Blue Origin thread.

[CatastrophicFailure]

34 minutes ago, sh1pman said:

They don't give reasons for holds.

Rule #1 of Hold Club, you do not talk about Hold Club! Rule #2 of Hold Club...

[StrandedonEarth]

14 minutes ago, Ultimate Steve said:

Yes, although it was less than seconds. It looked like a really hard touchdown, but all the dust was just thrown up by the retrorockets (which IIRC is a pressurized gas system).

Maybe they should just use airbags. Oh right, more labour to repack instead of just reloading or recharging landing rockets.

[Cunjo Carl]

A couple pics for posterity...

 

 

Launch

 

Recovery

I'm actually really happy to see them launching again. Last year, my little one was making me launch/land KSP New Shephards almost every day. I suspect now he's seen this launch we might be starting that back up again.

[sh1pman]

Did they miss the landing pad a bit? The booster landed just outside the white ring.

[Cunjo Carl]

4 minutes ago, sh1pman said:

Did they miss the landing pad a bit? The booster landed just outside the white ring.

I wouldn't be too surprised, the windsock was really going, so it may have been a bit windier than previous launches. Not sure how much of a role that plays, though.

 

Edit: by the way, is that a Hydrogen flare tower to the left of the launch pad in the "Launch" picture 2 posts up? Sure looks like they were burning something.

Edited April 29, 2018 by Cunjo Carl

[Shpaget]

The landing computer most likely doesn't try to land at the point in the center, but inside a much wider circle. If it is inside it, it lands. No point in doing risky translation movement so close to the ground any more than necessary.

That circle the computer aims for is not necessarily the same circle as the one painted on the ground.

[Cunjo Carl]

27 minutes ago, Shpaget said:

The landing computer most likely doesn't try to land at the point in the center, but inside a much wider circle. If it is inside it, it lands. No point in doing risky translation movement so close to the ground any more than necessary.

That circle the computer aims for is not necessarily the same circle as the one painted on the ground.

Yeah for sure, I was thinking the landing 'accuracy' would have more to do with the controlled descent, where they're trying to use the control surfaces to line up with the pad. Seems like funny winds would be one of the main sources of inaccuracy up there.

[CatastrophicFailure]

39 minutes ago, Shpaget said:

The landing computer most likely doesn't try to land at the point in the center, but inside a much wider circle. If it is inside it, it lands. No point in doing risky translation movement so close to the ground any more than necessary.

That circle the computer aims for is not necessarily the same circle as the one painted on the ground.

Considering they’re planning to land a much bigger rocket on a moving ship, I would think dead-Center accuracy in wind would be a priority. 

[Shpaget]

But the proposed ship is bigger than this landing zone.

Also a big rocked would be less susceptible to wind, wouldn't it (force from the wind being proportional to cross section, while mass being proportional to volume)?

Another thing, I don't recall it being mentioned in this launch, but in one of the previous, it was stated that, while descending, the rocket is aiming at a spot that is specifically not the landing pad and only move over once it establishes a stable hover. It's a safety thing in case the engine doesn't restart, so the rockets slams into a cheap ground and not into an expensive landing pad (or a ship with NG).

[kerbiloid]

Spoiler

They should draw their logo in the circle, like SpaceX does.
Otherwise the board computer thought that this is a restricted area and tried to escape.

How fast does the capsule fall?

[CatastrophicFailure]

6 minutes ago, Shpaget said:

Also a big rocked would be less susceptible to wind, wouldn't it (force from the wind being proportional to cross section, while mass being proportional to volume)?

I would think a bigger rocket would be more susceptible to wind. Bigger surface area to mass ratio, since it has proportionately far less fuel left. Same reason high winds can knock a loaded semi over but barely rustle a small car. 

8 minutes ago, Shpaget said:

Another thing, I don't recall it being mentioned in this launch, but in one of the previous, it was stated that, while descending, the rocket is aiming at a spot that is specifically not the landing pad and only move over once it establishes a stable hover. It's a safety thing in case the engine doesn't restart, so the rockets slams into a cheap ground and not into an expensive landing pad (or a ship with NG).

Will NG be hover-capable tho? 

Here is where that wind would really be a problem if it is, since there’d be an effective “wind” from matching the forward speed of the ship while hovering...

[tater]

 

[Shpaget]

35 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

I would think a bigger rocket would be more susceptible to wind. Bigger surface area to mass ratio, since it has proportionately far less fuel left. Same reason high winds can knock a loaded semi over but barely rustle a small car. 

