Blue Origin thread.

[linuxgurugamer]

33 minutes ago, tater said:

Yeah, maybe. Then the next transfer window you fix that. If it's Mars you get 0 done for 2 years when with 1 billion dollar rover would have gotten 2 years of data. Then you get 20 years of data for the next 2 years from the 10 replacements. Billion dollar rover? 4 years of data in 4 years. 20 $50M rovers, 10 of which fail? 20 years of data in 4 years. Win.

 

Respectfully, when it comes to scientific research, it's impossible to say what is missed by delays like that.  On paper it looks good, but going cheap on R&D has caused numerous issues over time.

[tater]

1 hour ago, linuxgurugamer said:

Respectfully, when it comes to scientific research, it's impossible to say what is missed by delays like that.  On paper it looks good, but going cheap on R&D has caused numerous issues over time.

We have literally zero data on less expensive robotic exploration (unless you count Planet Labs cubesats). The entire paradigm has been incredibly expensive robots since forever.

All current incentives are to consider cost as almost no object, and mass and reliability matter to the nth degree. Mass, because we have a very limited mass budget, and reliability because the mass budget is small enough that there can be little redundancy even on a single spacecraft, much less sending multiples.

 

 

[mikegarrison]

3 hours ago, tater said:

We have literally zero data on less expensive robotic exploration (unless you count Planet Labs cubesats). The entire paradigm has been incredibly expensive robots since forever.

All current incentives are to consider cost as almost no object, and mass and reliability matter to the nth degree. Mass, because we have a very limited mass budget, and reliability because the mass budget is small enough that there can be little redundancy even on a single spacecraft, much less sending multiples.

That's not really true. There have been a lot of missions where there were small secondary probes (like the helicopter on Mars now). Sometimes they worked, sometimes they didn't. The MERS (Spirit and Opportunity) were sent as two smaller rovers instead of one big one.

Admittedly, we generally haven't done things like sending a package of 200 microprobes  that just get scattered around, but in part that's because we generally haven't had the infrastructure to recover the data if we do. In LEO we do have that infrastructure, and that's where you see things like 20 cubesats all launched together as ride-alongs.

On 5/11/2021 at 8:57 AM, linuxgurugamer said:

You made a mistake, though, regarding space probes, rovers, etc.  Those are one-off designs and builds, and by the very nature of that, are going to be expensive.  Reduced costs come from repeating actions, as in reflying boosters, fairings, etc.  

That's not true either. Consider, for instance, the Mariner series -- basically a bunch of different probes with different missions all built off of a common bus architecture. Or the Ranger or Luna probes, which again were a series of mostly identical probes with some lessons learned changes along the way.

[tater]

7 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

That's not really true. There have been a lot of missions where there were small secondary probes (like the helicopter on Mars now). Sometimes they worked, sometimes they didn't. The MERS (Spirit and Opportunity) were sent as two smaller rovers instead of one big one.

Ingenuity cost $80M to build. Mission cost is $5M to operate for 1 month.

Not inexpensive for a drone. Without a mass limitation (or to be fair with a much higher mass limit), they might be able to bring several drones. Maybe 2kg drones could only cost a few hundred grand each instead of $80M?

 

Quote

Admittedly, we generally haven't done things like sending a package of 200 microprobes  that just get scattered around, but in part that's because we generally haven't had the infrastructure to recover the data if we do. In LEO we do have that infrastructure, and that's where you see things like 20 cubesats all launched together as ride-alongs.

Yeah, you'd want more comms in orbit (full coverage, most of the time with good bandwidth, then those relay to a high-gain).

Edited May 12, 2021 by tater

[mikegarrison]

4 minutes ago, tater said:

Not inexpensive for a drone.

It's. Mars.

Of course it's "not inexpensive". We'll see if that changes eventually, but just from the standpoint of the amount of energy needed to get something from the Earth to Mars even with perfect efficiency, I can't expect things on Mars are ever going to be cheap in my lifetime.

Edited May 12, 2021 by mikegarrison

[tater]

Just now, mikegarrison said:

It's. Mars.

Of course it's "not inexpensive". We'll see if that changes eventually, but just from the standpoint of the amount of energy needed to get something from the Earth to Mars even with perfect efficiency, I can't expect things on Mars are every going to be cheap in my lifetime.

