Blue Origin Thread (merged)

[fredinno]

51 minutes ago, sgt_flyer said:

it would need a redesign of the payload adaptator of the upper stage, + another adaptator between the payload and the star engine.

still, it indeed remains a problem with the Falcon 9 - as it's only a two stage kerolox rocket, performance really suffers on GTO launches. (any fregat like third stage could help, but it would increase the rocket's cost as it would have much less commonality with the rest of the rocket)

Well, you could use a Super Draco-derived hypergol upper stage with the same diameter as the 2nd stage. This would be a pretty big upper stage, requiring a burn for final orbital insertion. However, thus is similar to Bris-M, so it's not unprecedented.

 

If Elon allowed his company to, it'd be even easier to make an adaptor for a STAR 48 motor,  (or commission an even bigger one) but SpaceX probably would benefit most on the long term in the first option. Thus, they can provide a commercial upper stage motor for US rocket's larger than STAR, replacing the role of Agena.

52 minutes ago, Motokid600 said:

Itd be great if they could implement some kind of insulated blanket that comes off at liftoff.

No need. It would reduce performance and increase costs, but SpaceX can just contact the people who make SLS or delta IV insulation, and spray that onto the LOX tank to prevent boil off. It is the fastest and likely easiest solution, despite the fact it'd look ugly. A lot easier than any other solution, possibly even ultra-fast tanking.

[sgt_flyer]

27 minutes ago, NovaSilisko said:

True, there's not as much pressure. The atmosphere at that altitude is still 26% of that at sea level.

The main issue arises from any torque that might be put on the rocket - if it was a uniform force across the entire rocket it would be fine, but nature is never that clean. Differential force on one part of the rocket versus another produces a torque for which the guidance system has to correct, and given these altitudes are very rough on the rocket already, a sharp gust can overwhelm it. And, if you've ever used FAR in KSP, you know what happens when you tip too far out of the windstream...

Falcon is a robust vehicle and. perhaps. could take it. But given the choices are "risk screwing up everything" and "sit tight for a few days longer", I'll choose the second. I trust SpaceX knows their vehicle better than we do, and knows its limits.

 

There have been hints (the notion showed up in documents from the Air Force) that Falcon Heavy will be getting a high-energy upper stage, with some flavor of Raptor engine powering it. Hopefully something comes of that.

well, falcon Heavy by itself is already a 3 stage launcher, so the raptor upper stage is just going to be the icing on the cake , further improving gto capability.

Zenit-3SL is also a full kerolox rocket, with a Block DM as a 3rd stage it gives it a 6ton payload to gto - while weighting 80tons less than falcon 9 FT. (granted without reusability capability and launching from the equator, but still ;))

 

 

Edited March 1, 2016 by sgt_flyer

[NovaSilisko]

Just now, sgt_flyer said:

well, falcon Heavy by itself is already a 3 stage launcher, so the raptor upper stage is just going to be the icing on the cake , further improving gto capability.

It was implied to be a replacement for the existing second stage, I think.

[sgt_flyer]

23 minutes ago, NovaSilisko said:

It was implied to be a replacement for the existing second stage, I think.

oh i know that  i just meant that by swapping the single merlin 1-D vacuum kerolox upperstage by a raptor methalox upperstage, it's just icing on the 3 stage rocket that a full Kerolox FH will be  (basically, if you had a 3 stage kerolox rocket equivalent in weight and thrust to the two stage F9FT, the 3 stage rocket would have had a better GTO capability, because it would have been dropping more dry mass during ascent  (though, on the other hand, th 3 stage rocket would cost more due to increased complexity)

 

 

Edited March 1, 2016 by sgt_flyer

[NovaSilisko]

With a big enough stage (if you were to, say, go to the fairing's 5.2m diameter), you could potentially make a stage capable of going all the way to GEO and then returning - at least for smaller payloads. Whatever this stage turns out to be, I'd expect it to be reusable in general, at least in some form...

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

2 hours ago, DarthVader said:

This is going to take years to get off the ground.

2025 headline:

SPACEX LANDS HUMAN ON MARS, LAST FALCON 9 V1.2 FLIGHT STILL TRYING TO SUCCESSFULLY LAUNCH

[Motokid600]

1 hour ago, fredinno said:

 

No need. It would reduce performance and increase costs, but SpaceX can just contact the people who make SLS or delta IV insulation, and spray that onto the LOX tank to prevent boil off. It is the fastest and likely easiest solution, despite the fact it'd look ugly. A lot easier than any other solution, possibly even ultra-fast tanking.

Increase cost maybe, but reduce performance? No the blanket would be removed at liftoff. Don't need to take the insulation with you.

[fredinno]

 

1 hour ago, NovaSilisko said:

With a big enough stage (if you were to, say, go to the fairing's 5.2m diameter), you could potentially make a stage capable of going all the way to GEO and then returning - at least for smaller payloads. Whatever this stage turns out to be, I'd expect it to be reusable in general, at least in some form...

I doubt a stage that large would have a large enough first stage,thus meaning the F9 should go to the full 5.2m diameter. Then you can have full reuse for both stages for most payloads.

1 hour ago, Motokid600 said:

Increase cost maybe, but reduce performance? No the blanket would be removed at liftoff. Don't need to take the insulation with you.

No, because taking the insuation off would increase complexity enorously. It's better to just save the money and keep the foam on, as taking it off right before lift off adds huge amounts of complexity for a small performance boost.

[AngelLestat]

I am not saying that covering the stage with a blanket worth it, because in theory should not be many situations when this will be useful (delays). 
But not sure how the action of remove a blanket can add "a huge amount of complexity" as fredinno said.
In fact I imagine that the whole operation can be executed just pulling from a rope.  

