Blue Origin Thread (merged)

[DerekL1963]

On 10/11/2016 at 0:23 AM, StarStreak2109 said:

That reminds me of the anecdote Scott Manley mentioned talking about the one time a Soyuz capsule triggered an escape, leading to the kosmonauts suffering 14gs, which in  turn lead to extensive use of un-family-friendly words by said kosmonauts... I mean, it is good that such systems exist, but I guess every astro/kosmonaut hopes he'll never have to experience this...

When I was in the Navy, we called the escape systems on submarines "mommy systems"  as in "sure mommy, we can get out if something happens".  Among ourselves, we didn't put much stock in them.

[monophonic]

3 hours ago, Northstar1989 said:

There's ANOTHER project planned after New Glenn???  What do we know about it so far?

Name: New Armstrong. That's it, everything else is conjecture I think.

[Nibb31]

On 14/10/2016 at 7:41 AM, NSEP said:

Cool that the SLS program is still ongoing, if SpaceX flops and cant go to Mars, NASA will deffinitly take over.

SpaceX isn't going anywhere without NASA paying for it either, you know.

[NSEP]

6 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

SpaceX isn't going anywhere without NASA paying for it either, you know.

I know.

[Darnok]

1 hour ago, Nibb31 said:

SpaceX isn't going anywhere without NASA paying for it either, you know.

Unless SpaceX is going to rent ITS, just like Russians do with Soyuz, and let Chinese go to Mars

[tater]

This part of NASA's url is simply awful: "nasa-shakes-up-orion-test-article-for-the-journey-to-mars". This constant conflation of Orion with Mars is absurd. NatGeo kids had a Mars issue my son just got, and there is, I kid you not, a picture of an orion capsule on Mars. Resting on the heat shield, after chute deployment. As if that would work. That's what reporters and an artist hired by National Geographic thought---largely because of hyperbole like the link above.

Edited October 16, 2016 by tater

[tater]

"New Armstrong." And as you can see from the other vehicles naming... Shepard = suborbital with crew. Glenn = orbital with crew. Armstrong = lunar with crew... Given the name, it must be lunar landing, else it would be called "New Borman."

[Nibb31]

7 hours ago, Darnok said:

Unless SpaceX is going to rent ITS, just like Russians do with Soyuz, and let Chinese go to Mars

Who are they going to rent it to, and for how much ? Please don't tell me that there are people who actually believe that SpaceX can design and build interplanetary spaceships for less than an Airbus A330.

[Darnok]

19 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

Who are they going to rent it to, and for how much ? Please don't tell me that there are people who actually believe that SpaceX can design and build interplanetary spaceships for less than an Airbus A330.

Developing costs of Soyuz were higher than Russian fee for each American astronaut.
Soyuz is single use craft, ITS is going to be reusable, so design and build costs can be much higher than single use.
Some people are paying a lot to travel around the World... I am sure some would paid a lot more just to flyby Moon or Mars.

[DerekL1963]

4 minutes ago, Darnok said:

ITS is going to be reusable, so design and build costs can be much higher than single use.

True, but missing the point - the design and construction costs still have to be paid.  And it doesn't matter how many flights those costs can be amortized across, because those costs have to be paid in cash, up front, before it flies even once.

Seriously, if you're going to talk bean counter, learn what the terms mean and how things actually work rather than just indulging in cargo cultist mumbo jumbo.

[Darnok]

28 minutes ago, DerekL1963 said:

True, but missing the point - the design and construction costs still have to be paid.  And it doesn't matter how many flights those costs can be amortized across, because those costs have to be paid in cash, up front, before it flies even once.

Seriously, if you're going to talk bean counter, learn what the terms mean and how things actually work rather than just indulging in cargo cultist mumbo jumbo.

And?

Most of private companies had to pay for design and building things in cash and up front. SpaceX is no different with that, it only make it in larger scale.

[DerekL1963]

45 minutes ago, Darnok said:

Most of private companies had to pay for design and building things in cash and up front. SpaceX is no different with that, it only make it in larger scale.

More cargo cult nonsense and handwaving.    

Boeing, etc...  (the guys who have to put up the really big bucks) perform intensive market analysis before even starting on the design, and with rare exceptions have at least a few entries in the order books before they start producing hardware.  The first is possibly true for SpaceX (though I don't find it likely), the second we don't know yet but again seems very unlikely.

[Darnok]

41 minutes ago, DerekL1963 said:

More cargo cult nonsense and handwaving.    

Boeing, etc...  (the guys who have to put up the really big bucks) perform intensive market analysis before even starting on the design, and with rare exceptions have at least a few entries in the order books before they start producing hardware.  The first is possibly true for SpaceX (though I don't find it likely), the second we don't know yet but again seems very unlikely.

