Blue Orgin Sticks the Landing!

[Dryson]

Yeah, it's a similar control problem to balancing a pencil on its end. However, this particular pencil starts off falling at terminal velocity and it's much more difficult to land successfully on a barge at sea than on a stable landing pad.

Back in the 60s, NASA considered modifying the Saturn V first stage (for use with the Shuttle) so that it could land back at the Cape but it was only ever a concept.

Saturn Shuttle

Cool looking design. How would such a design work when the rocket is already in space and used to deliver the vehicle to the Moon or even Mars?

Another question is if two rockets with the same mass but different heights one being twice as tall as the other landed vertically would the smaller more squat rocket possibly experience tipping over like the taller rocket?

I think the next big test for vertical recovery would come in launching a Blue Orion from a Stratolaunch carrier horizontally and then land the rocket vertically.

Landing video - https://www.blueorigin.com/#youtube9pillaOxGCo

Totally awesome. Now for Falcon to stick the landing on a smaller landing pad at sea.

I think the landing pad for the Falcon needs to be able to absorb the kinetic shock better. I think when the kinetic shock impacts the landing pad it causes the landing pad to sink a little in the water and then rises causing an unstable platform.

 

[sojourner]

Reports are that SpaceX will be attempting to land on terrafirma with the next launch.

 

[Dryson]

Re: I thought this was pretty cool.

https://youtu.be/9pillaOxGCo

Pretty cool thing to do and making it land like that would not have been the easiest thing in the world. Other people like Elon Musk are doing stuff like this too and SpaceX..

But would be cool if they could build a manned vehicle that could get into space, dock with the ISS and then make a landing like this on the ground.

Very cool stuff I thought.

Definitely awesome as vertical landing and recovery will save A LOT of money on reusable engines and delivery vehicles that would otherwise simply be tossed for scrap.

 

[YellowSubmarine]

Reports are that SpaceX will be attempting to land on terrafirma with the next launch.

That sounds like a recipe for success. Hopefully no rogue struts this time.

 

[publiusr]

This test bested the DC-XA , which only rose 3140 meters.

Look at the size difference---New Shepard vs Falcon:
https://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/2852/1763/original.jpg

Looking back at the Soviet R-7, I can't help but wonder if it would be possible to land something shaped like that (wider at the bottom) more easily.

Bezos' first test craft, Goddard, seemed to point to a Phil Bono type design like Kankoh Maru: http://images.bwbx.io/cms/2013-10-22/1022-blue-origin-inline-405.jpg

That doesn't seem to be the case now:
http://www.parabolicarc.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Blue_Origin_Slideb.jpg

I would have loved to see Bezos put his wealth into something like a scaled down Chrysler SERV but with some iteration of Dream Chaser on top:

https://falsesteps.wordpress.com/2012/08/18/servmurp-chryslers-space-truck/

We could have had a lot more: https://falsesteps.wordpress.com/2015/08/09/just-a-little-picture-teaser/

 

[Dryson]

I would have to think that Blue Origin would be the best model to develop a re-useable version for Moon landings. It has already proven to be able to land on Earth. Landing on the Moon would be much easier because of the lower gravity.

The lunar model would basically be the same Blue Origin model but with the ability to travel long distances using an Apollo Service Module to provide fuel, oxygen and other necessities for the voyage to the Moon and back.

The storage normally used to store the lander would be used to transport small amounts of cargo to the Moon.

 

[publiusr]

That's actually what von Braun wanted--direct ascent.
He needed Saturn C-8 for that though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_C-8

Guess what helped block that--and no, it wasn't just Houbolt's lunar orbit rendezvous (LOR).

The height of the factory roof at Michoud meant that an 8 x F-1 engined launch vehicle (Saturn C-8, Nova class) could not be built; 4 or 5 engines would have to be the maximum... phooey

What could have been:
http://www.martins-models.co.uk/Sales/144/C-8/saturnc8.htm
http://www.geocities.jp/silver_zerozero_two/spaceup/supernova02.jpg

I don't know that Blue Origin's New Shepard vehicle is to be used as an upper stage.

