Blue Origin

Mars_B4_Moon · 2021-10-16 12:01:39

William Shatner made a good speech on spaceflight, he's back on Earth from his trip launched on 13 October 2021 and talking about his experience at age 90 he became the oldest person to fly to space. I almost forgot Captain Kirk was Canadian, so I see William Shatner went to space, he flew on Blue Origin NS-18 with Audrey Powers, Chris Boshuizen, Glen de Vries. It was an interesting tourist flight but an up and down sub-orbital unlike Musk who is way ahead in spaceflight. George Takei seems to have some issue it seems to be going back years between him and Bill Shatner ...left vs right political nonsense and Prince William with his rich royal family who owns most of the land on Earth, the Royal and the other Actor were already blasting his space tourism and say billionaires should focus on some other thing that they approve.

SpaceNut · 2021-10-25 18:43:22

Busy on another front Blue Origin unveils plans for commercial space station AAPWoaH.img?w=768&h=768&m=6

The more orbiting stations the better to drive cost down.

Oldfart1939 · 2021-10-27 09:33:13

More fanciful dreams from a company yet to reach orbit?

I will take BO more seriously after they deliver enough BE-4 engines to ULA to allow the Vulcan-Centaur to start delivering goods to orbit, but until then Sue Origin only has lawsuits.

Last edited by Oldfart1939 (2021-10-27 09:35:17)

Oldfart1939 · 2021-11-04 20:24:07

Federal Court ruled against BO today. Bezos lost again.

https://spacenews.com/federal-court-rul … s-lawsuit/

SpaceNut · 2021-11-04 20:39:32

Basically they are not wanting anything to do with the Halo lunar orbit system and want direct flights.

kbd512 · 2021-11-04 20:40:00

Oldfart1939,

I guess now Blue Origin will have to demonstrate the ability to actually compete with SpaceX to earn contracts from NASA, rather than to litigate for them. Taking your competitors to court because your product or service can't compete is a favored tactic of corporations with lots of money but mediocre products. Blue Origin could prove they're a player by developing a crewed space capsule and reusable rocket, or at least a reusable booster, that can go all the way to orbit and back.

SpaceNut · 2021-11-04 20:44:52

Ya Bezo needs to not only build it but be on schedule for use....

Oldfart1939 · 2021-11-05 08:40:54

BO needs to complete the BE-4 engines for ULA, as their first step in regaining some credibility. The Vulcan-Centaur rocket system shows some signs of viability.

GW Johnson · 2021-11-06 09:16:40

Developing a new liquid rocket engine from scratch is not an easy task, nor is it ever completed as quickly as first thought. Time scales are typically 5+ years.

Solids are faster, unless NASA is running the show (ex: SLS SRB's). Takes 2+ years to do a small one, maybe 4+ years to prove-out a really big one.

There's a whale of a lot more to it than just getting your first successful firing (and that goes for liquids too).

GW

kbd512 · 2021-11-06 13:31:01

GW,

Is there truly no piece of design software that can accurately model the behavior of the engines and the propellant feed system?

I find it hard to believe that ANSYS or a software module plugged into a similar CAD program, can't accurately model that.

GW Johnson · 2021-11-07 09:55:08

A design model is not a real piece of hardware. If there is discrepancy between what you modeled and what you built, there will be real trouble. And there often is exactly that discrepancy. The SRB O-ring joint that downed Shuttle Challenger is the recent "classic example" of that. You have to test your hardware extensively to prove that it really works, no matter how "good" your design model is. Key word here is "extensively".

It isn't doing the design analysis model that takes all the time, it is all that demonstration testing. You have to build all that stuff, and you have to test it in a variety of ways, to some often-quite demanding specs. Particularly for military hardware, but most government programs are similar, even if civilian. And well-run private efforts must do the same thing.

Some of those tests, such as simulated accelerated aging for solid propellants, take a lot of time, in and of themselves. And all this stuff has to take place in sequence, not parallel, so that you can make the changes in the design effectively, in response to the test results. Then you have to re-test the changed design, at least to some extent.