Your mistake is to think as businessman while we are at step of exploration of new "trade routes".

First you have to explore new things, then you can make business. You can't make money from exploration... or at least you can't be sure you will have any return from exploration itself, because it may fail in many ways. Exploration is very risky part of finding new things, people may die, your way (technology for example) of exploring things may be just wrong and you will stuck at some point, you have zero guarantee you will earn any money from things you find.
You can't even guarantee you will find things you are looking for... look Columbus he was looking for new trade route and found two continents.

That is why business sector is terrible when it comes to explorations, risk and making huge steps. Orion won't make huge steps, it will make one more business step, but that is it. While SpaceX can achieve more, but it is more risky.

But after we pass that risky part and someone does find "new route or continent" you can start your business calculations and analysis and money.

 

[Nibb31]

1 hour ago, Darnok said:

Your mistake is to think as businessman while we are at step of exploration of new "trade routes".

Wishful thinking.

1 hour ago, Darnok said:

First you have to explore new things, then you can make business. You can't make money from exploration... or at least you can't be sure you will have any return from exploration itself, because it may fail in many ways. Exploration is very risky part of finding new things, people may die, your way (technology for example) of exploring things may be just wrong and you will stuck at some point, you have zero guarantee you will earn any money from things you find.

Orion is a space Land Rover. SpaceX ITS is a space 787. Guess which one is better suited for exploration and which one is suited for existing trade routes.

The problem is that there are no trade routes because there is nothing to trade.

1 hour ago, Darnok said:

You can't even guarantee you will find things you are looking for... look Columbus he was looking for new trade route and found two continents.

Columbus was funded by the Spanish government.

1 hour ago, Darnok said:

That is why business sector is terrible when it comes to explorations, risk and making huge steps. Orion won't make huge steps, it will make one more business step, but that is it. While SpaceX can achieve more, but it is more risky.

You seem to be contradicting yourself here. SpaceX isn't going anywhere until:

• Either NASA decides to fund ITS and use it for exploration.
• Or someone comes up with a business plan that brings a return on investment in developing ITS

There is no other possibility here.

1 hour ago, Darnok said:

But after we pass that risky part and someone does find "new route or continent" you can start your business calculations and analysis and money.

We've been exploring Mars for decades. We have found the route and the continent a long time ago. What is missing is a business plan.

But this is all off-topic. The only use for Orion to Mars is as the dinghy for a much larger Mars exploration vehicle. Orion has always been scaled for cislunar exploration. As long as NASA is stuck with its stupid "Journey to Mars" mantra, it won't be going anywhere.

[tater]

SpaceX to reuse Dragon capsules for station resupply.

Quote

SpaceX plans to reuse a Dragon cargo spacecraft for the first time next year, allowing the company to focus on production of the next generation of that spacecraft for crew and cargo missions.

http://spacenews.com/spacex-to-reuse-dragon-capsules-on-cargo-missions/

[Streetwind]

That article has a lot of really juicy info, such as:

- CRS-2 contract cargo missions will use a cargo variant of the crew Dragon, which has more volume than the current cargo dragon
- Those flights will practice propulsive landings before crewed spacecraft will perform them (in other words: expect no crewed propulsive landings before 2020)
- SpX-11 will be the first reused dragon capsule, and it it works out, every single remaining CRS-1 flight (up to SpX-20) will utilize previously flown capsules
- This means the cargo dragon for SpX-10 will likely be the last one ever produced... and by now it should already be produced, considering the mission was originally planned to launch one month from now.
- In other words, right now, and from now on, SpaceX is already only building Dragon v2's...? it's certainly possible.

[Northstar1989]

On Saturday, October 15, 2016 at 11:27 AM, tater said:

"New Armstrong." And as you can see from the other vehicles naming... Shepard = suborbital with crew. Glenn = orbital with crew. Armstrong = lunar with crew... Given the name, it must be lunar landing, else it would be called "New Borman."

New Borman???

Edited October 17, 2016 by Northstar1989

[Nikolai]

17 minutes ago, Northstar1989 said:

New Borman???

The commander of Apollo 8, the first flight to orbit the Moon, was Frank Borman.  (Armstrong commanded Apollo 11, the first flight to land.)

Edited October 17, 2016 by Nikolai

[Aethon]

Musk says sabotage unlikely in the recent failure, but still a worry.

 

http://www.space.com/34406-spacexs-musk-says-sabotage-unlikely-cause-of-sept-1-explosion-but-still-a-worry.html

[todofwar]

34 minutes ago, Aethon said:

Musk says sabotage unlikely in the recent failure, but still a worry.

 

http://www.space.com/34406-spacexs-musk-says-sabotage-unlikely-cause-of-sept-1-explosion-but-still-a-worry.html

When they make the Hollywood movie about this, Bezos is going to be played by the villain from Ant Man and be constantly sabotaging Musk. Then the Amazon original series will give the opposing view and portray Musk as having stolen all of Bezos's ideas, and maybe his girlfriend too. 

I highly doubt sabotage would be the case, what's the motive? SpaceX might be killing it, but Boeing or Lockheed probably don't care because space isn't their primary venture. And Bezos only looks like a supervillain. Maybe a crazy flat earther with a gun, but still I doubt it. 

[Northstar1989]

13 hours ago, todofwar said:

When they make the Hollywood movie about this, Bezos is going to be played by the villain from Ant Man and be constantly sabotaging Musk. Then the Amazon original series will give the opposing view and portray Musk as having stolen all of Bezos's ideas, and maybe his girlfriend too. 

I highly doubt sabotage would be the case, what's the motive? SpaceX might be killing it, but Boeing or Lockheed probably don't care because space isn't their primary venture. And Bezos only looks like a supervillain. Maybe a crazy flat earther with a gun, but still I doubt it. 

ULA is very much part of the defense industry, and for decades they've had exclusive control of the satellite launch industry as what basically amounts to an illegal trust between Lockheed Martin and Boeing (that the government refuses to enforce antitrust laws against, due to lobbying and political donations...)

My parents both used to work for defense companies, and have all kinds of stories.  Sabotage is a reasonably common occurrence in defense, and a constant fear (as is/was spying).  Defense industries engage in dirty market practices, anticompetitive bidding, and hire swarms of lobbyists to skew the political process.  You're incredibly naive if you think sabotage isn't a very real and serious concern here...

 

Regards,

Northstar

Edited October 18, 2016 by Northstar1989

[Rakaydos]

51 minutes ago, Northstar1989 said:

ULA is very much part of the defense industry, and for decades they've had exclusive control of the satellite launch industry as what basically amounts to an illegal trust between Lockheed Martin and Boeing (that the government refuses to enforce antitrust laws against, due to lobbying and political donations...)

My parents both used to work for defense companies, and have all kinds of stories.  Sabotage is a reasonably common occurrence in defense, and a constant fear (as is/was spying).  Defense industries engage in dirty market practices, anticompetitive bidding, and hire swarms of lobbyists to skew the political process.  You're incredibly naive if you think sabotage isn't a very real and serious concern here...

 

Regards,

Northstar

And that's not even getting into Foreign Actors, some of whom see themselves  being shut out of the launch market at the same time as so many other economic sanctions hit home...

[YNM]

I can just wish it won't explode again ! (or, hmm, they need to do something...)

Edited October 18, 2016 by YNM

[wumpus]

On 10/13/2016 at 8:49 AM, Northstar1989 said:

The problem with cryogenics in space is static electricity buildup...

Are there any good electricity conductors that don't conduct heat?  I know diamond is about the least exotic material that conducts heat but not electricity.  Static electricity should be a temporary problem, one that should dissipate reasonably quickly once the positively and negatively charged bits are strapped together (there might not be a ground in space, but you certainly have no net charge (nothing entered or left the vehicle).  Getting rid of the static electricity simply involves "wiring" the positive and negative buildups together.  The difficulty with cryogenics is that there are some parts that you don't want to tie conventional conductors to (because the whole point is temperature differential that nearly all conductors will work to eliminate).

Note that you rarely need "good" electricity conductors to fight static (like the diamond example going the other way).  Static electricity is typically handled with materials that are barely conductive at all.  Measure the resistance of those shiny (or reddish) anti-static bags that CMOS components come in and you will barely register anything (although it *will* move, unlike paper).  You might need a little more as the cryogenics might keep pumping in static buildup, but don't expect to need to match a copper ground strap.

PS: Do NOT wear a wrist or other ground strap with less than a megaohm or so to ground.  Even when working with the single digit voltage levels of digital electronics, it makes sense to make a habit of not being fully grounded (hey, it might save the equipment as well).  You will be thankful the next time you open up a power supply or otherwise play with hundreds or more volts.

[Lukaszenko]

7 hours ago, wumpus said:

Are there any good electricity conductors that don't conduct heat?  

Probably any 'ol wire would do. Good heat conductor or not, if it's thin and long, you're not going to get a lot of heat to go through it.

Edited October 18, 2016 by Lukaszenko