Blue Origin and New SHEPARD RLV

It'd odd how SpaceX has received so much more media attention yet the Blue Origin folks seem to be quietly succeeding. Well, not so odd, actually. The news never reports, "100,000 commercial airline flights took place today and none of them crashed." I only stumbled upon this program when I came across a Kickstarter campaign to fund a school project to send up an experiment on the New Shepard.

PS--Could a mod please correct the spelling in this topic title? It's Shepard (astronaut Alan) not shepherd (and his sheep).
 
Blue Origin has been sticking to sub-orbital launches. Their repeat launch and landing is promising but their current vehicles don't come close to the performance or commercial success of Falcon 9.
 
For a long time, Blue Origin simply didn't publicize their efforts.
 
Hobbes said:
For a long time, Blue Origin simply didn't publicize their efforts.
Click to expand...

When have they ever put anything into orbit?
 
sferrin said:
When have they ever put anything into orbit?
Click to expand...

They haven't, yet. That does not mean what they are doing isn't worthy of attention. Space X solcved the orbital aprt first and now is turning to the reuse piece. Blue Origin is coming in from the other direction. I suspect SpaceX has the better idea, since reuse of orbital stages is different from reuse of suborbital ones. But I won't be surprised if Blue Origin does get to a competitive place with SpaceX for some launch categories at some point.
 
One has to keep in mind that SpaceX was always about reuse. Falcon 1 was designed with reuse in mind - it just never worked. Heck, they even tested parachutes on Falcon 9 v1.0 - which didnt work. They started to seriously look into propulsive landings instead during 2009 timeframe or so, but technically all their vehicles were designed with reusability in mind from the start.
 
flanker said:
One has to keep in mind that SpaceX was always about reuse. Falcon 1 was designed with reuse in mind - it just never worked. Heck, they even tested parachutes on Falcon 9 v1.0 - which didnt work. They started to seriously look into propulsive landings instead during 2009 timeframe or so, but technically all their vehicles were designed with reusability in mind from the start.
Click to expand...

They tried to parachute a 1st stage? I hadn't heard of that.
 
Yeah, the Falcon 1 design called for Stage 1 to parachute for a water landing and then be recovered for reuse. But we know how well it works to reuse a stage after a landing in salt water (ask the Space Shuttle SRB guys). So they moved on to powered descent fairly quickly.
 
TomS said:
Yeah, the Falcon 1 design called for Stage 1 to parachute for a water landing and then be recovered for reuse. But we know how well it works to reuse a stage after a landing in salt water (ask the Space Shuttle SRB guys). So they moved on to powered descent fairly quickly.
Click to expand...

I don't doubt it was designed for it I'd just never heard they actually tested a full size 1st stage parachute landing.
 
I dont remember for sure if they did with Falcon 1, i am pretty sure they did try it, but they for sure tried with atleast one flight of Falcon 9 v1.0. Found out quickly that parachutes fundamentally suck for recovering stages. It semi worked in SRB case because it was basically a steel tube.
 
SpaceX really doesn't like to talk about the Falcon 1 first stage recovery efforts, because they were really bad. One exec commented "we've recovered pieces of the first stages." It seems they were not getting to deploy the parachute because the stages were breaking up first.

https://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2011/09/falcon-rockets-to-land-on-thei.html
 
I may not be recalling this exactly right, but i beleive the word over at NSF around the time that the chutes were dropped was that they figured the stages would still need a breaking burn in order to survive so why not just get rid of the chutes and concentrate on maturing the propulsive recovery idea.
 
From the link posted in #51 :-

"The biggest near-term advantage [of recovery] won't even be the reuse of the expensive hardware, but something less obvious: the ability to flight-test it. No matter how carefully SpaceX builds its rockets today, each one is always flying for the very first time. This isn't nearly as good as being able to test each and every one repeatedly, to find and fix any problems before a rocket is entrusted with an expensive payload. Development of the new system should also be easier, because each new stage can start with short "bunny hop" tests and gradually work up to higher and faster flights, rather than having to do the full flight the first time."

Does anyone know if SpaceX has ever considered this, flight testing their rockets before using them to launch a payload?
Also, a really dumb question, but is the Falcon 1 still in use?

cheers,
Robin.
 
In a sense, they already do. SpaceX does static fire tests of its rockets a week or so before each launch.

Falcn 1 is no longer offered. Payloads in that size can piggyback on a Falcon 9 main payload.
 
To bring the conversation back to Blue Origin's New Shepard, wouldn't having a man-rated, reusable, suborbital booster like this one be a great first step to a reusable launch system for small payloads? I know that Blue Origin has plans to apply to technology to other, larger orbital launch systems, but I mean putting a second stage of some kind on top of this suborbital rocket.
 
Go to 1:03:00 for liftoff. Successful landing of booster occurs around 1:10:00. Capsule touchdown occurs around 1:13:00.

The video is a recording of a live webcast. There is a long blank area at the beginning followed by views of the rocket being prepped for flight.

