Blue Origin Thread (merged)

[sojourner]

The lox tank doesn't go to the top of the interstage. Because: it's an interstage.

[CatastrophicFailure]

@Motokid600 the "fuzzier" line up top is because the tank drains from the top down, so the frost melts top down too. 

[Frybert]

The day we start worrying about our rocket's paint job is the day I...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...Have been waiting for.

[Hcube]

I'm sure they will always do a new paintjob on first stages, at least the ones they reuse, simply because launching rockets with a new shiny second stage and a toasted, charred, black first stage is not good for PR

[Motokid600]

1 hour ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

@Motokid600 the "fuzzier" line up top is because the tank drains from the top down, so the frost melts top down too. 

I thought the same afterwards, but that top line isn't so fuzzy. Fuzzi-er I suppose. Guess the tank just remains cold enough for ice to form despite the remaining fuel being at the bottom. That and it splashes around after staging no doubt.

Edit: Which brings to mind yet another question. How does the F9 ullage its fuel for the boost-back burn? Google did not work this time.

 

1 hour ago, sojourner said:

The lox tank doesn't go to the top of the interstage. Because: it's an interstage.

"to the interstage" Not to the top of the interstage.

Edited January 3, 2016 by Motokid600

[sgt_flyer]

3 hours ago, Motokid600 said:

I thought the same afterwards, but that top line isn't so fuzzy. Fuzzi-er I suppose. Guess the tank just remains cold enough for ice to form despite the remaining fuel being at the bottom. That and it splashes around after staging no doubt.

Edit: Which brings to mind yet another question. How does the F9 ullage its fuel for the boost-back burn? Google did not work this time.

 

"to the interstage" Not to the top of the interstage.

if there's still enough drag up there, simply rotating the rocket for the boostback burn in the correct position should be sufficient to settle the fuels. (Basically, drag slows down the rocket, but the fuel in 'free fall' inside would not be affected by the drag)

if there's not enough drag, an impulse from cold gas RCS thrusters  is enough.

for the reentry burn and the landing burn, there's plenty of drag and the rocket in the correct orientation for the fuel to settle in the tanks  (after all, MECO and 1st stage separation happens at 80km altitude)

 

Edited January 3, 2016 by sgt_flyer

[KerbonautInTraining]

On 1/2/2016 at 10:14 AM, bigdad84 said:

 

Meth. Not even once.

I wonder when we're gonna know for sure what sort of damage was done to the paint job, or rather what it's gonna take to bring it back to shining white.

 

Edit: You can see what looks like a downward facing RCS jet on the right. I'm pretty sure that's how they settle the propellant for the boostback burn.

Edited January 3, 2016 by KerbonautInTraining

[Wingman703]

Why is everyone so concerned about the paintjob? Paint can be redone for cheap and is not a super critical part of a rocket(other then just some UV protection/dissipation) If the worst "damage" to the rocket is that the paint is singed, then hats off and full throttle to the SpaceX guys.  

Edited January 4, 2016 by Wingman703

[AngelLestat]

That terrible extra cost in paint is their error for no going green with a lh2-lox rocket

About the lox ice vs soat, seems weird that the line begins so down in the rocket and then in the top fade away. That soat happen when the rocket is doing the supersonic retropropulsion, but at that time, the lox tank is almost empty, but it seems that stills is enough to cold a big part of the tank. 

 

Edited January 3, 2016 by AngelLestat

[Motokid600]

What could be the logic in withholding the onboard video?

[sojourner]

Waiting to use it in conjunction with some other announcement?

[Meecrob]

On 12/31/2015 at 6:43 PM, mikegarrison said:

In theory, yes. In practice, it does get more and more and more difficult and expensive to keep fixing older airplanes.

Yes, but that is because they are following a maintenance schedule. Think of it like your car. You don't inspect the intricacies of your transmission every oil change, but you do know that after X amount of usage it will need to be overhauled or replaced. I think you are referring to D checks on aircraft and that is when a lot of items are required to undergo overhaul/ replacement at once. Its a known entity though. It does not cost more or become more difficult to maintain older aircraft. The parts still cost the same and they are just as easy to replace or overhaul (unless the parts are not in production anymore - SpaceX produces its parts or controls its supply chain, so this is not an issue). The difference is most airliners predict a service life for their planes and run them down with no intent of performing the next maintenance check (to put it simply). When someone else buys it for cheap, then it will be more expensive to refurbish than a newer one, but they make up for that in the low aquisition cost. It does not cost more to put X part on an old aircraft than a new one. Space X will be looking at their landed stage to determine when they figure it is most economically efficient to scrap the used stage vs refurbishing it.

