You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I would not take the BO animation too seriously. It's a concept, not a detailed description of what they plan to accomplish.Landing slow like that animation would require huge amounts of fuel for landing, lowering the useful payload to space. Advertising that you want to hover or near hover around your landing site speaks to not being competitive on several fronts.
I would not take the BO animation too seriously. It's a concept, not a detailed description of what they plan to accomplish.
It's that a fully automatic unmanned ship, it's there any such thing in that size in use yet? Also booster needs to be build like battleship to withstand re-entry without atmospheric retropropulsion. More margins -less efficiency. Also more fuel on board. The learning-landings going to be expensive compared to failed landings on repurposed barges.
It's that a fully automatic unmanned ship, it's there any such thing in that size in use yet? Also booster needs to be build like battleship to withstand re-entry without atmospheric retropropulsion. More margins -less efficiency. Also more fuel on board. The learning-landings going to be expensive compared to failed landings on repurposed barges.
BO is quite serious in building an engine for the Vulcan rocket and to replace the Russian RD180 engine (SpaceX got some money from the DoD to make Raptor as the other alternative). They don't need to tell the public anything. Their audience is the DoD and ULA as a customer. The New Glenn rocket will be far more capable than Falcon 9, less payload to LEO than FH, but possibly similar payload to GTO/TLI/TMI than FH due to its better ISP and optional 3rd stage using very high ISP LH2 stage.I would not take the BO animation too seriously. It's a concept, not a detailed description of what they plan to accomplish.
SpaceX is landing on floating pad to save fuel. It will need more fuel (more weight) to get rocket back to land.So why does Jeff Bezos' rocket lands safely after space flight - Nov. 24, 2015 get to land in TX on firm ground but spaceX has to try the harder landing at sea?
SpaceX should be allowed to land on firm ground then.
SpaceX is landing on floating pad to save fuel. It will need more fuel (more weight) to get rocket back to land.
"3rd stage"? The New Glenn does not have a third stage as near as I can tell.By going full flow and higher chamber pressure they gain efficiency in the 1st and 2nd stages. BO's launch system intends to throw away 2nd and 3rd stages,
Sorry for the confusion. I was referring to the apparent movement of the BO stage recovery ship through the water. If you look at the stern of the ship it clearly shows a prominent wake with a central turbulent area indicating the main props are operating. It's more than just station keeping (as SpaceX does) the ship is moving forward through the water. I find it odd that the animators would deliberately choose to show the ship moving forward during the stage landing. But as I said, I would not take the details shown in the BO video too seriously: what it shows is years away from becoming reality.And here I was focusing on the fact that they came to a near hover above deck and moved laterally at near 0 vertical velocity to center the landing. I thought that was what you were talking about "moving".
Okay, thanks, my mistake. I thought you were referring to the recently released BO video of the New Glenn which only showed 2 stages.ecarfan take a look at the BO site. It shows 2 New Glenn configurations. The first and second stage is methalox with the optional 3rd stage being a hydrolox one.
Heat shield would be enough. Booster has low mass/volume so braking is not so difficult. Ship moving with speed of wind would make landing easier. I guess there are plenty used up oil tankers available.
I'm not sure how well their steerable fin design works compared to SpaceX's waffle fin design which works well in very different environments. Hopefully it works equally well.
Uses the same engine used in New Sheppard.Okay, thanks, my mistake. I thought you were referring to the recently released BO video of the New Glenn which only showed 2 stages.
Heat shield would be enough. Booster has low mass/volume so braking is not so difficult. Ship moving with speed of wind would make landing easier. I guess there are plenty used up oil tankers available.
This is actually wrong, main reason why Falcon 1 and 9 flight's first parachute recovery efforts failed was high aerodynamic forces. -> rip stages apart. Falcon 9 also have PICA-X heat shield and needs re-entry burn. Ship moves for stability not for wind correction.
“Those aerodynamic surfaces allow us to operate with very high availability in very high wind conditions,” he said. “We don’t want to constrain the availability of launch based on the availability of the landing of the reusable booster. We put a lot of effort into letting the vehicle fly back with aerodynamic surface control instead of with propulsion.”
http://spacenews.com/eutelsat-first-customer-for-blue-origins-new-glenn/
Time will show how well those big fins work in high-hypersonic speeds.
It clearly does not need to be "moving" for a successful stage landing. The SpaceX ASDS's hold position to within a meter (according to Elon) during a stage landing.The Landing Pad Ship needs to be moving, like any ship without power it heaves and sways...