This is the 4th flight of the same rocket. I wouldn't be surprised if they decided to advance the flight schedule to include a manned test by year end.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EI-tGVFg7PU
 
www.space.com

Blue Origin Aces 4th Reusable Rocket Launch (and Landing) in Live Webcast

Jeff Bezos' private spaceflight company Blue Origin launched and landed a reusable rocket for the fourth time Sunday (June 19).
www.space.com www.space.com
spacenews.com

Bezos wins Heinlein Prize commercial space award

Jeff Bezos, whose commercial space company Blue Origin recently completed another test flight of its New Shepard reusable suborbital vehicle, is the latest winner of the Heinlein Prize for commerci…
spacenews.com spacenews.com
www.space.com

Bezos Wins Heinlein Prize Commercial Space Award

Jeff Bezos, whose commercial space company Blue Origin recently completed another test flight of its New Shepard reusable suborbital vehicle, is the latest winner of the Heinlein Prize for commercial space achievements, previously won by an archrival.
www.space.com www.space.com
 
Jeff Bezos just unveiled Blue Origin's next planned project: New Glenn, a recoverable multi-stage rocket (2- and 3-stage options) with seven BE-4 engines in the main stage, putting it between Falcon Heavy and Delta IV Heavy in terms of sea-level thrust. No word on weight to orbit as yet. It's 23 feet in diameter and between 217 and 330 feet tall, depending on version. Dimensionally, it's a monster, much larger than Falcon Heavy. I guess that's the result of using methane instead of RP-1 for fuel.

spacenews.com

Blue Origin to follow suborbital New Shepard with orbital New Glenn

Jeff Bezos announced Sept. 12 via Twitter that Blue Origin plans to build a family of orbital rockets it’s calling New Glenn.
spacenews.com spacenews.com

Edit: Oh, yeah. The BO design after this one is New Armstrong, presumably designed for Luna (or maybe Mars?) missions. If New Glenn is in roughly the same class as Falcon heavy, it sounds like New Armstrong will roughly parallel SpaceX's MCT.
 

Attachments

  • new-glenn-large2.jpg
    new-glenn-large2.jpg
    405.4 KB · Views: 443
TomS said:
Dimensionally, it's a monster, much larger than Falcon Heavy. I guess that's the result of using methane instead of RP-1 for fuel.
Click to expand...

Just look at the difference between the Falcon Heavy and Delta IV with it's even less dense LH2.
 
When Bezos announced a new re-useable launcher I was thinking it would actually be sized below ULA/Falcon 9. I guess he has lots of spare cash to throw around. Anyways, he has already broken ground on a factory in Florida to build the launcher. I'm not sure if he intends to build the engine here as well. I just wonder about his economic model. A booster this size would have to cost a lot so it would have to service multiple customers per launch (like Ariane). 3.9M pounds of thrust matches a Falcon Heavy and I don't think Spacex is planning to launch many of those each year once they become available.
 

Attachments

  • Blue Origin Factory.jpg
    Blue Origin Factory.jpg
    86.2 KB · Views: 395
  • BE-4 Engine 550,000lbs pounds thrust.png
    BE-4 Engine 550,000lbs pounds thrust.png
    217.7 KB · Views: 397
I have to remind myself is that thrust alone isn't the measure of "throw weight." Just because New Glenn comes up a bit lower than Falcon Heavy in sea-level thrust does not mean it's going to have less launch capacity, especially with that LH2/LOX upper stage.
 
TomS said:
I have to remind myself is that thrust alone isn't the measure of "throw weight." Just because New Glenn comes up a bit lower than Falcon Heavy in sea-level thrust does not mean it's going to have less launch capacity, especially with that LH2/LOX upper stage.
Click to expand...

A good example of this is the Titan IVB compared to the Delta IV Heavy. Titan IVB is much smaller, weighs more, and has about double the liftoff thrust but carried less into orbit than Delta IV Heavy.
 
www.nextbigfuture.com

Third richest in the world, Jeff Bezos, wants a fully colonized solar system with population in the trillions and backs it up with rocket and nuclear fusion companies | NextBigFuture.com

Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos would like to see a fully colonized solar system. Bezos also has a rocket company Blue Origin and he has helped fund General Fusion,
www.nextbigfuture.com www.nextbigfuture.com

Unrelated to this story but related in general I would recommend "The Millennial Project: Colonizing the Galaxy in Eight Easy Steps"

The Millennial Project: Colonizing the Galaxy in Eight Easy Steps: Savage, Marshall T.: 9780316771634: Amazon.com: Books

The Millennial Project: Colonizing the Galaxy in Eight Easy Steps [Savage, Marshall T.] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. The Millennial Project: Colonizing the Galaxy in Eight Easy Steps
www.amazon.com
 
the Fifth flight went well

Crew escape system works and booster came back home as nothing happened !
 
Very cool! Somehow I find the Blue Origin program more compelling than the SpaceX one, not sure why, maybe less hype and just getting on with it step by step?
 
I wasn't expecting the booster to keeping going like, "no problem", reach altitude, and then return for a landing.
 
sferrin said:
I wasn't expecting the booster to keeping going like, "no problem", reach altitude, and then return for a landing.
Click to expand...

Neither were BO. They expected to lose the booster.
 
Michel Van said:
the launch and landing, glorious 8 minute

www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7Q-IY9qhBs#t=490.290047588
Click to expand...

Video is a bit glitchy at the moment.
 
As a 60's kid who planned on retiring to the moon colony, I am so glad to see that there are still people out there willing to move forward and get us out of the cradle.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom