Jump to content

Blue Origin thread.


Vanamonde
 Share

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

Do they have more boosters? 

However many they had yesterday, they have one fewer than that today.

By the way, it's just LOL how it blew up *just* after she said, "and it will continue on up to space".

I mean, you can't get better timing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

However many they had yesterday, they have one fewer than that today.

By the way, it's just LOL how it blew up *just* after she said, "and it will continue on up to space".

I mean, you can't get better timing.

I mean, the high altitude balloon people call 20-30 km or so "space".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Geonovast said:

Anyone know if there's footage somewhere of the booster's descent? I would be interested to see that.  Surely they had more than one camera on the thing during the launch.

Someone’s probably busy deleting it.

or deleting the person who deleted it… <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm really curious how many G's the capsule pulls during an abort.  The escape is impressive, and looks like the burn lasts for a few seconds.  I'm sure they have this all figured out, but my goodness that's a strong acceleration.

Edit:  Sorry to see the unexpected result, but can't hurt having more data from another abort 'test'.  I doubt the abort went 100% like they planned (not a planned abort anyway..), but it did get the capsule away from the rocket, at a difficult spot in the flight profile.  Not a fan of this program, but I'm impressed at the successful unplanned abort.

Noce to know the abort works when it's a planned part of the profile,  Even better to see it work when they didn't expect it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, 18Watt said:

I'm really curious how many G's the capsule pulls during an abort.  The escape is impressive, and looks like the burn lasts for a few seconds.  I'm sure they have this all figured out, but my goodness that's a strong acceleration.

Couldn’t tell you with any accuracy, but just for comparison, the Soyuz T-10 pad abort was 14-17g, according to Wiki

YMGMV. -_-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To quote a famous Kerbal:

Jedidiah Kerman: "You will not go to space today, Blue Origin."

 

But it took 23 times before this did happen.. which is kind of impressive for an upstart company like Blue Origin. I mean how many failure has another company had before its' rockets failed? But when you have 22 perfect (or near perfect) flights and you finally get a failure, the real question is.. "How far will this set you back?"

It's hard to say in the case of Blue Origin.. But I'm guessing at least a year maybe?

 

But then this is the tenacity of privatized space flight.. You trip, you fall, you pick yourself up again and you keep going...

Space_Coyote

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Space_Coyote said:

To quote a famous Kerbal:

Jedidiah Kerman: "You will not go to space today, Blue Origin."

 

But it took 23 times before this did happen.. which is kind of impressive for an upstart company like Blue Origin. I mean how many failure has another company had before its' rockets failed? But when you have 22 perfect (or near perfect) flights and you finally get a failure, the real question is.. "How far will this set you back?"

It's hard to say in the case of Blue Origin.. But I'm guessing at least a year maybe?

 

But then this is the tenacity of privatized space flight.. You trip, you fall, you pick yourself up again and you keep going...

Space_Coyote

depends if the landing was soft enough. If the retrorockets didn't work well as some think and would've killed passengers, one fatal accident in 23 launches is pretty bad

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, NFUN said:

depends if the landing was soft enough. If the retrorockets didn't work well as some think and would've killed passengers, one fatal accident in 23 launches is pretty bad

I am pretty confident that the landing retrorockets are not a life/death failure point. Not like, say, the parachutes are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mikegarrison said:

I am pretty confident that the landing retrorockets are not a life/death failure point. Not like, say, the parachutes are.

Yeah, any failure of those just increases the gs on impact. Presumably the seats can also deal with an off-nominal retro fire as well—at least mitigating it somewhat.

Edited by tater
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tater said:

Yeah, any failure of those just increases the gs on impact. Presumably the seats can also deal with an off-nominal retro fire as well—at least mitigating it somewhat.

I don't know the exact crash load of landing without the retrorockets, but I'm very confident it's more like a minor car crash than an instantly fatal event.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

I don't know the exact crash load of landing without the retrorockets, but I'm very confident it's more like a minor car crash than an instantly fatal event.

