Blue Origin Thread (merged)

[Bill Phil]

2 minutes ago, SargeRho said:

No, what Blue Origin did is rather unimpressive, and nothing an F9R couldn't do a year ago already, or the DC-XA 15 years ago. SpaceX' latest landing was faster, further, and with a much bigger vehicle than the DC-XA or the New Shepherd.

That doesn't change the fact that BO did it. Perhaps precisely because it wasn't as difficult as an F9 landing.

[Albert VDS]

Let's just agree that any advancements in rocket technology is a good thing, no matter who did what and when.

Here's hoping that this will start a reusability revolution in the rocket industry.

[AngelLestat]

Another way to see it is from the application point of view.

Blue origins or Virgin Galactics: They can send some tourist to experiment 5 min of  zero-g and see the curvature of the earth. That is the only application of this technology. (You can also experience this with a hydrogen balloon, Red Bull style)

SpaceX: Is our way out to leave earth, where hundreds of space applications and business can be done, is the door to visit other planets, asteroids or way beyond those. 

[Bill Phil]

There's quite a bit of SpaceX optimism... It doesn't even have as many launches as ULA has. (Counting Lockheed's rockets from the past and Boeing's.) 

Optimism is fine and all, but we can't make assumptions or rely on tweets.

[fredinno]

1 hour ago, Bill Phil said:

There's quite a bit of SpaceX optimism... It doesn't even have as many launches as ULA has. (Counting Lockheed's rockets from the past and Boeing's.) 

Optimism is fine and all, but we can't make assumptions or rely on tweets.

SpaceX has more launches per year than ULA. ULA's launches are just given further in advance.

[Bill Phil]

23 minutes ago, fredinno said:

SpaceX has more launches per year than ULA. ULA's launches are just given further in advance.

But ULA has more experience.

And SpaceX is nothing special. They have only done one special thing. Just one. 

Now I know that's blasphemy, but they're not our saviours.

Edited December 24, 2015 by Bill Phil

[saabstory88]

I would very much like to get back on topic. Yes, other companies have more experience, but they don't have a landed rocket stage to talk about, and I very much want to talk about a landed rocket stage. Sure! Let's talk about Blue Origin and their reuse too! But not in the context of "who is first", it doesn't matter. 

 

How about a useful comparison, if people are going to bring up Blue Origin. How does the coking experienced in Kerolox engines effect their long term reliability? Are New Shepard propulsion modules going to be able to be reused more times than the Falcon? Their combustion tap off cycles should in theory require less long term maintanence, and are simpler. 

And what of the burn-off residuals upon landing of the F9? Those didn't look like they were located in the #9 engine turbo pump assembly. Was an outboard engine sick?

Those are the discussion I want to have. 

 

[PB666]

57 minutes ago, saabstory88 said:

I would very much like to get back on topic. Yes, other companies have more experience, but they don't have a landed rocket stage to talk about, and I very much want to talk about a landed rocket stage. Sure! Let's talk about Blue Origin and their reuse too! But not in the context of "who is first", it doesn't matter. 

 

How about a useful comparison, if people are going to bring up Blue Origin. How does the coking experienced in Kerolox engines effect their long term reliability? Are New Shepard propulsion modules going to be able to be reused more times than the Falcon? Their combustion tap off cycles should in theory require less long term maintanence, and are simpler. 

And what of the burn-off residuals upon landing of the F9? Those didn't look like they were located in the #9 engine turbo pump assembly. Was an outboard engine sick?

Those are the discussion I want to have. 

 

Are you sure they are using strait kero or an aircraft equivilent thereof, they may have additives in the fuel that prevent high temperature ploymerization and carbonization? 

Reply to discussion concernig BO versus SX:I see now we are getting into the 'whose rocket is bigger discussion'. 

Edited December 24, 2015 by PB666

[saabstory88]

2 minutes ago, PB666 said:

Are you sure they are using strait kero or an aircraft equivilent thereof, they may have additives in the fuel that prevent high temperature ploymerization and carbonization? 

Well they are using RP-1. I say Kerlox, not meaning straight Kerosene, but because it is a convenient name for the final propellant mixture. I don't know if they are using any additives, but if anyone here knows, it would be great to know! Does anyone know if the RP-1 chilldown has any affect on these properties?

[stargazer1235]

I am going to say that both are impressive feats in their own right because both happened to their companies expectations. Blue Origin is not in the business of taking satellites to orbit and SpaceX is not (yet) in the business of launching space tourists. The fact that other experiments worked out is proof that vertical landings on earth can work. SpaceX's feat might be slightly more impressive because it was an operational mission in its own right, it actually deployed satellites but this shouldn't diminish Blue Origins achievements either.

Hey the way I look at it is that these companies in the space of a couple of months have managed to achieve what no other government or otherwise space agency has managed to achieve in the last 40-50 years. NOW that's   impressive.      

[RuBisCO]

I want more!

So there will be two more launches next month for SpaceX, SES9 and Jason-3. SES9 is going geosynch so will SpaceX have enough fuel for a landing?, perhaps another barge attempt? I don't know what kind of orbit Jason-3 will be doing?

[saabstory88]

11 minutes ago, RuBisCO said:

I want more!

So there will be two more launches next month for SpaceX, SES9 and Jason-3. SES9 is going geosynch so will SpaceX have enough fuel for a landing?, perhaps another barge attempt? I don't know what kind of orbit Jason-3 will be doing?

SES-9 will almost certainly be a ballistic downrange barge landing. Jason-3 is a pretty light payload, and may very well be an RTLS. If Spacex gets the F9-19 core back, it is uncertain what will happen to it, as it is a non-FT core. 

