Blue Origin

GW Johnson · 2021-07-11 10:17:17

The 50 mile standard was set by NASA and USAF back in the 1960's, when the X-15 first began flying that high with the big engine. Several X-15 pilots won their astronaut wings back then.

GW

Oldfart1939 · 2021-07-20 07:33:54

I just finished watching the New Shepard flight where Jeff Bezos, his brother, Wally Funk, and the young man from the Netherlands became astronauts on the first commercial flight with passengers.

It appeared to go smoothly and the flight was picture perfect.

louis · 2021-07-20 13:41:09

Very impressive, especially the booster landing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGG4XpdW6oc

SpaceNut · 2021-07-20 22:19:59

I happened so quickly that now all I can do is watch reruns of the flight....

So open up the ticket booths and lets see if there will be many that would spend the levels of cash to make the same ride.....

Void · 2021-07-26 17:17:34

https://b-squadron.com/2021/07/26/jeff- … ompetition.

Quote:

Jeff Bezos’s Blue Origin has offered to pay 2 billion dollars in exchange for a contract awarded by NASA to help astronauts land on the moon.
In April, NASA Choose Elon Musk’s SpaceX For this plan, budget constraints were cited. The agency initially stated that it would award contracts to two suppliers to promote competition.

I think that SpaceX is fabulous, and Elon Musk is on balance well worth any rough
edges he may have, but under this circumstance, especially because in the end
government will end up throwing old space a bone, I would really like to see
Jeff Bezos/Blue Origin, (And others) produce something unique. I do agree to some
extent with what the "Angry Astronaut" thinks, but even so, I would like to seem many flavors of "Space".

Done.

SpaceNut · 2021-07-26 17:49:21

So have there been any other ticket sales or news announcements of these joy rides to the edge of space aka sub orbital flights....

nothing nada zip....

so lets get on with real flight please....

SpaceNut · 2021-08-01 15:04:06

Bezo's design from the sls perspective according the RFP but musk's ship in not even compatible with the sls or with the gateway from Nasa's original intent is why a contract award is not being correctly done.

Void · 2021-08-02 18:39:58

I have three Billionaire hero's at this point.
Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, and of course Elon Musk.

Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates both invested in the Iron/Air battery, and of course
Elon Musk has so many things going on.

Here is a thing that may interest you about Blue Origin:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/07 … -projects/
Quote:

Blue Origin has a secret project named “Jarvis” to compete with SpaceX
“This is the difference between taking a profit and a loss on New Glenn launches."

I think the likely thing is that Blue Origin will make it's own Stainless Steel 2nd
Stage, but keep the 1st stage as previously planned.

There could be some strength there as the 1st stage will be light and will not see
as much re-entry heat as the 2nd stage will. Of course the 1st stage is intended
to land on a traveling ship and not a barge. How they will enter the 2nd stage to atmosphere, and land that, I do not know.

But this will be a smaller scale ship, and might have Hydro Lox engines. Don't know.

A Jarvis 2nd stage would be smaller and potentially have more surface area for mass/volume, so that could be a re-entry advantage.

However I am sure that the Starship/Superheavy will have different advantages.

I wonder if some day SpaceX will sell raptor engines to Blue Origin, and Blue Origin might sell Hydro Lox engines to SpaceX.

I really wonder if eventually SpaceX will just sell Starships, like Tesla Sells cars??

Don't know.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2021-08-02 18:43:30)

Void · 2021-08-03 14:54:55

No, I am not interested in playing a game of "Topper" with the Starship cheerleading
section

I am just starting to nerd out about rockets. I am also interested in the Terran-R,
and the Neutron rockets.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DdKUL1CqAo

This article does not mention that the 2nd stage may become Stainless Steel, and
I think it may not say much about orbital refueling.

However, I will note that the potential for a Hydrolox machine for the Moon may exist
down the line.

But I am inclned to think that Carbon will be obtained on the Moon for Methane. But
the proce to make Methane there may not be ideal.

Done.

Void · 2021-08-05 14:22:45

Here is some NERD candy:

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=th … ORM%3DVDRE

I don't completely agree with the conclusions. I am interested in seeing clones of the Starship, having lower sizes.

I could be quite wrong, but I think that Robert Zubrin may be right that a "Mini-Starship" could be useful for Mars and other
projects.

So, it could be that they will produce a stainless steel "Midi-Starship" to ride on New Glen. I cannot help but to want to
see that.

-----

It is strange, but I am thinking that a Midi-Starship, or a Mini-Starship (Built by another contender), may be useful on Mars.

Perhaps I am wrong, but as I anticipate that eventually tethers will be used to lift mass from Mars, and the atmosphere is
so thin, and SSTO is valid on Mars, Starship being a fabulous ship, may be more appropriate to Earth and not Mars.

That is, a smaller ship would have more atmospheric drag, which is bad to go to Earth orbit, not so bad to go to Mars orbit, and good for going from orbit to surface on Mars.

Goofy thing is that perhaps someone else, even Blue Origin may build something more appropriate to Mars. Not sure.

Just so you know for sure, I am a SpaceX fan. But I always am looking for a further contribution from other sources.

I am quite more interested in having a ideal machine to lift mass to Martian orbit, than a ship to move mass to Earth. Of course we also do need a machine to move mass to Earth. But the two are likely be be different, especially if tether to orbit methods are involved.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2021-08-05 14:27:00)

Calliban · 2021-08-06 05:02:22

Mars would be a good place to build a rocket sled for launch assist. With virtually no atmosphere and only 2/5 the gravity. Key industries: (1) Low alloy steel production: rails, ductile steel sheet, metal bending, welding. (2) Basalt casting to allow load spreading on cast basalt sleepers across a raised bank of rammed Martian soil.

A heavy crane would be needed to lift the Starship onto a tractor unit and then onto the sled. These sorts of components require a lot of low carbon alloy steel in the form of I-beams, strip and plate. Cables may be stainless steel or on Mars, carbon-manganese steel.

The sled could accelerate using linear electric motors, but the power requirements would be huge. Compressed hydrogen and oxygen, produced by on-board high pressure electrolysis would avoid the need for very high electric power requirements. These would be stored in on-board steel-basalt fibre pressure vessels and vented into a pressure-fed engine. In this way, the sled can be charged for several days before launch and the enormous power requirements of launch can be met by a relatively small power source generating power continuously for over 100 hours. The pressure-fed engine would lose thrust as feed pressure declined.

Using a sled like this and boosting to an initial velocity of 1000m/s, would essentially double the payload capacity to orbit of the Starship. This is important, because it effectively doubles the amount of finished goods and raw commodities that a nascent Martian colony can export back to Earth orbit. We want to be able to produce all of the propellant, food, water needed for Earth-Mars transit on Mars, where lift costs to orbit are much cheaper than on Earth. Ultimately, any high mass items used in Earth orbit and near-Earth space will be easier to build and launch from Mars than from Earth. This include space station modules, interplanetary ships (of the large ship variety), propellants and consumables. Only people and low-mass, high tech components should be lifted from Earth.

This arrangement answers the long standing question as to what a Martian colony could export to pay for itself. The answer is anything that humanity wishes to lift into low Earth orbit or beyond will ultimately by easier to produce and transport from Mars. If you want a space hotel, solar power satellite or space mining operation, then heavy components and consumables are much easier to build on Mars, lift into orbit and transport to Earth orbit, using mostly low thrust propulsion. Mars will be the heavy industry hub for human space activities.

Last edited by Calliban (2021-08-06 05:30:50)

tahanson43206 · 2021-08-06 05:46:47

For Calliban re #61

It's been a while since a ramp was discussed in this forum.

The previous occasion was a deep dive by kbd512, looking at a launch from Texas, out over the Gulf of Mexico.

In your post about such a ramp on Mars, you've addressed some of the concerns that came up then, and added a variation in acceleration method.

SearchTerm:Ramp for launches from Mars
SearchTerm:Sled for launches on ramp from mars
SearchTerm:RocketSled

(th)

Oldfart1939 · 2021-08-06 09:15:53

Here's a Space News note on the progress (or lack thereof?) on the BE-4 engine:

https://spacenews.com/tory-bruno-says-t … g-forward/

kbd512 · 2021-08-06 10:46:32

Calliban,

It'll be cheaper still to launch something from the surface of the moon, where there is zero atmosphere to contend with, less than half as much gravity as there is on Mars, and it's much closer to the Sun so solar panels are far more effective. The moon has lots of Silicon, Aluminum, and Titanium, but not much Iron or Carbon. This varies greatly from place to place, obviously. Mars has lots of Iron and Carbon, but not as much Aluminum or Titanium. I would have Silicon / Aluminum / Titanium mines on the moon, rather than on Mars. Mars is obviously nearly ideal for Iron-based products, with its abundance of Iron and Carbon.

