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."

Comments

The Carbon Trust?

[amightywind]

Here is a big cheer for the fact that the object is re-usable. This is fast becoming one of the more considered aspects of shuttle design, and given taht there is a "The Carbon Trust" campaign going on in the uk [and the world!] a reuable shuttle is a big bonus.

The DC-X and space shuttle are not at all comparable. The DC-X has about 1/100th the performance of the shuttle. The use of decent engines if frivolously wasteful. I am not surprised Bezos is attracted to it. The weight penalty imposed on the space shuttle for reusability, wings, wheels, thermal protection is huge. Strip all of that away and use a simple aerodynamic shape and you have the NASA CEV.

What does "Carbon Trust" have anything to do with vehicles that use LOX and LH2 for fuel and are built out of Li-Al?

Re:The Carbon Trust?

[Rei]

I agree with the first part, but not the latter. Yes, DC-X had lousy performance. So does this; I was very disappointed to hear that Bezos was simply building a same-old, same-old craft for the fictional market of large numbers of people with hundreds of thousands of disposable dollars that are eagerly waiting to waste it on a few minute joyride.

However, wings are not an inherent penalty to a spacecraft. They allow you to lower your reentry beta, give you good subsonic maneuverability, and probably most important, give you more surface area to dissipate heat on. Furthermore, it's not like the space inside the wings goes to waste. Yes, it's not an "minimal surface area to volume ratio" -- but, A) you don't want that, because it makes reentry harder, and B) that shape is a sphere; when was the last time you saw a spherical spacecraft designed to reenter?

Thermal protection is required for reentry. You might complain about the particular system used by the shuttle, but complaining about having a TPS is just silly :)

Reusability is a good point, but it's not inherently a problem. The shuttle was a first generation reusable. We've learned huge amounts, and any next gen reusable is bound to be far cheaper. I think that the Russians have a good concept with their Kliper spacecraft -- an evolved, not revolutionary, reusable vehicle, and only a relatively short number of reuses (~20) for the first generation. Also, they're keeping it small, which is a good idea at this stage. The concept of making your first reusable be a revolutionary design, and huge at that, with an underfunded development budget, was just plain silly. Separate cargo from humans.

New spacecraft: lessons learned

[amightywind]

However, wings are not an inherent penalty to a spacecraft. They allow you to lower your reentry beta, give you good subsonic maneuverability, and probably most important, give you more surface area to dissipate heat on. Furthermore, it's not like the space inside the wings goes to waste.

If cross range reentry is a requirement, fine. The shuttle has never made use of its maximum cross range of 1100 miles. It still gets hung up in space due to tight weather restrictions on landing. Ballistic reentry vehicles are not as constrained by ground level winds. I would say supersonic manuaverability is the olnly advantage of a winged vehicle. Both the Russian design and the CEV hit the ground under steerable chutes. If fact landing into a strong headwind with steerable parachutes is desireable. Heat dissipation on the CEV for the orbital or lunar reentry profiles is elegantly handled by replaceable carbon-carbon heatshields.

Yes, it's not an "minimal surface area to volume ratio" -- but, A) you don't want that, because it makes reentry harder, and B) that shape is a sphere; when was the last time you saw a spherical spacecraft designed to reenter?

The Soyuz bell shape comes close. NASA's tried and true conical design is a good tradeoff between low drag ascent performance and high drag and controllability for reentry.

Thermal protection is required for reentry. You might complain about the particular system used by the shuttle, but complaining about having a TPS is just silly :)

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.

Reusability is a good point, but it's not inherently a problem. The shuttle was a first generation reusable. We've learned huge amounts, and any next gen reusable is bound to be far cheaper.

The X-33 debocle killed SSTO for years to come. 2 Reusable stages are still too large and expensive. At best we could create an improved lighter space shuttle. But the severe architectural problem of parallel boost would remain.

I think that the Russians have a good concept with their Kliper spacecraft -- an evolved, not revolutionary, reusable vehicle, and only a relatively short number of reuses (~20) for the first generation.

The Russian design is ok. Not unlike LockMart's proposal for the CEV, which I am glad was rejected. Not sure what new shape buys them. It can't be that manuverable. The thermal protection system is exposed to the ascent environment. I am more interested in what they will launch it with. Today's Soyuz cannot launch a 6 person spacecraft.

Also, they're keeping it small, which is a good idea at this stage. The concept of making your first reusable be a revolutionary design, and huge at that, with an underfunded development budget, was just plain silly.

It is not silly if you are worried about a new administration coming in to deconstruct the program, and if external military requirements were added, like with the shuttle. I personally do not envy, nor do I think the US should emulate Russia's glacially conservative design evolution approach.

Re:Come on people - look at the trend...

[splatterboy]

Dont say that to Max Faget, John Holboldt or Tom Kelly... Many Americans made huge contributions to the Lunar program, more than can be mentioned or linked to here. Von Braun and the rest of the Germans were a guiding light (VB was the public face, he was very charismatic, great at PR and politics), but by no means did they alone get the job done. Take a little more than 15 minute of Google/wiki to do a little research.

Either way you split it up, the Germans never would have gotten there without the Americans

Re:Reusable!

[Ohreally_factor]

Yeah, but the durability of SUVs is not in the least dependent on their crappy fuel economy. I've known people who have bought used Honda Civics (1970s and 1980s models) with almost 200,000 miles on them and then put on another 100,000 miles. And this is not unusual. A well built car need not be a gas guzzler nor expensive.

The fact is, many if not most people in the US buy a new car because they want a new car or a different model, not because their old car has stopped running.