Blue Origin Is Probably Going To Launch Something (Update)
Blue Origin Flies New Shepard To Space – Again (with video)
“The very same New Shepard booster that flew above the Karman line and then landed vertically at its launch site last November has now flown and landed again, demonstrating reuse. This time, New Shepard reached an apogee of 333,582 feet (101.7 kilometers) before both capsule and booster gently returned to Earth for recovery and reuse.”
Keith’s 21 Jan note: This NOTAM – Notice to Airmen – has been issued by the FAA for the area where Blue Origin launches.
“!FDC 6/5414 ZAB TX. AIRSPACE VAN HORN, TX. TEMPORARY FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS DUE TO SPACE FLIGHT OPERATIONS WI AN AREA DEFINED AS 17 NM RADIUS OF 3127N10446W OR THE SALT FLAT/SFL/VORTAC 125 DEGREE RADIAL AT 24 NM, SFC TO UNL. PURSUANT TO 14CFR SECTION 91.143 TEMPORARY FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS ARE IN EFFECT. DLY 1300-2100 1601221300-1601232100.”
Keith’s Update: They did.
.@blueorigin View of the West Texas sky this morning. #blueorigin pic.twitter.com/c4jhUQxGWw
— Patrick Brown (@phhbrown) January 22, 2016
Jeff Bezos Blue Origin feel the pressure from Elon Musk SpaceX 2 Falcon 9 Launch success little over 1 month. He had to launch New Shepard suborbital vehicle rocket real soon to respond to that challenge or look very bad to the American news press. I can Sum it up as the Space Competition of two American billionaires.
It’s only a competition if both are in the same weight class. But here we have Sonny Liston vs. Strawweight.
Or, say, a girl:-)
Come on … since when did things like that matter in the press? .. smiles
As long as commercial space gets column inches it’s a good thing. As long as commercial transportation gets column inches it’s a good thing and as long as reusablity is getting some column inches it’s a good thing
They are just approaching the problem from different directions.
Elon Musk has much less money and needed something that would generate revenue fast, which the ELV Falcon 9 did with both commercial and government contracts including COTS, Commercial Cargo and CCP. Now he is working on making its elements reusable.
Jeff Bezos by contrast has all the money he needs and doesn’t need early revenue streams. So he is following the model that was planned for the DC-X twenty-five years ago. Test vehicle (DC-X), sub-orbital launcher (DC-Y), orbital system (DC-1), larger orbital system. And because he has enough funding he is free to master each stage first before moving on to the next.
A good analogy might be the British Comet and Boeing B707. The British went straight for a commercial jet liner because their industry needed early revenue after the war. Boeing did the B-47 first, then the Dash 80 before the B707. Longer path but a better product at the end. We will see how this “race” turns out.
That’s a POV I hadn’t considered. I suppose the question would be: why bother with all of the suborbital stuff? Clearly going straight to Big Rockets works, as Mr. Musk demonstrated, so why bother with sub?
Perhaps thee’s a much bigger suborbital market than I imagined.
I don’t think SpaceX has demonstrated it. They’ve demonstrated that going straight to expendable, low-cost, big rockets works. They are still working on the reusable part. If two out of two counts, Blue Origin has demonstrated that going straight to small, presumably-low-cost, and reusable rockets works. They’ve both got a step to go before they’ve done all three.
Blue has preempted Virgin for the suborbital passenger market, if it materializes. And Bezos is working on a methane-fueled booster for an orbital LV, presumably it would also be reusable.
Sit Richard says people wold rather be in a plane- with all that entails- than in a capsule.
Belatedly:
Two out of three. Blue lost a launcher on its first test flight in April last year.
Suborbital testing is less expensive and less bureaucratically expensive than going straight to orbital.
Well, sure, but the kit is entirely different. How does one scale this critter to something that achieves 18,000+ MPH? What lessons are learned that are directly usable to an orbital vehicle? Lessons that could have been learned by simply going to a larger rocket? They are not using an engine with anything near orbital capacity.
The orbital rocket has an entirely different class of engine, pumps, fuel containment, pressurization systems- the list goes on and on. And has others have pointed out Mr. Bezos has the money in hand, unlike Mr. Musk, who was obliged to seek partners.
It’s a mystery.
It’s hard to say, since Blue Origin doesn’t hand out many details. But… The capsule might be of use. It lacks reentry systems and long-term life support, but many other subsystems would be relevant. Their choice of hydrogen/oxygen for the rocket surprised me. But, in hindsight, it might make their propulsion module easy to adapt into a nice upper stage. Landing systems just need to be scaled up, which is fairly straightforward mechanical engineering. Guidance, control and navigation for landing are applicable and tested. I’d say they are “just” missing a big non-cryogenic engine (the BE-4 would do, and they have someone helping to pay the development costs), a first stage, and entry/flyback capabilities. That’s a big “just” but it’s less than it might seem.
Belatedly,
It’s essentially an upper-stage for a small orbital launcher.
Blue is developing their rocket from the top down.
They first developed the capsule back in 2012, testing it’s propulsion and landing system. Then they developed a hydrolox engine BE-3 and built a small rocket stage around it. They used that to launch the capsule to 100km, and landed both.
Next they’ll develop a large methalox engine BE-4 and build a larger rocket stage around that. They’ll modify the BE-3 into a vacuum version (larger exhaust bell), and add whatever reentry system they are going to use. Then they’ll have their three reusable components for orbital launch.
Space X and Blue Origin(BO) aren’t even in the same game, much less competing against each other.BO is playing in the kiddie leagues while Space X is in the majors.
However the Shepard might capture a few of the customers that signed up for Virgin Galactic, since it is designed to put seven passengers above the von karman line. And Blue is also playing in the big leagues, developing the BE-4 and building a plant at KSC to assemble their orbital LV.
SpaceX has a comfortable lead in the orbital market, but ULA and Ariane should perhaps be starting to worry about Blue’s intentions for the orbital market. ULA and Ariane could very well be facing two reusable first stage competitors at a time when they’re finally getting around to recovering Vulcan engine modules (or trying to, the concept seems dubious), and Ariane is whistling past the graveyard with no concrete plans for reusability.
Boeing has been doing serious work on reusable propulsion/avionics modules since the early 1990s or before.
But if ULA is digging that deep – after others have recovered entire boosters… I hope it doesn’t turn out too little too late.
Boeing is a prodigious company. Problem is, they won’t go it alone. Probably frustrating for the engineers.
Tory Bruno made interesting comments on The Space Show podcast a few weeks ago, basically saying that reusable rockets won’t work and trumpeting the success of Atlas and Delta (which they deserve). He’s still trumpeting the ‘assured access to space’ meme. As if it will separate him from SpaceX for long.
If it won’t work, why is ULA spending time and money on the recoverable engine module concept for Vulcan?
But yes, Atlas and Delta do deserve heaps of praise.
He wasn’t asked that obvious question.
You know, I don’t think that there is any argument for there being a ‘competition’ here except in terms of the two owners’ egos. Shepard and Falcon-9 are not the same type of vehicle and are not aimed for the same mission.
I hope he is re-flying the same rocket. That would be outstanding.
See the Blue Origin site: It was a re-flight of the same rocket. Clap clap clap!
I wonder if Bezos feels any pressure at all. His team has consistently played to their own secretive tune at their own steady pace.
But if they are overtly trying to compete, the relaunch of the stage would be an impressive feather in their cap.
Except XPrize/SpaceShipOne.
How’s that gone since that third SS1 flight?
Also the X-15, although it used the USAF line of 50 miles.
May Chuck Yeager’s memory never be lost. He’s a hero- strapping himself into a tiny rocket plane and pulling the trigger took some enormous balls.
Similarly the Mercury crews. Those guys were made of steel.
My god how little we knew. And know, I suppose.
However the X-15 crossed the 100km von Karman line on flights 90 and 91, and could probably have gone higher had the program continued.
Musk vs Bezos
WE all know it is apples and oranges. WE all know that.
However, I think back to Bobby Riggs and Billie Jean King (look them up, youngsters) and what they did for themselves, their sport (tennis) and the issue of women’s equality with the “Battle of the Sexes” (you kids know how to use Wikipedia, right?)
In the grand scheme of things, this ‘competition’ between SpaceX and Blue Origin means nothing. But when you consider the publicity a public food fight between the two would draw, this is the kind of viral marketing that will draw a crowd.
…and we need a crowd.
“Musk vs Bezos”
I’m thinking years from now there may be a documentary of these two men and their companies with all kinds of interesting stuff that virtually everyone missed (non-issues to really important matters that didn’t get any attention). If a movie were to be made of this “space race,” any recommendations for actors?
Indeed. They are the Orville and Wilbur Wright of the Rocket Age. Guys like this do not come along very often.
The Wrights didn’t compete with each other (or publicly argue, for that matter.) The Wrights and Glenn Curtiss might be a better comparison.
Or the Wrights and Langley
There was a interesting documentary, had actors portraying the Wright Bros. and Curtiss, of how, what, and why they were competing. What was highlighted was Wright Bros spent much of their time in litigation against Curtiss and eventually they won from the courts an overall patent on “airplane flight.” Meanwhile Curtiss and others spent a lot of time redesigning aspects to skirt Wright patents i.e. developing the aileron which aircraft designs that can be scalable unlike the wing warping design which cannot. Eventually Orville (Wilbur died) would then be an “observer” of aeronautical developments that Curtiss and others were leading.
Hmm, will one of these rocket companies get stuck in a technical rut that cannot be scaled up, and eventually be passed up by others?
Hey, maybe if such a movie could be made and can portray N.A.C.A. which Orville served a position and have major stars portraying Vannevar Bush, Hap Arnold, Charles Abbot, Joe Ames, George Lewis, William Durand,…
You are a nitpicker, sir. And correct.
(I was actually comparing both rocket boys to the Wrights but your comparison is more apt).
Yes, Wright/Curtis was my first thought.
I have been saying the same thing, when every tweet gives you free column inches worth millions as it goes viral….
The one thing these two are not is stupid. Free column inches about commercial space is good, free column inches about commercial space transportation is good, free column inches about reusability is good.
Yay! Competition is good. I wish them every success. Still, it’s frustrating to know that all of this could easily have been done more than 20 years ago, and as much as 50 years ago if the right people had had the will. What opportunities are we overlooking or ignoring now, I wonder.
Is that actually true? Not challenging deeper knowledge, just wondering if the ensuing years have revealed tech not available in, say, 1981?
DC-X. End of!
DC-X even fell over when a leg collapsed exactly like the last Falcon 9 landing, but 20 years earlier.
At a high level, I don’t think the autonomous, unpiloted landing of the propulsion module could have been done 20 years ago. (Or in 1981, which would be 35.)
Looking under the hood is difficult, since Blue Origin doesn’t tend to say much. But the BE-3 engine might not have been possible twenty or thirty years ago. All the features existed (hydrogen/oxygen, relatively simple plumbing, size, etc.) but probably not all in the same package. Mechanical engineering and material science has made quire a bit of progress, and I’d be surprised in BO didn’t take advantage of that.
Just as a comparison, the Boeing 767’s first flight was in 1981, and the 787’s in 2009. In basic specs (number of passengers, speed, range) they aren’t all that different. But the 787 is significantly more advanced in the details (and comfort) and couldn’t have been built in 1981.
787 is the first airliner with a composite primary structure. That’s a pretty major change, and it brings lower operating costs, maybe the most challenging aspect of performance. Similarly all modern rocket engines depend on numerically controlled machining to produce channel wall nozzles without the expensive hand-welded tubewall construction of the RS-25.
How about the Viking landers?
They were fully autonomous, throttle-able engines and 100% successful. BEFORE you could fit a cray SC in your pocket….
as were US Surveyors and Russian Lunas on the Moon in the ’60s.
Only difference there is that Luna landings could ‘almost’ be controlled from Earth as the TWLT is seconds. For Mars there is no way to joystick a landing from Earth. It had to be done 100% by computer (and I believe an Analog computer like from the movie Space Cowboys)
But they were automatic, not controlled from Earth. That second and a half each way would likely be too much.
what causes the odd cork screw exhaust trail ? is this rocket spinning more than usual ??
Possibly wind shear, rockets (except for the SpaceShiip One) do not usually rotate. I’ve seen this with Shuttle launches.
I once heard someone call this “frozen lightning.”
Great landing! Congratulations to Blue Origins! And yes it is the same rocket!
And Jeff Bezos is promising to fly it again and again…
An extremely important milestone for economic re-usability passed. I’m
really excited for what the future holds, Blue Origin and SpaceX are
revolutionizing the industry before our eyes.
Now, do it again, and again!
Oh, burn! It will be a while before Elon can reflight a rocket to space. I think any real engineer can tell who’s really pushing the envelope here (hint: not Elon)
Doing what DC-X did in 1993 is catching up, not pushing the envelope. Of course Bezos is going to press onward, which feckless NASA and DoD did not do.
Nope, nothing boundary-pushing about SpaceX, no sir.
Can we just accept that for one of these companies to be exciting and noteworthy, does not mean that the other is not? And really, while there is a lot to respect about Bezos’s systematic approach, if I were forced to pick which company were riding the other’s coattails, I wouldn’t be pointing at Elon’s.
What do they mean by “the very same”? Did they just refuel the rocket without any repair? Or did they do a complete overhaul before launch? Such information shouldn’t be trade secret I guess.
“Such information shouldn’t be trade secret I guess.”
Why not? Its totally private property.
Without disclosure, there is no reason to believe Blue Origin’s claim that they are reusing the same rocket. That’s the deal for them, doesn’t matter it the company is private or not.
You really, really truly believe he would LIE about using the same rocket??
Beyond the general ridiculousness of that concept, you better believe someone would spill the beans.
Bezos:
Data from the November mission matched our preflight predictions closely, which made preparations for today’s re-flight relatively straightforward. The team replaced the crew capsule parachutes, replaced the pyro igniters, conducted functional and avionics checkouts, and made several software improvements, including a noteworthy one. Rather than the vehicle translating to land at the exact center of the pad, it now initially targets the center, but then sets down at a position of convenience on the pad, prioritizing vehicle attitude ahead of precise lateral positioning. It’s like a pilot lining up a plane with the centerline of the runway. If the plane is a few feet off center as you get close, you don’t swerve at the last minute to ensure hitting the exact mid-point. You just land a few feet left or right of the centerline. Our Monte Carlo sims of New Shepard landings show this new strategy increases margins, improving the vehicle’s ability to reject disturbances created by low-altitude winds.
You are being a troll. Knock it off.
Thought you meant me for a second!
Great stuff Blue Origin! I’m really happy that BO is getting the video of the flight out so quickly, and hope this is a trend for the company. Liked the mention of the retro rocket system to cushion the landing, hadn’t seen that before.
All the comments about competition… Vladislaw nails it!
“As long as commercial space gets column inches it’s a good thing. As
long as commercial transportation gets column inches it’s a good thing
and as long as reusablity is getting some column inches it’s a good
thing”
Bezos speaks!
https://www.washingtonpost….