Discussion
Blue Origin must have some bloody good salesmen - they’ve not launched anything into orbit yet, but NASA have given them a contract for a Mars launch !
" NASA Awards Mars Science Mission Launch to Blue Origin’s New Glenn
Today, NASA’s Launch Services Program (LSP) awarded Blue Origin’s New Glenn the Escape and Plasma Acceleration and Dynamics Explorers (ESCAPADE) contract. ESCAPADE is part of the NASA Small Innovative Missions for Planetary Exploration (SIMPLEx) program; it is a dual spacecraft mission to study Mars’ magnetosphere."
" NASA Awards Mars Science Mission Launch to Blue Origin’s New Glenn
Today, NASA’s Launch Services Program (LSP) awarded Blue Origin’s New Glenn the Escape and Plasma Acceleration and Dynamics Explorers (ESCAPADE) contract. ESCAPADE is part of the NASA Small Innovative Missions for Planetary Exploration (SIMPLEx) program; it is a dual spacecraft mission to study Mars’ magnetosphere."
Indeed.
The background will be very interesting. Threats of suing NASA?
They are spreading themselves very thinly to remain a relevant 'Space' company. Working with Sierra Space on the NASA commercial Space station bid - back on the Moon lander gig.
Big money seems to carry a lot of weight way above actual success that might justify a company's inclusion in all of this.
The background will be very interesting. Threats of suing NASA?
They are spreading themselves very thinly to remain a relevant 'Space' company. Working with Sierra Space on the NASA commercial Space station bid - back on the Moon lander gig.
Big money seems to carry a lot of weight way above actual success that might justify a company's inclusion in all of this.
Well they won the contract, but I expect the likes of ULA and SpaceX bid for it too. Perhaps Blue Origin bid below cost just to get the contract; It wouldn’t surprise me. NASA do like to spread their work around though to be fair.
It’s supposed to be launched in October 2024. The next Earth-Mars transfer window starts in September 2024 and runs to May 2025, so they’re clearly aiming for that.
If they’re not going to be ready in time for the window, NASA can always cite breach of contract and take it off them. I’m pretty sure SpaceX and probably even ULA by then can take over at short notice.
It’s supposed to be launched in October 2024. The next Earth-Mars transfer window starts in September 2024 and runs to May 2025, so they’re clearly aiming for that.
If they’re not going to be ready in time for the window, NASA can always cite breach of contract and take it off them. I’m pretty sure SpaceX and probably even ULA by then can take over at short notice.
BLUE ORIGIN NS-23 FINDINGS
MARCH 24, 2023
SUMMARY
•The direct cause of the NS-23 mishap was a thermo-structural failure of the engine nozzle. The resulting thrust misalignment properly triggered the Crew Capsule escape system, which functioned as designed throughout the flight.
•The Crew Capsule and all payloads onboard landed safely and will be flown again.
•All systems designed to protect public safety functioned as planned. There were no injuries. There was no damage to ground-based systems, and all debris was recovered in the designated hazard area.
•Blue Origin expects to return to flight soon, with a re-flight of the NS-23 payloads.
TECHNICAL DETAILS
The NS-23 mishap resulted in the loss of NS Propulsion Module Tail 3. The Crew Capsule escape system worked as designed, bringing the capsule and its payloads to a safe landing at Launch Site One with no damage. As part of the response to the Crew Capsule escape, the Propulsion Module commanded shutdown of the BE-3PM engine and followed an unpowered trajectory to impact within the defined flight safety analysis prediction, resulting in no danger to human life or property. Public safety was unaffected by the mishap, and no changes to crew safety system designs were recommended as a result of the investigation.
In accordance with the New Shepard Mishap Investigation Plan, Blue Origin formed a Mishap Investigation Team (MIT), led by members of Blue Origin’s Safety & Mission Assurance organization. The investigation was conducted with FAA oversight and included representatives of the National Transportation Safety Board and NASA’s Flight Opportunities Program and Commercial Crew Office. The MIT stood up debris search and recovery efforts at Launch Site One immediately following the mishap and recovered all critical flight hardware within days.
Blue Origin also convened a Mishap Review Board (MRB), which included external non-advocate advisors. The MRB reviewed causal determinations made by the MIT and will continue to exercise oversight of the corrective action implementation.
Aided by onboard video and telemetry, flight hardware recovered from the field, and the work of Blue Origin’s materials labs and test facilities, the MIT determined the direct cause of the mishap to be a structural fatigue failure of the BE-3PM engine nozzle during powered flight. The structural fatigue was caused by operational temperatures that exceeded the expected and analyzed values of the nozzle material. Testing of the BE-3PM engine began immediately following the mishap and established that the flight configuration of the nozzle operated at hotter temperatures than previous design configurations. Forensic evaluation of the recovered nozzle fragments also showed clear evidence of thermal damage and hot streaks resulting from increased operating temperatures. The fatigue location on the flight nozzle is aligned with a persistent hot streak identified during the investigation.
The MIT determined that design changes made to the engine’s boundary layer cooling system accounted for an increase in nozzle heating and explained the hot streaks present. Blue Origin is implementing corrective actions, including design changes to the combustion chamber and operating parameters, which have reduced engine nozzle bulk and hot-streak temperatures. Additional design changes to the nozzle have improved structural performance under thermal and dynamic loads.
Blue Origin expects to return to flight soon, with a re-flight of the NS-23 payloads.
b
hstewie said:
Indeed, a very interesting read and view on the feelings he felt going to Space, I still can't imagine how physically hard it must have been for him at 90 years old!hstewie said:EricMc said:
Any article that refers to Bezos’ craft as a “space shuttle “ reduces my inclination to read it very quickly.
That's a shame really, the intro was written by a typical modern journo (where inaccuracies are rife), however the article itself was a direct quote from Shatner himself in his book. Sometimes you have to look beyond the initial intro to find the gem inside.Eric Mc said:
Any article that refers to Bezos’ craft as a “space shuttle “ reduces my inclination to read it very quickly.
To be fair a shuttle is something that travels between 2 places, and in this case one of those places is space. Although you might argue that a proper shuttle service would allow you to remain at either end so in that case Crew Dragon is a space shuttle while New Shepard is more of a giant reverse bungie jump.The original use of the word "shuttle" for a spacecraft dates back to the 1950s when it was assumed that some sort of rapidly reusable craft would be required to "shuttle" backwards and forwards between an earth orbiting space station. The notion of "shuttling" into earth orbit only was not part of the thinking.
From the very beginning, these shuttle concepts always assumed that they would be winged craft which could glide back to land on a normal runway. The eventual Space Shuttle as flown in 1981 was the culmination of that line of thinking. The problem was that the space station envisaged for a space shuttle to attend to had long since been cancelled. Therefore, in order to justify the programme to Congress, NASA had to dream up ways in which a stand-alone "shuttle" could be made to work.
Later on in the Space Shuttle's career, it did eventually fulfill that original concept, making regular flights to and from the Mir space station and then the International Space Station.
From the very beginning, these shuttle concepts always assumed that they would be winged craft which could glide back to land on a normal runway. The eventual Space Shuttle as flown in 1981 was the culmination of that line of thinking. The problem was that the space station envisaged for a space shuttle to attend to had long since been cancelled. Therefore, in order to justify the programme to Congress, NASA had to dream up ways in which a stand-alone "shuttle" could be made to work.
Later on in the Space Shuttle's career, it did eventually fulfill that original concept, making regular flights to and from the Mir space station and then the International Space Station.
Eric Mc said:
The original use of the word "shuttle" for a spacecraft dates back to the 1950s when it was assumed that some sort of rapidly reusable craft would be required to "shuttle" backwards and forwards between an earth orbiting space station. The notion of "shuttling" into earth orbit only was not part of the thinking.
From the very beginning, these shuttle concepts always assumed that they would be winged craft which could glide back to land on a normal runway. The eventual Space Shuttle as flown in 1981 was the culmination of that line of thinking. The problem was that the space station envisaged for a space shuttle to attend to had long since been cancelled. Therefore, in order to justify the programme to Congress, NASA had to dream up ways in which a stand-alone "shuttle" could be made to work.
Later on in the Space Shuttle's career, it did eventually fulfill that original concept, making regular flights to and from the Mir space station and then the International Space Station.
Some of the shuttle concepts were single or multi stage VTOL rocketsFrom the very beginning, these shuttle concepts always assumed that they would be winged craft which could glide back to land on a normal runway. The eventual Space Shuttle as flown in 1981 was the culmination of that line of thinking. The problem was that the space station envisaged for a space shuttle to attend to had long since been cancelled. Therefore, in order to justify the programme to Congress, NASA had to dream up ways in which a stand-alone "shuttle" could be made to work.
Later on in the Space Shuttle's career, it did eventually fulfill that original concept, making regular flights to and from the Mir space station and then the International Space Station.
Yes the one in the top right has a lifting body craft on it but it could also carry a capsule
Edit: top left
Edited by Talksteer on Thursday 11th May 01:58
Flooble said:
Is the one top right a sort of boosters-wrapped-around-the-shuttle type design?
Fuel tanks.There was a lot of debate as to where the fuel was going to go. If the fuel was contained within the body of the spacecraft, then it would have made the spacecraft huge (and heavy). Having a "wrap around" V shaped jettisonable fuel tank was one solution. Over wing tanks (like on the Lightning F6 - only much bigger) were also looked at.
