4 ms·
> And the vertical landing architecture scales extraordinarily well. When you do a vertical landing, you’re solving the classic inverted pendulum problem, and t
by Zikes 11y ago
> And the vertical landing architecture scales extraordinarily well. When you do a vertical landing, you’re solving the classic inverted pendulum problem, and the inverted pendulum problem gets a bit easier as the pendulum gets a bit bigger. Try balancing a pencil on the tip of your finger. Now try it with a broomstick. The broomstick is simpler because its greater moment of inertia makes it easier to balance.
They're specifically doing smaller rockets to tackle the inverted pendulum problem first, then they will scale up. They see that as the bigger challenge, and may greatly affect the design of larger orbital rockets which have a great deal of research available to draw from for other challenges they run into. In the article they say that one of their major solutions is a gimbaling engine, which I imagine is something you would have to design a larger rocket around, rather than add in after the fact.
- double0jimb0 11y ago>> I imagine is something you would have to design a larger rocket around, rather than add in after the fact. Control authority. That is the measure of margin a system has over a feedback mechanism's (in case of a rocket: ability to accurately apply thrust in correct vector at required frequency) ability to dampen uncontrolled perturbations. I'd bet you that SpaceX has just as thoroughly understood and tested their working margins on their landibg system's control authority as has Blue Origin. For this reason I don't believe Blue Origin has any technical advantage over SpaceX in the manner you imply they do. This might be hubris, but there aren't too many things us humans don't understand about rocket design at this point. The last big one was the waterhammer effect in turbo pumps supplying rocket fuel. Understanding 1st, 2nd, and 3rd harmonic vibrations in mechanical systems is standard practice in rocket and any other airframe design (Boeing airframes, missiles/rockets, etc). It's a solved problem. If Bezos is hanging his hat on this argument, he's reached the limit of his omnipotence.
- Zikes 11y agoI'm not implying any advantage, only reiterating that they're starting small and building up. My reply was aimed at "I don't think the smaller booster is harder. It's almost by definition easier." which the article explicitly said the opposite of, which I then quoted. I don't care if SpaceX or Blue Origin wind up on top, I don't own stock in either one, but I'm much more likely to trust the word of an actual certified rocket scientist than an unsourced HN comment.