Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Blue Origin releases video from third launch and landing of New Shepard
TechCrunch ^ | 4/2/2016 | Emily Calandrelli

Posted on 04/03/2016 6:04:26 PM PDT by Vince Ferrer

Remember when Blue Origin made history by vertically landing a rocket after launching it into space? Remember when they reused that same rocket and then landed it again? Well, today Jeff Bezos’ rocket company, once again, launched that very same New Shepard rocket and successfully landed it for a third time.

At 11:28 AM EST, Bezos announced the successful landing of the New Shepard suborbital rocket as well as the crew capsule that it was carrying into space. While the rocket will eventually be used for crewed missions, there were no humans on this flight.

Unlike previous launches where the public was mostly unaware of the event until after the fact, Bezos gave the world a heads up the night before the launch.

With a few tweets, Bezos revealed that a couple of things were different about this particular New Shepard launch.

For one, upon the return of their rocket, New Shepard’s BE-3 liquid hydrogen liquid oxygen engine would be restarted closer to the landing pad at 3,600 feet from the ground. If there were any issues in restarting the engine, the rocket would impact the ground within 6 seconds.

Blue Origin also tested a new, more efficient radar cross section (RCS) algorithm on the crew capsule.

Another unique aspect of today’s launch was that this mission had a payload on board. New Shepard carried two microgravity science experiments into space: one from the Southwest Research Institute and another from the University of Central Florida.

The University of Central Florida is testing how a layer of dust reacts when a marble impacts it under microgravity conditions. The Southwest Research Institute is flying a “Box of Rocks Experiment” to explore the jostling and settling of rocky soil in microgravity.

When Blue Origin first successfully landed their suborbital rocket in November, some were quick to compare Blue Origin’s success to SpaceX’s rocket landing failures at the time (although they successfully landed their Falcon 9 rocket later in December).

However, the key difference between the two company’s current rocket reusability pursuits is Blue Origin’s New Shepard rocket is suborbital (reaches the line of space and comes back down to the Earth) while SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket is orbital (powerful enough to send payloads into a full orbit around the Earth).

Because of this difference, experts believe SpaceX’s orbital rocket is much more technically difficult to land successfully.

Landing a rocket is only the first important step toward rocket reusability. In order to save money for customers who buy rides into space, a launch provider must be able to safely and reliably relaunch recovered rockets. With today’s launch, Blue Origin has now successfully reused a rocket twice.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: blueorigin; falcon9; jeffbezos; nasa; newshepard; spacex; spacexploration; suborbital
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-39 last
To: SunTzuWu

He built his companies on 5 billion in subsidies. That they now do contract work is a result of subsidies in the first place.

You paid for it. And you can argue with National Review.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/419720/dont-believe-elon-musk-renewables-get-much-more-federal-subsidies-fossil-fuels-sean


21 posted on 04/04/2016 4:41:28 AM PDT by bajabaja (Too ugly to be scanned at the airports.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: bajabaja

He built his companies on 5 billion in subsidies.

...

He put his own money that he made from Paypal into SpaceX, which is the company we’re discussing on this thread.


22 posted on 04/04/2016 4:59:42 AM PDT by Moonman62 (Make America Great Again!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

His own money.

If you had $5 billion from subsidies you would have lots of your own money, too.

That is the point.

Bezos did it without government (taxpayer) subsidies. He started Amazon (a private company with no taxpayer subsidies) and now funds his own space company.

Musk got rich on taxpayer subsidies, then used his “own” money from that and funded Spacex.

There’s a big difference. But don’t look behind the curtain!


23 posted on 04/04/2016 5:56:18 AM PDT by bajabaja (Too ugly to be scanned at the airports.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: bajabaja

The subject here was SpaceX. Nice how you’ve managed to add Tesla and Solar City to the conversation. Then if that wasn’t enough, you included the life time totals for the other two.

“Argue with NR”? No you’re the one using their tortured data to support your argument.

“I paid for it”. I’m seeing an impressive return for SpaceX.

Bezos is playing with toys while SpaceX is sending paying cargo to orbit. If you want to talk about other peoples money, Bezos is spending Amazon money while shareholders still aren’t seeing the returns they should. Instead of recording profits for Amazon and paying shareholders, Bezos is spending the money on his hobby.


24 posted on 04/04/2016 6:20:40 AM PDT by SunTzuWu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: bajabaja

Musk got rich on taxpayer subsidies, then used his “own” money from that and funded Spacex.

...

Really?

Provide a timeline.


25 posted on 04/04/2016 6:43:26 AM PDT by Moonman62 (Make America Great Again!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Well, that should piss off Elon Musk, eh? ;’)


26 posted on 04/04/2016 9:02:50 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (Here's to the day the forensics people scrape what's left of Putin off the ceiling of his limo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

You might read the National Review article which details what you ask for, or the Los Angeles Times article linked there.

Or google.

It’s not fun when your guy gets slammed, I know. But the facts are what they are.


27 posted on 04/04/2016 9:33:13 AM PDT by bajabaja (Too ugly to be scanned at the airports.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: SunTzuWu

So 5 billion dollars in US taxpayer funds is not a subsidy?

OK.


28 posted on 04/04/2016 9:34:52 AM PDT by bajabaja (Too ugly to be scanned at the airports.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

Money is fungible. What you get somewhere (his own sources or taxpayer funded) is used elsewhere, including Spacex.

