IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Blue Origins, update
jabe
post Jan 4 2007, 02:47 AM
Post #1


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 163
Joined: 16-March 05
From: Oakville, Ontario, Canada
Member No.: 201



Blue origins update..
go Bezos go
BTW hate the web page but neat videos.. From nasawatch resource
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
helvick
post Jan 4 2007, 09:42 AM
Post #2


Dublin Correspondent
****

Group: Admin
Posts: 1795
Joined: 28-March 05
From: Celbridge, Ireland
Member No.: 220



I was always a fan of the DC-X concept so this really warms the cockles of my heart. I worry though that the ultra coolness factor of a VTOL rocket is clouding practicality somewhat - I thought that the better\more informed opinion is that SSTO is too inefficient using current chemical rocket engines. I'd welcome some informed opinion to the contrary though. smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
djellison
post Jan 4 2007, 10:04 AM
Post #3


Administrator
****

Group: Chairman
Posts: 13703
Joined: 8-February 04
Member No.: 1



Well - consider the Atlas-Mercury flights. That was very very nearly SSTO smile.gif

And that was a long time ago.

Doug
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tty
post Jan 4 2007, 11:16 AM
Post #4


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 683
Joined: 20-April 05
From: Sweden
Member No.: 273



The first stage of Titan I had genuine SSTO capability back in 1960, though with a negligible payload. With modern structural materials building a throwaway SSTO would be fairly simple. What is difficult is making a reusable one.

tty
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
edstrick
post Jan 4 2007, 12:53 PM
Post #5


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1869
Joined: 20-February 05
Member No.: 174



With adequate heat shielding, a vehicle derived from the current shell design for this test vehicle could make a very nice reusable orbital vehicle when put on top of a reusable DC-X style first stage.

One of the fundamental advantages of a VTVL vehicle <vertical take off vertical landing> is you can have a structurally efficient vehicle, structually efficient tanks (unlike the horrific X33 from Lockmart) minimal landing leg mass, no wings, use your flight rocket engines at very low thrust and only carry a little extra fuel for landing.. and you can land (as DC-X did) on unimproved reasonably flat terrain.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
climber
post Jan 4 2007, 08:19 PM
Post #6


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2601
Joined: 14-February 06
From: Very close to the Pyrénées Mountains (France)
Member No.: 682



The goal here is "only" to get to 100 km altitude and back... and I think they'll be able to make it.
When you and me will be able (I mean financialy) to get a ride on one of these commercial vehicules, what will you prefer, feeling to go in a rocket or in an airplane? I guess Blue Origins looks more like a Space vehicule than SS1 but if I'm offered a ride on SS1, I'll go tomorrow wink.gif


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bob Shaw
post Jan 4 2007, 08:27 PM
Post #7


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2488
Joined: 17-April 05
From: Glasgow, Scotland, UK
Member No.: 239



Back in the 1960s there were a number of paper studies by Philip Bono at Douglas Aircraft Company, Inc looking at future launchers. Notable was SASSTO, an S-!VB derived single stage to orbit design. SASSTO had a payload capability of 3,629kg to a 185km orbit. Many excellent colour paintings of this and other projects were included in the 1974 'Frontiers of Space' book he co-authored with BIS stalwart Kenneth Gatland.

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/sassto.htm

Wings won in the first serious stab at RLV technology, but the economics of VTVL remain attractive. Bono's beloved plug-nozzle rocket engine design has still not been flight tested on a large scale, though the X33 and VentureStar would have used such propulsion.


Bob Shaw


--------------------
Remember: Time Flies like the wind - but Fruit Flies like bananas!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nprev
post Jan 5 2007, 01:36 AM
Post #8


Senior Member
****

Group: Moderator
Posts: 6938
Joined: 8-December 05
From: Los Angeles
Member No.: 602



As a side note, this test is getting a lot of media attention...it's been reported on CNN, and right now it's the top sci/tech hit on Google News. As jabe said, go, Bezos, go! smile.gif


--------------------
A few will take this knowledge and use this power of a dream realized as a force for change, an impetus for further discovery to make less ancient dreams real.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
edstrick
post Jan 5 2007, 09:50 AM
Post #9


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1869
Joined: 20-February 05
Member No.: 174



X33 was a good idea to follow up the DC-X with, but a lot of space activists think NASA picked "the wrong horse" for bad internal and political reasons, then badly mismanaged the program. The "Space Access Society" had a long series of Space Access Updates during the sad course of X-33 and was pretty consistent in pointing out things NASA was doing wrong, explaining why, and predicting what they were going to blow next. I'd ***REALLY*** like to see a post mortem on the program, both technical and political/bureaucratic.