Silicon is required for solar panels and microchips, and we're frequently short of those. Titanium is used in aircraft and motor vehicle parts or parts subject to severe corrosion, such as pipes / fittings / tanks for corrosive chemicals. Aluminum is the material of choice for light aircraft on Earth, liquid storage tanks that must be easily transportable, both light and heavy vehicle parts or chassis, space station modules, and general construction.

Once we establish energy production technologies on the moon and Mars, we can offload some mining and heavy industry to those planets to preserve desirable atmospheric qualities here on Earth. We can also readily store toxic chemicals used in industry there with far less concern about those chemicals seeping into the ground water supply.

Oldfart1939 · 2021-08-18 09:24:32

We now have BO suing NASA over the way they made their contract decision. This is NOT a smart move on their part. It seems that Bezos wants things his way--or else! It's a potential Public Relations gaffe of the highest order.

https://spacenews.com/blue-origin-sues- … -contract/

Oldfart1939 · 2021-08-18 09:47:49

Here's another "take" from another commenter on YouTube;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QExxT5ttAQs

This guy refers to the National Team Lander as the "Lobby Lander."

He really does a good job in making comparisons between BO and SpaceX proposals on technical merit and pokes holes in the BO critique of SpaceX which used outdated and incorrect information.

Last edited by Oldfart1939 (2021-08-18 10:13:33)

Void · 2021-08-18 17:05:43

It is a very good presentation OF1939. However he like the Angry Astronaut does
not seem to be aware of the materials of the post #14 from "Terraforming/World/Rings".

Quote:

Almost as much Carbon Monoxide at the Lunar poles as water.
https://www.technologyreview.com/2012/0 … to%20Earth
I missed this when I scanned the document earlier about the Soviet missions:
Quote:
Crott goes on to detail a number of other fascinating efforts to find water on the moon, including the famous impact experiment in which NASA slammed an empty rocket stage into one of these shadowy craters to see what the ejecta plume would look like. Sure enough, it contained plenty of water but lots of other stuff too including almost as much carbon monoxide as water.
So the bold line might help to say why NASA picked the Lunar Starship.

I think that there is high probability that plenty of Carbon is in the Lunar ice.

It only makes sense since impactors commonly have Carbon and Water in them.

It is even possible that over the lifetime of the Moon, the Solar wind delivered some Carbon. The sun is not entirely made of Hydrogen and Helium.

This if true will really shake things up about the value of the Moon.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2021-08-18 17:07:37)

SpaceNut · 2021-08-18 19:30:36

Bo designed to the Nasa wish list and stuck to that script... musk did not and its not compatible to any of the Nasa gateway ,,,,

Oldfart1939 · 2021-08-19 18:46:17

Blue Origin suit stops work on NASA HLS contract with SpaceX

https://spacenews.com/blue-origin-suit- … th-spacex/

Thanks for your help in getting back to the Moon...not.

SpaceNut · 2021-08-19 19:05:22

He just needs to build and fly it to get contracts for its use.... get over the contract plus stuff of the old guard methods and adopt the new space in stride.
Make and they will follow, just like in the field of dreams....

Oldfart1939 · 2021-08-29 10:57:48

"COLORADO SPRINGS — The head of the U.S. Space Force launch enterprise said it is “unfortunate” that Blue Origin is taking far longer than expected to complete the testing and production of BE-4 rocket engines for United Launch Alliance’s Vulcan Centaur launch vehicle."

The Space Force isn't happy about Blue Origin's delays in delivery of the BE-4 engines.

Here's the link to the Space New article: https://spacenews.com/space-force-launc … re-on-out/

Last edited by Oldfart1939 (2021-08-29 10:58:09)

SpaceNut · 2021-10-10 18:14:56

NASA Gives Blue Origin Another Shot at the Moon

So what are the contracts for these other companies doing if they are not a lunar starship?

