More Clues About Blue Origin's Space Plans 74
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."
I presume he's patented (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I presume he's patented (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I presume he's patented (Score:1)
Re:I presume he's patented (Score:1)
Reusable! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Reusable! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Reusable! (Score:3, Informative)
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! (Score:4, Informative)
The 26 hour turnaround was for the DC-X.
And people forget that the DC-X was a concept vehicle [jerrypournelle.com], to prove that the technology existed and could be adapted to VTOL rockets [nasa.gov]. 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.
Just add a nuclear engine and they've got it (Score:2)
Re:Reusable! (Score:2)
Re:Reusable! (Score:1)
That's one of the more interesting aspects of 4x4 (SUV) ownership - although they may use lots of fuel, often 4x4s will last years and years longer than any other car (the land rover [series/defender] is a prime example) - the ammount of damage done to the environment through fuel burning is relatively small when compared to the pollution caused by the actual manufacturing process. The same thing applies to rockets,
Re:Reusable! (Score:2)
Re:Reusable! (Score:1)
Standard cars are designed for a life of... what... 6 years? maybe 10 ye
Re:Reusable! (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
My 4x4's dad could kick your 4x4's dad's ass (Score:1)
I don't live in the US
Well, in my experience - having lived in both urban, suburban and rural Britain, there are two types of "suv" - a "proper" 4x4 designed for use in the country, on farms, and for off-roading - typically, L
Re:My 4x4's dad could kick your 4x4's dad's ass (Score:2)
OTOH, I see all too many bling SUVs, with big flashy spinning rims that probably have trouble going up a driveway, let alone getting into the dirt and mud. (I'm surprised I haven't s
The Carbon Trust? (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [nasa.gov].
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? (Score:2)
All the CO2 dumped into the atmosphere when making the electricity to generate these for starters.
Proposal for restricting CO2 output (Score:1, Flamebait)
How silly and petty you Kyotoists are. Do you propose that we build rockets out of recycled plastic bottles? This is why your movement is dying. You are irresponsible. There would be a lot less CO2 if you held your breath.
Fun-ny! (Score:1)
Especially the last!
Re:Fun-ny! (Score:2)
This comment is kind of extreme but it is not intended as flamebait. It is to highlight some of the absurdity in the thinking of the envonmentalist response. I am not sure if you are laughing with me or at me.
Re:The Carbon Trust? (Score:2)
No, because descent engines just reduce per-flight payload and use fuel. Payload can be increased by using a larger rocket or making more flights, and fuel is cheap.
Unlike fuel, orbital rockets are expensive. Throwing away a whole launch vehicle on every flight is wasteful. I am not surprised that cost-plus launch contractors are attracted to it.
Re:The Carbon Trust? (Score:3, Insightful)
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
New spacecraft: lessons learned (Score:3, Insightful)
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 vehicl
Re:New spacecraft: lessons learned (Score:3, Informative)
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 (
Kliper misconceptions (Score:2)
This is of no real value in terms of weight or reusability.
Not very likely given
Re:Kliper misconceptions (Score:2)
Fair enough. But think about it for a second.
Turkey Vultures don't go that high (best I could find was 100m). Since the Shuttle is accelerating from the ground, it isn't going that fast as it passes 100 meters. So therefore, there's not a good probability that the shut
Rotavators? (Score:1)
It doesn't require the same ridiculously exotic materials as a fully-fledged space elevator, and couldn't it potentially turn spacecraft like this and SpaceShipOne into orbital craft?
Re:Rotavators? (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Rotavators? (Score:2)
NASA joined with MasterCard... (Score:2, Funny)
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).
Re:NASA joined with MasterCard... (Score:2)
And these guys are HUNGRY. They haven't had the luxury of resting on their laurels for the last 30 years.
Go ahead and mod me down, NASA lovers. In your heart you still know it's true.
