Blue Origin

[Eric Mc]

saaby93 said:

Eric Mc said:

saaby93 said:

you can understand why the first space flights had to do an orbit

Please explain.

Maybe they didnt but straight up and down didnt feel over exciting

The first two American manned spaceflights were sub-orbital. Mercury MR-3 and MR-4, which were flown in 1961 with astronauts Alan Shepard and Virgil "Gus" Grissom were launched using the Redstone missile, which was not powerful enough to propel the Mercury spacecraft to orbital velocity (17,500 mph). America's first orbital flight was Mercury Atlas 6 (MA-6) which sent John Glenn into three orbits of the earth in February 1962.

The Russians did not send any of their cosmonauts on sub orbital flights as the booster they were using (the R7) was big and powerful and was capable of getting the Vostok spacecraft into orbit.

It is a massive step up to design and build a rocket big enough and powerful enough to get a crew into orbit. The costs involved in developing and testing the boosters required needs huge amounts of money and up to now, has always required government funding. And that includes SpaceX which would not have been able to develop their Dragon spacecraft without US government funding.

[Eric Mc]

hyphen said:

it wasn't easy watching in that regards. I didnt read up prior, and imagined it would be a little more.

What did you want or expect to see?

They weren't travelling to another geographical location on earth. The whole point of this type of endeavour is to get to a certain altitude and to return to earth safely, preferably not too far from where you took off from.

And to do it with a 100% reusable vehicle. Don't forget, all of the components used today will fly again - soon.

[Eric Mc]

hyphen said:

Some horizontal movement.

Those of us popping in, unlike yourselves who are enthusiasts, just want the action.

It's not a TV show or a computer game - it's real life, with real physics, real engineering and real people involved.

Going horizontal is pointless for such a mission so they don't do it. The aim is to get as high as you can and that means pointing straight up from the off.

Because Virgin Galactic uses a spaceplane - this means their mission profile involves the first few seconds flying aerodynamically (rather than ballistically) so it starts off horizontally but pretty quickly pitches up into the vertical, again, to maximise the rocket thrust to get as high as possible before the rocket motor exhausts its fuel. It then falls back vertically until it reaches denser atmosphere where it returns to horizontal, aerodynamic flight so it can glide to a landing on a runway - again, from the same place it took off from.

[Eric Mc]

If they crack that problem, they'll be onto a winner.

[Eric Mc]

I always feel those chutes take WAY too long to come out.

[Eric Mc]

eharding said:

The Virgin system is arguably more flexible in that the White Knight carrier has a significant range (US coast-to-coast), so in principle the arrival airfield for a VSS sub-orbital sortie need not be the point of departure, but some distance away, after a transit underneath the carrier - whether you would actually use this facility is uncertain, but does mean the system as a whole can easily relocate for missions - harder for Blue Origin to build multiple launch sites in across the world, their customers always have to come to them, which means Texas, whereas you can imagine VSS going on an extended world tour, offering trips from locations across the globe, anywhere with a long enough runway - obviously, you'd have to get your support logistics in order, but probably nothing a current Formula 1 team doesn't do on a regular basis. Right now, I'd guess the main issue is 'refuelling' the spaceplane by swapping out the expended solid rocket - I think the next iteration, SS3, is designed with reduced turnaround time in mind.

The flexibility of the air-launched approach also applies to Virgin Orbital - hence the planned launch from Cornwall next year. Northrup Grumman have been in the same sector for years, but don't seem to be very dynamic at growing the business - apparently Virgin Orbital are quoting prices as low as 10% of that of Northrup Grumman though.

Air launch works OK for sub-orbital and small payloads to orbit. Strato Launcher was going to allow bigger payloads to be air launched to orbit but at the moment it’s not clear if Strato Launcher will ever be used as intended.

[Eric Mc]

I expect its weight distribution is designed to allow it to remain upright. It might even be ballasted to ensure this is the case. All capsule type spacecraft are designed to be aerodynamically stable during descent. If the craft does develop a wobble, there are reaction thrusters to help stabilise it.

The deployment of the drogue parachutes also helps to settle the craft down before the release of the main chutes. What you don't want is the capsule to be rotating as the main chutes deploy as that could cause the main parachute lines to wind up and eventually cause the parachutes to collapse - which would be fatal.

That was how Vladimir Kamorov was killed on the very first Soyuz flight back in 1967.

[Eric Mc]

Which means the taxpayer gets a tax reduction at their maximum tax rate. So, if a person donates $1,000 and their maximum tax rate (whether personal or corporate ) is , say, 30%, they will reduce their tax liability by $300.

[Eric Mc]

In the Shuttle programme, before each of the Orbiters made their maiden launches, they all performed a static test fire on the pad a week or so before their first launch.

[Eric Mc]

And probably flies as high as the real thing too.

As an aside, a New Shepard is due to be launched in about 10 minutes time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMFhXuARR4o

[Eric Mc]

And they've just shown themselves testing the Estes version on their live coverage

[Eric Mc]

Nice gesture - but are they going to start using celebs to promote the "brand"?

[Eric Mc]

Well done Captain Kirk - finally made it. Although his mission was more of a "five minute mission" rather than a "five year mission".

I doubt when he was making Star Trek back in 1966 that he'd ever get such an opportunity.

[Eric Mc]

Yep - the most important scientific discoveries come from areas of research that aren't always connected to the area where the discovery proves to be the most beneficial

[Eric Mc]

Mammasaid said:

Apogee from in the cabin

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utUQ01BueHY

I don't think it was the weightlessness that impressed him so much as the view.

Well done Mr Shatner. He genuinely conveys the true sense of awe that comes from having that view.

[Eric Mc]

Flooble said:

Eric Mc said:

Mammasaid said:

Apogee from in the cabin

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utUQ01BueHY

I don't think it was the weightlessness that impressed him so much as the view.

Well done Mr Shatner. He genuinely conveys the true sense of awe that comes from having that view.

Yep, even if he did seem a bit overwhelmed. I am sure someone said that NASA made a huge mistake in sending scientists and test pilots to the moon instead of artists.

You may joke. Given the state of the technology and the nature of the Apollo missions, it would have been dumb to put non technically qualified people on those missions. As it turned out, as well as being technically qualified, some of the astronauts did possess more esoteric and artistic values above and beyond their technical skills. The two that stand out for me are Michael Collins who was a shockingly good writer and Alan Bean, who did indeed become an artist of note.

Time has moved on and we are now just at the beginning of the era where poets, artists, singers and actors (even perhaps rather hammy ones like William Shatner) are being given access to space flight.

It may be a transformative moment for humanity. Who knows.

[Eric Mc]

To achieve earth orbit you need to reach 17,500 mph and move parallel to the earth’s surface.

The maximum speed achieved by both Blue Origin and Virgin Galactic is around 3,500 mph - well short of orbital velocity.

[Eric Mc]

Presumably it will be a tax haven too. I bet Bezos will be the first to register his businesses there.

[Eric Mc]

Beati Dogu said:

Blue Origin have released a buzzword and CGI-heavy video on Orbital Reef:

https://youtu.be/SC3ooNXfcGE

They’re getting a bit of a pasting in the comments as you might expect. The one about them finally becoming a competitor to Pixar did make me laugh though.


So, it’ll be launched by New Glenn rockets that don’t exist, crewed by a Boeing Starliner that’s years late and doesn’t work. Oh and resupply will be by Sierra Nevada, a company that hasn’t flown its Dream Chaser spacecraft into space yet. Dream Chasers will be launched on ULA Vulcan rockets that also haven’t flown yet, mostly because Blue Origin haven’t supplied working engines.

Doesn’t sound too promising. 2030 is going to be lit though. ]

Edited by Beati Dogu on Monday 25th October 23:56

Reminiscent of President Kennedy's speech at Rice University in 1962 in which he said this -

We shall send to the moon, 240,000 miles away from the control station in Houston, a giant rocket more than 300 feet tall, the length of this football field, made of new metal alloys, some of which have not yet been invented, capable of standing heat and stresses several times more than have ever been experienced, fitted together with a precision better than the finest watch, carrying all the equipment needed for propulsion, guidance, control, communications, food and survival, on an untried mission, to an unknown celestial body, and then return it safely to earth, re-entering the atmosphere at speeds of over 25,000 miles per hour, causing heat about half that of the temperature of the sun--almost as hot as it is here today--and do all this, and do it right, and do it first before this decade is out--then we must be bold.

[Eric Mc]

Too much business energy and time is wasted on law suits in the US. Blue Origin just needs to concentrate on its work and just get on with developing their products.