Edited December 24, 2015 by saabstory88
Spelling

[Mitchz95]

Do we know yet when the Falcon Heavy is launching on its maiden voyage? Will they try to recover the three first stage cores right off the bat?

[RuBisCO]

1 minute ago, saabstory88 said:

SES-9 will almost certainly be a ballistic downrange barge landing. Jason-3 is a pretty light payload, and may very well be an RTLS. If Spacex gets the F9-19 core back, it is uncertain what will happen to it, as it is a non-FT core. 

Oh yeah so Jason-3 is using a Falcon 9 v1.1 instead of the new v1.2 right?

[CatastrophicFailure]

Jason-3 will be launching out of Vandenburg in Cali, so no RTLS there, I don't think they've built a landing complex yet. Not sure on the status of the west coast barge either. 

[Albert VDS]

5 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

But ULA has more experience.

And SpaceX is nothing special. They have only done one special thing. Just one. 

Now I know that's blasphemy, but they're not our saviours.

More experience how? Sure they've been around longer, but that doesn't mean automatically they are better at making rockets.
After all it's the people who work at a company that bring their expertize to the table.

SpaceX created 2 rockets, 2 capsules which are designed for reuse, is constantly improving it's hardware, build almost all their own hardware, made the cheapest launcher, build an engine which has the highest TWR and is build for multiple reuses, first commercial flight to the ISS, landed the 1st stage of orbit grade rocket and maybe the most important thing of all; they inspire millions of people as evident by the huge following they have.
And you call them nothing special? They've done more to improve space flight than any other rocket company in 10 years.

Of course they are not our saviours, but at the very least they are making space more accessible instead of sticking to the same old thing.

[Shpaget]

What's the rationale behind switching launch sites? Moving the payload seems a lot more practical than hauling around a whole launch vehicle.

Once the launch provider sets up his launch infrastructure in one place, why move around? Most payloads are a few tons max, easily transportable by regular trucks across the country, while moving rockets requires a lot more logistics.

[Nibb31]

The only move the launcher when they go from the factory to the launch site. They don't move rockets from one launch site to another.

SpaceX can launch from Vandenberg AFB, Cape Canaveral LC40, Kennedy LC39A and soon from their own launch site in Boca Chica.

Vandenberg is for military polar launches. LC40 is for eastward launches. LC39A is for Falcon Heavy. Boca Chica is to have their own independent launch site. Having multiple options also allows them to increase their flight rate.

[Ralathon]

2 hours ago, Shpaget said:

What's the rationale behind switching launch sites? Moving the payload seems a lot more practical than hauling around a whole launch vehicle.

Once the launch provider sets up his launch infrastructure in one place, why move around? Most payloads are a few tons max, easily transportable by regular trucks across the country, while moving rockets requires a lot more logistics.

It has to do with the launch trajectory. If the payload needs a polar orbit you need to go north or south. If you do that from KSC you end up flying over populated areas. From vandenberg they can safely launch south and not endanger anyone.

[saabstory88]

7 hours ago, Mitchz95 said:

Do we know yet when the Falcon Heavy is launching on its maiden voyage? Will they try to recover the three first stage cores right off the bat?

They will likely only RTLS one core, and ASDS one core. The fate of one of the side boosters is uncertain, and may be get a just off shore barge landing, or be ditched. This is not a technical issue,  but a regulatory one. AFAIK, the FAA has not yet begun review for multiple simultaneous landings, and may not do so this year. SpaceX has already been asked by the media whther they will be doing multiple landings with FH, and the response has always been some version of, "Not at first, regulators want to see things work first". 

7 hours ago, RuBisCO said:

Oh yeah so Jason-3 is using a Falcon 9 v1.1 instead of the new v1.2 right?

NASA has inspected that specific core and upper stage, and certified it for the mission. No substitutions. 

6 hours ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

Jason-3 will be launching out of Vandenburg in Cali, so no RTLS there, I don't think they've built a landing complex yet. Not sure on the status of the west coast barge either. 

Vandenburgs landing pad was actually finished before LZ-1

Edited December 24, 2015 by saabstory88
Grammer

[Exoscientist]

 The payload on this launch was only about 2,000 kg, much less than the 13,000 kg max for the reusable F9. Actually with the F9 upgrade, it's an even smaller fraction of the max payload. Then on this flight they could have saved an extra amount of reserve propellant in the first stage for landing.

And at about the 3 min, 14 sec point in the post-flight telecon:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgNekVW0pps

 

 Elon says this launch at MECO was going slower than will other RTLS flights, at approx. 5,000 km/hr compared to 8,000 km/hr for following flights. That's quite a significant difference that would result in a large amount of left over propellant compared to the following flights. Then this could have been used for ballast on landing to the extent it may have been able to hover. 

 

  Bob Clark

[FishInferno]

9 hours ago, saabstory88 said:

It is uncertain what will happen to it, as it is a non-FT core. 

I always hoped that one of the early recovered stages would go to a museum, and if they were going to do that, it would probably be this one, because they have no further use for it.

[Motokid600]

There's gotta be more footage by now, right?

[RuBisCO]

Ok so if I understand this correctly Jason-3 will be a Falcon 9 v1.1, polar orbit from California, but there is a pad ready for it to land back, if it has enough fuel?

SES-9 is geosynch and chances are less likely they will do a recovery even if it is Falcon 9 v1.2 which is will be?

[Rune]

From what I recall, Jason-3 was a firm candidate for the first RTLS way back before the June launch failure. I guess the bird is a light one. Who knows, it would make little sense to recover a 1.1 core at this stage, but every data point counts, right? And yeah, that would be a booster perfect to put on a museum.

 

Rune. No point disassembling a 1.1 when they have a1.2 to take a look at.