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

I presume he's patented

[Megaweapon]

the One Click Launch?

Re:I presume he's patented

[lottameez]

Would you like to be the first to write a review on Blue Origin? Please also check out these fine offers from NASA, Virgin Galactic and more!

Reusable!

[mcai8rw2]

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.

Re:Reusable!

[CommunistHamster]

It's not just the reusability, it's how reuseable it is, in this case measured in turnaround time. The wikipedia article states that it has a turnaround time of 26 hours minimum, which is outstanding compared to the Shuttle.

Re:Reusable!

[LiquidCoooled]

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.

Re:Reusable!

[Billosaur]

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.

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.

NASA joined with MasterCard...

[PixelPirate]

30 Billion to get to Mars...

Another 30 billion to just get into space...

Yet another 30 billion just to say you'll go back into space...

Watching a first time yuppie from a dot-com industry spend...well... NOT 90 billion.... Pricel^H^H^H^H... it ain't 90 BILLION,/b>



(Note: I just pulled that 90 billion from my posterior... it could well be more or less).

Xenu

[Anonymous Coward]

At least it's not replica of a DC-8

Re:Rotavators?

[MichaelSmith]

Given the spread of suborbital spacecraft, isn't now a good time to take a fresh look at the rotavator idea?

Without a really good heavy lift system the rotavator won't get started at all. The best prospect was the Shuttle ET based big dumb booster, but no more ET's are going to be built now.

Perhaps somebody can come up with a plan to use all those shuttle main engines which will be left at the end of the Shuttle program.

Batcave?

[RDW]

"The acreage also has...a bat cave".

A secretive billionaire with advanced aerospace technology and a Batcave? Holy Amazon, Batman!

Come on people - look at the trend...

[Cicero382]

I've been an avid follower of space exploration for... well, all of my life. Hell, my father even woke me up at 3 AM so I could watch Armstrong do his stuff (I was eight) - he didn't dare *not* let me watch - the whinging would've been awful.

In those days, youngsters like me *knew* that we would have a base on the Moon in 10 years and another on Mars a few years after that. The excitement!

Oh, dear...

OK. I know now that it was all a "Get there before the Commies", but it *was* done. (BTW. To all you Yanks reading this - I think you guys made the greatest achievement of the human race, to date, happen. The reasons aren't important - you should be very proud).

Now look at it. It's starting again, but this time on many fronts - this isn't the only initiative. I'm eight years old again. The only difference is that I'm too old to play a part.

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

Can't wait for the promotional brochure!

[Dekortage]

I hope it includes this quote from the article: "[the] most significant man-made feature of the area from a visual-aesthetic perspective is State Highway 54, a two-lane blacktop that connects Interstate 10 to State Highways 62 and 180." Bring your cameras when you go.

Plus, if you sign up now, you can get a ninety-day free trial of New Shephard Prime -- no minumum flights required, free shipping to and from the launch site (including your remains if you don't make it back in one piece), and you can share your flight with up to four family members.

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:New spacecraft: lessons learned

[Rei]

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