Updates Blue Origin New Shepard News and Updates

[Thunder Chicken]

Could someone tweet him, and ask how the first stage, is brought back to the assembly building after landing ?

Probably the same way they get it to the pad - tractor trailer with a strongback:

 

[MaverickSawyer]

Yep, the Transporter-Erector is used.

 

[Unstung]

Looks like Blue Origin is on its way to beat Virgin Galactic to carry private passengers. Considering New Shepard's capsule has a launch escape system, it may be safer than a spaceplane.

 

[Donamy]

Yep, the Transporter-Erector is used.

Yes, but do they have a temporary stand, that allows them to close the legs ?

 

[GLS]

Finally the video!!!
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YU3J-jKb75g"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YU3J-jKb75g[/ame]

 

[Andy44]

That shot of it falling just as the engine restarts is scary and awesome.

 

[Thunder Chicken]

That shot of it falling just as the engine restarts is scary and awesome.

My reaction:

[New Shepard comes falling back toward pad, imminent violent crash seems inevitable]

"Oh, no no no no no no no no no no...."

[Engine lights, stage screeches to a halt like it fell into a tub of Jell-O]

"Whoa...damn...YES! That was sweet!"

I have to keep reminding myself that no one will be riding this stage to landing. I'm trying to picture astronauts making a similar approach and landing in a crewed SpaceX Dragon2 without them (and everyone watching) soiling their undergarments.

 

[Andy44]

My reaction:

[New Shepard comes falling back toward pad, imminent violent crash seems inevitable]

"Oh, no no no no no no no no no no...."

[Engine lights, stage screeches to a halt like it fell into a tub of Jell-O]

"Whoa...damn...YES! That was sweet!"

I have to keep reminding myself that no one will be riding this stage to landing. I'm trying to picture astronauts making a similar approach and landing in a crewed SpaceX Dragon2 without them (and everyone watching) soiling their undergarments.

Yeah, I guess somebody has to be the first to try that. That'll be one day I'm happy NOT to be an astronaut. At least they'll be looking away from the ground when that happens.

 

[Thunder Chicken]

Yeah, I guess somebody has to be the first to try that. That'll be one day I'm happy NOT to be an astronaut. At least they'll be looking away from the ground when that happens.

Yeah, I haven't completely reconciled my brain with this idea, but it isn't like it hasn't been done before. All the LMs were powered descents (but with an abort capabilty). Harriers hover on a pillar of gas, but also have ejection seats. The Dragon 2 has parachutes, but there is a black zone during approach where they will be too low and slow for parachutes to deploy, but still too high and fast to land without further deceleration. The thrusters simply must work after that.

I hate that there is no contingency abort available at that point. Things that absolutely must work sometimes don't. They should land it in a bouncy ball pit or on a pile of whoopie cushions, something that can absorb a faster than normal impact.

 

[Andy44]

I hate that there is no contingency abort available at that point. Things that absolutely must work sometimes don't. They should land it in a bouncy ball pit or on a pile of whoopie cushions, something that can absorb a faster than normal impact.

Something like...an ocean?

 

[Urwumpe]

Or lots of fuel more for using a slower descent.

 

[Ravenous]

They should land it in a bouncy ball pit or on a pile of whoopie cushions, something that can absorb a faster than normal impact.

Someone really has to save that sentence for re-use on April 1 next year... :lol:

Re-use is the name of the game after all... :thumbup:

 

[Thunder Chicken]

Or lots of fuel more for using a slower descent.

That's not necessarily helpful. If something breaks during the hover 50 ft above the ground, you're still going to hit the ground at 40 mph. It probably makes sense to get to a low altitude hover quickly to minimize potential energy in case of a failure. If something fails during the quick final descent, you're dead and probably don't want to spend a lot of time dwelling on that anyway.

For Earth, I think for crewed vehicles dropping on parachutes into the ocean is the way to go, to hell with re-usability. Powered descent for cargo, that's fine. Manned powered descent on Moon or Mars? Probably mandatory anyway.

---------- Post added at 06:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:55 AM ----------

Re-use is the name of the game after all... :thumbup:

Absolutely! We should endeavor to re-use the astronauts at least once! :lol:

 

[Urwumpe]

That's not necessarily helpful. If something breaks during the hover 50 ft above the ground, you're still going to hit the ground at 40 mph. It probably makes sense to get to a low altitude hover quickly to minimize potential energy in case of a failure. If something fails during the quick final descent, you're dead and probably don't want to spend a lot of time dwelling on that anyway.

For Earth, I think for crewed vehicles dropping on parachutes into the ocean is the way to go, to hell with re-usability. Powered descent for cargo, that's fine. Manned powered descent on Moon or Mars? Probably mandatory anyway.

I would rather hit the ground then at 40 mph than at 400 mph. Maybe it is just me. You can't avoid all risks.

Your suggestions sound so much like a ball pit at an indoor children playground, that I am only micro-inches away from trolling you by demanding a risk assessment of astronauts dying by swallowing balls during such a landing.

There is a good reason why nobody wants to land in the ocean in the real world in first place and why most spaceflight agencies attempt to find better solutions to that. The ocean is no harmless swimming pool. Not even on a good day.

 

[N_Molson]

For Earth, I think for crewed vehicles dropping on parachutes into the ocean is the way to go, to hell with re-usability.

You can also land safely on firm ground using parachutes and even using small solid retro-rockets to make things smoother.

Its the way its done since the all-beginning of manned spaceflight. Well, Gagarin had an ejection seat and landed without the spacecraft, but Soyuz has performed safe ground landings for 45 years. The few catastrophic failures (total parachutes failure on Soyuz 1, faulty valve resulting in a complete cabin decompression on Soyuz 11) of the program are completely unrelated to the fact it landed on ground rather than on water.

And nowadays its the only way 'nauts get back home. The half-burned (non-reusable) Descent Module is then put on a truck, and that's it. Simple and cheap.

While it would be very dangerous in Europe, because the place is densely populated, large countries like Russia or the United States or China have enough plains and deserts for safe ground-landings.

 

[MaverickSawyer]

I think that the Crew Capsule for New Shepard uses retros. There's no sign of any airbags...

 

[Urwumpe]

I think that the Crew Capsule for New Shepard uses retros. There's no sign of any airbags...

Yes, that is right. It is using retro rockets for landing and has one or more large abort motors inside for launch aborts.

 

[Andy44]

I don't recall seeing any retros firing in that video. Did they not test them this time?

 

[MaverickSawyer]

I don't recall seeing any retros firing in that video. Did they not test them this time?

They're not testing them anymore... they're operational. That puff of dust under the Crew Capsule at landing is them going off like they do on Soyuz.

 

[RGClark]

SpaceX needs to stop trying to reinvent the wheel and give the F9 hovering ability.

Bob Clark