fredinno Posted April 3, 2016 Share Posted April 3, 2016 3 minutes ago, mikegarrison said: I don't think so. I think these are the human-rating tests for the capsule as well as the rocket. But I also might be wrong. I just never heard anything about the capsule. So a source would be nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted April 3, 2016 Share Posted April 3, 2016 The capsule is flight article, and they've now reused it twice. There is no "man rating" in the NASA sense, it's man-rated when they say it is. They could throw one of their own crew on it at any time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shpaget Posted April 3, 2016 Share Posted April 3, 2016 7 hours ago, tater said: I thought they said they replace the chutes in the CC, and otherwise refuel and go. Tanks are not changed. From their website about the 2d flgiht: Well, that's quite withing the "same rocket" idea I have in my mind. Igniters are consumables and chutes are safety concern and not really relevant for the "rocket" part of the whole business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted April 3, 2016 Share Posted April 3, 2016 Yeah, not as ambitious as an orbital flight, but the vehicle is 100% reused except consumables. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted April 3, 2016 Share Posted April 3, 2016 (edited) 57 minutes ago, tater said: Yeah, not as ambitious as an orbital flight, but the vehicle is 100% reused except consumables. That is fantastic. I wonder how long those tanks will last. Liquid hydrogen tears up metal horribly. I wonder if they are using a composite hydrogen tank...New Shepard has a really low dV compared to orbital-class rockets, so it can get away with a dramatically higher dry mass fraction. As awesome as it is to demonstrate this kind of refuel-and-repeat performance, surely they are aware that it can't simply be scaled up. Logarithmic scaling is a cruel mistress. Edited April 3, 2016 by sevenperforce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted April 3, 2016 Share Posted April 3, 2016 https://www.blueorigin.com/gallery Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KerBlammo Posted April 3, 2016 Share Posted April 3, 2016 And here is the Slickly Produced Video: That suicide burn landing is very impressive. Too bad we only get to see the Slickly Produced Video, I'd love to see raw video of that landing from multiple angles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 Nice. Wonder when they test with a person... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredinno Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 21 hours ago, tater said: The capsule is flight article, and they've now reused it twice. There is no "man rating" in the NASA sense, it's man-rated when they say it is. They could throw one of their own crew on it at any time. It's a bad idea, unless it approaches NASA standards, or better- CCAP isn't going to carry as many people as Blue's Space tourism, so the risk of losing someone is higher. I'd say it will be a long time before humans go into the rocket, and that's a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 Yes, but again, their concept of rating acceptable requires what, exactly? This flight-article bird has flown 3 times now, perfectly. The capsule is really the least troublesome part (it has chutes, after all). How many flights did the Shuttle have before being man rated? 0. Saturn V flew 2 unmanned flights, and the 3d was manned (and Apollo 6, right before 7 had issues and was only partially successful). Gemini flew twice unmanned, then the 3d was manned. How many more unmanned before they're confident? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frybert Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 4 minutes ago, tater said: Yes, but again, their concept of rating acceptable requires what, exactly? This flight-article bird has flown 3 times now, perfectly. That actually beats NASA's man rating system. In the 60s it was 2 consecutive launches without a catastrophic failure. For the shuttle it was "meh, it'll work". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredinno Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Frybert said: That actually beats NASA's man rating system. In the 60s it was 2 consecutive launches without a catastrophic failure. For the shuttle it was "meh, it'll work". How much of the capsule systems were in each one, though? Is it gradual, or was each flight "all up?" Edited April 4, 2016 by fredinno Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 (edited) BO was all up, all 3 flights I think. They've done launch abort as well (from the ground, anyway). Edited April 4, 2016 by tater Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredinno Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 4 minutes ago, tater said: BO was all up, all 3 flights I think. They've done launch abort as well (from the ground, anyway). Might as well put animals on the next one. Want to be extra-careful (tourists), and suborbital is less expensive than Orbital anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 Yeah, a manned failure would be terrible for a business that relies on good press. I'm not pushing for sooner, I'm just saying they've already done pretty well. Perhaps they'll test the first booster to destruction or end of life? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredinno Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 7 minutes ago, tater said: BO was all up, all 3 flights I think. They've done launch abort as well (from the ground, anyway). Did they did a booster abort test? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 Not that I could find. Maybe they are waiting for this booster to be near end of life before wasting it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
max_creative Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 They kinda just showing off using all these times in a row. Maybe when it stops working, Jeff Bezos will actually JUST READ THE INSTRUCTIONS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredinno Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 43 minutes ago, tater said: Not that I could find. Maybe they are waiting for this booster to be near end of life before wasting it? They can still do an in-flight abort test with a booster and land the booster too, along with the capsule. I think it more shows they aren't ready for crew yet. Also, that land landing with chutes looks hard. Is that just for aborts or is that normal? Because the latter sounds pretty bad for tourists... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 13 minutes ago, fredinno said: They can still do an in-flight abort test with a booster and land the booster too, along with the capsule. I think it more shows they aren't ready for crew yet. Also, that land landing with chutes looks hard. Is that just for aborts or is that normal? Because the latter sounds pretty bad for tourists... I believe normal landings they have a retro rocket soften the landing. Note the claimed "1.3 mph" of the landing in the slick video. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nothalogh Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 2 hours ago, Frybert said: In the 60s it was 2 consecutive launches without a catastrophic failure. For the shuttle it was "meh, it'll work Suddenly KSP doesn't seem quite so far from fiction Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shpaget Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 42 minutes ago, fredinno said: They can still do an in-flight abort test with a booster and land the booster too, along with the capsule. I think it more shows they aren't ready for crew yet. Also, that land landing with chutes looks hard. Is that just for aborts or is that normal? Because the latter sounds pretty bad for tourists... I don't follow you reasoning. They are able to abort, hence not ready for manned flight?? How does that follow? The capsule uses retro thrusters to slow down. That's what causes the dust cloud, not the impact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 It lands the same way Soyuz does. Chutes and retros since the dirt is a little harder than water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 7 hours ago, tater said: Yes, but again, their concept of rating acceptable requires what, exactly? This flight-article bird has flown 3 times now, perfectly. The capsule is really the least troublesome part (it has chutes, after all). How many flights did the Shuttle have before being man rated? 0. Saturn V flew 2 unmanned flights, and the 3d was manned (and Apollo 6, right before 7 had issues and was only partially successful). Gemini flew twice unmanned, then the 3d was manned. How many more unmanned before they're confident? This, more relevant if the capsule has any abort system, does the capsule land on ground? in so fall does it have an braking system? Yes I know this don't go orbital so the capsule will be far lighter and you can probably use legs or airbags for landing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibb31 Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 I don't think it does have an active abort system at all. Maybe the landing rockets can be used to abort, but then you'd be in for a hard landing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts