Slashdot Mirror
Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin Launches Its First Rocket
Zothecula writes: Billionaires who made their cash in dot-coms from the 1990s successfully launching commercial rockets is officially a trend, now that Jeff Bezos has followed in the footsteps of Elon Musk with Wednesday's successful test flight of Blue Origin's New Shepard space vehicle. "Our 110,000-lbf thrust liquid hydrogen, liquid oxygen BE-3 engine worked flawlessly, powering New Shepard through Mach 3 to its planned test altitude of 307,000 feet. Guidance, navigation and control was nominal throughout max Q and all of ascent. The in-space separation of the crew capsule from the propulsion module was perfect. Any astronauts on board would have had a very nice journey into space and a smooth return." Here are the images and video.
Someone isn't very good at statistical analysis...
#DeleteChrome
Why is GM doing the same thing that Ford is doing? As long as there is a market for space launches, competition will align the incentives better than other arrangements. We'll get to see more different approaches tried, and find out what's best. Costs will generally go down.
If competition takes root, then in 30 years a suborbital ticket would be affordable to many of us.
This was the first developmental test flight of their New Shepard, but they've been launching rockets since 2006. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...:
Second test flight: 13 November 2006, 06:30 (Goddard)
Third test flight: 22 March 2007 (Goddard)
Fourth test flight: 19 April 2007 (Goddard)
Fifth test flight: 6 May 2011 (New Shepard propulsion module (PM2))
Sixth test flight: 24 August 2011 (PM2, failure, loss of vehicle)
Pad escape test flight: 19 October 2012
(Their first test flight was a jet-powered controls testbed, so their first rocket flight was on the second test flight.)
A somewhat more expanded question would be, why are these companies developing suborbital rockets in the first place?
They are neat projects, and they have tourist potential, but it sounds like in general these are not designs that can be scaled up to orbital capabilities, and suborbital has fairly limited applications.
It kinda gives the feeling that these projects are 'rich people having fun' as opposed to something that has market or research value.
'Rich people having fun' does have its merits. It may be an inefficient use of capital, but it can still advance science and stimulate the economy.
Certainly it's preferable to 'Rich people sitting on their wealth'.
The point, as I understand it, is that even if these specific vehicles cannot be scaled up to have orbital capabilities (and I think they may well be), they WILL serve as stepping stones to vehicles that WILL have full orbital capabilities. With their suborbital "toys," these firms are building up the knowledge, skills, and technical infrastructure necessary for a real spacegoing capability.
Having multiple private space ventures is the best way for the US to stay in the space game. Why stay in the space game? Because the winners will be the dominant players in the planet's future. The more space-capable players we have, the better off we'll be.
"My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on espresso."
why Jeff Bezos is doing the same thing that SpaceX is already doing ?
They're not, New Shepard is a SUBorbital craft not an orbital one. I don't know if there are even any plans to make an orbital version...
From https://www.blueorigin.com/new...
"We continue to be big fans of the vertical takeoff, vertical landing architecture. We chose VTVL because it’s scalable to very large size. We’re already designing New Shepard’s sibling, her Very Big Brother – an orbital launch vehicle"
So: yes.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Think outside the box.
FTA
"We’re already designing New Shepard’s sibling, her Very Big Brother – an orbital launch vehicle that is many times New Shepard’s size and is powered by our 550,000-lbf thrust liquefied natural gas, liquid oxygen BE-4 engine."
So, this is a technological stepping stone to an orbital vehicle
Wherever You Go, There You Are
The additional engines allow for engine-out orbital capability, as has already happened on CRS-1, allowing the primary payload to reach orbit (the secondary payload failed, however). The failures of the N1 (which actually had 30 engines, not 27) weren't so much due to the number of engines as to the general complexity of operating a launch vehicle of that size. Each of the four failures varied in cause, and in only one case was the issue tied to an engine. Other failures were a pogo-induced line break (which might have been survivable had the computer not cut the engines), an uncontrolled roll due to eddies in a fuel tank, and a hydraulic shock wave from a planned shutdown of six of the engines bursting the fuel lines.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
I likes the rockets. I would like a Best Buy ad that could perhaps not block just one of my screens, but all 5, and then also order some stuff for me on its on that I don't want, like one of everything from Monster.
ignorance is bliss. googlefiberatx.com