-Eric
Re:NASA joined with MasterCard... (Score:2)
Of course, Paul Allen is one of Bezos' partners in Blue Origin, and Allen's a bit richer. Still, I think that Blue Origin's business model only works if they can get the initial launch off for quite a bit less than the $30 billion that other initial launches cost (subsequent launche
Xenu (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Xenu (Score:2)
Re:Xenu (Score:2)
Have you heard the legend of the Black Dac? It is seen on rare occasions in remote parts of Australia, travelling more or less at tree top level in places where you could reasonable expect not to be seen at all.
Painted entirely black with no ID, or course.
Re:Xenu (Score:2)
Batcave? (Score:5, Funny)
A secretive billionaire with advanced aerospace technology and a Batcave? Holy Amazon, Batman!
Re:Batcave? (Score:2)
Maybe hes just trying to shove his ass off (Score:2)
Come on people - look at the trend... (Score:5, Interesting)
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... (Score:2, Troll)
It was not Americans. Even if they like to point out the exelence of Armstrong or Kennedy, the real innovation and work was done by German people. Let's see how space.com puts it in its articleRemembering Wernher von Braun's German Rocket Team [space.com]:
Walter Jacobi, one of the few remaining German technicians whose genius helped put American
Re:Come on people - look at the trend... (Score:2)
Fascinating. Does this mean that, if not for the Nazis, Germany would be the Space Empire by now ? Or, if Hitler had been somewhat sane and had not attacked Russia before finishing Britain, he'd be the ruler of the universe by now ?
Such little things fate hangs
Re:Come on people - look at the trend... (Score:3, Insightful)
Either way you split it up, the Germans never would have gotten there without the Amer
Re:Come on people - look at the trend... (Score:1)
Unfortunately, some scientists are still working to crush kids' dreams. When Stephen Hawking spoke about space colonization [cnn.com] recently, MIT scientists came forward to say it was "very far off." Way to encourage the next generatio
Can't wait for the promotional brochure! (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Re:Can't wait for the promotional brochure! (Score:1, Redundant)
10 minutes! (Score:1)
Re:10 minutes! (Score:1)
hang on a minute - or 10 (Score:2)
What do you mean by "stationary 3 times en route". The thing is going to go from whatever bat-out-of-hell speed it's traveling, to a dead stop - not once, but 3 TIMES during the ascent?
Cartoon physics aside (which are hillariously significant), doesn't subjecting the human body to such rigors resemble something akin to "bug on windshield"?
If that's the case, then we will not only have
Re:hang on a minute - or 10 (Score:1)
nope, what i meant was it starts off stationary, comes very close to stopping fully at the highest point (there might be some lateral movement), and stops at the end of the trip.
Re:10 minutes! (Score:1)
Velocity is the first derivative of Location. Accel is the second, and Jerk is the third. Solve the jerk for zeros. This locates the minimum and maximum velocity points. Plug in the location vector and get the actual maximum velocity. The magnitude of the velocity is speed. This number will be on the order of 3500 km/h on accent and probably 300 km/h decending - I do not know the drag coffecents.
Re:10 minutes! (Score:1)
Writing on the wall for NASA? (Score:2)
If I worked at NASA, I might be updating my resume right now.
-Eric
DCX, nice to see it return (Score:2)
I'm sure with commercial development they will work out the problems of the landing statem.
Re:DCX, nice to see it return (Score:2)
Since Moon is vacuum, could you simply make your orbit more and more elliptical, until one end was close enough to lunar surface (a few meters) to drop a wheeled vechile that would then brake normally ?
How flat are those "seas", and what would the minimum orbital speed required be ? Remember, there's no atmosphere, so it's enough if your orbit just clears the highest mountaintops on your path.
Heck, while it isn't feasible right now
DCX (Score:2)
Scientology MUST stop this DCX in the courts before it comes to pass!
New Book Delivery Method (Score:1)
its the mum thing... (Score:1)
Passenger Carrying UAV (Score:1)
Getting the technology to the point where you would be willing to put your Mom into a craft and just sit back and watch it fly her around without a human pilot is really a much bigger accomplishment than going to 100km. Assuming you love your Mom of course.
This DC-X approach is very high risk compared to the much more conservative Scaled Composite X-15 style craft.
I'd let my Mom ride on Space Ship 2, but not New Shepard.