Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Blue Origin Pushed Its Rocket 'To Its Limits' With High-Altitude Emergency Abort Test (theverge.com)

Posted by msmash on from the up,-up,-and-away dept.

Blue Origin pulled off another successful test launch today, landing both the New Shepard rocket -- a reusable vehicle designed to take tourists to the edge of space and back -- and capsule after flight. From a report: The company ignited the capsule's emergency motor after it had separated from the rocket, pushing the spacecraft up to a top altitude of around 74 miles -- a new record for Blue Origin. The firing also caused the capsule to sustain up to 10 Gs during the test, but Blue Origin host Ariane Cornell said "that is well within what humans can take, especially for such a short spurt of time."

[...] The rocket which went up today is the third New Shepard vehicle that the company has ever flown. The first one flew to a super high altitude in April 2015, but the booster was unable to land back on Earth after flight. The second iteration of the vehicle was much more successful, however. Blue Origin launched and landed the rocket and booster a total of five times before retiring the system. This third New Shepard has already done two launches and landings, and it sports some upgrades over its predecessors. For instance, this one actually has windows in the crew capsule; the second vehicle had its windows painted on. Blue Origin is building even more vehicles to carry passengers, though there isn't a firm date for when the first crewed flights will occur. The company's president Rob Meyerson has estimated that the first test passengers could fly as soon as this year, while commercial flights could start in 2019. Blue Origin also plans to start selling tickets next year, too.

45 comments

  1. Pushing Treason to its Limits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Moscow Donald is really pushing treason to its limits by protecting and covering up Russia's continuing attacks on America.

    Lock him up!

    1. Re: Pushing Treason to its Limits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      If Hillary Clinton has been elected there would already be would war 3.at least Trump is solving the Korea was problem

    2. Re: Pushing Treason to its Limits by bobbied · · Score: 0

      .at least Trump is solving the Korea was problem

      Well, to be fair, the solution is up to Kim, not Trump, though Trump may get the credit for brokering the deal. Right now the North Koreans are running around trying to figure out exactly how much of their nuclear program they can hide and are busy finding and filling holes with paperwork and equipment. This will take awhile, so I don't expect any "progress" with NK until this is done and the radiation in certain areas has died down.

      The proof will be that Trump doesn't relax sanctions on NK until the disarmament has been independently verified, which means North Korea will need to allow unfettered onsite inspections. My guess is Kim is just stalling, hoping that the appearance of peace and the press swirling around Trump makes it possible to get sanctions removed on the mere promise from Kim. I think Kim is mistaken, but I guess I can see why he's dragging his feet at this point, given the political landscape in the USA and the press reporting on it.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    3. Re: Pushing Treason to its Limits by Dzimas · · Score: -1, Troll

      If you spoke English, you'd realize that Trump doesn't.

    4. Re: Pushing Treason to its Limits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      I'm much more concerned with Jeff Bezos than I am with Kim Jong-un. Jeff has proven launch capabilities, slave labor work camps, and a completely secret nuclear program. No one, not the CIA, NSA, KGB, or SPCA knows exactly how many nuclear weapons he has. The US needs immediate sanctions in place to begin taxing this guy.

    5. Re: Pushing Treason to its Limits by HornWumpus · · Score: 0

      The US military has thousands of nuclear weapons, I only have three...What are they worried about?

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    6. Re: Pushing Treason to its Limits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      Those weapons could each be hidden inside of any Amazon warehouse, Amazon locker, or Amazon delivery vehicle or Amazon package. Jeff can literally hide his nuclear arsenal in billions of locations. Not even Jack Bauer would be able to find them in time. Sanction Amazon now.

    7. Re: Pushing Treason to its Limits by blindseer · · Score: -1, Troll

      Well, to be fair, the solution is up to Kim, not Trump, though Trump may get the credit for brokering the deal.

      To be fair the Kim family could have disarmed NK at any time in the last 50-60 years. Doesn't seem like there's been much progress on this until recently. What changed? Maybe a visit from USPOTUS? Retired presidents have visited NK, sitting presidents have been to the south side of the DMZ and looked into NK. Trump was the first sitting POTUS to visit NK and speak to their "dear leader".

      I think Kim is mistaken, but I guess I can see why he's dragging his feet at this point, given the political landscape in the USA and the press reporting on it.

      I can see why he's dragging his feet too, we are seeing the Democrat Party electing socialists to appear on election ballots in their primaries. The UN is helping the Kim family stay in power too by making Israel the "bad guy" on human rights while ignoring what's happening in China, Russia, Cuba, and of course in North Korea.

      Trump should get some credit for making things move for once in getting North Korea to play nice in the international playground. So should a lot of people. I'm not sure how much credit should really go towards Kim on this, he's the reason NK is a shit hole to begin with.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    8. Re: Pushing Treason to its Limits by bobbied · · Score: 0

      My point was that Kim is the one deciding how this plays out. Trump has put his position on the table, complete verified disarmament before sanctions get lifted, Kim can either accept it or the sanctions remain in place.

      Trump get's credit for negotiating the deal, but Kim is the one making the choices at this point.

      Obviously the North Koreans are following their old warn path in their tactics. Talk, give up a little bit of something, then backtrack claiming some insult once they get what they want. They play the North and South Korean press, holding out that olive branch of peace, only to toss it into the fire once the heat is off. They are just trying to figure out how much they can get away with and how much power Trump is ready and able to apply. I think they are going to regret calling Trump's bluff if and when they do.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  2. Rocket Name by Calydor · · Score: 1

    My name is New Shepard, and this is my favorite spot in the atmosphere.

    --
    -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
  3. Wow! That's impressive! by mschuyler · · Score: 1

    Maybe in a couple of years Blue Origin will actually put something useful into orbit. You know, like SpaceX has done about 60 some odd times so far.

    --
    How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
    1. Re:Wow! That's impressive! by Gavagai80 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not likely. New Shepard goes up at about Mach 3, orbital speed is about Mach 25. Testing suborbital doesn't really get you anywhere toward orbital flight, and as far as I know they haven't built or done any tests of their theoretical orbital rocket yet.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    2. Re: Wow! That's impressive! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe we will get a useful president who actually cares enough to fund NASA and protect the future of humanity rather than just short term profits (although NASA funding will bring about short term gains too). But no, we keep electing reality TV clowns and corrupt dynasty families to office, believing their lies again and again...

    3. Re:Wow! That's impressive! by Robotbeat · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's true that suborbital is an order of magnitude away from orbital velocity, and two orders of magnitude away in terms of energy, but I will say the method that Blue Origin is using to achieve suborbital flight above the Karman line is more extensible to orbital spaceflight than either Virgin Galactic (using hybrid rockets and feather reentry) or XCOR (although XCOR, may they RIP, did have a hydrogen variant concept that would've been extensible).

      The New Shepard booster is using pump-fed hydrolox engines, and vertical takeoff/landing is very scalable to large sizes. Their orbital rocket has a new factory in Florida that is basically finished (currently being furnished inside) with a launch pad undergoing construction, and the engines for it are currently undergoing extensive testing. So you should take their orbital aspirations seriously, although there is a long ways to go. The upper stage of New Glenn uses couple vacuum-optimized engines based on this sea-level-optimized one used for New Shepard, so there is some direct heritage.

      New Shepard is to New Glenn (the orbital rocket) as Falcon 1 is to Falcon 9 or maybe Falcon Heavy.

    4. Re:Wow! That's impressive! by esperto · · Score: 1
      I don't know if it just me, but I was a bit underwhelmed.

      Anything space is difficult as shit, but after seeing the Space X suicide landings, watching Blue Origins is just a bit boring, is like seeing someone parallel park in a really tight spot after seeing someone park at the same stop but doing a bootleg turn.

    5. Re:Wow! That's impressive! by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 2

      New Shepard is to New Glenn (the orbital rocket) as Falcon 1 is to Falcon 9 or maybe Falcon Heavy.

      Not really. Falcon 1 was also an orbital rocket. New Shepard still just isn't.

      Are they learning things, as they say? Yes. Are they learning relevant things? Some. Not very much. They've gotten really good at landing something that never really goes very fast. Being able to build any rocket that can ignite, fire, and shut off without exploding is an achievement, of sorts, but the Max-Q New Shepard experiences is nothing like the Max-Q an orbital vehicle experiences. Their engine people are maybe learning useful things. Their structures people aren't being pushed at all.

    6. Re:Wow! That's impressive! by torkus · · Score: 2

      Suborbital may be useful for things like ultrafast delivery, transportation, etc.

      Scaling up suborbital for a reasonable number of people/cargo/weight is still easier than scaling up LEO launches. Assuming the launch vehicle is easily reusable - along the lines of 'preflight, launch, land, refuel, repeat' - then it may have viability even though it never puts anything into orbit.

      Pricey, sure...but if you could do NY to London in an hour people would pay for it. Very rich people would pay a very large amount of money for it.

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
    7. Re:Wow! That's impressive! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They are just doing things in the opposite order that SpaceX is doing them. SpaceX built orbital rockets first and then developed reusable technology. Blue Origin is working on making reusable rockets and engines and then when that is proven they will make orbital rockets. Which is the better approach? Well SpaceX is certainly flying real missions right now, but Blue Origin also started with the goal of being an engine company. Not a rocket company. They intend to mass produce BE-3s and BE-4s and sell them to anyone who wants them. They already have a contract with ULA for the BE-4 in the Vulcan and there are also talks about using the BE-3 for ACES. The suborbital hops with the new shep probably wont be as plentiful or lucrative as actual space work but its something. In the long run I think it remains to be seen who has the better business model. SpaceX certainly has a big head start with two active launchers, a medium and heavy but I wouldn't count Blue Origin out just yet. There very well may be room in the market for both of them. We are seeing the space industry grow a lot right now, in no small part because of how SpaceX has lowered the cost to orbit and has inspired others to get in the game and innovate.

    8. Re:Wow! That's impressive! by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 2

      New Shepard is to New Glenn (the orbital rocket) as Falcon 1 is to Falcon 9 or maybe Falcon Heavy.

      Not really. Falcon 1 was also an orbital rocket. New Shepard still just isn't.

      Okay. New Shepard is to New Glenn as Redstone (which carried Alan Shepard--first American in space) is to Atlas (which carried John Glenn--first American to orbit the Earth).

    9. Re:Wow! That's impressive! by gman003 · · Score: 1

      New Shepard is a testbed for their orbital tech, which will be the New Glenn rocket. Specifically, where New Shepard uses a single BE-3 engine, New Glenn's second stage will use two BE-3 engines. The BE-3 engine is designed more for the orbital role than the suborbital one - hydrolox engines have very high Isp but low propellant density, making them much better suited for high altitude flight. The BE-4 engines that will power New Glenn's first stage use a methalox chemistry, and have been built and test-fired (they're also a leading contender for ULA's new Vulcan rocket, although due to typical government fuckery, Aerojet is somehow still in the running).

      There's also the whole reusability thing. New Shepard is, in many ways, an equivalent of SpaceX's Grasshopper rocket - which was a suborbital-only test article, which made numerous test flights as they figured out the basics of vertical landing.

      While there is indeed a very large gap between suborbital and orbital flights, it is not so large as you seem to think.

  4. Passenger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Blue Origin is concentrating on the passenger market and sending people is much more difficult than cargo.

    I would think geeks here would be excited that commercial space travel is progressing so well - regardless of who's doing it.

    1. Re: Passenger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      It's not gonna be affordable and safe for the average middle class citizen in my lifetime, so I don't give a fuck. That's why I vote Republican.

    2. Re:Passenger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is Slashdot, the comment section is almost always negative.

      What Blue Origin is doing is awesome and it'll be exciting when people are traveling to the edge of Space for tourism. You are correct to be excited.

      However, you can't really compare this with the difficulty of sending cargo (or anything else) to orbit. Blue Origin's current rocket cannot deliver anything to space that won't fall back down in a few minutes since it's a sub-orbital launch vehicle that goes straight up. Developing an orbital space launch vehicle is a very different challenge that is considered more difficult.

      Furthermore, other companies, such as Boeing & SpaceX, are developing passenger vehicles that actually put people in orbit. They are also nearing the end of their development and should start flying people to orbit around the same time (roughly) as Blue Origin starts sending tourists to the edge of space.

    3. Re:Passenger by Immerman · · Score: 2

      Doesn't matter what they're shipping if they can't get it anywhere close to orbit - and Blue Origin can only get about 10% of the way there. Getting out of the atmosphere is easy - we've got space enthusiast groups launching balloons that can make it almost all the way out (see Airship to Orbit). The hard part is getting up to orbital velocity, which requires about 10x as much energy as required to reach to the right altitude.

      While Blue Origin is doing some interesting and impressive things in rocketry that are fun to see done, and may eventually prove useful for space launches, for now they're engaging strictly in scale model R&D. Nothing they've done so far is even remotely capable of reaching space, unless you define "reaching space" as nothing more than crossing a completely arbitrary line somewhere above where the atmosphere has become too thin to be useful. Which might turn out to work well enough for casual "experience tourism" purposes, but is mostly irrelevant to space travel and research. They can get above more of the atmosphere than air-breathing aircraft, and can offer about 6x the free-fall duration of Vomit Comet parabolic aircraft flights, but that's about it. (And with 15 parabolic segments in a typical flight plan, the Vomit Comet still provides roughly twice the total freefall time per flight)

      Now, they could design a second stage to replace the current passenger capsule that might indeed be able to reach orbit. Unfortunately the completely fueled second stage probably couldn't weigh much more than the mostly-empty passenger capsule while using the New Shepard booster, and that severely limits the maximum payload that could be delivered, but there is a market for micro-satellite launches.

      So for now, while they're doing some interesting research that might eventually pay off, the only real contribution they're making to space travel is PR and a weak reminder to SpaceX that if they drop the ball to hard and long, they may eventually face real competition. And, I suppose, helping show governments around the world that reusable rockets can be done

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    4. Re:Passenger by spire3661 · · Score: 2

      Falcon 9 will be human-rated soon. Blue Origins is not 'space travel', yet. Its a ticket to nowhere. We are not at the stage where you can fund actual space travel through democratization of the tech.

      --
      Good-bye
    5. Re:Passenger by WrongMonkey · · Score: 1

      As of February, there are no plans for the Falcon 9 or the Falcon Heavy to ever be human rated. Elon is pushing that off until BFR, which won't even begin testing for another year. https://spacenews.com/spacex-n...

    6. Re:Passenger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Falcon 9 most definitely will be human rated. It will carry the Crew Dragon spacecraft, the first flight prototype of which has just been delivered to the Cape.

  5. what is this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Nobody gives a shit A shiiit!

  6. Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    I hope to one day get to go to space myself.

    I also see the Musk worshipers are out.

    Hey did any of you see that Musk admitted to being a liar? He apologized to that hero British diver. The damage is done though. The diver deserves a billion or so. No worries. Musk will get Tesla shareholders to pay for it somehow and all the Musk worshipers will rationalize it away like they always do.

    Hey did any of you see that articles on the Chinese EV battery boom? No? It must be wonderful living in the Musk-is-God bubble!

    1. Re: Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A liar? Man, your marriage counseling sessions must get rough.

  7. well then, where the heck did it go? Aliens? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The first one flew to a super high altitude in April 2015, but the booster was unable to land back on Earth after flight."

    So, did the aliens snatch it out of the sky, or what?

    1. Re:well then, where the heck did it go? Aliens? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Aliens did it.

      Howard the Duck took care of the quack up.. That's what...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re:well then, where the heck did it go? Aliens? by BoogieChile · · Score: 1

      No, it still came back to Earth, it just didn't land so much as impact.

  8. DONT BELIEVE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE?!?!?!

  9. Interesting terminology by surfdaddy · · Score: 0

    A rocket that looks like a phallus sustained 10Gs in a short "spurt" of time.

    1. Re:Interesting terminology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's after its head was cut off.

    2. Re:Interesting terminology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Point to a single rocket that doesn't look like a phallus.

  10. Makes me wonder... by Muckluck · · Score: 2
    >> sustain up to 10 Gs during the test, but Blue Origin host Ariane Cornell said "that is well within what humans can take, especially for such a short spurt of time."

    How fit will you have to be to make one of these trips? If you have to be able to withstand up to 10G for any amount of time, even if just in an emergency, how do you determine who is fit enough to be a space tourist? Granted, that is less than many car wrecks but still dangerous...

    --


    --I like turtles...
    1. Re:Makes me wonder... by Robotbeat · · Score: 2

      It is just for aborts, so very rare. It's like being protected by an airbag.

    2. Re:Makes me wonder... by barc0001 · · Score: 3, Informative

      The 10G was during the escape capsule emergency escape sequence so it's not expected on a normal flight. And the escape rockets only fire for a few seconds. Even someone reasonably un-fit should be able to handle 10Gs for less than 5 seconds. Wouldn't be pleasant but beats dying because of a problem with the booster.

      For a similar reference, here:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_FXVjf46T8

      is the SpaceX Dragon capsule testing its escape system. The heavy G is only felt while the engines fire, and in that video you can see it's only about 5-6 seconds' worth.

    3. Re:Makes me wonder... by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      The 10G is only during the escape, so normally nobody will go through that.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    4. Re:Makes me wonder... by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      How fit will you have to be to make one of these trips? If you have to be able to withstand up to 10G for any amount of time, even if just in an emergency, how do you determine who is fit enough to be a space tourist?

      "You must be this tall to ride on this ride." There's one roller coaster in the world that achieves 6.3 Gs, and five others that achieve at least 5 Gs. Riders of New Shepard will have to be fit enough to ride a roller coaster, and for the same reasons. I expect that will be the standard. The US legal system likes nothing better than "this thing is a lot like that thing."

  11. The Wrong Stuff by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 0

    Virgil R. "Gus" Grissom: "Hey, little lady. How would you like one of these?"

    Bar Tendress: "I can get one of those anywhere."

    Gus: "Not one that's been in space you can't!"

    "Well! I might be interested...if it's been in space!"

    Modern Slashdot Nerd who buys a space ride: "It's been in space, wink!"

    Woman at Bar: "Still no thanks."

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  12. Good progress, but far behind SpaceX by joe_frisch · · Score: 1

    If it weren't for SpaceX, this would be impressive, but they have a lot of catching up to do. The H2/O2 engine is nice for upper stages, but I can't find any specific impulse numbers so it isn't clear how well they are doing. (there are valid arguments for either kerosine / O2, or H2/O2 for upper stages)).

    The landing is still a hover / descend landing. That shows great throttability of the engine, but the SpaceX suicide burn is more efficient and they seem to be getting pretty good reliability with that.

    They are only sub-orbital, so they don't yet need good engine performance.

    Its not really clear where Blue Origin is pushing the envelope of existing space technology, but its good to have more players in the market. They have plans for an orbital rocket in ~2020, and that will be a better test of how they are doing.

  13. 10 G's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Call it 'the Darwin'.