Edited March 2, 2016 by AngelLestat

[StrandedonEarth]

Sounds like a couple of not-as-strong strongbacks holding a couple of clamshell thermos halves over the rocket shouldn't be toooo complex. If these problems continue then it's either something like that or insulating the tanks. But then that would add to refurbishment as well, since some foam would probably be lost during flight.

[fredinno]

2 hours ago, StrandedonEarth said:

Sounds like a couple of not-as-strong strongbacks holding a couple of clamshell thermos halves over the rocket shouldn't be toooo complex. If these problems continue then it's either something like that or insulating the tanks. But then that would add to refurbishment as well, since some foam would probably be lost during flight.

It's probably more difficult than you imagine, it's not like anybody else has ever really done this with their rockets using H2 Lox- they just accept the lowered performance nd don't bother. The Shuttle foam is 2.188 T- but the insulation will be on a much smaller portion of the rocket here, so I doubt it'd be more than 300-400kg, just to sheild the Lox tank.

[fredinno]

2 hours ago, AngelLestat said:

I am not saying that covering the stage with a blanket worth it, because in theory should not be many situations when this will be useful (delays). 
But not sure how the action of remove a blanket can add "a huge amount of complexity" as fredinno said.
In fact I imagine that the whole operation can be executed just pulling from a rope.  

The lox tank is the upper tank of the rocket, so the rocket would need extra attachment points to hold up the insulation( which should also make the Falcon Heavy detachable insulation even more engineering fun!. The insulation would also need to break off cleanly, without interfering with the actual launch. I don't know if the 2nd stage uses deepcryo lox too, but if it does-

Either way, the pad would need to be modified to make sure the insualtion can more to a safe distance just before ignition (the insulation is flammable), and if there was a launch hold due to problems detected after the insulation is taken off, the insulation and the rocket would need to be taken back to the HIF for reassembly. Which brings me to the fact that it adds another assembly and staging event. I would just take the performancehit, and spray any insulation back on that happens to burn off. 

[Camacha]

On 01/03/2016 at 2:15 AM, fredinno said:

That's a modded oil platform, not a boat.

The wise and mighty intarwebz defines a boat as the following:

1. a vessel for transport by water, constructed to provide buoyancy by excluding water and shaped to give stability and permit propulsion.

2. Ecclesiastical. a container for holding incense before it is placed in the censer.

Ergo, it is a boat. QED.

[fredinno]

4 hours ago, Camacha said:

The wise and mighty intarwebz defines a boat as the following:

 

 

Ergo, it is a boat. QED.

Fine, CONVENTIONAL rockets.

[Hcube]

4 hours ago, fredinno said:

Fine, CONVENTIONAL rockets.

Apart from it's launch platform, the rocket itself is pretty much standard 

 

</annoying>

[fredinno]

12 hours ago, Hcube said:

Apart from it's launch platform, the rocket itself is pretty much standard 

 

</annoying>

OK, you win

[Spaceception]

I'm going to watch the launch tonight.

And no boaters better not get to close to the rocket

[Frybert]

Where are you planning on watching from? I'm half considering a motorcycle ride tonight with a break on the coast about the time of the launch.

[Spaceception]

23 minutes ago, Frybert said:

Where are you planning on watching from? I'm half considering a motorcycle ride tonight with a break on the coast about the time of the launch.

From a bridge a couple miles away. From there, I can see the VAB with the American flag and the NASA logo (With my camera of course)

EDIT: See you guys later

Edited March 4, 2016 by Spaceception

[Frybert]

HA! I think I know exactly where you are talking about! Stay safe!

[Kerbart]

On 3/2/2016 at 4:43 PM, Camacha said:

The wise and mighty intarwebz defines a boat as the following:

(banana banana banana)

Ergo, it is a boat. QED.

Actually it's not. In shipping, a "boat" is a vessel that is small enough* to fit on another vessel. Think lifeboats, dingies, etc. If it's bigger than that it's a SHIP. This is why it was interesting when the launch this week was cancelled that they specifically said "It's not a boat, it's a ship" indicating that it was something that was large enough to have a crew that should have known better.

 

* within reason. Just because larger ships sometimes get transported by other ships doesn't automatically make them a boat; Wheaton's law applies in this case.

[Red Iron Crown]

18 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

Actually it's not. In shipping, a "boat" is a vessel that is small enough* to fit on another vessel. Think lifeboats, dingies, etc. If it's bigger than that it's a SHIP. This is why it was interesting when the launch this week was cancelled that they specifically said "It's not a boat, it's a ship" indicating that it was something that was large enough to have a crew that should have known better.

 

* within reason. Just because larger ships sometimes get transported by other ships doesn't automatically make them a boat; Wheaton's law applies in this case.

I've always wondered how that distinction is made. For example, the USN calls all submarines "boats" rather than "ships" even if they're 18,000t SSBNs. I think different groups must use different definitions.

[Kerbart]

4 minutes ago, Red Iron Crown said:

I've always wondered how that distinction is made. For example, the USN calls all submarines "boats" rather than "ships" even if they're 18,000t SSBNs. I think different groups must use different definitions.

I did not know that! Then again, it's the navy

George Bush (the elder) once joked to a uboat-man that, when he was a USN fighter pilot in WW2, they used to refer to submarines as “tin cans”. “That's funny, we had a nickname for aircraft carriers too,” replied the sailor, and after inquiring he smiled and said: “targets.”

[Frozen_Heart]

So what are the chances that this thing actually launches today?

[Dartguy]

1 hour ago, Spaceception said:

From a bridge a couple miles away. From there, I can see the VAB with the American flag and the NASA logo (With my camera of course)

EDIT: See you guys later

I had lunch at a place right by the bridge about a month ago and could see the VAB to the southeast.  It would be a good spot to see a launch.