Blue Origin thread.

[CatastrophicFailure]

5 minutes ago, regex said:

Hopefully it can move fast enough to avoid a failed landing, especially if its crewed, amirite?

In all seriousness, if their landing profile is anything like SpaceX’s, it’s designed to miss the barge if the engines don’t light, part of the landing burn is the final adjustment to the target.  

[Guest]

Just now, CatastrophicFailure said:

In all seriousness, if their landing profile is anything like SpaceX’s, it’s designed to miss the barge if the engines don’t light, part of the landing burn is the final adjustment to the target.  

Oh, I'm sure they've thought all this out, the people working for BE are probably much smarter and more motivated than I am. They're probably also building on Space-X's failures. That's innovation and forward progress, and it's a beautiful thing. That doesn't mean I can't have fun with it.

[Elthy]

After watching the SpaceX blooper reel i doubt they will have crew on board. New Glenn is even bigger than the Falcon 9 and those were some magnificent explosions. Designing a ship to keep the crew save in case of a crashlanding is propably way more complicated than having it operate without crew, at least during the landing.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Elthy said:

Designing a ship to keep the crew save in case of a crashlanding is propably way more complicated than having it operate without crew, at least during the landing.

It would probably look like a concrete outhouse (maybe with one of those little moon cut-outs for the window?)

In all honesty though, a failed landing would be a much smaller explosion than one at launch. In which case you're really just protecting against potential impact and fire, rather than overpressure or other explosive effects. 

Edited November 1, 2017 by regex

[Racescort666]

25 minutes ago, regex said:

It would probably look like a concrete outhouse (maybe with one of those little moon cut-outs for the window?)

In all honesty though, a failed landing would be a much smaller explosion than one at launch. In which case you're really just protecting against potential impact and fire, rather than overpressure or other explosive effects. 

It's not like ships have never been designed with bomb proof rooms.

[CatastrophicFailure]

18 minutes ago, Racescort666 said:

It's not like ships have never been designed with bomb proof rooms.

Details plz?

[Racescort666]

29 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

Details plz?

It's the conning tower on the USS Iowa. Basically, it's where the Captain and high ranking officers go during a battle to give orders and not get killed if they get hit with a shell. Usually the conning tower is the most heavily armored part of a combat ship.

Edit: that might actually be the USS New Jersey but it's still an Iowa class battleship.

Edited November 1, 2017 by Racescort666
BB-62 not BB-61

[mikegarrison]

11 hours ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

*cough*SLS*coughcough*

 But seriously, yes prototypes are still quite common. I see the prototype 787 around Boeing all the time. The first Electron was a prototype, the first (arguably several) Falcon 1 was a prototype, the first (and still only) New Shepherd. I would think that if it’s the first of its design and is never meant to carry payload or other commercial activity, it’s a prototype.  

There is no "prototype 787". Or at least, there wasn't supposed to be one. Unfortunately for Boeing, perhaps they should have built a prototype 787. Instead, several of their early intended-to-be-production models had so many problems that they were not sold. Most were later donated to museums.

10 hours ago, regex said:

I can't be bothered with New Shepherd, it's just an expensive carnival ride.

I'll take your ticket if you don't want to go.

[tater]

The carnival ride aspect depends on cost, like most things.

[Nibb31]

For their airliners, Airbus usually build one or two preproduction aircraft. These aren't actual "prototypes", but are used for certification and developing flight procedures. The first is usually highly instrumented and progressively submitted to high stresses (flutter tests, brake tests, tail strike, wing stress, etc...) during the test campaign, which makes it unfit for being sold. They usually keep it around for testing.

The lists here show the entire production runs, including static test airframes and preproduction aircraft for most manufacturers: http://www.abcdlist.nl/a350f/a350f.html

For the A380, there were two prototype airframes that weren't flown, but only used for ground stress testing and were broken up. The preproduction aircraft 001 was retained by Airbus as a test platforms. The 002 is in a museum. The 003 was the first production aircraft and sold to Singapour Airlines.

[wumpus]

9 hours ago, tater said:

The carnival ride aspect depends on cost, like most things.

I suspect that most air passengers in the 1920s were on short barnstorming flights.  That seems to be how they paid for barnstorming exhibitions and kept the planes moving.  Richard Bach (of Jonathan Livingston Seagull fame) did this in the 1970s or so and wrote quite a bit about it (note that much of this was certainly fiction).