[mikegarrison]

8 hours ago, Meecrob said:

Yes, but that is because they are following a maintenance schedule. Think of it like your car. You don't inspect the intricacies of your transmission every oil change, but you do know that after X amount of usage it will need to be overhauled or replaced. I think you are referring to D checks on aircraft and that is when a lot of items are required to undergo overhaul/ replacement at once. Its a known entity though. It does not cost more or become more difficult to maintain older aircraft. The parts still cost the same and they are just as easy to replace or overhaul (unless the parts are not in production anymore - SpaceX produces its parts or controls its supply chain, so this is not an issue). The difference is most airliners predict a service life for their planes and run them down with no intent of performing the next maintenance check (to put it simply). When someone else buys it for cheap, then it will be more expensive to refurbish than a newer one, but they make up for that in the low aquisition cost. It does not cost more to put X part on an old aircraft than a new one. Space X will be looking at their landed stage to determine when they figure it is most economically efficient to scrap the used stage vs refurbishing it.

Meecrob, yes it does become more expensive to maintain older planes. Parts wear out. And the more cycles the plane has, the more parts wear out. Are you really disputing this? What is the source of your claim?

Airplanes have a service life, but that doesn't mean operators stop doing maintenance on the airplane. That would be illegal. What happens is that everything accumulates high cycle fatigue and more and more things just wear out. So every inspection finds more and more and more things that have to get fixed. Also, most repair techniques end up adding weight to the airplane, so it also slowly gets heavier. Eventually it becomes cheaper to buy a new plane than to keep the old one flying. (Added in to this is that new airplanes are also more fuel efficient than older airplanes.)

Edited January 4, 2016 by mikegarrison

[insert_name]

8 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

Meecrob, yes it does become more expensive to maintain older planes. Parts wear out. And the more cycles the plane has, the more parts wear out. Are you really disputing this? What is the source of your claim?

Airplanes have a service life, but that doesn't mean operators stop doing maintenance on the airplane. That would be illegal. What happens is that everything accumulates high cycle fatigue and more and more things just wear out. So every inspection finds more and more and more things that have to get fixed. Also, most repair techniques end up adding weight to the airplane, so it also slowly gets heavier. Eventually it becomes cheaper to buy a new plane than to keep the old one flying. (Added in to this is that new airplanes are also more fuel efficient than older airplanes.)

and yet most airplanes are older than their pilots

[sojourner]

Nope.

http://www.bloomberg.com/visual-data/best-and-worst//oldest-fleets-airlines

[softweir]

1 hour ago, insert_name said:

and yet most airplanes are older than their pilots

If you include the huge number of private planes in the world, then yes, that may be true. But it is very unlikely for large passenger planes.

[Nibb31]

18 hours ago, Motokid600 said:

What could be the logic in withholding the onboard video?

It's proprietary information. What could be the logic in releasing it?

[Red Iron Crown]

6 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

It's proprietary information. What could be the logic in releasing it?

It generates further interest in their accomplishment, I guess. They've released onboard video from some previous attempts, I wouldn't be surprised to see some from this landing (perhaps sanitized of proprietary data?).

[Motokid600]

1 hour ago, Nibb31 said:

It's proprietary information. What could be the logic in releasing it?

Perhaps there going to release it with the results of the condition of the booster. Can't imagine what other major announcement that would coincide with this. That was the jist of my question. What event or announcement could they be waiting for?

Edited January 4, 2016 by Motokid600

[Nibb31]

My point was that they don't have to release it. They are a private corporation, they have no obligation to release data to the public. Why would they ?

Edited January 4, 2016 by Nibb31

[Motokid600]

Oh course they don't have to release it. It's there footage, but why wouldn't they release it? Does it reveal something were not supposed to see? Just a PR carrot on a stick? Are they waiting for a special announcement of some kind? If so, what? 

[Mitchz95]

Maybe they're waiting until the initial hype over the landing wears down so they can renew it later on?

[AngelLestat]

30 minutes ago, Motokid600 said:

Oh course they don't have to release it. It's there footage, but why wouldn't they release it? Does it reveal something were not supposed to see? Just a PR carrot on a stick? Are they waiting for a special announcement of some kind? If so, what? 

These might be some possible reasons:

1-the footage has bad quality, so they want to improve it first.
2-they are busy with other stuffs now.
3-they don't want to spent all their advertising material in one day.
4-they want to study the footage first in case somebody else may find something before them.

[Motokid600]

So.. carrot on a stick lol. I'm going by that one tweet awhile back saying that there is footage and that it's "amazing". Im just surprised at the little amount of footage we have in general. You'd think they'd be ecstatic to release it. Suppose they have there reasons. Whether they be any of the above or something else entirely. 

Call me eager.

Edited January 4, 2016 by Motokid600

[Nibb31]

2 hours ago, Motokid600 said:

Oh course they don't have to release it. It's there footage, but why wouldn't they release it? Does it reveal something were not supposed to see? Just a PR carrot on a stick? Are they waiting for a special announcement of some kind? If so, what? 

Maybe it shows propriety information that they don't want their competitors to see. There is no reason for them to show it, which is a pretty good enough reason not to show it.

They made mainstream news with their landing, do there isn't any more PR to squeeze out of it, other than to feed the fanbois, which isn't SpaceX's priority.