The
Reason is that if they can land at sea they need to carry much less fuel to do reentry, because separation actually happens over open sea. It is harder to do, but much cheaper. SpaceX has done a fair number of land returns while proving systems.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Reason is that if they can land at sea they need to carry much less fuel to do reentry, because separation actually happens over open sea. It is harder to do, but much cheaper. SpaceX has done a fair number of land returns while proving systems.
dhanson865
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure why you decided to take a post from before SpaceX did a RTLS and reply to it now after they've done multiple successful landings (including 1 RTLS) but sure I do know why they continue to use drone ships.
Would you like to search for other posts of mine from 2015 and reply to them now?
and while I'm here, lets post a nice image.
Would you like to search for other posts of mine from 2015 and reply to them now?
and while I'm here, lets post a nice image.
Last edited:
Blue Origin and SpaceX rockets are quite different and build for different purposes. SpaceX launches payloads into orbit, meaning it must attain very high down range speeds. This is why most SpaceX first stage recoveries are in the ocean - the first stage is several hundred kilometers over the ocean, and traveling very fast away from land, when its job is done. And orbital launches always occur over the ocean for safety reasons since the rockets almost immediately start going laterally, meaning that if there was an accident, the rocket could land/explode kilometers away from the launch site.
Blue Origin's rockets are currently meant to transport tourists straight up to space, and in particular, the capsule has very little lateral motion, meaning it can't orbit, and thus comes straight back down, as does their rocket (capsule and rocket separate at the top of the climb), thus a land based recovery is possible.
Blue Origin has stated they want to build orbital rockets, but they aren't anywhere near that goal yet.
So while Blue Origin's rocket recoveries are cool and kudos to them for accomplishing it, SpaceX recoveries are much, much harder and more advanced.
Blue Origin's rockets are currently meant to transport tourists straight up to space, and in particular, the capsule has very little lateral motion, meaning it can't orbit, and thus comes straight back down, as does their rocket (capsule and rocket separate at the top of the climb), thus a land based recovery is possible.
Blue Origin has stated they want to build orbital rockets, but they aren't anywhere near that goal yet.
So while Blue Origin's rocket recoveries are cool and kudos to them for accomplishing it, SpaceX recoveries are much, much harder and more advanced.
Mike1080i
Member
As I understand it, they are going to use the 'New Shepard' booster and spacecraft to loft space tourists and some experiments to just over 100km and back. Pretty much what you've seen it do in testing. They are developing another launch vehicle with orbital capability that will fly from LC-36 at CCAFS.
All of what you posted is quite true. This small booster has only one engine. SpaceX's Falcon 1 only had one Merlin engine on it. Could BO do something similar and create a larger booster by putting more engines into one rocket frame and get that rocket to orbit?
I suppose their one BE-3 engine is pretty good and seems very robust with 4 launches with the same engine. Isn't that the heart and soul of a rocket? The engine. Not having a replacement for the RD-180 engine is what is crippling ULA? The lack of a replacement engine and apparently it will take 5 or 6 years for them to manage to get a replacement built and fully tested. BO is creating a new engine for them, the BE-4, but why not use a bunch of BE-3's?
palmer_md
Member
I slowed it and watched as well, and came to the same conclusion. The reaction (or silence) of the announcer also indicated something wrong although he shook it off as if nothing wrong happened (excellent save).
Yes, did the same thing. Watched it over and over with normal and slower speed. Then I watched the speedometer. 22 mph-->0 in literally 1 second. Agree, capsule rockets didn't fire, or at least I could find no evidence of them doing so. Nice cover on the announcers part, especially with the set-up as the capsule was getting to the end:
(paraphrase) "Don't worry about the big dust that will come up at the end... it's from the rockets, not hitting the ground too hard..."
Despite this, Excellent job Blue Origins! (notice I kept the "E" on this one...
)
Oh, but there is a qualifier. You can also experience near-zero G in a parabolic flight while reusing your aircraft many times. So the qualifier and the quantifiable difference between the achievement of Blue Origins and SpaceX is the (two) orders of magnitude of higher energy involved in the SpaceX flights.
The political dimension aside, it is a bit like the difference between kosmonaut Gagarin's first orbital flight and astronaut Shepard's subsequent suborbital flight. In that sense it is fitting that BO calls their vehicle the 'New Shepard' - and their speaker even reused Shepard's "let's light this candle" (I am unsure if I find that to be in good taste).
PS. On reflection, what somewhat irritates me is that the clueless media end up presenting the achievements of BO and SpaceX as comparable, which they only are to within a factor 100. Or, like if I went over to Reinhold Messner and said "yeah, I also climb without oxygen, when I was young I did the Washington Monument. Shall we have a selfie together?"
Last edited:
adiggs
Well-Known Member
Is what SpaceX doing way, way more difficult than Blue Origin? Yes.
What bothered me in the thread, back when I made the post, was the way the tenor of the conversation was trending towards picking apart what Blue Origin was accomplishing and diminishing what they were doing.
Should media or people start making like they are comparable? No.
Does it bother me when media write about the launch and landing of the two as if they're the same'ish thing? Yes.
Does it bother me when Jeff and Elon snipe at each other in Twitter, as they were doing back then? Yes. (In both cases, they should have been congratulating each other on their organization's accomplishments, no qualifiers, no buts. I believe the sniping between the two of them helped feed the media presentation)
Does the fact they are different accomplishments make what Blue Origin is doing, not cool? No.
It's cool - period.
Do I believe SpaceX could duplicate what Blue Origin is doing if they decided to (take a rocket, send it straight up and down 100km, and then relaunch it with minimal refurbishing)? Yes.
Does that mean what Blue Origin is doing is Not Cool? No.
It's cool. Period. Full stop.
This is an amazing time we're living in. Like any healthy market, space is going to need multiple companies competing in their own ways, in their own niches, doing their own thing. All valuable. And like any healthy market, there will be companies with a theory about how to proceed, that will prove unworkable. Or the theory will be good and the company's execution won't be adequate. Or, or.
I believe Blue Origin is way, way behind SpaceX technologically. I also believe they're behind ULA today / right now, and that ULA is standing still by comparison. If ULA doesn't get moving, Blue Origin's launch capabilities are going to catch up and pass ULA. I hope it happens. I hope the Russians get better and get into this competition as well, and push the Americans.
Heck - I even hope ULA buys a clue (or they've already gotten it, but they're keeping it under wraps).
At the very least, with Blue Origin repeating the Launch, Land, Repeat thing with the same engine, over and over, SpaceX gets pushed to do the same thing, even though we know what they're doing is way harder.
I'm really looking forward to the day when first use of a rocket / rocket engine carries a discount (unproven), and the 2nd / 3rd / etc.. launches are charged full price (proven rocket = safer / more reliable launch).
What bothered me in the thread, back when I made the post, was the way the tenor of the conversation was trending towards picking apart what Blue Origin was accomplishing and diminishing what they were doing.
Should media or people start making like they are comparable? No.
Does it bother me when media write about the launch and landing of the two as if they're the same'ish thing? Yes.
Does it bother me when Jeff and Elon snipe at each other in Twitter, as they were doing back then? Yes. (In both cases, they should have been congratulating each other on their organization's accomplishments, no qualifiers, no buts. I believe the sniping between the two of them helped feed the media presentation)
Does the fact they are different accomplishments make what Blue Origin is doing, not cool? No.
It's cool - period.
Do I believe SpaceX could duplicate what Blue Origin is doing if they decided to (take a rocket, send it straight up and down 100km, and then relaunch it with minimal refurbishing)? Yes.
Does that mean what Blue Origin is doing is Not Cool? No.
It's cool. Period. Full stop.
This is an amazing time we're living in. Like any healthy market, space is going to need multiple companies competing in their own ways, in their own niches, doing their own thing. All valuable. And like any healthy market, there will be companies with a theory about how to proceed, that will prove unworkable. Or the theory will be good and the company's execution won't be adequate. Or, or.
I believe Blue Origin is way, way behind SpaceX technologically. I also believe they're behind ULA today / right now, and that ULA is standing still by comparison. If ULA doesn't get moving, Blue Origin's launch capabilities are going to catch up and pass ULA. I hope it happens. I hope the Russians get better and get into this competition as well, and push the Americans.
Heck - I even hope ULA buys a clue (or they've already gotten it, but they're keeping it under wraps).
At the very least, with Blue Origin repeating the Launch, Land, Repeat thing with the same engine, over and over, SpaceX gets pushed to do the same thing, even though we know what they're doing is way harder.
I'm really looking forward to the day when first use of a rocket / rocket engine carries a discount (unproven), and the 2nd / 3rd / etc.. launches are charged full price (proven rocket = safer / more reliable launch).
For what i read and what i intended, BO is way ahead to SpaceX in the engine and in the fuel, and this is a good thing, while SpaceX in year head of BO in all the rest, they just didn't bother to have a super-efficient engine, they just need a goog engine for the propulsion, so they choose the first good candidate and go ahead with what they really want .. which is not making the best rocket with the best technology, this is going to came later, for now they want to go to mars, so they don't care if it take two time the fuel or the landing doesn't a super-cool hovering, they just want something that work so all the magic can start ( same as the roadster ), and then, and only then, they can make a super-effective rocket ( model s ) and then they could make a super-effective and super-economic rocket ( model 3 )
The two companies are using different propellants, which is a significant difference when comparing rocket engines. BO is using liquid hydrogen (and oxygen), which has the highest specific impulse, but low amount of energy per mass and volume - and difficult to work with. SpaceX is using refined petroleum (and oxygen), which due to its higher density in the end gives more "bang for the buck".
In spite of trying I never made it past arm-chair rocket scientist. Nevertheless, I would still be interested in your view on why the SpaceX engine is inferior to that of Blue Origin. I can for example not understand your analogy with Tesla's Roadster, since this was the first vehicle (and not built in-house from the ground), while SpaceX now are several iterations further than that (at least with respect to the whole rocket).
I'm really not an expert, i just think that if you use a more complex engine with compressor etc, you are going for something more efficient that in the end will get you where the "brute force" can't go like having using less fuel thus having more range in the end, or better speed, or much more control, a fuel much more cheaper etc.. else why will you do that? Why use an extemely more complex layout for the motor when this will only bring to a point where you probably has more problem to solve?
I don't think at BO they are stupid, so this is where i get my conclusion, being a really non expert...
But, you have just said that BO use a less efficient fuel wich neeed more space, is more heavy ( compared to the same propulsion power ) so i think i just missed the entire point of why they are doing this
I don't think at BO they are stupid, so this is where i get my conclusion, being a really non expert...
But, you have just said that BO use a less efficient fuel wich neeed more space, is more heavy ( compared to the same propulsion power ) so i think i just missed the entire point of why they are doing this
Krugerrand
Meow
This was why I did not enjoy the commentating. They lied. Did they think the audience would be too stupid to notice? Or are they simply more concerned about the particular face they put forward that lying is acceptable? Frankly wasn't surprised about the lie given the general slickness of their presentation. It reminded me of politicians saying whatever they need to say to get a vote. That tainted everything for me.
I very much appreciate the honesty that SpaceX displays: We ran out of fuel. The rocket hit too hard. A strut on the rocket failed, testing subsequent struts in that batch shows that they don't meet code. We didn't have the most recent software uploaded to Dragon so we couldn't save it. Here's video of the rocket coming in too hot and blowing up. The rocket took more stress than we thought it would. We don't know what happened, but when we know we'll let you know...
versus
Oh, don't worry folks that cloud of dust is from the engines firing not the rocket hitting hard.
While it may be a mistake to try and add anything to such a comment, I can understand now why there sometimes is some animosity between these two companies.
One presents its work like a good scientist, the other does it like a bad salesman.
Krugerrand
Meow
That sums it up quite well. And I can't get past it. It makes me feel icky. So I acknowledge the accomplishment by BO, hope they continue to advance their technology and are able to take people up and down like an amusement ride (because it'll get people more excited about space/space travel), but I can't get behind them with my heart and soul. (It's also how I feel about Tesla vs the other guys.)
I am really not sure what is the big deal here. Honestly. Getting a rocket straight vertically up and cutting the engine off and coming straight back? really? and this is a milestone?. You got to be kidding. No one did this, only because there is not a scientific or military use case that would need this type of gimmick - except when people are willing to pay tens of thousands of dollars to get a 5 minute ride.
The narrator stressed a few times of how they would be in zero G and floating for the next 1 minute, essentially marketing and selling this to the rich guys and kids out there who are bored of roller coasters and want something more thrilling.
This could be an exceptional Disney ride. Thats about it.
The narrator stressed a few times of how they would be in zero G and floating for the next 1 minute, essentially marketing and selling this to the rich guys and kids out there who are bored of roller coasters and want something more thrilling.
This could be an exceptional Disney ride. Thats about it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Krugerrand
Meow
It serves a bigger purpose; it gets people excited about space/space travel. That's super important. Without curiosity and excitement about space we land men on the moon almost 5 decades ago and then call it quits. Oh, wait....
This way children get excited, schools add curriculum, companies and rich private citizens invest money and before you know it we're going to Mars. Oh, wait....
So yeah, it's important even if it only serves as an adrenaline rush to the rich and famous. It'll lead other places.
Regarding the capsule rockets going off (or not): I too didn't think they had gone off. @GoTslaGo above observed that the speed dropped from 22mph to 0 in one second. Well, unfortunately that tells us very little; 22mph is about 32 fps, and 1G is 32fps^2. The rockets could fire for less than a second and still make the crunch a lot less ... crunchy.
From http://space.gizmodo.com/watch-a-soyuz-soft-landing-from-gentle-detachment-to-1726819539
2 FEET off the ground? That's about 0.1 seconds.
Personally I think the commentators hadn't been briefed on how brief the firing was going to be. Or, maybe it didn't happen, but I don't think we can conclude it from the video at that frame rate.
From http://space.gizmodo.com/watch-a-soyuz-soft-landing-from-gentle-detachment-to-1726819539
2 FEET off the ground? That's about 0.1 seconds.
Personally I think the commentators hadn't been briefed on how brief the firing was going to be. Or, maybe it didn't happen, but I don't think we can conclude it from the video at that frame rate.
Similar threads
- Article