GW Johnson · 2021-10-11 09:22:00

You have to understand the corrupted government contracting efforts of a NASA micromanaged by an incompetent Congress.

There were originally 3 contractors being considered for the manned lunar lander that would enable Artemis to reach the lunar surface. There were Spacex with a modified Starship, Blue Origin with a two stage scale-up of the Apollo LM idea, and I think the third was Northrup Grumman, with a different scale-up of the Apollo LM (I might be misremembering the third).

NASA wanted to fund 2 of the 3, but ran out of money to work with (because SLS and Webb are so far in the red, not to mention behind). So they could only fund 1, and chose the lowest bidder (Spacex), because Blue Origin's price was still out of reach even as sole contractor. This conflicted with the understanding going in that 2 contractors would be funded, which is why Blue Origin got all hot and bothered and behaved the way they did with the lawsuit. There was real provocation there, the selection was just not "kosher" under the rules.

These lunar landers are as big and as pricey as they are, precisely because the design requirements were set by the notion of using the Gateway station as the staging point, in that weird halo orbit 3000 to 70,000 km above the moon. From there, the min theoretical delta vee to land is lunar escape velocity, not low lunar orbit velocity. In actuality, it is higher still, since you must change orbit a couple of times to set down where you want. Now double THAT for the trip back up.

The lunar lander was to be based at the Gateway station, and perhaps refilled there for subsequent landings. Those landers require their own rocket to get them there, because SLS is incapable of taking a command/service module AND a lander, to the moon, unlike Saturn-5. That would have been true even if the small Apollo LM were to be reprised, and these new landers have to be larger still, because of the 50+% increase in delta-vee requirements.

SpaceX is hoping to use this program to get paid for figuring out how to land its Starship on soft regolith without sinking-in and toppling-over. Because what works for the moon will work on Mars (I have already run the numbers to show that).

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2021-10-11 09:23:34)

tahanson43206 · 2021-10-11 17:19:41

This topic is dedicated to Blue Origin, so I'll add this observation ....

The news feeds that come my way are showing reports of disarray at Blue Origin ... I get the impression that Jeff Bezos turned over the keys to a gent from "old rockets", and he created a destructive culture that is coming apart at the seams. Bezos was going through a divorce and was still running Amazon when all this was happening.

I hope he takes the reins and corrects the problems while the company still has a chance of success.

(th)

Oldfart1939 · 2021-10-11 17:59:45

I would like for BO to succeed--only if they can get the BE-4 for ULA! The Vulcan-Centaur has a really good design for intermediate lift cargoes.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2021-07-11 10:17:17

Re: Blue Origin

#52 2021-07-20 07:33:54

Re: Blue Origin

#53 2021-07-20 13:41:09

Re: Blue Origin

#54 2021-07-20 22:19:59

Re: Blue Origin

#55 2021-07-26 17:17:34

Re: Blue Origin

#56 2021-07-26 17:49:21

Re: Blue Origin

#57 2021-08-01 15:04:06

Re: Blue Origin

#58 2021-08-02 18:39:58

Re: Blue Origin

#59 2021-08-03 14:54:55

Re: Blue Origin

#60 2021-08-05 14:22:45

Re: Blue Origin

#61 2021-08-06 05:02:22

Re: Blue Origin

#62 2021-08-06 05:46:47

Re: Blue Origin

#63 2021-08-06 09:15:53

Re: Blue Origin

#64 2021-08-06 10:46:32

Re: Blue Origin

#65 2021-08-18 09:24:32

Re: Blue Origin

#66 2021-08-18 09:47:49

Re: Blue Origin

#67 2021-08-18 17:05:43

Re: Blue Origin

#68 2021-08-18 19:30:36

Re: Blue Origin

#69 2021-08-19 18:46:17

Re: Blue Origin

#70 2021-08-19 19:05:22

Re: Blue Origin

#71 2021-08-29 10:57:48

Re: Blue Origin

#72 2021-10-10 18:14:56

Re: Blue Origin

#73 2021-10-11 09:22:00

Re: Blue Origin

#74 2021-10-11 17:19:41

Re: Blue Origin

#75 2021-10-11 17:59:45

Re: Blue Origin

Board footer