Can you dispute the five billion in subsidies? Can you say he received no subsidies at all?

No, no one can.

He is on the taxpayer teat for a good portion of his wealth. If he was so successful at paypal why did he need the $5 billion?


29 posted on 04/04/2016 9:38:01 AM PDT by bajabaja (Too ugly to be scanned at the airports.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62; SunTzuWu; Vince Ferrer; paintriot; gaijin; kvanbrunt2; TYVets; BwanaNdege; publius911; ..
Thanks Vince Ferrer, Moonman62, and SunTzuWu.
Both companies (Blue Origin and SpaceX) are working on methane-burning engines; the cryo H O engine used on this suborbital craft won't get to orbit even scaled up. That problem was addressed during the Apollo years by using cryo upper stages but the big booster that got those systems into space used RP-1 (a purified kerosene) oxidized with liquid oxygen -- the same combo he'd used in the V2.

The Soviets had copied the V2 engine (there's a nice surviving photo of Sergei Korolev in uniform, standing next to a captured V2 engine in 1945) and scaled it up, and refined it over the past 70 years, such that the *completely unsubsidized* defense contractors use Russian multi-generation derivations of the V2 engine to launch payloads of various kinds, both military and commercial.

Musk wants a methane-burner because of the extra pop, but also because methane is said to be available on the surface of Mars, whereas the Martians are fresh out of RP-1. Bezos wants a methane-burner in order to ferry a bunch of *completely unsubsidized* but no doubt appropriately remunerated rich celebrities into Earth orbit, and eventually to lunar orbit, and safely back to Earth.

I very much doubt space travel will ever be quite as safe as airline travel, btw.

Enough already -- let's get back to fighting about Trump or Cruz. ;')
Flight Three: Pushing the Envelope

30 posted on 04/04/2016 10:15:48 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (Here's to the day the forensics people scrape what's left of Putin off the ceiling of his limo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

Blue Origin’s upcoming methane engine was delected by NASA to replace the Russian engines we gave been buying.


31 posted on 04/04/2016 10:23:30 AM PDT by Vince Ferrer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]


32 posted on 04/04/2016 10:40:43 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (Here's to the day the forensics people scrape what's left of Putin off the ceiling of his limo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: bajabaja

Can you say he received no subsidies at all?

No, no one can.

...

I can say he started SpaceX without subsidies. It was mostly done with his proceeds from the sale of PayPal.


33 posted on 04/04/2016 10:42:47 AM PDT by Moonman62 (Make America Great Again!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Vince Ferrer
I hope they pull it off . I don't care about spaceflight money staying in the US, but paying our enemy is just plain stupid -- and obviously a Demagogic Party agenda item, just as turning Space Station Freedom into the ISS was.

34 posted on 04/04/2016 10:43:07 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (Here's to the day the forensics people scrape what's left of Putin off the ceiling of his limo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: bajabaja

But the facts are what they are.

...

They sure are and you don’t have them.


35 posted on 04/04/2016 10:43:33 AM PDT by Moonman62 (Make America Great Again!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

Originally the reason to buy Russian rockets was because after the collapse of the Soviet Union they didn’t want Russian engineers to go to North Korea or Iran.


36 posted on 04/04/2016 10:53:51 AM PDT by Vince Ferrer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]


37 posted on 04/04/2016 10:59:50 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (Here's to the day the forensics people scrape what's left of Putin off the ceiling of his limo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Vince Ferrer

The original reason was there were dozens of unused heavy lift engines setting in a warehouse and available as-is, nice and cheap.


38 posted on 04/04/2016 11:01:08 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (Here's to the day the forensics people scrape what's left of Putin off the ceiling of his limo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

[singing] She wore Blue Origin (ooh wah ooh) Bluer than Origin were her eyes...

Russian Rocket Engine Replacement : Air Force Makes Two More Awards
By Stewart Money 2016.03.01
http://innerspace.net/launch-vehicle-development/russian-rocket-engine-replacement-air-force-makes-two-more-awards/

Blue Origin’s BE-4 engine passes staged-combustion tests
Joe Latrell
October 3rd, 2015
http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/missions/commercial/blue-origins-be-4-engine-passes-staged-combustion-tests/

http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/BE-4_engine_scale.jpg

ULA, Blue Origin Join Forces on RD-180 Rocket Engine Successor
By Caleb Henry | September 18, 2014
http://www.satellitetoday.com/launch/2014/09/18/ula-blue-origin-join-forces-on-rd-180-rocket-engine-successor/

Blue Origin Completes Acceptance Testing of BE-3 Engine
By Stewart Money 2015.04.07
http://innerspace.net/launch-vehicle-development/blue-origin-completes-acceptance-testing-of-be-3-engine/

Blue Origin’s BE-4 rocket engine ends American dependence on Russian engines by 2019
https://www.blueorigin.com/be4

SpaceX – Launch Vehicle Concepts & Designs
http://spaceflight101.com/spacex-launch-vehicle-concepts-designs/
http://104.131.251.97/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Raptor.jpg

Musk, Mars and Methane
By Stewart Money 2012.11.26
http://innerspace.net/launch-vehicle-development/musk-mars-and-methane/


39 posted on 04/04/2016 2:12:04 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (Here's to the day the forensics people scrape what's left of Putin off the ceiling of his limo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-39 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson