StrandedonEarth Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 2 hours ago, _Augustus_ said: Who the heck needs an HLV for a COMMSAT? With 13T to GTO, you can put a pretty freakin big commsat up there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liquidhype Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 New Glenn looks like a beast. I got so inspired by the video that I just had to make a couple of renders of it. Size compared to other rockets Size compared to a 5'8 human Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tullius Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 3 hours ago, _Augustus_ said: Who the heck needs an HLV for a COMMSAT? The heaviest commsats already weigh more than 5 tonnes and are mostly limited in terms of weight by their launch vehicles. And considering Blue Origin probably wants a bit of extra margin for the first flight, using New Glenn for a commsat launch isn't the worst idea (especially, since Echostar probably gets a nice price for a launch on top of an untested rocket). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_Augustus_ Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 1 hour ago, liquidhype said: New Glenn looks like a beast. I got so inspired by the video that I just had to make a couple of renders of it. Size compared to other rockets Size compared to a 5'8 human Why is there a Jupiter 256 in there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liquidhype Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 Just now, _Augustus_ said: Why is there a Jupiter 256 in there? It's a Jupiter-241 actually. 2 stages, 4 RS-25s on the first stage and 1 J-2X upper stage engine. I just threw it in for funsies (= But let's not derail the topic, GO NEW GLENN! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motokid600 Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 (edited) Does the increase size somehow allow them to use regular flight surfaces for attitude control? ( having remembered ITS using grid-fins after typing this ) I thought the whole reason SpaceX went with the grid-fin was to survive hyper-sonic flight? Wouldn't such control surfaces be ripped off if any input was applied? Or... will it just not be used at high speeds and slowly as the rocket decelerates more and more authority can be applied...? Maybe? Lol. A VERY interesting deign and I love it. With those "wings" i dare say this thing will have more cross range capability then the F9. However I'm highly skeptical of the extent of "artistic liberty" taken to this model and animation. Although I suppose control surfaces with that much area wouldnt need to move much. The moving barge is interesting as well. Could give needed extra stability given the NGs far lesser, uh.. leg stance? Deploy width? Whats the word for that? Edited March 8, 2017 by Motokid600 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedKraken Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 Woke up to JB's pics of a completed BE-4 being wheeled around the Blue Origin warehouse. A brand new methalox rocket engine. It was a good day. Very interested to find out the isp and thrust on the test stand later this year. (RO prelim config has isp : 310/335) What is the engine mass?... 2.5t? would give a twr close to ssme, and rd-180. (re video of new glenn : control surfaces on the booster!) Time to cook up some RO sims for new glenn and see if we can get 45t to LEO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insert_name Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 It looks like a bullet with fins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotius Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 Nice. Very nice. Things in the private space sector are gaining momentum. Maybe, with increased competition other companies too will move forward at increased pace (i'm looking at you - ULA and Arianespace). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wjolcz Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 Very interesting how BO went directly from small suborbital New Shepard to metholox Falcon Heavy competitor. Does anyone know what will be the cost per kg for New Glenn? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCgothic Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 (edited) Motokid600 already picked up two of my first thoughts on that vid: grid fins and moving landing platform. My other thought was that that is an excessive amount of cowling around those engines. As a two stage launcher it doesn't quite compare to falcon heavy to LEO or GTO, yet is much bigger. I guess the difference comes if they can stick a third stage on it'll have greater potential beyond earth orbit (Falcon is pretty much at structural limits). Certainly interested in seeing how they do though, and a second launcher in the 45t to LEO range makes it more likely the full payload of falcon heavy will be used, as sat operators like redundant options. Edited March 8, 2017 by RCgothic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 Just now, RCgothic said: As a two stage launcher it doesn't quite compare to falcon heavy to LEO or GTO, yet is much bigger. Actually the 45 and 13 ton figures are for booster recovery, so it handily beats FH. Expendable LEO payload should be in the region of 70 tons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCgothic Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Kryten said: Actually the 45 and 13 ton figures are for booster recovery, so it handily beats FH. Expendable LEO payload should be in the region of 70 tons. My mistake indeed. It's tricky to keep all these different payload figures straight! Guess that puts New Glenn squarely in SLS block 1 territory. Edited March 8, 2017 by