Blue Origin Thread (merged)

[Albert VDS]

And that's exactly what I was taking about: in this case, it becomes a single point of failure, and if you want proper reliability, you have to redesign. Thank you for proving my point.

And that's what SpaceX is doing, well actually changing to strut with a higher load.

But we are not discussing if it's a SPOF, it's about; can you blame the supplier?

If it sells it's products with a certificate that promises a max load then it should do that.

[Lukaszenko]

And it's a company selling aerospace parts. I hope there's other checks in place for the parts they sell that carry people.

[magnemoe]

And that's what SpaceX is doing, well actually changing to strut with a higher load.

But we are not discussing if it's a SPOF, it's about; can you blame the supplier?

If it sells it's products with a certificate that promises a max load then it should do that.

They should function according to specifications, its the producers responsibility that they do.

Think spare parts for aircraft, the airline company can not check all the replacement parts.

The certification process here is the majority of the cost, you might buy an bolt who cost $50 and is just the same as the $0.5 bolt you buy in an hardware store it might even be made on the same production line.

However its certified to work according to specifications.

Yes, you can do additional testing and this is often done during assembly.

[Albert VDS]

Work is being done on the landing pad:

Source

[AngelLestat]

They should function according to specifications, its the producers responsibility that they do.

Think spare parts for aircraft, the airline company can not check all the replacement parts.

The certification process here is the majority of the cost, you might buy an bolt who cost $50 and is just the same as the $0.5 bolt you buy in an hardware store it might even be made on the same production line.

However its certified to work according to specifications.

Yes, you can do additional testing and this is often done during assembly.

That is why a reusable rocket can reduce cost by a lot. I always said this.. but many still believe that the only cost you cut is the one related to manufacture..

So at the end, you reduce cost in operation (which depend on how often you launch), manufacture and almost all the testing cost (which is a lot).

Work is being done on the landing pad:

https://i.imgur.com/LKqxspm.jpg

Source

Where is that?

I imagine the US country center? To land stages that take off from west coast?

Edited July 23, 2015 by AngelLestat

[Albert VDS]

Where is that?

I imagine the US country center? To land stages that take off from west coast?

Vandenberg AFB Space Launch Complex 4

[AngelLestat]

ah ok, so it will be the west coast launch pad.. thanks.

[Streetwind]

Considering that Jason-3 was the first launch that had any chance to be a land landing attempt, and it would launch from Vandenberg, that makes perfect sense. Technically Jason-3 would be the next launch on the schedule after returning to flight.

The question is whether or not SpaceX can get permission, because they still haven't managed a barge landing. There's always something that seems to be getting in the way for them, be it a storm or valve stition or a failed strut...

[RuBisCO]

SpaceX now really REALLY needs to prove fly back recovery, either on the barge or on land (on land would be more impressive "come back" though).

The ULA people on claiming that for SpaceX to have their reliability then SpaceX will have to cost as much as them, but at those cost manned space travel and colonization will never happen.

[Wingman703]

ULA's just talking smack on SpaceX, as per normal. The last 21 flights of Falcon 9 have proved that the Falcon is a highly reliable vehicle.

[Aethon]

RS-25 Test today, four hours after this post, 4:30 pm EST. Five hundred thirty five seconds of awesome.

http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-tv-to-air-test-of-space-launch-system-engine

[o Atomsk]

they held a neat AMA on reddit about 9 months ago that answers a lot of these questions.

edit: oops, didn't notice this had 29 pages, disregard!

[Frida Space]

So, yesterday's (UTC) test (the sixth of the year and second to last) was 100% successful based on preliminary data (as in, it didn't explode). Also, I found this infographic from AR of the RS-25 engines which will fly on the first 4 SLS launches. Yesterdays' engine (which is the same for all 7 tests of 2015) was the 0525, but, as it's simply a development engine, it won't be flown on the SLS. As you can see, 14 out of the 16 engines of the first flights will be re-used from the Shuttle era. The RS-25 has > 1 mln seconds of flight and test time (that's almost 12 days).

[fredinno]

The flight rate NASA is aiming for is 1 flight per year, two of they can manage, not once every 2 years. If it launches onces every 5 years, it'll probably hit the junkyard pretty quickly.

Science institutions probably will not be launching 70 T payloads on an SLS- SLS launched science payloads will probably be flagship science probes to the outer splar system, like Europa Clipper, which can launch directly to it's destination via SLS or with planetary flybys with a smaller launcher.

ARM is a payload funded and designed for launch on a SLS (though it's the only one). Europa Clipper is going to launch between EM-1 and EM-2, and building a L2 space station/ HAB off of leftover ISS modules will also be an option. Modifications are needed, but it *should* be ready in 5 years for a 2022 launch, assuming it starts development by 2017. This would probably require a second SLS to supply and man the station. They could also build a probe to round out the schedule (Like a Uranus Orbiter) within 8 years for a launch in 2024. Not to mention the leftover Altair plans (though incorporating them into SLS will probably take a while) and he fact that they can do a second ARM, or rendevous with the asteroid they put into orbit, with ISRU equiment, for example, so that it can later be used as a refueling stop. Congress seems pretty willing to fund payloads, considering SLS is actually slightly overfunded.