[tater]

BO hasn't even mentioned cost on their NS flights yet. Virgin is what, $250,000? What if BO decides to make the price just enough to cover costs with a small profit margin? They'd kill Virgin, who'd pay 250k, if BO was 50k?

[Ultimate Steve]

22 hours ago, tater said:

BO hasn't even mentioned cost on their NS flights yet. Virgin is what, $250,000? What if BO decides to make the price just enough to cover costs with a small profit margin? They'd kill Virgin, who'd pay 250k, if BO was 50k?

Good question. I believe at one point they said that they wouldn't reveal the price until they were about to fly.

[tater]

 

[magnemoe]

On 1.11.2017 at 8:54 PM, Racescort666 said:

It's the conning tower on the USS Iowa. Basically, it's where the Captain and high ranking officers go during a battle to give orders and not get killed if they get hit with a shell. Usually the conning tower is the most heavily armored part of a combat ship.

Edit: that might actually be the USS New Jersey but it's still an Iowa class battleship.

its pretty easy to armor an ship for this, its not like its much penetration like you get from an artillery shell 
You would armor the landing deck and the roof of the rear crew quarter. reinforce the front of it to and make it low both to keep the  top armor light and keep the front small. 

you would also go to an deep and low position during landing not an coning tower.
Worst case scenario would be that rocket fails some hundred meters up and hit crew quarter. 

[mikegarrison]

4 hours ago, Ultimate Steve said:

Good question. I believe at one point they said that they wouldn't reveal the price until they were about to fly.

They also said they would be taking passengers in 2018, so I suppose if that's true then we should hear something pretty soon.

[mikegarrison]

Jeff Bezos just sold another $1B in Amazon stock. This might start getting critical for Blue Origin eventually, since Bezos only has another $87.7B in Amazon stock to play with.

[CatastrophicFailure]

33 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

Jeff Bezos just sold another $1B in Amazon stock. This might start getting critical for Blue Origin eventually, since Bezos only has another $87.7B in Amazon stock to play with.

“Launch, land, repeat.” 

[Mitchz95]

47 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

Bezos only has another $87.7B in Amazon stock to play with.

First world problems.

[CSE]

21 hours ago, tater said:

 

Horizontal assembly building? Does this mean this is the future for all rockets, or just coincidence in a small sampe size?

[rudi1291]

I guess, wide buildings are easier to build (and probably cheaper) than tall ones. Probably also easier to scale...

[NSEP]

36 minutes ago, CSE said:

Horizontal assembly building? Does this mean this is the future for all rockets, or just coincidence in a small sampe size?

Like @rudi1291 said. Horizontal assembly buildings are easier and probably cheaper to build. 

In a Vertical Building you would need taller cranes, and more structure to make people not fall down. I do not think Horizontal is the future for all rockets, the SLS would be assembled Vertically i think, neither do i think its just a coincidence.

[tater]

As rockets get bigger (BFR/NG, then NA, etc), the need for vertical integration seems less important. If you are deeply concerned about payload mass, then having structures that can take X gs, vertically (launch forces), and 1g horizontally (horizontal integration) is more massive sometimes than just taking the launch forces. With bigger, more capable rockets, the payload just gets slightly more massive to deal with forces in both directions. 

[Bill Phil]

2 hours ago, tater said:

As rockets get bigger (BFR/NG, then NA, etc), the need for vertical integration seems less important. If you are deeply concerned about payload mass, then having structures that can take X gs, vertically (launch forces), and 1g horizontally (horizontal integration) is more massive sometimes than just taking the launch forces. With bigger, more capable rockets, the payload just gets slightly more massive to deal with forces in both directions. 

But aren't the largest states built horizontally? I know the S-IC was... but then again, it probably didn't have to deal with almost 2 thousand tonnes of propellant while on its side.

[Racescort666]

17 minutes ago, Bill Phil said:

But aren't the largest states built horizontally? I know the S-IC was... but then again, it probably didn't have to deal with almost 2 thousand tonnes of propellant while on its side.

It's not necessarily the vehicle that's the problem but the payload that is sometimes not designed to be held at 1g lateral.