Blue Origin thread.

[magnemoe]

4 hours ago, Spaceception said:

Blue Origin has stated they're looking into cheap vs reusable upper stages, and I wonder if/how much Starship flights are influencing that decision making.

I say reuse will win out for standard stuff, For very heavy lift or heavy deep space missions an disposable upper stage makes sense at least in the short run.
With orbital refueling, you refuel the Starship and the 3rd interplanetary stage. who was dry, you just launched the payload and the storable propellant 4th braking stage for the Pluto orbiter and lander as an example. 
SS raises Ap and released payload who continues the burn while SS aerobrakes and lands. 
For SS another option is an 3rd stage for higher orbits like GEO, 3rd stages will be collected and reused in most cases. Its an interesting niche smaller aerospace companies might want to look into. 

[DAL59]

https://www.blueorigin.com/news/new-glenn-completes-second-stage-hotfire

 

[tater]

 

[tater]

 

 

[tater]

[magnemoe]

On 10/31/2024 at 6:31 AM, tater said:

 

 

Looks like the trailer has some articulation below the beam holding the rocket. 
And I assume the bottom is part of the launch mount. It looks to heavy to be an skirt. 

[cubinator]

14 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

And I assume the bottom is part of the launch mount. It looks to heavy to be an skirt. 

Yeah, I think that part gets clamped to the transporter-erector and contains the release mechanism for the rocket itself.

[Cuky]

On 10/31/2024 at 6:31 AM, tater said:

 

 

finally they have some flight hardware. Hope they fly it soon and successfully... and that they make better coverage than for New Shepherd launches

[darthgently]

At this point, any rocket company or agency trying to get good PR that isn’t swallowing their pride and putting Starlink antennas and multiple 4k+ cameras on the vehicles is simply into self harm.  One of the best things to happen for space industry and agency PR is streaming video.  I mean if taxpayers are paying the billions, at least show them cool videos of what they “own”

[CatastrophicFailure]

I’ll just leave this here… 

 

[magnemoe]

17 hours ago, darthgently said:

At this point, any rocket company or agency trying to get good PR that isn’t swallowing their pride and putting Starlink antennas and multiple 4k+ cameras on the vehicles is simply into self harm.  One of the best things to happen for space industry and agency PR is streaming video.  I mean if taxpayers are paying the billions, at least show them cool videos of what they “own”

Agree, more so for the more spectacular stuff. Starlink launch 194 is not that interesting unless something gone wrong. 
Now they are not selling to the public but to other companies and governments with the exception of starlink who is probably part of SpaceX so they can reinvest the income into SpaceX.  
But making hype is usually nice. 

[darthgently]

Veddy interestink 

 

[darthgently]

Berger tweeted later (paraphrase) that he figures Blue Origin is likely burning through $3B/yr so maybe this is just to cover a BO infusion.  I guess we’ll find out at some point

[mikegarrison]

On 11/1/2024 at 8:44 PM, CatastrophicFailure said:

I’ll just leave this here… 

 

Not supposed to do things like that without the appropriate permits. No matter whether you think the permitting agencies are moving fast enough or not.

[tater]

4 months to not issue a permit for something that happens at the cape every 3 days or so at other pads.

The "industrial wastewater" part is also funny. Like Boca Chica, the (likely potable) water used becomes industrial after being sprayed on the pad—something that rainwater becomes when it rains on the pad. Stage 2 burns hydrogen—the exhaust is also water.

Regulations regarding "industrial wastewater" make plenty of sense—but I have to imagine the initial intent was actually contaminated industrial wastewater, not "water that has touched a launchpad." Heck, even in the active rocket context, some rockets produce loads of nasty hydrocarbons in exhaust, or worse—SRBs, kerolox, or worst, hypergols. Those might need to be mitigated. Hydrolox? There's nothing to mitigate, and water touching the pad is no different than water from the sky touching the pad—except rain is if anything already more contaminated than the water they are likely using.

As I have said in other threads, if contaminants in the deluge-runoff are concerning, it's important to compare them to unregulated wastewater in the same area from roads, parking lots, etc—every squall washes brake dust, coolant, lubricants, gas, oil, and engine combustion products into the wildlife refuge. I wonder if the EPA compares deluge systems to that, or if they just pull some number out of their posteriors—or if some innumerate 20-year old Congressional staffer did writing a law.

Edited November 4 by tater

[mikegarrison]

4 hours ago, tater said:

I wonder if the EPA compares deluge systems to that, or if they just pull some number out of their posteriors—or if some innumerate 20-year old Congressional staffer did writing a law.

The complaint came from the Florida state environmental agency, not the EPA.

[tater]

1 hour ago, mikegarrison said:

The complaint came from the Florida state environmental agency, not the EPA.

Same questions, then, just about Florida EPA, Florida State house staffers.

I'm fine with regulation around this stuff, but having seen regulations for other areas... they tend to not make any sense. My wife lobbies Congress and State legislature for various issues around her surgical specialty—and the 20-somethings she gets to talk to about medical issues are completely clueless (can't talk to our own congress-critters in person unless she comes bearing a steamer trunk full of cash). I would imagine staffers contacted about aviation are equally clueless about that. It seems like a corollary to the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect.

Edited November 4 by tater

[AckSed]

Scott Manley fitting more innuendo into a single video than the entire Carry On! canon, while also serving to highlight the tech:

Things I learned:

The capsule uses a ring of cold-gas thruster retrorockets to cushion the final landing, with a replaceable crush-core in a ring inside it.

The early history of the BO program where they planned to use kerosene/hydrogen peroxide and an expandable drag-brake before NASA funded them to develop the hydrolox BE-3.

A spray-on thermal coating protects the skin as it is pulled back into the atmosphere from the loving embrace of vacuum.

Edited November 5 by AckSed

[tater]

 

[magnemoe]

On 11/4/2024 at 3:18 PM, tater said:

4 months to not issue a permit for something that happens at the cape every 3 days or so at other pads.

The "industrial wastewater" part is also funny. Like Boca Chica, the (likely potable) water used becomes industrial after being sprayed on the pad—something that rainwater becomes when it rains on the pad. Stage 2 burns hydrogen—the exhaust is also water.

Regulations regarding "industrial wastewater" make plenty of sense—but I have to imagine the initial intent was actually contaminated industrial wastewater, not "water that has touched a launchpad." Heck, even in the active rocket context, some rockets produce loads of nasty hydrocarbons in exhaust, or worse—SRBs, kerolox, or worst, hypergols. Those might need to be mitigated. Hydrolox? There's nothing to mitigate, and water touching the pad is no different than water from the sky touching the pad—except rain is if anything already more contaminated than the water they are likely using.

As I have said in other threads, if contaminants in the deluge-runoff are concerning, it's important to compare them to unregulated wastewater in the same area from roads, parking lots, etc—every squall washes brake dust, coolant, lubricants, gas, oil, and engine combustion products into the wildlife refuge. I wonder if the EPA compares deluge systems to that, or if they just pull some number out of their posteriors—or if some innumerate 20-year old Congressional staffer did writing a law.

First stage on new Glen uses metalox but much the same thing except also co2, who I don't think affect water. 
More so they are working on not dropping stages in the sea anymore.  Falcon 9 uses RP1 so here leaks is more of an issue for water.
Venting methane is an strong greenhouse gas but mostly from decomposition. Except cases with multiple daily launches you want to limit venting to an minimum.