If that sounds complicated, then I made my point: it is complicated. And if you don't do it "right", odds are your product will fail.

That's not to say that some outfits haven't drug out the process (to get revenue from it over longer times), because they have. The P-51 went from a sketch on a bar napkin to a flying prototype airplane in 120 days. It took another 2 years to work out the last of the bugs, so that a long-range fast fighter escort finally became available in WW2.

Compare that to the F-35. The "2 or 3" is measured in decades not years. It's a more complicated airplane, yes, but not by a factor of 12.

Or, look at the original big rockets, like Atlas. Took 2-3 years to get them flying at all, and another couple of years of flight test failures to risk astronauts' lives on them. Compare that to SLS, and again it's not years, it's decades.

SpaceX has blown up a lot of engines and rockets, but they haven't killed anyone. Yet. Musk consistently underestimates the time interval he needs to get something done, by about a factor of 2 to 3. But so far, he gets it done. In years. Not decades.

Bezos is getting good things done on a time scale of years, too. He still has a ways to go, but he's doing it right. No crashes, no deaths, yet. He is hampered in his BE-4 for Vulcan (and New Glenn) by having to deal with old-space ULA, which is now consistently taking decades to do what could be done in years.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2021-11-07 09:59:10)

Oldfart1939 · 2021-11-07 16:16:57

GW-
I would really like to see the Vulcan-Centaur system come to fruition, and it hinges on BO and the BE-4 engines. This is a possible replacement for the SLS in the Artemis program. It should be able to orbit the overweight Orion capsule without the fanfare surrounding the Senate Launch System.
In the long run, Starship will eclipse all the competition.

SpaceNut · 2021-11-07 17:31:41

The BE-4 engine will rely on a combination of liquid oxygen (LOX) and liquid natural gas (LNG) and is a first stage engine in application. Its been in competition with the AR1 engine for the Atlas V RD-180 replacement program.
https://www.ulalaunch.com/docs/default- … inal_2.pdf

SpaceNut · 2021-11-07 17:32:31

The BE-4 engine will rely on a combination of liquid oxygen (LOX) and liquid natural gas (LNG) and is a first stage engine in application. Its been in competition with the AR1 engine for the Atlas V RD-180 replacement program.
https://www.ulalaunch.com/docs/default- … inal_2.pdf

kbd512 · 2021-11-07 17:47:21

GW,

All the complexity of the F-35 was in its engine and the software that controls every aspect of how the aircraft operates. The time spent on the airframe design was quite minor compared to the time spent on the software, especially sensor fusion and weapons integration. As compared to the P-51, the F-35 was almost infinitely more complex. There were no supersonic VTOL stealth fighters in WWII with integrated EO suites, helmet-mounted HUDs, touch-screen LED displays, solid state radar / jammers, data-sharing links, sensor fusion producing overlay images of threats and friendly forces, engine health monitoring systems, and the list goes on. The avionics and wiring in the F-35 weighs more than the P-51's ordnance load. All of that complexity was compounded by concurrent development. P-51s with mechanical issues simply "stayed broke" until they were issued redesigned parts or replaced with entirely new airframes.

In any event, software complexity is real complexity. The F-35 now has 8 million lines of code running, which is more than the Space Shuttle ever had, and then the ground support equipment has at least 24 million lines of code running. Individual weapon systems can add many more lines of code to the F-35's software suite.

GW Johnson · 2021-11-09 13:16:47

Kbd512:

I'm not at all sure that such massive software systems are really necessary. But one of the real key to the problems of the F-35 is in your posting: "concurrent development". That is a really BAD idea when doing any sort of engineering development, whether there is software involved or not. I know all the management whiz kids swear by it, but us old-time new product development engineers only swear at it, and VERY loudly! You can't incorporate design changes from testing properly, if you develop all the systems concurrently. They affect each other, and concurrent development strategy assumes they do not. It is wrong from the get-go. Note that when I said "systems" that includes software as well as the mechanical stuff.

Another key to the problems the F-35 has faced is the notion of a multi-service aircraft. We went through this BS once before, with the F-111. USAF and Navy requirements are so wildly different that very few designs have ever served well for both services. The Navy would not buy their version of the F-111, because it required rebuilding stronger every flight deck in the fleet. Plus its range and payload were no better than the A-6 Intruder that they already had.

Although this is obsolete now, back in the late 1970's, the F-15 was tested at Nellis against aggressor-squadron F-5's simulating Mig-21's. Initially, the kill ratio in simulated combat favored the F-15 with its far more sophisticated avionics. The aggressor squadron pilots got tired of this, and hot-rodded some Radio Shack radar warning receivers to work against the F-15 radars, while feeding on aircraft 400 VAC power. Suddenly the kill ratio went very lopsidedly in favor of the far simpler and less-capable aircraft, re-equipped to a very minimal standard with a radar warning receiver, but flown by the more experienced pilots. We have seen this effect ever since WW1.

GW

Oldfart1939 · 2021-11-10 10:07:08

If we look at which company is succeeding in building rockets that actually work--SpaceX--they are doing it to "old way." Design it--build it--test it--wreck it--rebuild it. Repeat until you no longer wreck it by testing. Computer modeling and simulations are only as good as the software writers and engineers. The real world is a tough place, and simulations are just that...

kbd512 · 2021-11-10 13:01:30

GW,

I was in no way advocating for concurrent development. That development paradigm was the precise cause of so many of the cost overruns.

The F-4 Phantom was indeed a USAF / USN / USMC aircraft that served all services well, as well as our allies. The difference is that it was a singular airframe design, rather than three different variants sharing some common parts. By the time the Israelis and MD finished airframe development, it could turn about as well as the F-15 and was even faster. It should have received the then-new F-404 turbofan engines, the Israelis used conformal fuel tanks to dramatically extend the range and increase acceleration rates using older Spey turbofan engines. In short, the F-4 should have remained in service until the F-22 and F-35 appeared. The F-22 was built because the then-state-of-the-art F-119 engines could not produce the thrust of the F-135 engine. After the F-135 appeared, that engine should have been retrofitted to the F-4s to keep them in service, to the B-52s, and to the B-1s to convert them into high speed missile carriers, albeit with less range.

The only proper upgrade path for our forces was continual updates of the engines, avionics, sensors, and weapon systems. Nobody makes a fighter that can evade a modern all-aspect heat-seeker inside its no-escape envelope, so the sensors / jammers / defensive weapon systems are of paramount importance. We didn't need to spend trillions on the F-14 / F-15 / F-16 / F-18 to "know that". Everyone in our sphere knows it, and nobody even questions it, because it's not questionable. Yes, the "teen series" of fighters were and are great planes, but not because their airframes could actually do something that the F-4 couldn't do at least equally well. The Israelis wanted speed and acceleration, so they made it faster than any variant of the F-15. They wanted range, so the conformal fuel tanks, which the F-15 now uses, gave it longer legs than the then-new F-15. They wanted increased turn rates, so they strengthened the wings to the point it could do 9G turns without damage. MD shut down development of the Super Phantom because they wanted to sell the F-15 to the USAF. MD and Grumman both had a hand in F-14 development. The F-16 and F-18 were products of the "fighter mafia" way of thinking. All operators then proceeded to load them up with so much "extra stuff" that they became over-glorified bomb trucks, which is what the F-4s were.

The malarkey about guns was mostly just malarkey, even during the Viet Nam War. There were a literal handful of gun kills, so few I can count them on one hand, that were made after the introduction of the M61 to the F-4 airframes during Viet Nam. Basically, the F-4 was not lacking anything in the air-to-air department that improve missile technology wouldn't fix, and if there was vastly more money spent to do that, then it would've happened in time for introduction during Viet Nam. To my knowledge, no US fighter has scored an air-to-air gun kill against another fighter type aircraft since 1981. The malarkey runs so deep that the USAF continues putting Gatling guns on their stealth fighters, despite having no practical use case for them. The coming laser weapons are a bit different, because they have defensive as well as offensive uses.

The F-111 was simply too large to operate from aircraft carrier flight decks. Given how the F-14 was actually used in service, the F-111 was still a better airframe design for carrying large missile or bomb loads to great distances. The AIM-54 was almost useless in service, other than as a propaganda tool to scare the Soviets. The technology probably exists to use it today in a practical manner, but use it against what? Non-maneuvering and non-stealthy Cold War era Soviet bombers? The F-111 was designed with one performance goal in mind- raw speed at low altitude. It was much faster than any other airframe that existed at the time, at low altitude. It was fast enough to evade pursuit by enemy fighters, but it couldn't maneuver very well and its engines were more of a liability than an asset.

The range of the F-111 was considerably greater at equivalent speed, but due to how it was actually used, combat radius was about the same as the A-6. The A-6 could stay in the air longer, but the F-111 could get to and back from the target much faster. There was certainly no way for any A-6 to run away from enemy fighters.

Yes, I recall the story of the F-5s fighting the F-15s. The part that's left out of that story is the grossly unrealistic engagement scenarios used both before and after the aggressor squadron guys installed their Radio Shack special radar warning receivers. They exploited a specific weakness in the F-15s radar system that didn't exist in subsequent models, along with the rules of the engagement scenario. Even so, the notion that you can fly a less technologically sophisticated fighter, given excellent training, against more sophisticated aircraft with less well trained crews, is borne out in both mock and real life engagements. However, there is a point where technology diminishes the absolute best training and experience imaginable. A P-51 driver with 10,000 hours in a P-51 will never defeat a F-35 driver with 500 hours, except through blind dumb luck, which is not something you can rely upon in combat.

Anyway, that was the basic premise behind my X-36 based microfighter concept. The airframe is stealthy, can actually turn inside one of these modern all-aspect heat seekers, and modern guided weapons are so precise and lethal that loading up a few more weapons on a much larger and more expensive airframe, like the F-22 / F-35 / J-20 / Su-57, is entirely superfluous. There is little to nothing that those much larger / heavier / less maneuverable / more expensive airframes can do better, against a similarly stealthy opponent, especially when we could field an entire squadron of stealthy miniature fighter aircraft for the same fuel burn rate as a single F-22 or F-35. The mere fact that we could put an entire squadron of microfighters in the air versus one of our opponents, all but assures that they're at a distinct disadvantage in a real life combat scenario. The ability to carry the APKWS, SDB, Griffin, and Pyros means a miniature fighter can kill any full-sized fighter aircraft, helicopter, or armored vehicle in existence, and that the enemy will run out of war machines to fight with long before we will. The drastic reduction in fuel burn rate, to 100gph per plane, allows for more training time to develop tactics and practice fighting.

Regarding the F-35 debacle, every service should have received the F-35C variant, the Marines should've been told to operate from super carrier decks, and that should have been that. The mindless fascination with VTOL capability has never proven decisive in any engagement, meaning all actual fighting conducted, would've been conducted without VTOL capability if none was available. Alternatively, the Marines could install miniature catapults for microfighters on their miniature aircraft carriers, and the ability to have many more planes in the air would provide much greater assurance of the availability of close air support. I can't make a real strong case for the F-35B, because there isn't one. Rather than the single squadron of F-35s, it would be better to have three squadrons of microfighters. There's not enough of a difference between the F-35A and F-35C to win or lose a fight, either.

tahanson43206 · 2021-11-14 11:50:51

Recently Clinician_Antilles suggested looking at the Blue Origin web site to try to find an appropriate person to whom to address the Lanser Proposal of GW Johnson. To this point I have not found a name that seems a good fit.

On the ** other ** hand, I found a list of over 1000 job openings at multiple locations maintained by Blue Origin around the US.

Here is a tiny excerpt from that very long list:

https://blueorigin.wd5.myworkdayjobs.com/BlueOrigin

ISRU & Space Resources Chemistry & Analytical Technician – Advanced Development Programs
R13104 | Los Angeles, CA | Posted 5 Days Ago
ISRU & Space Resources Laboratory Technician – Advanced Development Programs
R13106 | Los Angeles, CA | Posted 5 Days Ago

I decided to point these two positions out, because they are in a department that itself might be a good fit for the Deltion IP.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2021-11-14 11:55:22

For GW Johnson ...

who is head of Advanced Development Programs department at blue origin
All
NewsMapsImagesVideosMore
Tools
About 203,000,000 results (0.75 seconds)
Patrick Zeitouni
Patrick Zeitouni is the Advanced Development Programs at Blue Origin .
Patrick Zeitouni - Advanced Development Programs @ Blue ...
https://www.crunchbase.com › person › patrick-zeitouni
About featured snippets
•
Feedback
Adam Wuerl - Director of Advanced Concepts & Strategyhttps://www.linkedin.com › adamwuerl
Greater Seattle Area · Director of Advanced Concepts & Strategy · BLUE ORIGIN
Adam Wuerl. Director of Advanced Concepts & Strategy. BLUE ORIGIN
Stanford University. Greater Seattle Area
500+ connections.
Dean Kassmann - Senior Director, Advanced Technology
Bellevue, Washington, United States · Senior Director, Advanced Technology · BLUE ORIGIN
Senior Director, Advanced Technology at Blue Origin ... new space, software development,
supply chain planning/optimization, control systems, simulation and ...

These gents may be worth considering for the Lander proposal ...

However, since the name Google came up with first is that of: Patrick Zeitouni

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2021-11-14 11:59:47

Following up re Patrick Zeitouni

Programs
Jobs. Patrick Zeitouni is the Advanced Development Programs at Blue Origin .
Patrick Zeitouni - Advanced Development Programs @ Blue ...https://www.crunchbase.com › person › patrick-zeitouni
About featured snippets
•
Feedback
Patrick Zeitouni - Seattle, Washington, United States - LinkedInhttps://www.linkedin.com › patrick-zeitouni-3647a311
Aerospace & Defense executive experienced in creating and leading P&Ls, developing complex new products, and transforming businesses.
Patrick Zeitouni, MBA '09 | MIT Sloanhttps://mitsloan.mit.edu › alumni › patrick-zeitouni-mb...
Patrick Zeitouni: This is a Blue Origin's emblem so to speak. It's a feather and it's meant to symbolize humanity's quest for the perfection of flight. We've ...
Patrick Zeitouni - Senior Director, B.. - Blue Origin - ZoomInfohttps://www.zoominfo.com › Patrick-Zeitouni
View Patrick Zeitouni's business profile as Senior Director, Business Operations at Blue Origin. Find contact's direct phone number, email address, ...
Kent's Blue Origin visualizes future of people living, working in ...https://www.kentreporter.com › business › kents-blue-o...
Jul 22, 2019 — “We want humanity to continue to expand,” said Patrick Zeitouni, Blue Origin's head of advanced development programs, during closing remarks ...
Videos

As I read these snippets, I get the impression Mr. Zeitouni might be a reasonable choice as the person to receive the Lander proposal.

(th)

GW Johnson · 2021-11-14 15:33:34

If I understand correctly, the Blue Origin version of the proposal goes to Zeitouni, not Bezos. Easy enough.

Will make those changes with the title shown in the posts above, print, and get it ready for mailing. Will mail sometime Monday, pending confirmation that Zeitouni, not Bezos, is the target.

"Sometime Monday" reflects the fact that I take the cat and myself to the doctors over in Waco Monday morning. Reply here or in one of the threads, or even in the zoom meeting tonight. I'll take care of getting it done at one or another post office around the county.

GW

SpaceNut · 2021-11-14 17:23:32

Thanks Th for dredging up the information and hopefully we will not run out of time...