In the end, a massive "drop tank" (bigger than the spacecraft itself) was chosen.
The capsule (top left) was never considered as an actual proposal. It was included as a baseline comparison for showing how big (or small) a simple capsule set-up would be compared to a winged design. They were always going to go with a winged craft as it was considered essential for reusability for the machine to be able to land like an aeroplane. The downside is that adding wings and tail surfaces - plus undercarriage - and the associated hydraulics, was always going to make the spacecraft heavier than a comparable capsule.
The original orbiter concepts were also quite a bit smaller than the one finally chosen. When the Space Shuttle was intended to be mainly a people carrier to a space station, it didn't need to have such a big cargo bay. When the space station idea was shelved and when the DoD got on board, the cargo bay was increased (to accommodate Keyhole spy satellites) and the delta wing was selected over lifting body types. It was these final choices that determined how the Space Shuttle eventually looked.
Eric Mc said:
Fuel tanks.
There was a lot of debate as to where the fuel was going to go. If the fuel was contained within the body of the spacecraft, then it would have made the spacecraft huge (and heavy). Having a "wrap around" V shaped jettisonable fuel tank was one solution. Over wing tanks (like on the Lightning F6 - only much bigger) were also looked at.
In the end, a massive "drop tank" (bigger than the spacecraft itself) was chosen.
The capsule (top left) was never considered as an actual proposal. It was included as a baseline comparison for showing how big (or small) a simple capsule set-up would be compared to a winged design. They were always going to go with a winged craft as it was considered essential for reusability for the machine to be able to land like an aeroplane. The downside is that adding wings and tail surfaces - plus undercarriage - and the associated hydraulics, was always going to make the spacecraft heavier than a comparable capsule.
The original orbiter concepts were also quite a bit smaller than the one finally chosen. When the Space Shuttle was intended to be mainly a people carrier to a space station, it didn't need to have such a big cargo bay. When the space station idea was shelved and when the DoD got on board, the cargo bay was increased (to accommodate Keyhole spy satellites) and the delta wing was selected over lifting body types. It was these final choices that determined how the Space Shuttle eventually looked.
Thanks - looked a bit like this Shuttle LS200 but didn't quite match, so I did wonder if they had thought "hmm, instead of all the plumbing to fuel the spacecraft engines, why not just put the engines on the tanks" There was a lot of debate as to where the fuel was going to go. If the fuel was contained within the body of the spacecraft, then it would have made the spacecraft huge (and heavy). Having a "wrap around" V shaped jettisonable fuel tank was one solution. Over wing tanks (like on the Lightning F6 - only much bigger) were also looked at.
In the end, a massive "drop tank" (bigger than the spacecraft itself) was chosen.
The capsule (top left) was never considered as an actual proposal. It was included as a baseline comparison for showing how big (or small) a simple capsule set-up would be compared to a winged design. They were always going to go with a winged craft as it was considered essential for reusability for the machine to be able to land like an aeroplane. The downside is that adding wings and tail surfaces - plus undercarriage - and the associated hydraulics, was always going to make the spacecraft heavier than a comparable capsule.
The original orbiter concepts were also quite a bit smaller than the one finally chosen. When the Space Shuttle was intended to be mainly a people carrier to a space station, it didn't need to have such a big cargo bay. When the space station idea was shelved and when the DoD got on board, the cargo bay was increased (to accommodate Keyhole spy satellites) and the delta wing was selected over lifting body types. It was these final choices that determined how the Space Shuttle eventually looked.
Flooble said:
I did wonder if they had thought "hmm, instead of all the plumbing to fuel the spacecraft engines, why not just put the engines on the tanks"
Because with them in the spacecraft they could be recovered and reused, while if they were on the tanks they'd be discarded and destroyed each flightNASA Administrator Bill Nelson had a tour of Blue Origin's facilities at Cape Canaveral this week.
https://twitter.com/SenBillNelson/status/169442493...
https://twitter.com/SenBillNelson/status/169442493...
It looks as if more effort is going into cleaning than doing. I'm not knowledgeable enough to have an opinion if that is a good or a bad thing.
It somehow looks more of an exhibit than the Michoud plant did in similar photos.
Speaking of Michoud, I tried googling for a comparison, and in the process found
http://www.capcomespace.net/dossiers/espace_US/apo...
A photo where there is a row of S-1Cs in the background, the building is even more vast than I had previously realised.
It somehow looks more of an exhibit than the Michoud plant did in similar photos.
Speaking of Michoud, I tried googling for a comparison, and in the process found
http://www.capcomespace.net/dossiers/espace_US/apo...
A photo where there is a row of S-1Cs in the background, the building is even more vast than I had previously realised.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff