Jump to content

Blue Origin Thread (merged)


Aethon

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Red Iron Crown said:

Why couldn't it be a single long exposure? (Not a photography guy)

More likely this is two (or more) exposures and some decent Photoshopping to put it together. As others have said, a single exposure would have been washed out by the nearby lights, reflections from the clouds, etc. Dabbling a bit in stuff like this myself, I know just enough to tell quite a lot of work went into that pic behind the scenes.:D

Wow... just wow...

 

didnt my get to watch live, unfortunately. It appears I have a lot of catching up to do. And 140-some forum emails to clear out <_<

 

Does anyone know what's up with the scorch marks about a third of the way from the bottom? The transition to the clean white above looks oddly crisp. No pun intended. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

 

Does anyone know what's up with the scorch marks about a third of the way from the bottom? The transition to the clean white above looks oddly crisp. No pun intended. 

A special coating that protected the bottom of the rocket from engine exhaust perhaps?

I didn't get the pun. Can someone point it out to me?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the first stage gets to MECO, shutting off the main engine. Then it turns back on for the "boostback" burn. And then turns off. And then reignites for the re-entry burn. Then it turns off. Then it turns on for the final landing burn.

Meanwhile they were wondering if they could manage to get the second-stage engine to reignite?

I must be missing something about why they weren't already pretty confident.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Second stage configuration was "untested" in vacuum. First stage has been restarted tons of time. 

Have to head off to bed now... hopeful I'll find tons of new photos/videos/information tomorrow when I wake. The media had BETTER give this more then a brief sentence...:mad:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, numerobis said:

So the first stage gets to MECO, shutting off the main engine. Then it turns back on for the "boostback" burn. And then turns off. And then reignites for the re-entry burn. Then it turns off. Then it turns on for the final landing burn.

Meanwhile they were wondering if they could manage to get the second-stage engine to reignite?

I must be missing something about why they weren't already pretty confident.

To be honest I'm clueless, given that they're the same (Merlin) engines using the same fuel. The only thing I can think of is that the stakes are a lot higher for the second stage. Failure to reignite means the mission is lost. Failure to reignite on the first stage... Meh. At this stage, landing is still the icing on the cake; putting the payload into orbit is in the end what really counts. So I'd be a lot more nervous about the second stage doing it's job (just like you're watching a superhero movie and you know he's going to prevail—the fights can still be nailbiters) than the first stage landing safely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Rdivine said:

A special coating that protected the bottom of the rocket from engine exhaust perhaps?

I didn't get the pun. Can someone point it out to me?

Scorch marks? Crisp? As in "burned to a..." Badum-tish. Right? Right? No?

I'll show myself out...

5 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

To be honest I'm clueless, given that they're the same (Merlin) engines using the same fuel. The only thing I can think of is that the stakes are a lot higher for the second stage. Failure to reignite means the mission is lost. Failure to reignite on the first stage... Meh. At this stage, landing is still the icing on the cake; putting the payload into orbit is in the end what really counts. So I'd be a lot more nervous about the second stage doing it's job (just like you're watching a superhero movie and you know he's going to prevail—the fights can still be nailbiters) than the first stage landing safely.

IT may simply be case of "Ok we've got the engine in vacuum with nothing much else to do with it, let's test the re-light simply because we can at zero additional cost. Also, because SCIENCE!" 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Motokid600 said:

Wow they were really pushing it with the landing leg timing.

The landing legs would create drag which would make control harder. My guess is they want to leave them folded until the stage is moving as slowly as possible so as to avoid that problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tried to stay up for the launch, but 2:30 AM on a work day was not gonna happen.
So the first think I did when I woke up, I opened up Google and spent a few moment thinking what search query would most likely result with a video, but not contain any spoilers.

Congratulations SpaceX! The landing looked perfect.

A few observations: The presenters. The rightmost guy, he seemed terrified to be in front of the camera. The middle guy, apparently had to reference Blue Origin and how that was apparently not a real rocket landing since it didn't go fast enough.

But the biggest issue I've got is they forgot to put flood lights at LZ-1.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

Scorch marks? Crisp? As in "burned to a..." Badum-tish. Right? Right? No?

I'll show myself out...

IT may simply be case of "Ok we've got the engine in vacuum with nothing much else to do with it, let's test the re-light simply because we can at zero additional cost. Also, because SCIENCE!" 

Well if they wanted to show off they could have landed inside of the VAB. 

 

Can i add that their landing trajectory doesn't  make much sense, if you have east bound momemtum at peak altitude why reverse it to land with west bound momentum? dV in the x,y needs to be added twice then stppoed twice, this is 3 additional dV just to land (although the primary occurs after stage 2 sep), if they had chosen a pad and a landing site at different locals they wouldn'.t have had to carry this extra fuel and they have more payload cap.

 

Edited by PB666
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...