If so, this might be shades of the two stage trashcan that was the K-1, but that upper stage was to use a parachute: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-1_(rocket)

Place DC-X or New Shepard atop a HLLV, and it might very well allow for something like direct ascent.

In the movie Moon Zero Two--there was a modified LEM that looked more believable than the craft in 2001:
http://www.davidsissonmodels.co.uk/MOON2/Moon Zero 2 ship model 2.JPG

I like Boeing's LESA concept the best.

 

[KlavsPrieditis]

I was excited by this flight. Hope, they`ll fix all bugs on their rockets and then we`ll see the first flight on the same starship with the participation of a man. It`s great) Regardless the Space X has landed not so successful, it`s a great step forward. The chances were 50:50 as Alon Musk said. Also, there are three names that people confuse each time. They are: Space X, Falcon 9 and Dragon, so be attentive)

 

[KlavsPrieditis]

Re: I thought this was pretty cool.

https://youtu.be/9pillaOxGCo

Pretty cool thing to do and making it land like that would not have been the easiest thing in the world. Other people like Elon Musk are doing stuff like this too and SpaceX..

But would be cool if they could build a manned vehicle that could get into space, dock with the ISS and then make a landing like this on the ground.

Very cool stuff I thought.

wowow, this topic has already exists) By the way. Have anybody heard about the TV show on which they will land people n the Mars and set up a settlement there? Or it`s just rumours?

 

[Gingerbread Demon]

Re: I thought this was pretty cool.

https://youtu.be/9pillaOxGCo

Pretty cool thing to do and making it land like that would not have been the easiest thing in the world. Other people like Elon Musk are doing stuff like this too and SpaceX..

But would be cool if they could build a manned vehicle that could get into space, dock with the ISS and then make a landing like this on the ground.

Very cool stuff I thought.

wowow, this topic has already exists) By the way. Have anybody heard about the TV show on which they will land people n the Mars and set up a settlement there? Or it`s just rumours?

It won't ever happen........ It's just someone spruiking bullshit.

 

[YellowSubmarine]

The money and the people and the rocket and the spacecraft they won't be using are quite real. They'll just fail to get there one way or another.

 

[Dryson]

Please remove this post.

 

[Dryson]

QUOTE=sojourner;11368251]Even in that sense of "ahead" it's a disingenuous claim. SpaceX has gotten it's first stage back through the mach 8 flight envelope and to the surface. If they had been landing on dry land instead of trying to hit a moving barge in the Atlantic they would have stuck the landing already. As it is, they have exceeded all of BO's claims when you look at the entire test regime they have done.[/QUOTE]

The main issue is that IF they hand been conducting their first tests on land they would have stuck the landing already? The fact is SJ you are trying to Time Travel and make people believe that because Falcon -X did it bigger and longer than Blue Origin then FX actually beat Blue Origin in the past.

NOPE.

History has recorded Blue Origin as completing the first reusable rocket landing. No matter how grandious FX claims are the fact that FX' landing came AFTER Blue Origins which will always overshadow Falcon because it wasn't Falcon that was recorded as making the first reusable rocket landing.

I would have to think that since Blue Origin made the first reusable rocket landing that it would be the base for future experiments involving multiple rocket systems being used to land a ship on a planet similar to the engine designs of the Prometheus.

The Falcon's engines are to too tall to be used in capacity like the engines on the Prometheus. Blue Origin however is just about the correct size.

 

[sojourner]

1. Falcon 9 puts payloads in orbit. New Shepard is a theme park ride for rich people.
2. Prometheus is a completely fictional vehicle from a movie about killer aliens. Not a good place to start when designing a lander.

Let's put things into perspective. This first image is large, so click on the thumbnail to view:

 

[Dryson]

Its obvious that you have no idea about engineering sojourner nor do you have the ability to make a comparison.

The comparison between the Prometheus Engines and Blue Origin's rocket is that through further testing and development of the Shepard the engine could be designed to be used on craft because it has already been designed to be a certain height unlike Falcon which is designed completely different because it has two stages.