SpaceNut · 2021-11-23 18:05:17

'GMA' co-anchor Michael Strahan to fly to space on Blue Origin's next space flight on Blue Origin's New Shepard rocket on December 9

Another on the same flight
Laura Shepard Churchley, daughter of the first American in space Alan Shepard, will be one of six passengers on Blue Origin's next flight.
Comes 60 years after historic flight

The other four are paying customers: space industry executive and philanthropist Dylan Taylor, investor Evan Dick, Bess Ventures founder Lane Bess, and Cameron Bess. Lane and Cameron Bess will become the first parent-child pair to fly in space.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-10-20 06:21:39

Space Force briefing on military space race catches Jeff Bezos’ attention
https://spacenews.com/space-force-brief … attention/
It is surprising how much information can be obtained from open sources

WASHINGTON — U.S. Space Systems Command officials earlier this month gave an unclassified briefing to Blue Origin founder Jeff Bezos on the power competition taking place in the space domain.

Executives from the space company Blue Origin heard the briefing in September at a Space Systems Command industry meeting in Los Angeles. “The Blue Origin team was so impressed that they requested that SSC brief Jeff Bezos,” Col. Joseph Roth, the command’s director of innovation and prototyping, said Oct. 19 at the Space Industry Days conference hosted by AFCEA Los Angeles.

The briefing was conducted by SMSgt. Ron Lerch, senior enlisted leader of Space Systems Command’s intelligence directorate.

Speaking at the Space Industry Days event, Lerch said it is remarkable how much information can be obtained from open sources. A lot of people “roll their eyes” when you tell them the briefing is unclassified because they assume there’s little value in it, he said, but after hearing it they are surprised by the substance of the information.

Some highlights from Lerch’s talk:

Counter-space weapons are here today. Russia has openly talked about fixed-site and mobile laser systems that it could use to target foreign optical imaging satellites flying over Russian territory. “If they wanted to blind overhead satellites that rely on electro optical cameras, they’d be able to use these mobile systems to sort of blind our assets,” said Lerch.

“When we look at today’s threat, we have to respect the fact that yes, the Chinese and the Russians can potentially blind our satellites. But as we move towards the turn of the decade, we should absolutely expect that the technology is going to get to a point where they could probably start looking at creating actual structural damage to some of our satellites, depending on what orbit it’s operating in.”

A recent example of Chinese orbital capabilities is the Shijian-21 satellite that docked with a defunct Beidou spacecraft and tugged it to a graveyard orbit 300 kilometers above geostationary Earth orbit (GEO). China said this was a demonstration of debris removal, not of a space weapon. “The problem is when you start to look holistically at a lot of what the Chinese are doing in space, that’s where you start really getting worried about these robotic mechanisms that they’re utilizing,” said Lerch

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2021-10-16 12:01:39

Re: Blue Origin

#77 2021-10-25 18:43:22

Re: Blue Origin

#78 2021-10-27 09:33:13

Re: Blue Origin

#79 2021-11-04 20:24:07

Re: Blue Origin

#80 2021-11-04 20:39:32

Re: Blue Origin

#81 2021-11-04 20:40:00

Re: Blue Origin

#82 2021-11-04 20:44:52

Re: Blue Origin

#83 2021-11-05 08:40:54

Re: Blue Origin

#84 2021-11-06 09:16:40

Re: Blue Origin

#85 2021-11-06 13:31:01

Re: Blue Origin

#86 2021-11-07 09:55:08

Re: Blue Origin

#87 2021-11-07 16:16:57

Re: Blue Origin

#88 2021-11-07 17:31:41

Re: Blue Origin

#89 2021-11-07 17:32:31

Re: Blue Origin

#90 2021-11-07 17:47:21

Re: Blue Origin

#91 2021-11-09 13:16:47

Re: Blue Origin

#92 2021-11-10 10:07:08

Re: Blue Origin

#93 2021-11-10 13:01:30

Re: Blue Origin

#94 2021-11-14 11:50:51

Re: Blue Origin

#95 2021-11-14 11:55:22

Re: Blue Origin

#96 2021-11-14 11:59:47

Re: Blue Origin

#97 2021-11-14 15:33:34

Re: Blue Origin

#98 2021-11-14 17:23:32

Re: Blue Origin

#99 2021-11-23 18:05:17

Re: Blue Origin

#100 2022-10-20 06:21:39

Re: Blue Origin

Board footer