Glenn though, unless Starship utterly fails, so 'New Armstrong' may be apart of that?

NG is still less powerful than FH and SLS on nearly all orbits, so that would be untrue either case

As for the NG in the video, it's definitely the pathfinder we saw last year (or a nearly identical pathfinder, but that's not likely as they showed the same pathfinder as before in the 4th of July pic), just with the engine skirt covered

[tater]

 

5 minutes ago, Beccab said:

NG is still less powerful than FH and SLS on nearly all orbits, so that would be untrue either case

They could very well be sandbagging the claims at 45t. Likely an exaggeration, you are right.

[Spaceception]

21 minutes ago, Beccab said:

NG is still less powerful than FH and SLS on nearly all orbits, so that would be untrue either case

As for the NG in the video, it's definitely the pathfinder we saw last year (or a nearly identical pathfinder, but that's not likely as they showed the same pathfinder as before in the 4th of July pic), just with the engine skirt covered

I saw it more as flight cadence. On an individual flight level, FH and SLS can absolutely beat NG, but if NG has a higher potential cadence than F9/H, then they can beat them in that area. But it's also assuming Starship won't work/exist, so they could be including their own future vehicles in that statement.

[CatastrophicFailure]

BO's former PR guy:

BO's new PR guy:

[ominous heavy breathing] 

[tater]

 

18 minutes ago, Spaceception said:

I saw it more as flight cadence. On an individual flight level, FH and SLS can absolutely beat NG, but if NG has a higher potential cadence than F9/H, then they can beat them in that area. But it's also assuming Starship won't work/exist, so they could be including their own future vehicles in that statement.

There's no possible way they have a higher flight cadence. One, they can't even fly NS at any great cadence. They took 15 (?) flights to get NS ready for humans, right? They had the vehicle for YEARS, why not just fly it 15 times as quickly as possible, then fly humans, it's not like they changed it, or built new vehicles.

They are aiming to land their first NG. At sea. I hope they do, but I can't imagine everything is perfect from day 1. Two their CONOPS is to land far downrange—which means it's longer to get back to port where the launchpad is.

Edited October 15, 2021 by tater

[cubinator]

1 hour ago, Spaceception said:

They also talk about launching more payload to space than 'anybody else,' that can't be the case with only New Glenn though, unless Starship utterly fails, so 'New Armstrong' may be apart of that?

I think it's under the impression that Jeff can sue Starship out of existence before it launches.

[Spaceception]

31 minutes ago, tater said:

There's no possible way they have a higher flight cadence. One, they can't even fly NS at any great cadence. They took 15 (?) flights to get NS ready for humans, right? They had the vehicle for YEARS, why not just fly it 15 times as quickly as possible, then fly humans, it's not like they changed it, or built new vehicles.

They are aiming to land their first NG. At sea. I hope they do, but I can't imagine everything is perfect from day 1. Two their CONOPS is to land far downrange—which means it's longer to get back to port where the launchpad is.

Well yes, but that could be what they're aiming to do, even if it doesn't reflect what they're doing. And if they want  to build this "road to space," they need to figure out how to at least get to pace with SpaceX eventually.

[mikegarrison]

LOL at this: https://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2021/10/14/shatner-sent-to-work-in-amazon-factory-until-he-pays-back-cost-of-space-flight/

 

2 hours ago, tater said:

There's no possible way they have a higher flight cadence. One, they can't even fly NS at any great cadence. They took 15 (?) flights to get NS ready for humans, right? They had the vehicle for YEARS, why not just fly it 15 times as quickly as possible, then fly humans, it's not like they changed it, or built new vehicles.

Starship has NEVER FLOWN TO SPACE, and yet you are just assuming they are going to have this super-high flight cadence. I mean, they might. But they might not. The shuttle was supposed to be able to fly 100 times a year or whatever too.

NG only exists on paper right now (or possibly as some parts in a factory), so I will definitely give Starship a higher chance of success then NG. But if you judge them by the same standard, then you really can't just assume Starship is going to work any more than you can just assume NG is going to work.

Edited October 15, 2021 by mikegarrison

[AtomicTech]

14 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

LOL at this: https://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2021/10/14/shatner-sent-to-work-in-amazon-factory-until-he-pays-back-cost-of-space-flight/

 

Starship has NEVER FLOWN TO SPACE, and yet you are just assuming they are going to have this super-high flight cadence. I mean, they might. But they might not. The shuttle was supposed to be able to fly 100 times a year or whatever too.

NG only exists on paper right now (or possibly as some parts in a factory), so I will definitely give Starship a higher chance of success then NG. But if you judge them by the same standard, then you really can't just assume Starship is going to work any more than you can just assume NG is going to work.

Hopefully we'll see Starship fly soon!

[mikegarrison]

2 minutes ago, AtomicTech said:

Hopefully we'll see Starship fly soon!

Yeah, I hope so. I'm not rooting against them. I'm just saying "don't count your chickens until they hatch".

[tater]

54 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

Starship has NEVER FLOWN TO SPACE, and yet you are just assuming they are going to have this super-high flight cadence. I mean, they might. But they might not. The shuttle was supposed to be able to fly 100 times a year or whatever too.

Who mentioned Starship? My answer was in response to F9/FH—quoted in the reply.

The point was BO claimed to be able to "put more payload into space than anybody else." Since NG puts less payload into space than FH, the only possible way would be to launch NG at a higher cadence than all existing SpaceX launches.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

1 hour ago, tater said:

Who mentioned Starship? My answer was in response to F9/FH—quoted in the reply.

The point was BO claimed to be able to "put more payload into space than anybody else." Since NG puts less payload into space than FH, the only possible way would be to launch NG at a higher cadence than all existing SpaceX launches.

I think the only fair metric would be to judge NG (once flying) against the cadence of competing rockets during the time both are in service. 

The unrealized potential is that NG might make due on the claim... And might not.  But to force it to play catch up before judging its ability seems to be holding it to an unattainable standard. 

Frankly - I want all the players to succeed; because if they do, we really will have a viable space - based economy. If only one survives - then we know that our overall economy is not yet mature enough for us to be considered a space faring species... Rather we'd just continue to be dabblers 

[tater]

16 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

I think the only fair metric would be to judge NG (once flying) against the cadence of competing rockets during the time both are in service. 

Yes, but in the BO video posted above, the woman on camera said that their rocket and pad would "put more payload into space than anybody else."

In order to do that they need to launch more than F9, anyway. That means they need to make upper stages at a pretty high clip at the very least.

[mikegarrison]

19 minutes ago, tater said:

Yes, but in the BO video posted above, the woman on camera said that their rocket and pad would "put more payload into space than anybody else."

In order to do that they need to launch more than F9, anyway. That means they need to make upper stages at a pretty high clip at the very least.

And SpaceX says they are going to be flying 1000 people p2p around the world for the same price as an airline ticket. Airbus had a video about how they were going to make transparent airplanes so you would have a great view as you fly. People say a lot of crazy stuff in these videos.

 

[SpaceFace545]

19 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

And SpaceX says they are going to be flying 1000 people p2p around the world for the same price as an airline ticket. Airbus had a video about how they were going to make transparent airplanes so you would have a great view as you fly. People say a lot of crazy stuff in these videos.

 

Why are there so many hexagons!!!!