JoeSchmuckatelli Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 The New Glenn rocket is set to launch no earlier than Sunday, Jan. 12 from Launch Complex 36 at Florida's Cape Canaveral Space Force Station. The three-hour launch window will open at 1 a.m. The launch was originally scheduled for Friday at the same time, but was postponed due to "high sea state in the Atlantic." ... The primary payload for NG-1 is the Blue Ring Pathfinder, which will undergo tests of its core flight systems, ground operations and overall capabilities. In addition, the company will try to land its booster offshore in an attempt to test its reusability. https://www.wesh.com/article/blue-origin-new-glenn-rocket-first-launch/63359322 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthgently Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 On 1/9/2025 at 8:29 PM, tater said: I’m still not a fan of those narrow stance professor gadget landing legs. Especially not for a barge landing. We’ve all seen the F9s with their wide stance get little tippy during and just after landing before getting secured to the barge. Then there are the rough seas out there lately. I’m guessing they will approach the bullseye on the barge with high probability, but stability during and after landing is a crap shoot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codraroll Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 7 hours ago, darthgently said: I’m still not a fan of those narrow stance professor gadget landing legs. Especially not for a barge landing. We’ve all seen the F9s with their wide stance get little tippy during and just after landing before getting secured to the barge. Then there are the rough seas out there lately. I’m guessing they will approach the bullseye on the barge with high probability, but stability during and after landing is a crap shoot Mechanically speaking, for an object to tip over, the vertical projection of its centre of mass to the surface on which it rests must move beyond the polygon defined by its contact points on that surface. Since an empty landed stage is very bottom-heavy, because all the heavy parts are at the bottom of the rocket, it takes more to tip it over than it might appear. The centre of mass may be approximately at the point of the feather in the blue logo, and then the landing legs may be more than sufficient to keep it upright, even at a tilt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthgently Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 2 hours ago, Codraroll said: Mechanically speaking, for an object to tip over, the vertical projection of its centre of mass to the surface on which it rests must move beyond the polygon defined by its contact points on that surface. Since an empty landed stage is very bottom-heavy, because all the heavy parts are at the bottom of the rocket, it takes more to tip it over than it might appear. The centre of mass may be approximately at the point of the feather in the blue logo, and then the landing legs may be more than sufficient to keep it upright, even at a tilt. Don’t forget any uncanceled relative horizontal velocity when the first leg touches the deck that is pitching, heaving, and translating on the sea and the effects of wind forces on the lighter weight upper portion of the booster. I’m also wondering about the mass difference up top between grid fins and the canards. Anyway, success possible, excitement guaranteed, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minmus Taster Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuessingEveryDay Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 1 hour ago, tater said: That sucks, I was about to drive down there with my grandpa. Monday's no good since I have classes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 36 minutes ago, GuessingEveryDay said: That sucks, I was about to drive down there with my grandpa. Monday's no good since I have classes. Oh, man, that sucks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeSchmuckatelli Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 7 hours ago, Minmus Taster said: Payload capacity in something no one cares about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iapetus7342 Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 9 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said: Payload capacity in something no one cares about? I care about it, probably a few people here too who care. This is the thread for Blue Origin, there's at least 1 person here who cares. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AckSed Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 Actually that gives me an idea... How much of a refuellable people-carrier could this lift? We know BO is investigating propellant depots. A modified Dreamchaser (or something entirely new) could continue the tourism business and cart people up to Orbital Reef. Maybe to the moon with refuelling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 3 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said: Payload capacity in something no one cares about? Oh, we care. The more, the merrier. Not putting too many eggs in one basket. Competition/backup. Yadda yadda yadda. As long as they can get enough of a flight rate to be useful... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeSchmuckatelli Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 1 hour ago, StrandedonEarth said: Oh, we care. The more, the merrier. Not putting too many eggs in one basket. Competition/backup. Yadda yadda yadda. As long as they can get enough of a flight rate to be useful... Don't get me wrong - I care about the big guy; but not how many Billionaire Tourist Capsules it can pack. That's my beef. The "so many truckloads to space" part I like. P-Heads? Nope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 2 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said: Don't get me wrong - I care about the big guy; but not how many Billionaire Tourist Capsules it can pack. That's my beef. The "so many truckloads to space" part I like. P-Heads? Nope. Ah, my bad. I misread/ took the wrong meaning Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKspEngineer Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 15 hours ago, tater said: Hear me out! We put a new Shepard on the new Glenn, slap some RCS+heat shield+solar panels on it, and you've got a spacecraft that can manoeuvre a bit in orbit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthgently Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 This explains orbit choice well I think: Except he asks for km, and is given nmi, so no... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeSchmuckatelli Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 56 minutes ago, tater said: orbit choice Appreciate your posting that - never knew what the criteria was. Now... Besides ULA, SX and presumably BO - can RocketLab or Stoke reasonably compete? Anyone else? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flavio hc16 Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 3 hours ago, tater said: This explains orbit choice well I think: Except he asks for km, and is given nmi, so no... 20 tons payload to polar orbit? That's a chonky spy weather satellite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 So much for not competing with their engine customer, ULA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.