I'd like, for example to see a final predict based on test stand results of the flight weight and specific impulse of the linear aerospike engine vs a bell-nozzle design with the same turbopumps and related hardware.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nprev
post Jan 6 2007, 12:52 AM
Post #10


Senior Member
****

Group: Moderator
Posts: 6938
Joined: 8-December 05
From: Los Angeles
Member No.: 602



With respect to Blue Origin, a friend of mine & I were speculating on what uses other than tourism a reuseable "rapid-turn" suborbital capability might have. We thought about a Hohmann-style rendezvous with a vehicle in LEO, and from our calculations you could get about 90 seconds of proximity (<1 km) to an orbiter with relative (although variable, depending on specific times) velocities of just a few meters per second during the apogee (provided inclinations, etc. were matched). This was based on a notional 200 km ASL orbit for the target vehicle.

What do the experts here think? Could something very like Blue be used to inexpensively resupply LEO space stations if a cargo capsule jettisoned at apogee had its own trim motor to increase "hang time" near such stations (or execute a rapid hard rendezvous)?


--------------------
A few will take this knowledge and use this power of a dream realized as a force for change, an impetus for further discovery to make less ancient dreams real.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bob Shaw
post Jan 6 2007, 01:32 AM
Post #11


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2488
Joined: 17-April 05
From: Glasgow, Scotland, UK
Member No.: 239



QUOTE (nprev @ Jan 6 2007, 12:52 AM) *
un-needed quote removed



Sorry, no. There's much more than altitude involved in being in orbit. You'd simply destroy the target vehicle with a 25,000 KPH collision!


Bob Shaw


--------------------
Remember: Time Flies like the wind - but Fruit Flies like bananas!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nprev
post Jan 6 2007, 02:58 AM
Post #12


Senior Member
****

Group: Moderator
Posts: 6938
Joined: 8-December 05
From: Los Angeles
Member No.: 602



Wellll....I'm not much of an orbitsmith yet, Bob (still learning), but my buddy is an active-duty Air Force orbital analyst, and the trajectory he plotted gave a pretty good solution as described with minimal relative velocity.

Not saying here that he couldn't have been flat wrong (in the USAF you don't become infallable till you make Brigadier General or Chief Master Sergeant biggrin.gif , and I was frankly skeptical from the beginning of our discussion), but we'll re-crunch the numbers sometime next week & I'll post the results. smile.gif


--------------------
A few will take this knowledge and use this power of a dream realized as a force for change, an impetus for further discovery to make less ancient dreams real.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
remcook
post Jan 6 2007, 11:55 AM
Post #13


Rover Driver
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1001
Joined: 4-March 04
Member No.: 47



if you do a Hohmann-style rendezvous, you mean that you get there at apogee? Then your speed will be much smaller than a LEO station/satellite. In order to rendezvous you need to match speed as well, which basically means you need to be in LEO as well in this case, so it won't be suborbital anymore. You could drop something which has its own engines to get to LEO of course, but I think that won't be a very efficient way of getting stuff to LEO.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bob Shaw
post Jan 6 2007, 01:50 PM
Post #14


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2488
Joined: 17-April 05
From: Glasgow, Scotland, UK
Member No.: 239



Absolutely!

Going straight up with a VTVL first stage, then ejecting an upper stage which blasts sideways until it's in orbit, could just just about be done. It might even be 'efficient' insofar as the first stage would return to it's launch site with no down-range infrastructure, but in energy terms it would be far from efficient (so much so that even for a large first stage the orbital payload might be of trivial size).

Bob Shaw


--------------------
Remember: Time Flies like the wind - but Fruit Flies like bananas!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nprev
post Jan 7 2007, 03:47 AM
Post #15


Senior Member
****

Group: Moderator
Posts: 6938
Joined: 8-December 05
From: Los Angeles
Member No.: 602



Yeah (sigh), that's probably quite true; a useful payload in all likelihood cannot be delivered via this method. Again, I'll speak to him next week & we'll play with the numbers some more; he's considering this as a thesis topic. wink.gif Thanks Bob & remcook for your valuable critical commentary! smile.gif


--------------------
A few will take this knowledge and use this power of a dream realized as a force for change, an impetus for further discovery to make less ancient dreams real.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 24th July 2014 - 08:01 PM
RULES AND GUIDELINES
Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting.

IMAGE COPYRIGHT
Images posted on UnmannedSpaceflight.com may be copyrighted. Do not reproduce without permission. Read here for further information on space images and copyright.

OPINIONS AND MODERATION
Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators.
SUPPORT THE FORUM
Unmannedspaceflight.com is a project of the Planetary Society and is funded by donations from visitors and members. Help keep this forum up and running by contributing here.