Time stamped to just before landing. Speed varies from 17-18 mph at impact, slows to ~1-2mph with rockets per commentary. So with any retro at all (and the coverage showed retros) the speed is <18 mph, and the crew is reclined on shock-absorbing seats.

From their website:

Quote

A robust landing safety design with multiple redundancies has been engineered into the capsule from the beginning and tested throughout the program. The bottom of the capsule has a retro-thrust system that expels a pillow of air so the capsule lands at just 1.6 km/h (1 mph) in the West Texas desert. For added safety and redundancy, the capsule can land with two of its three chutes out, and the seats have been designed to flex and absorb g-forces in the unlikely event of an off-nominal landing. 

 

(sounds like the retro is compressed air, interesting)

Edited by tater
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, magnemoe said:

And its get an little wonky at the end of the abort burn, I guess this is because the use an steerable nozzle or control fins in the nozzle to control the abort flight and these looses control authority as the srb trust tapper off at the end.

The abort motor gimbals, yes.

3 hours ago, NFUN said:

depends if the landing was soft enough. If the retrorockets didn't work well as some think and would've killed passengers, one fatal accident in 23 launches is pretty bad

The retros definitely fired; you can see them kick up dust at touchdown.

2 hours ago, tater said:

Yeah, any failure of those just increases the gs on impact. Presumably the seats can also deal with an off-nominal retro fire as well—at least mitigating it somewhat.

They have crush cores like child carseats.

1 hour ago, tater said:
Quote

A robust landing safety design with multiple redundancies has been engineered into the capsule from the beginning and tested throughout the program. The bottom of the capsule has a retro-thrust system that expels a pillow of air so the capsule lands at just 1.6 km/h (1 mph) in the West Texas desert. For added safety and redundancy, the capsule can land with two of its three chutes out, and the seats have been designed to flex and absorb g-forces in the unlikely event of an off-nominal landing. 

(sounds like the retro is compressed air, interesting)

Now that I did not know. I wonder if they mean a pillow of gases (which could include a gas generator) or actual bottled air?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/14/2022 at 12:22 AM, StrandedonEarth said:

Any landing that you don't walk away from is a crash...

Unless you been in space for a year :) Or its on an plane and you could not walk then entering :) 
Hard landing and you claim its an crash as you can not walk away and demand compensation even if you have no legs :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15Gs does not necessarily mean they would have passed out. Whether you lose consciousness depends on how long you are subject to the loads, how hard they are, how you are restrained, and what direction they are in. (And if you are a pilot or a scientist or an engineer or a tourist?)

Most climbing gear is rated to about 18Gs, on the supposition that a person in a harness who takes more than an 18G falling load will likely sustain fatal internal injuries anyway. But that's from the harness -- a person in a couch can take higher loads for a short time.

Airplane seats (and pretty much all other cabin furnishings) are rated to 16Gs, based on evidence that 16G crashes are survivable for seatbelted passengers.

Edited by mikegarrison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

15Gs does not necessarily mean they would have passed out. Whether you lose consciousness depends on how long you are subject to the loads, how hard they are, how you are restrained, and what direction they are in. (And if you are a pilot or a scientist or an engineer or a tourist?)

Most climbing gear is rated to about 18Gs, on the supposition that a person in a harness who takes more than an 18G falling load will likely sustain fatal internal injuries anyway. But that's from the harness -- a person in a couch can take higher loads for a short time.

Airplane seats (and pretty much all other cabin furnishings) are rated to 16Gs, based on evidence that 16G crashes are survivable for seatbelted passengers.

Isn't the force on a human foot during running something on the magnitude of 100G on impact? I've also heard four-digit G numbers about the relevant parts of the body during actions such as blinking or finger snapping.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Codraroll said:

Isn't the force on a human foot during running something on the magnitude of 100G on impact? I've also heard four-digit G numbers about the relevant parts of the body during actions such as blinking or finger snapping.

Yeah - the systems that matter are all the squishy stuff in the middle, plus the blood, plus goo inside the box on top.  

The stuff that supports and transports all that is much more resilient 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...