RCgothic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaPaL Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 (edited) 16 minutes ago, RCgothic said: if they can stick a third stage on it'll have greater potential beyond earth orbit There's a 3 stage version, the 3rd stage is cryogenic. EDIT: "The 82-meter tall two-stage vehicle will be used for heavy-lift missions to Low Earth Orbit while high-energy deliveries to GTO and Beyond Earth Orbit would be handled by a 95-meter tall version sporting a cryogenic third stage powered by a version of Blue’s BE-3 that is already flying on the New Shepard. " More on: http://spaceflight101.com/blue-origin-shows-off-be-4-engine-announces-first-new-glenn-customer/ Edited March 8, 2017 by VaPaL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 (edited) Edited March 8, 2017 by Kryten Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_Augustus_ Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 2 hours ago, RCgothic said: My mistake indeed. It's tricky to keep all these different payload figures straight! Guess that puts New Glenn squarely in SLS block 1 territory. Block 1 could probably carry around 95 metric tons to LEO if you wanted it to. 2 hours ago, Kryten said: Actually the 45 and 13 ton figures are for booster recovery, so it handily beats FH. Expendable LEO payload should be in the region of 70 tons. And this is their smallest orbital LV... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tullius Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 11 hours ago, Motokid600 said: The moving barge is interesting as well. Could give needed extra stability given the NGs far lesser, uh.. leg stance? Deploy width? Whats the word for that? I guess the barge won't move during the landing attempt. In the case of SpaceX, the barges can't move themselves (except for keeping themselves exactly at the landing spot), which means that they need tugs to get the platform out into the ocean and back into the harbor. Blue Origin uses instead a ship, which allows them to not need tugs, making the whole procedure simpler (and also they probably need a bigger landing platform for New Glenn than Falcon 9, which would mean bigger tugs). The only disadvantage is that a ship is probably more expensive, if you risk punching holes into it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaPaL Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Tullius said: I guess the barge won't move during the landing attempt. As I understand, from dthe link I posted, it will be moving during the landing. "One interesting caveat and difference to SpaceX’s ASDS will be that Blue Origin’s booster will land on a moving recovery vessel for added stability." But I might be misinterpreting this. Edited March 8, 2017 by VaPaL Grammar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tullius Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 8 minutes ago, VaPaL said: As I understand, from de link I posted it will be moving during the landing. "One interesting caveat and difference to SpaceX’s ASDS will be that Blue Origin’s booster will land on a moving recovery vessel for added stability." But I might be misinterpreting this. Ok, didn't thought that they might indeed want to land on a moving ship. Increases the difficulty, since that gives no predefined landing spot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaPaL Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 1 minute ago, Tullius said: Increases the difficulty, since that gives no predefined landing spot. Thought the same, not only that but it can flip the booster if it suddenly gains lateral speed from a bottom impulse. But probably the speed will very small and it may only start moving few seconds before touchdown. But I'm still a little intrigued about their decision, let's see how it will go and wait for more details in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibb31 Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 A moving ship is more stable than a landing ship. It doesn't make much of a difference in terms of avionics as long as the rocket and the deck are both at the right place at the right time. Everything is relative anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tullius Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 13 minutes ago, VaPaL said: Thought the same, not only that but it can flip the booster if it suddenly gains lateral speed from a bottom impulse. But probably the speed will very small and it may only start moving few seconds before touchdown. But I'm still a little intrigued about their decision, let's see how it will go and wait for more details in the future. You also have that risk, if the ship is standing still. And New Glenn might be able to cope better with it, since it will be programmed that the landing spot will be constantly updated during flight, unlike Falcon 9, where the landing spot is probably somewhat hardcoded before liftoff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kerbal01 Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 Static fire NET today, they had to stand down due to an issue last night. Same window as before 23:00-05:00 UTC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaPaL Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 Yep, I know, what I mean is, a stopped ship has the stabillity problem, a moving ship has the problem of having a different horizontal speed. There are solution for both, I just don't know if there's a good trade off. It might just be the same in the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 2 hours ago, DarthVader said: Static fire NET today, they had to stand down due to an issue last night. Same window as before 23:00-05:00 UTC Any word on what the issue was? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts