tater Posted September 13, 2022 Share Posted September 13, 2022 2 minutes ago, magnemoe said: Do they have more boosters? I think so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted September 13, 2022 Share Posted September 13, 2022 7 minutes ago, magnemoe said: Do they have more boosters? However many they had yesterday, they have one fewer than that today. By the way, it's just LOL how it blew up *just* after she said, "and it will continue on up to space". I mean, you can't get better timing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubinator Posted September 13, 2022 Share Posted September 13, 2022 13 minutes ago, mikegarrison said: However many they had yesterday, they have one fewer than that today. By the way, it's just LOL how it blew up *just* after she said, "and it will continue on up to space". I mean, you can't get better timing. I mean, the high altitude balloon people call 20-30 km or so "space". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SunlitZelkova Posted September 13, 2022 Share Posted September 13, 2022 3 hours ago, tater said: 6 years ago today: Fate wanted to throw a party to celebrate the anniversary, and decided to use New Shepard for fireworks. Thank goodness she didn’t have crew available to make a milkshake with! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geonovast Posted September 13, 2022 Share Posted September 13, 2022 Anyone know if there's footage somewhere of the booster's descent? I would be interested to see that. Surely they had more than one camera on the thing during the launch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted September 13, 2022 Share Posted September 13, 2022 15 minutes ago, Geonovast said: Anyone know if there's footage somewhere of the booster's descent? I would be interested to see that. Surely they had more than one camera on the thing during the launch. Someone’s probably busy deleting it. or deleting the person who deleted it… Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
18Watt Posted September 13, 2022 Share Posted September 13, 2022 I'm really curious how many G's the capsule pulls during an abort. The escape is impressive, and looks like the burn lasts for a few seconds. I'm sure they have this all figured out, but my goodness that's a strong acceleration. Edit: Sorry to see the unexpected result, but can't hurt having more data from another abort 'test'. I doubt the abort went 100% like they planned (not a planned abort anyway..), but it did get the capsule away from the rocket, at a difficult spot in the flight profile. Not a fan of this program, but I'm impressed at the successful unplanned abort. Noce to know the abort works when it's a planned part of the profile, Even better to see it work when they didn't expect it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultimate Steve Posted September 13, 2022 Share Posted September 13, 2022 Part of me wants to go frame by frame and calculate an acceleration plot but I really do not have the time for that right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted September 13, 2022 Share Posted September 13, 2022 44 minutes ago, 18Watt said: I'm really curious how many G's the capsule pulls during an abort. The escape is impressive, and looks like the burn lasts for a few seconds. I'm sure they have this all figured out, but my goodness that's a strong acceleration. Couldn’t tell you with any accuracy, but just for comparison, the Soyuz T-10 pad abort was 14-17g, according to Wiki YMGMV. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space_Coyote Posted September 13, 2022 Share Posted September 13, 2022 To quote a famous Kerbal: Jedidiah Kerman: "You will not go to space today, Blue Origin." But it took 23 times before this did happen.. which is kind of impressive for an upstart company like Blue Origin. I mean how many failure has another company had before its' rockets failed? But when you have 22 perfect (or near perfect) flights and you finally get a failure, the real question is.. "How far will this set you back?" It's hard to say in the case of Blue Origin.. But I'm guessing at least a year maybe? But then this is the tenacity of privatized space flight.. You trip, you fall, you pick yourself up again and you keep going... Space_Coyote Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NFUN Posted September 13, 2022 Share Posted September 13, 2022 10 hours ago, Space_Coyote said: To quote a famous Kerbal: Jedidiah Kerman: "You will not go to space today, Blue Origin." But it took 23 times before this did happen.. which is kind of impressive for an upstart company like Blue Origin. I mean how many failure has another company had before its' rockets failed? But when you have 22 perfect (or near perfect) flights and you finally get a failure, the real question is.. "How far will this set you back?" It's hard to say in the case of Blue Origin.. But I'm guessing at least a year maybe? But then this is the tenacity of privatized space flight.. You trip, you fall, you pick yourself up again and you keep going... Space_Coyote depends if the landing was soft enough. If the retrorockets didn't work well as some think and would've killed passengers, one fatal accident in 23 launches is pretty bad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted September 13, 2022 Share Posted September 13, 2022 24 minutes ago, NFUN said: depends if the landing was soft enough. If the retrorockets didn't work well as some think and would've killed passengers, one fatal accident in 23 launches is pretty bad I am pretty confident that the landing retrorockets are not a life/death failure point. Not like, say, the parachutes are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted September 13, 2022 Share Posted September 13, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, mikegarrison said: I am pretty confident that the landing retrorockets are not a life/death failure point. Not like, say, the parachutes are. Yeah, any failure of those just increases the gs on impact. Presumably the seats can also deal with an off-nominal retro fire as well—at least mitigating it somewhat. Edited September 13, 2022 by tater Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted September 13, 2022 Share Posted September 13, 2022 1 hour ago, tater said: Yeah, any failure of those just increases the gs on impact. Presumably the seats can also deal with an off-nominal retro fire as well—at least mitigating it somewhat. I don't know the exact crash load of landing without the retrorockets, but I'm very confident it's more like a minor car crash than an instantly fatal event. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted September 13, 2022 Share Posted September 13, 2022 (edited) 20 minutes ago, mikegarrison said: I don't know the exact crash load of landing without the retrorockets, but I'm very confident it's more like a minor car crash than an instantly fatal event. Time stamped to just before landing. Speed varies from 17-18 mph at impact, slows to ~1-2mph with rockets per commentary. So with any retro at all (and the coverage showed retros) the speed is <18 mph, and the crew is reclined on shock-absorbing seats. From their website: Quote A robust landing safety design with multiple redundancies has been engineered into the capsule from the beginning and tested throughout the program. The bottom of the capsule has a retro-thrust system that expels a pillow of air so the capsule lands at just 1.6 km/h (1 mph) in the West Texas desert. For added safety and redundancy, the capsule can land with two of its three chutes out, and the seats have been designed to flex and absorb g-forces in the unlikely event of an off-nominal landing. (sounds like the retro is compressed air, interesting) Edited September 13, 2022 by tater Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted September 13, 2022 Share Posted September 13, 2022 18 hours ago, magnemoe said: And its get an little wonky at the end of the abort burn, I guess this is because the use an steerable nozzle or control fins in the nozzle to control the abort flight and these looses control authority as the srb trust tapper off at the end. The abort motor gimbals, yes. 3 hours ago, NFUN said: depends if the landing was soft enough. If the retrorockets didn't work well as some think and would've killed passengers, one fatal accident in 23 launches is pretty bad The retros definitely fired; you can see them kick up dust at touchdown. 2 hours ago, tater said: Yeah, any failure of those just increases the gs on impact. Presumably the seats can also deal with an off-nominal retro fire as well—at least mitigating it somewhat. They have crush cores like child carseats. 1 hour ago, tater said: Quote A robust landing safety design with multiple redundancies has been engineered into the capsule from the beginning and tested throughout the program. The bottom of the capsule has a retro-thrust system that expels a pillow of air so the capsule lands at just 1.6 km/h (1 mph) in the West Texas desert. For added safety and redundancy, the capsule can land with two of its three chutes out, and the seats have been designed to flex and absorb g-forces in the unlikely event of an off-nominal landing. (sounds like the retro is compressed air, interesting) Now that I did not know. I wonder if they mean a pillow of gases (which could include a gas generator) or actual bottled air? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted September 13, 2022 Share Posted September 13, 2022 Technically it can can/will/must land even with all three chutes out of service. It's just not going to be a good landing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted September 13, 2022 Share Posted September 13, 2022 1 hour ago, mikegarrison said: Technically it can can/will/must land even with all three chutes out of service. It's just not going to be a good landing. Any landing that you don't walk away from is a crash... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted September 17, 2022 Share Posted September 17, 2022 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultimate Steve Posted September 17, 2022 Share Posted September 17, 2022 I have a hard time believing that a mostly vertical re entry from a low altitude would make more g forces than a mostly vertical re entry from a high altitude. Might have been a spike upon the abort engine ignition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted September 17, 2022 Share Posted September 17, 2022 On 9/14/2022 at 12:22 AM, StrandedonEarth said: Any landing that you don't walk away from is a crash... Unless you been in space for a year Or its on an plane and you could not walk then entering Hard landing and you claim its an crash as you can not walk away and demand compensation even if you have no legs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted September 17, 2022 Share Posted September 17, 2022 (edited) 15Gs does not necessarily mean they would have passed out. Whether you lose consciousness depends on how long you are subject to the loads, how hard they are, how you are restrained, and what direction they are in. (And if you are a pilot or a scientist or an engineer or a tourist?) Most climbing gear is rated to about 18Gs, on the supposition that a person in a harness who takes more than an 18G falling load will likely sustain fatal internal injuries anyway. But that's from the harness -- a person in a couch can take higher loads for a short time. Airplane seats (and pretty much all other cabin furnishings) are rated to 16Gs, based on evidence that 16G crashes are survivable for seatbelted passengers. Edited September 17, 2022 by mikegarrison Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codraroll Posted September 18, 2022 Share Posted September 18, 2022 19 hours ago, mikegarrison said: 15Gs does not necessarily mean they would have passed out. Whether you lose consciousness depends on how long you are subject to the loads, how hard they are, how you are restrained, and what direction they are in. (And if you are a pilot or a scientist or an engineer or a tourist?) Most climbing gear is rated to about 18Gs, on the supposition that a person in a harness who takes more than an 18G falling load will likely sustain fatal internal injuries anyway. But that's from the harness -- a person in a couch can take higher loads for a short time. Airplane seats (and pretty much all other cabin furnishings) are rated to 16Gs, based on evidence that 16G crashes are survivable for seatbelted passengers. Isn't the force on a human foot during running something on the magnitude of 100G on impact? I've also heard four-digit G numbers about the relevant parts of the body during actions such as blinking or finger snapping. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeSchmuckatelli Posted September 18, 2022 Share Posted September 18, 2022 1 hour ago, Codraroll said: Isn't the force on a human foot during running something on the magnitude of 100G on impact? I've also heard four-digit G numbers about the relevant parts of the body during actions such as blinking or finger snapping. Yeah - the systems that matter are all the squishy stuff in the middle, plus the blood, plus goo inside the box on top. The stuff that supports and transports all that is much more resilient Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
straxjulia Posted September 21, 2022 Share Posted September 21, 2022 Amazing! these are just unbelievable . 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.