Blue Origin successfully lands a rocket stage that's flown to space

[Shpaget]

I'm unable to find detailed profiles, but from what I did find, the barge is about 400 km downrange. While that may sound a lot, it doesn't really matter because most of that downrange travel is done on ascent, not descent.

The lower stage does not come horizontally at the barge. In conjunction with grid fins, it performs multiple burns high up in atmosphere to adjust the trajectory, at which point the F9 and NS profiles become very similar - almost vertical.

[Firwen]

[quote]You are just making yourself look like a fanboy here. There is plenty of praise to go around for everyone. You don't need to falsely diminish what BO was able to do just because it wasn't SpaceX who did it.[/quote]

I have some difficulties to understand the interest of fighting to know which billionnar did what first, where none of them are pioneers. Sub-orbital flight with vertical controlled decent and precision landing are masterized at least since the 90's and has already been done with success by the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-X"]Delta clipper[/URL] 20 years ago.

None of them are gods, [I]guys.[/I]

[Streetwind]

Also note: the New Shepard propulsion module can hover on its engine over the landing pad and adjust - which is in fact how it hit the center so well. If you look at the video, the vehicle came down at or over the edge of the landing pad, slowed to a stop, shimmied over sideways in midair, and plopped itself down nice and dead center on the pad.

The F9 stage meanwhile cannot hover, because the Merlin engines don't throttle down far enough. And so it must touch down wherever its braking burn takes it.

[Shpaget]

That sounds like a good design of the NS and an oversight/compromise/tradeoff in the F9/Merlin design.

SpaceX could decide to decrease total thrust/payload capacity and install a smaller central engine so they can hover as well. They choose not to, so they have that problem.
Dissing an accomplishment of one because of shortcomings of a competitor is not nice.

[gooddog15]

[quote name='Shpaget']F9 return stage is never orbital.

So F9 has more room for computer, navigation and guidance hardware. Is that what you're saying?

Smaller rocket - smaller payload. It's proportional. NS is also a first stage and strictly a first stage, throwing up the weight of its payload - second stage.

Not somewhere in Texas. Exactly on the targeted landing area that happens to be smaller than the barge. BTW, what's your estimate, how fast is NS going?

No, they didn't. They crashed.

Nope. It was never stationary, or even upright.

And the barge in the middle of the ocean is surrounded by skyscrapers that hinder the approach?[/QUOTE]

First of all, I was talking about that the Falcon 9 overall is meant to be an orbital launch vehicle, not the first stage.
Second of all the Falcon 9 first stage like all rocket stages has a guidance system. Not sure what your trying to prove there
Third of all, what you're saying is that the payload is a second stage for some reason.
Fourth of all, I couldn't find any info NS relating to its speed upon separation.
Seems like Jeff really doesn't like to release information. Also, NS is landing on solid ground inland, while Falcon 9 is landing on a constantly moving (but not in crazy amounts) barge with a stronger cross wind.

if it stood there for second without falling and blowing up, it sounds like a landing to me. Is there apparently an official criteria for whether somethings landed or not?

Last of all, is NS in the desert with skyscrapers? No? These are rockets not helicopters.

I'm leaving before a glob of threadlock is applied.

[Albert VDS]

[quote name='Shpaget']That sounds like a good design of the NS and an oversight/compromise/tradeoff in the F9/Merlin design.

SpaceX could decide to decrease total thrust/payload capacity and install a smaller central engine so they can hover as well. They choose not to, so they have that problem.
Dissing an accomplishment of one because of shortcomings of a competitor is not nice.[/QUOTE]

There is no reason for the F9 first stage to have a engine which can hover, because you only need so much accuracy.
Just look at how accurate they can target a barge in the middle of the ocean. Also it's better to have a bigger landing pad than decreasing payload capacity.

[Shpaget]

[quote name='gooddog15']First of all, I was talking about that the Falcon 9 overall is meant to be an orbital launch vehicle, not the first stage.
Second of all the Falcon 9 first stage like all rocket stages has a guidance system. Not sure what your trying to prove there
Third of all, what you're saying is that the payload is a second stage for some reason.
Fourth of all, I couldn't find any info NS relating to its speed upon separation.
Seems like Jeff really doesn't like to release information. Also, NS is landing on solid ground inland, while Falcon 9 is landing on a constantly moving (but not in crazy amounts) barge with a stronger cross wind.

if it stood there for second without falling and blowing up, it sounds like a landing to me. Is there apparently an official criteria for whether somethings landed or not?

Last of all, is NS in the desert with skyscrapers? No? These are rockets not helicopters.

I'm leaving before a glob of threadlock is applied.[/QUOTE]

But the first stage, the stuff we're talking about, is not orbital. There is not conceptual difference between the two.
You said F9 was bigger as if that is a hindrance. I say it offers more capacity for equipment needed to land. I say the size is a bonus.
Yes. Why wouldn't you consider it as such?
The barge is not moving. It's is stabilized and the position is controlled. Seriously, that's decades old tech.
Where did you pull out the crosswind from?
It did not stand there for a second. The criteria for landing is "if you can walk away from it, it's a landing". The thing exploded. You'd not walk away from that. It's not a landing.

You're the one who said that NS landed in "Texas, where everything is big, with it's wide open spaces and all" as if F9 had to navigate through tight spaces. How more open space do you need if an ocean is not open enough for you?

[quote name='Albert VDS']There is no reason for the F9 first stage to have a engine which can hover, because you only need so much accuracy.
Just look at how accurate they can target a barge in the middle of the ocean. Also it's better to have a bigger landing pad than decreasing payload capacity.[/QUOTE]
I'm not the one complaining about the F9's inability to hover and diminishing another ones success because of that.

[Streetwind]

[quote name='Shpaget']That sounds like a good design of the NS and an oversight/compromise/tradeoff in the F9/Merlin design.

SpaceX could decide to decrease total thrust/payload capacity and install a smaller central engine so they can hover as well. They choose not to, so they have that problem.
Dissing an accomplishment of one because of shortcomings of a competitor is not nice.[/QUOTE]

I'm not dissing anyone. I'm pointing out differences in design between the two vehicles, since nobody else seems to have caught that detail yet. You know, talking about [I]technical[/I] things, about science and engineering, rather than talking about who's got the longer [I]*cough*[/I]rocket[I]*cough*[/I]. Anything else is read into it by you alone.

You can find out my views about Blue Origin's accomplishment in the first post of this thread, because I'm the one who started it. And I'm the one who'll have it closed because nobody seems to come here for any other reason than to have an internet slap fight over other people's work.

Seriously, I am disappointed in this community.

[Red Iron Crown]

Closed at OP request.