Slashdot Mirror
More Clues About Blue Origin's Space Plans
FleaPlus writes "Blue Origin, the secretive company started by Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos, has recently released a number of new details about their suborbital launch plans and their private desert launch facility. The vehicle will be fully reusable, and similar in many ways to the vertical-takeoff-and-landing DC-X. The details were part of a 229-page environmental impact statement the company filed to comply with federal regulations. The company plans to start launching test vehicles later this year, with commercial operations beginning in 2010."
The 26 hour turnaround was for the DC-X.
The speed of this turnaround was mainly due to being able to take off from the same spot it landed on.
Its like the old Lunar Lander games where you just boost back up into the sky after refueling.
Looks very impressive.
liqbase
The 26 hour turnaround was for the DC-X.
And people forget that the DC-X was a concept vehicle, to prove that the technology existed and could be adapted to VTOL rockets. It was Pete Conrad's dream to take the DC-X and expand it, and make it a viable competitor for space commerce, a dream he saw dashed when the DC-X crashed during a test in July 1995.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
If cross range reentry is a requirement, fine.
;)
That's not what I said; I didn't even mention cross range. Please don't argue against straw men.
I mentioned:
1) Low Beta entry
2) Large surface are
3) Low speed maneuverability
Low beta can imply significant crossrange, but the real advantage of it is that you have more time to radiate off your heat.
Ballistic reentry vehicles are not as constrained by ground level winds.
Yes, but they also do lovely things like crash through frozen lakes and nearly roll off cliffs (see Soyuz). Steerable chutes are definitely an improvement, but they're not a catchall. And, unlike wings, all the mass of a chute is wasted; they don't give you more surface area, more storage space, etc.
Heat dissipation on the CEV for the orbital or lunar reentry profiles is elegantly handled by replaceable carbon-carbon heatshields.
1) Carbon-carbon is very expensive, and prices won't be going down majorly any time soon. You basically have to bake it at high temperatures while injecting natural gas under pressure for days at a time, all within a mould.
2) The smaller your craft, the more you can get away with simpler reentry systems. This is because... wait for it... the surface are to volume ratio! The wings greatly help a craft as large as the shuttle in this respect. Of course, as I said, they should have started out with smaller craft.
The Soyuz bell shape comes close.
Bell != Sphere. Note that Soyuz is moving toward a lifting body with Kliper. Also, Soyuz is small and expendible, so it can get away with more.
The complaint is about the extent of the winged vehicle TPS and its exposure to the launch environment. Winged designs will continue to be dogged by this vulnerability.
Many reentering spacecraft have their TPS exposed on launch. The problem with the shuttle is that it's side-mounted. It has nothing to do with being a winged design.
The X-33 debocle killed SSTO for years to come.
Once again, you bring in another strawman: when did I even mention an SSTO? Please stop that; it's annoying. We're talking about *reusables*, not SSTOs.
Reusable stages are still too large and expensive.
How many reusables do you think are out there? We're looking, for the most part, at the first generation of reusables out there. There's a reason why Japan, NASA, ESA, and Russia are all pushing toward reusables with their next generation vehicles.
At best we could create an improved lighter space shuttle.
Not even remotely true. For starters, you're ignoring the craft that I've mentioned several times - Kliper. I like Kliper's design; I think it's where our space program should have gone instead of the Shuttle.
It can't be that manuverable.
It's quite maneuverable at hypersonic speeds; not as much at subsonic. The biggest thing that they get out of it is a lower beta.
The thermal protection system is exposed to the ascent environment.
So? It's not to be side mounted, so what's the problem?
It is not silly if you are worried about a new administration coming in to deconstruct the program
In case you haven't noticed, that's happened far more with the US's new spacecraft designs than the Russians'. They see a giant cash-cow eating up hundreds of millions with billions more planned, slow progress, and they kill it. Over and over.
and if external military requirements were added, like with the shuttle
They were added because they had their budget slashed and didn't want to give up project scope. They should have given up scope to deal with the slashed budget.
I personally do not envy, nor do I think the US should emulate Russia's glacially conservative design evolution approach.
I agree. I think we should have done Kliper in the 70s.
Seriously, though: present day, who has the bette
No, she's fine. My associate is vomiting for a totally unrelated reason.