I'm not expecting space probes to cost as much as a drone I can buy at target for a couple grand.

My point is that all current incentives end up with high cost—for good reasons. It's Mars. You get one shot. Even if you can make 2, you want at least 1 to work, so you make it as good as possible, even if small and "cheap" for a few hundred million (MER was over $1B total program cost, ~$750M was construction and launch, so maybe $200M each rover?).

None the less, those were overbuilt. 90 days into 11 years? If they could have sent 10 for 90 day missions and they were 10X less durable for $20M instead of $200M and only lasted 1 year instead of 11? Still beats the nominal mission.

My point is we have no idea how inexpensive you could build something that still works—because it would be foolish to do so with the mass limitations and launch costs we have.

[tater]

 

[RealKerbal3x]

Looks like a Kerbodyne ADTP-2-3 to me.

[CatastrophicFailure]

Well, if it’s Blue Origin, and it’s outside... it’s probably not going to space today. Or any other day, ever. 

[Meecrob]

On 5/11/2021 at 5:07 PM, sevenperforce said:

I wonder how much he offered her.

He probably thought he could just buy her like a trinket......

I dunno...richest guy on the planet! He probably offered her a crapload, but she knew SpaceX was moving faster and wouldn't be swayed by any amount of money! People like her don't care about money, they care about changing the world...even if its for free!

Though If I had to guess it would be 7 figures what was offered.

On 5/14/2021 at 2:16 PM, CatastrophicFailure said:

Well, if it’s Blue Origin, and it’s outside... it’s probably not going to space today. Or any other day, ever. 

Haha does Blue origin ever go to space? Like It would be difficult and a few years in the making, but anyone could shoot off a suborbital rocket...the challenge is orbit. Like anyone can throw something high...but the difference is like mach 2 compared to mach 25!

Edited May 16, 2021 by Meecrob

[GuessingEveryDay]

27 minutes ago, Meecrob said:

Does Blue origin ever go to space? Like It would be difficult and a few years in the making, but anyone could shoot off a suborbital rocket...the challenge is orbit. Like anyone can throw something high...but the difference is like mach 2 compared to mach 25!

They have gone to space before, but they don't stay for a long time. Heh. The longest they've been in space is 4 minutes.

[Meecrob]

3 minutes ago, GuessingEveryDay said:

They have gone to space before, but they don't stay for a long time. Heh. The longest they've been in space is 4 minutes.

Haha technically over the Karman line, but its kinda the same thing that you are a student if you fly a C-152, its not an F-22. Crap, I've driven faster in my car than in a 152 haha!

Edited May 16, 2021 by Meecrob

[GuessingEveryDay]

2 hours ago, Meecrob said:

I've driven faster in my car than in a 152 haha!

Do you live in Germany or something? Because in America we rarely go that fast.

[SpaceFace545]

11 minutes ago, GuessingEveryDay said:

Do you live in Germany or something? Because in America we rarely go that fast.

Going faster than 50 is a godsend in the states.

[GuessingEveryDay]

17 minutes ago, SpaceFace545 said:

Going faster than 50 is a godsend in the states.

Hopefully the new infrastructure plan will allow that. A pothole above 60 is deadly.

[Meecrob]

Haha I feel your pain! The speed limit may be higher but it feels like you are riding a tricycle as a 3 year old even though you bought a car but the traffic won't move!!

11 minutes ago, GuessingEveryDay said:

Hopefully the new infrastructure plan will allow that. A pothole above 60 is deadly.

...or hilarious!!! Wait you mean MPH don't you? 60 kph is a different story. 60 miles an hour has cost me way way too much in suspension repairs along with crapping my pants trying to maintain control!

41 minutes ago, GuessingEveryDay said:

Do you live in Germany or something? Because in America we rarely go that fast.

You haven't had a headwind and looked down on cars going 100kph/60mph overtaking you! But at the same time with a decent tailwind I fly over Mosport racetrack and can at least keep up with the decent cars. But honestly my Volvo goes faster than a 152 haha! But I lucked out with that car...it can do like 170 if you disable the computers. On a racetrack, of course...straight line, I'm no race driver!