I'm waiting for the next election to come along, to make sure the next government won't mess up their plans. Unlike whether the rocket itself should exist, where SLS should go is pretty debated within Government. At least that's how I think things are going on.

[Nibb31]

ARM is a payload funded and designed for launch on a SLS (though it's the only one). Europa Clipper is going to launch between EM-1 and EM-2, and building a L2 space station/ HAB off of leftover ISS modules will also be an option. Modifications are needed, but it *should* be ready in 5 years for a 2022 launch, assuming it starts development by 2017. This would probably require a second SLS to supply and man the station. They could also build a probe to round out the schedule (Like a Uranus Orbiter) within 8 years for a launch in 2024. Not to mention the leftover Altair plans (though incorporating them into SLS will probably take a while) and he fact that they can do a second ARM, or rendevous with the asteroid they put into orbit, with ISRU equiment, for example, so that it can later be used as a refueling stop. Congress seems pretty willing to fund payloads, considering SLS is actually slightly overfunded.

There is no way they can keep that schedule, even if you doubled the current budget. There simply aren't enough payloads to fly one SLS per year. The Europa Flyby mission won't be ready before EM-2, neither will ARM (if it goes through), and the L2 space station is pie in the sky. If you want to fly one mission per year on SLS around 2020-2025, those missions should already be cutting metal.

I'm waiting for the next election to come along, to make sure the next government won't mess up their plans. Unlike whether the rocket itself should exist, where SLS should go is pretty debated within Government. At least that's how I think things are going on.

Yes, the only hope for SLS is for the next US administration to give a clear and funded roadmap for it. Unfortunately, space is way down on the list of priorities for presidential platforms, so don't get your hopes up too high.

[Frida Space]

Orion successfully landed after 1 drouge + 1 main chute were intentionally blocked from deploying.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/08/orion-parachute-evaluates-failed-chute-scenarios/

http://www.theverge.com/2015/8/26/9209225/watching-a-spacecraft-fall-in-the-desert-with-two-failed-parachutes

[_Augustus_]

They want to do a human-assisted Mars sample return sometime in or after 2024, it would involve sending a crewed Orion and MPLM to Mars orbit in the first SLS Block IB launch and the second would carry an unmanned rover and unmanned protoype MAV to the Martian surface.

They also say that the Orion launch will be using the fifth SLS, so this would be either EM-4, EM-5, or even EM-6 if they launch Europa Clipper on the SLS.

If they actually do this I will be so happy. We'll be in Mars orbit a decade from now...

[Nibb31]

It does seem to have landed upside down and on hard ground, which is the worst survivable situation. In real-life, it should come down upright, on water, and with 3 chutes.

The boiler plate Orion in this test is shorter than the real Orion so that it could fit inside a C-17 cargo plane.

[shynung]

It does seem to have landed upside down and on hard ground, which is the worst survivable situation. In real-life, it should come down upright, on water, and with 3 chutes.

The boiler plate Orion in this test is shorter than the real Orion so that it could fit inside a C-17 cargo plane.

Hmm. Would the size difference affect the aerodynamics enough to make it fall upside down? Would the full-size Orion face the same fate if one of the chutes failed? Seemed really bad if true.

[Frida Space]

It does seem to have landed upside down and on hard ground, which is the worst survivable situation. In real-life, it should come down upright, on water, and with 3 chutes.

They said that it turned upside down because it re-inflated. Obviously wasn't meant to happen, but they said it's an easy fix.

[AngelLestat]

They said that it turned upside down because it re-inflated. Obviously wasn't meant to happen, but they said it's an easy fix.

So, after billions and billions of dollars and a decade of development using the same old technology from always, and they cannot land straight?

I still want to hear those who think that this money is well spent...

Edited August 27, 2015 by AngelLestat

[Budgie]

So, after billions and billions of dollars and a decade of development using the same old technology from always, and they cannot land straight?

I still want to hear those who think that this money is well spent...

Did you not read the part where 1 drogue and 1 main chute were purposefully unreleased? It was still considered a successful test, highlighting what needs to be done for the actual flight vehicle, which as always in rocketry, will undergo much more strenuous examination before being used

[AngelLestat]

Did you not read the part where 1 drogue and 1 main chute were purposefully unreleased? It was still considered a successful test, highlighting what needs to be done for the actual flight vehicle, which as always in rocketry, will undergo much more strenuous examination before being used

But thats only change a little bit the fall speed, not the angle..

So instead to do a 3 main parachutes descent, it do it with 2.

But all parachutes are attached to the same place.

Edited August 27, 2015 by AngelLestat

[Nibb31]

But all parachutes are attached to the same place.

Of course they're not. If they were, a structural failure at the attachment point would be catastrophic. They spread the load by having redundant attachment points. And of course, if they were all in a central attachment point, where would you put the docking port?

It's not uncommon for capsules to land upside down. This is due to the parachute reinflating on touchdown. Soyuz lands vertically but is usually tipped over after touchdown. Apollo had two recovery modes: "Stable 1" (floating upright) or "Stable 2" (floating upside down). There were balloons to upright the capsule, but they don't always work. I guess Orion will work in the same way.

[_Augustus_]

No one read what I said earlier about the human Mars orbital mission/human-assisted sample return with SLS #5 and possibly #4 or #6.