Blue Origin would advance the pursuit of craft using their rocket design because the rocket motor could, when re-designed and re-engineered be attached to a craft at four points like the Prometheus launched from a horizontal position the engine would then rotate into a vertical position as the craft became vertical itself at higher altitudes to become like a rocket to travel into space.

Blue Origin works because Blue Origin has not had any failure like Space X has. With the failures that Space X has had with the Falcon I doubt their rocket design would be safe enough to use in the manner as I have described.

A rocket failing on recovery diminishes any future achievements because people still look back and remember the failures of the rocket and not its success.

People don't want rocket failures because people don't want to die in a rocket crash. People want success every time and so far Blue Origin has achieved a 1/1 ratio of success or 100% compared to Space X.

Whenever Falcon can land the first and second stage both as reusable rockets like the recoverable stage, then Space X can actually have something to talk about.

Blue Origin was recorded as completing the first reusable rocket landing. What you are trying to do is the same thing at the recent mess up in the Miss Universe Pagent where you want to crown the rocket firm that you like with the reward instead of the reward being crowned by the rocket firm that actually completed the landing. Being a Trump supporter doesn't make you more intelligent.

I would also be so arrogant to say that Blue Origin could stick their landing on the same water based platform that Space X failed on.

 

[MANT!]

As I mentioned before, had Alan Shepard flown his suborbital flight before Yuri Gagarin's orbital flight, Alan Shepard would have been immortalized as "The First Man in Space" instead of good ol' Yuri. It doesn't matter what the flight profile was but the altitude attained, and that's all the record books care about. Congrats to Blue Origin but also congrats to SpaceX (after all SpaceX's feat was much harder to get right)

 

[sojourner]

People want success every time and so far Blue Origin has achieved a 1/1 ratio of success or 100% compared to Space X.

You should do more research.

 

[Dryson]

1. Falcon 9 puts payloads in orbit. New Shepard is a theme park ride for rich people.
2. Prometheus is a completely fictional vehicle from a movie about killer aliens. Not a good place to start when designing a lander.

Let's put things into perspective. This first image is large, so click on the thumbnail to view:

What's good about Blue Origins design is it can be used to design a rocket or carrier type vehicle that could be used on Mars to rapidly access other locations on Mars while reducing the wear and tear on the rover.

The rover would attach to the carrier vehicle similar to how it was deployed or inside of a small hangar of the rocket. Because the success of Blue Origin making a small jump the engines could be used to transport the rover up to 5 km at a time thus expanding the exploration range of the rover and increasing the life expectancy of the rover by nearly double what it is now.

The carrier could also provide replacement batteries for the rover once again increasing the life expectancy of the rover as well as being the frame in which more experiments could be conducted while the rover was out gathering samples.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

1. Falcon 9 puts payloads in orbit. New Shepard is a theme park ride for rich people.
2. Prometheus is a completely fictional vehicle from a movie about killer aliens. Not a good place to start when designing a lander.

Let's put things into perspective. This first image is large, so click on the thumbnail to view:

What's good about Blue Origins design is it can be used to design a rocket or carrier type vehicle that could be used on Mars to rapidly access other locations on Mars while reducing the wear and tear on the rover.

New Shephard isn't designed for that and is certainly less than ideal to be used for that; a planet with only one third of Earth's gravity, high winds and a sparsity of prefab landing sites is certainly not the best working environment for a tall slender craft whose crew vehicle sits at the very top of the stack and whose landing system depends on smooth terrain.

Actually, you'd be better off repurposing the Skycrane for that. At some hydraulic shocks and landing legs and you could actually use it to carry the rover around.

There's also the fact that New Shephard is TOO HEAVY to be carried to Mars by another vehicle and not nearly powerful enough to attempt a landing on its own. Even if it WAS ideal for use on Mars (which it isn't) there's no way to get it there.

 

[publiusr]

it would take--what?-- Dragon to get New Shepard to Mars. The old MEM looks a better bet. Nice and wide. That doesn't seem to be in fashion these days though. Maybe MCT will prove me wrong if only the Big Onion path is used. Land on the ocean (or a bay)--not a pad.

I don't just want heavier payloads--but much wider ones as well. Solid dishes/aerobrakes--that sort of thing.