Edited May 16, 2021 by Meecrob

[wumpus]

3 hours ago, Meecrob said:

You haven't had a headwind and looked down on cars going 100kph/60mph overtaking you! But at the same time with a decent tailwind I fly over Mosport racetrack and can at least keep up with the decent cars. But honestly my Volvo goes faster than a 152 haha! But I lucked out with that car...it can do like 170 if you disable the computers. On a racetrack, of course...straight line, I'm no race driver!

According to the infallible google, maximum speed of a Cessna 152 (cruising speed is maybe 5km less) is ~200km/h or 120mph.  Or in rocket lingo: 55m/s.

[mikegarrison]

3 hours ago, wumpus said:

According to the infallible google, maximum speed of a Cessna 152 (cruising speed is maybe 5km less) is ~200km/h or 120mph.  Or in rocket lingo: 55m/s.

airspeed != groundspeed

Note that @Meecrob mentioned headwinds and tailwinds.

Edited May 17, 2021 by mikegarrison

[RCgothic]

At the risk of further derailing the thread, I'm amazed how slow US road speeds are despite being such a gigantic place.

In the UK single carriageway roads have a limit of 60mph, with dual carriageways 70mph. These limits are regularly disregarded by a large proportion of the population (they're only half-heartedly enforced, mostly by fixed cameras).

Traffic allowing, it's common for vehicles to travel 15mph over that limit, and any motorway trip will usually have at least someone doing 100+.

[tater]

4 hours ago, RCgothic said:

In the UK single carriageway roads have a limit of 60mph, with dual carriageways 70mph. These limits are regularly disregarded by a large proportion of the population (they're only half-heartedly enforced, mostly by fixed cameras).

The speed limit outside of cities in the US is 75 mph (120 kph) on the highways, highway speed limits here are a function of population density. The actual traffic moves at closer to 85 (137kph). I get passed while going 85 a fair amount of the time.

Ah, but I live out in the middle of nowhere in New Mexico. I grew up around NYC, and while the speed limit on I-95 in NY/CT is lower than between ABQ and Santa Fe on I-25, traffic moves every bit as fast, and with much more traffic. So people here go 10 mph over the speed limit, and people near actual cities just break the speed limit by 20 instead, lol.

[wumpus]

3 hours ago, tater said:

The speed limit outside of cities in the US is 75 mph (120 kph) on the highways, highway speed limits here are a function of population density. The actual traffic moves at closer to 85 (137kph). I get passed while going 85 a fair amount of the time.

Ah, but I live out in the middle of nowhere in New Mexico. I grew up around NYC, and while the speed limit on I-95 in NY/CT is lower than between ABQ and Santa Fe on I-25, traffic moves every bit as fast, and with much more traffic. So people here go 10 mph over the speed limit, and people near actual cities just break the speed limit by 20 instead, lol.

Fair warning for anyone going through Virginia (I-95 from Washington DC to down south, also the highways to the main airport in/out of DC),  the speed limit can be as high as 70mph.  Going 80mph (regardless of the speed limit) is statutory reckless driving and can result in jail time and other nastiness.  Google "speeding in Virginia" before continuing speeds high speeds past New Jersey (Maryland doesn't have such laws, but loves ticking out of state cars).

[mikegarrison]

4 hours ago, tater said:

The speed limit outside of cities in the US is 75 mph (120 kph) on the highways, highway speed limits here are a function of population density. The actual traffic moves at closer to 85 (137kph). I get passed while going 85 a fair amount of the time.

This varies state-by-state.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c3/US_Speed_Limits.svg

[tater]

4 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

This varies state-by-state.

I had assumed the regional variations on the interstates were a function of pop density (the limit is lower where I-25 and I-40 go through ABQ, for example, even drops to 55 for a stretch). Didn't know the states could supercede that (course I've been out west for decades now). The 65 in NE is pretty funny since that's the place I drive the most that is not in the west (family in CT), and I swear people drive faster on I-95 than they do here in NM, lol.

 

In CO the speed limit is the same as NM, but everyone drives below the limit. In the left lane. For reasons. Colorado Springs to Denver might as well be NYC to CT during rush hour.

[sevenperforce]

The high bid for a seat on New Shepard is currently $2.4M.

Unbelievable.

[GuessingEveryDay]

14 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

The high bid for a seat on New Shepard is currently $2.4M.

Unbelievable.

Weren't they supposed to be $250k? Wait, wrong company.