Good point there.

35 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

Will NG be hover-capable tho? 

I have no idea.

[MaverickSawyer]

55 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

I would think a bigger rocket would be more susceptible to wind. Bigger surface area to mass ratio, since it has proportionately far less fuel left. Same reason high winds can knock a loaded semi over but barely rustle a small car. 

Will NG be hover-capable tho? 

Here is where that wind would really be a problem if it is, since there’d be an effective “wind” from matching the forward speed of the ship while hovering...

Depends on the dry mass of the first stage. BE-4 is certainly capable of throttling down to ~50% rated power and remaining stable, which is interesting given the fact that the engine is an ox-rich staged combustion cycle. So that means about 250k lbs thrust on landing.

[Racescort666]

45 minutes ago, MaverickSawyer said:

Depends on the dry mass of the first stage. BE-4 is certainly capable of throttling down to ~50% rated power and remaining stable, which is interesting given the fact that the engine is an ox-rich staged combustion cycle. So that means about 250k lbs thrust on landing.

I can take a crack at this when I get home tonight. I’ll try to put a range on it but it could be +/- 10t since it’ll be stacking several assumptions.

[XB-70A]

5 hours ago, YNM said:

Just asking, is New Shepherd have a rather... "small" TWR ? It near-immediately slants slightly horizontal after lift-off. Or is it just strong winds ? Or is it exactly the plan (so it doesn't land back on the launchpad) ?

Maybe a way to save the pad from some effort (?)  About the ratio, I'm wondering if it is not a way to ensure less "stress" to the future occupants. I don't really know anything about Blue Origin, but I guess that if they want as much clients as possible it also means they should operate a system pretty open to anybody. Still, I would bet that you will have to pass at least some health tests before being cleared to ride with them.

 

4 hours ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

I would think a bigger rocket would be more susceptible to wind.

Indeed, in case of a longer "fuselage" it also leads to a reduced need in large control surfaces (hopefully). The long body is more subject to variations in the flow, but also is more naturally stable.

If I'm remembering well, Falcon 9 with her 70 m tall for 3.7 m diameter is currently owning the worst X-wind limitation of all active launchers.

Edited April 29, 2018 by XB-70A

[cubinator]

31 minutes ago, XB-70A said:

Still, I would bet that you will have to pass at least some health tests before being cleared to ride with them.

Probably not more than you would for a typical rollercoaster.

[XB-70A]

11 minutes ago, cubinator said:

Probably not more than you would for a typical rollercoaster.

Possible, but I wonder what the vultures health insurances will think of it.

[cubinator]

8 minutes ago, XB-70A said:

Possible, but I wonder what the vultures health insurances will think of it.

"Have you ever been to space before?"

"yea, but only for five minutes"

How much more can they charge you for that?

When average people start going to orbit for longer periods of time, it will be a genuine concern.

[CatastrophicFailure]

6 hours ago, YNM said:

Missed it by 5 minutes ! (at the time this post was conceived)

 

Just asking, is New Shepherd have a rather... "small" TWR ? It near-immediately slants slightly horizontal after lift-off. Or is it just strong winds ? Or is it exactly the plan (so it doesn't land back on the launchpad) ?

I think it's a launch tower avoidance maneuver. I know the Saturn V did the same thing, you can hear it in the chatter, but much less pronounced. As soon as the clamps released it yawed 3 degrees away from the tower to as not to hit it.

[StrandedonEarth]

25 minutes ago, XB-70A said:

Possible, but I wonder what the vultures health insurances will think of it.

I don't think they will really care much if you do as a once-in-a-lifetime thrill. Just like life insurance doesn't care if you go skydiving once, the increased risk to them is incremental. But if you're a professional skydiver / rocketeer, that's a substantial increase in risk.

[sh1pman]

 

[tater]

They should have cleaned the windows. Their tower needs a catwalk all the way around, brief showers are a thing in or neck of the woods, and there is usually associated blowing dirt, so those sorts of spots are typical.

[sh1pman]

Is 100km the highest NS can go, btw? 

[tater]

Just now, sh1pman said:

Is 100km the highest NS can go, btw? 

Pretty much, yes. That's where it's designed to go, operationally.

I'm pretty interested to see what the pricing is like. If the vehicle can truly be reused easily, and all that gets expended is the propellants (including the capsule landing solids), then they could gun for a price the pretty much shuts down Virgin.