Blue Origin thread.

[Ultimate Steve]

2 minutes ago, tater said:

BO or SpaceX needs to get a human on the moon before we run out of people who have been there. (Alan Bean died today, I made a thread in the lounge)

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

RIP Alan Bean.

There's only four left now.

 

Edited May 26, 2018 by Ultimate Steve

[insert_name]

https://www.geekwire.com/2018/jeff-bezos-blue-origin-space-venture-go-moon-settlements/

[tater]

In short, NASA, ESA, etc would be nice, but he's going to do it himself, or run out of money trying.

What a time to be alive. Think I'll order some more stuff on Amazon.

[sh1pman]

6 hours ago, tater said:

or run out of money trying.

Can't see that happening. There's just way too much money to burn through

And yea, the fact that the richest person in the world is ready to spend it all on space is totally awesome.

Edited May 29, 2018 by sh1pman

[Wjolcz]

So do they at least have a rough sketch of the Moon rocket? I'd imagine it will somewhat resemble BFR. Can't really imagine a simpler way to build a reusable rocket+spaceship. Are they waiting for something or simply don't want to reveal too much for now because they are afraid of the kind of doubt and backlash (can you even call it that?) Elon gets for overpromising too soon?

Edited May 29, 2018 by Wjolcz

[cubinator]

6 minutes ago, Wjolcz said:

So do they at least have a rough sketch of the Moon rocket? I'd imagine it will somewhat resemble BFR. Can't really imagine a simpler way to build a reusable rocket+spaceship. Are they waiting for something or simply don't want to reveal too much for now because they are afraid of the kind of doubt and backlash (can you even call it that?) Elon gets for overpromising too soon?

I think Bezos just has a much more conservative style of announcing things than Musk. It's not a bad thing, and I'm sure if they are talking about the Moon it's because the people doing the math and building the rocket are fairly confident they can achieve the Moon.

[NSEP]

The artist representation of BO's moon lander is afwul. I don't know how big this is supposed to be but it looks like something that can't carry any significant payload and should be launched on an Electron, not a Glenn. Im pretty sure their first moon lander is going to be big, their only orbital rocket is too massive for a small lander.

[Canopus]

@Wjolcz The timeline i posted a while back contains everything from the first flight of new glenn to an eventual lunar base and space settlements without mentioning any other launch vehicle. The lack of mention of new armstrong while they are talking about orbital storage and transfer of cryogenic fuels gives much reason to believe that there most likely won‘t be a larger launch vehicle. Instead it seems like they will pursue a refueling infrastructure rather than monolithic large launchers for eventual manned missions around the moon. Something which makes alot more sense, at least to me.

[Wjolcz]

2 hours ago, cubinator said:

I think Bezos just has a much more conservative style of announcing things than Musk.

That's what it looks like. They seem to make sure everything is in place before announcing their projects. That's pretty much what BO's motto means.

2 hours ago, Canopus said:

@Wjolcz The timeline i posted a while back contains everything from the first flight of new glenn to an eventual lunar base and space settlements without mentioning any other launch vehicle. The lack of mention of new armstrong while they are talking about orbital storage and transfer of cryogenic fuels gives much reason to believe that there most likely won‘t be a larger launch vehicle. Instead it seems like they will pursue a refueling infrastructure rather than monolithic large launchers for eventual manned missions around the moon. Something which makes alot more sense, at least to me.

So kind of like ACES but likely bigger? Makes sense for lunar operations. But then you have to bring payload to it AND refuel it from time to time (assuming the plan is to use it more than once).

It's going to be interesting seeing two different approaches for beyond LEO transportation. On one hand there's BFR's high dry mass but capability to land pretty much anywhere and on the other a tug that does most of the work but needs a lander that will land on its own to deliver cargo/crew. I'd imagine the BO lander (Blue Lander?) would have modular design to easily attach heat shield (if there ever is need for it) or switch/add engines for atmospheric landing. I'm talking Mars here but I doubt they have plans for that as it seems they are focused on the Moon for now.

Edited May 29, 2018 by Wjolcz

[CatastrophicFailure]

13 hours ago, tater said:

What a time to be alive. Think I'll order some more stuff on Amazon.

7 hours ago, sh1pman said:

Can't see that happening. There's just way too much money to burn through 

Famous last words, shhh...

Tho for comparison, anyone know what the cost of Apollo was in today’s dollars?

[tater]

Bezos is a total space nerd. In the best possible way. I long for some NG flights so I can be less subdued about my fanboism, lol.

[Shpaget]

26 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

Tho for comparison, anyone know what the cost of Apollo was in today’s dollars?

About $200 - $220 billion, or roughly one third of the yearly US DoD budget.

[Ultimate Steve]

5 minutes ago, Shpaget said:

About $200 - $220 billion, or roughly one third of the yearly US DoD budget.

So Bezos, with 130B, should be able to do it, because:

• We know more today
• BO can most likely do it for cheaper than NASA because it's a private company
• The vehicles will be reusable

[CatastrophicFailure]

5 minutes ago, Ultimate Steve said:

So Bezos, with 130B, should be able to do it, because:

• We know more today
• BO can most likely do it for cheaper than NASA because it's a private company
• The vehicles will be reusable

 Not to mention BO will fairly soon have an independent incoming revenue stream. 

 

[KSK]

6 hours ago, NSEP said:

The artist representation of BO's moon lander is afwul. I don't know how big this is supposed to be but it looks like something that can't carry any significant payload and should be launched on an Electron, not a Glenn. Im pretty sure their first moon lander is going to be big, their only orbital rocket is too massive for a small lander.

I guess they're running EVE but their part mods suck.

[NSEP]

1 hour ago, KSK said:

I guess they're running EVE but their part mods suck.

Procedural Parts. Practical, but ugly.

[Bill Phil]

11 hours ago, NSEP said:

The artist representation of BO's moon lander is afwul. I don't know how big this is supposed to be but it looks like something that can't carry any significant payload and should be launched on an Electron, not a Glenn. Im pretty sure their first moon lander is going to be big, their only orbital rocket is too massive for a small lander.

Remember: in space, there isn't anything we can use for scale. Without a known size we can't really tell how big it is from a picture. Not unless we had something else for reference, like an astronaut or the Apollo LM.

If that's Blue Moon then it's intended to land 4500 kg of payload onto the lunar surface. Similar in size to the Apollo LM, I would suspect. If it uses similar propellants. If it uses hydrolox it would be larger in physical size, but likely lighter overall.

[tater]

Weren't they talking about 5-6 tons to the lunar surface?

[NSEP]

10 minutes ago, Bill Phil said:

Remember: in space, there isn't anything we can use for scale. Without a known size we can't really tell how big it is from a picture. Not unless we had something else for reference, like an astronaut or the Apollo LM.

But we can however estimate its size by the spacecraft itself. The module on top that i think is the Command/Avionics module looks to big in proportion to be of a big lander. If it were to be big like the Apollo lander, that module would have been alot smaller and thinner in proportion to lander, and it would almost look like it wouldn't have any top module at all, because the Avionics systems would be small enough to be hidden inside the propulsion module.

There also seem to be no cargo bay at all, suggesting the lander presented in the image doesn't have any significant payload capacity unlike the 4-6 tons Blue Moon could carry.

The top module likely also is not a payload, considering it doesn't look like anything practical for a lunar base, and has no arms and to deploy it on the surface.

Another thing to note is the bolts on top wich are quite big and heavy looking in proportion to the lander itself. Something like that would not be used on a big Apollo-sized lander but would on a Moon Express-sized lander.

There is also the big possibilty the artist was just a little lazy, made a generic moon lander, slapped some logo's on, and called it a day. Its 3AM and i have school tomorrow, goodnight.

[MaverickSawyer]

I think NSEP has a valid point... it's an artist's impression, not a detailed engineering diagram.

 

Never, EVER trust artists to be realistic when it's not needed to be realistic.  

[wumpus]

9 hours ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

 Not to mention BO will fairly soon have an independent incoming revenue stream. 

From where?  I'm assuming that they will be more than capable of launching satellites, but they seem to have even more problems dealing with customers than Spacex.  A "low profile" space program certainly has advantages (just ask the Soviets/Russians), but it harder to get sales when you keep your customers in the dark (ok, they probably aren't to crazy about "Elon time" either).  Selling an engine to ULA sounds like a *huge* cash influx, but I'm less convinced it will go through.

I remember a co-worker with an A&R license (a license to repair airplanes, although said co-worker also had a pilot's license.  Not sure which school this lesson was taught at) who was asked in a class 'what makes airplanes fly'?  After a bunch of answers involving aerodynamics and lift, the correct answer was "money".  In practice, that is the most important figure in keeping an airplane aloft.  I suspect the main difference for spacecraft is how many zeros have to be added to the check.  Ask John Carmack how that works for mere "multimillionaires".

[MaverickSawyer]

The revenue stream in question is New Shepard. Not sure what the turnaround costs are on that, but 6*250k per flight isn't too shabby. Besides, the flight rate they've been pulling isn't the one they're aiming for. Look at how SpaceX has ramped up their launch rate over the years.

[CatastrophicFailure]

11 minutes ago, wumpus said:

From where?  I'm assuming that they will be more than capable of launching satellites, but they seem to have even more problems dealing with customers than Spacex. 

They’ve already got four customers in the books...

3 minutes ago, MaverickSawyer said:

 

The revenue stream in question is New Shepard.

 

That too. 

[NSEP]

I made a little bit of a concept sketch of what i think Blue Moon should look like, along with some payload ideas. Blue Moon is intended to do look for water on the South Pole and return samples according to wikipedia. 4500kg, or even 6000kg is not enough payload capacity to do manned landings unless they do an Apollo reboot or find out a way to make a direct return capsule of that mass.

[Bill Phil]

1 hour ago, NSEP said:

I made a little bit of a concept sketch of what i think Blue Moon should look like, along with some payload ideas. Blue Moon is intended to do look for water on the South Pole and return samples according to wikipedia. 4500kg, or even 6000kg is not enough payload capacity to do manned landings unless they do an Apollo reboot or find out a way to make a direct return capsule of that mass.

Apollo got away with less than 5000 kg, for the LM ascent stage. 

But I think the intent is to create a refueling infrastructure on the lunar surface. That, combined with a transportation system for LEO-LLO and vice versa, is probably the plan...