5 ms·

FYI, this particular cute little rocket is aimed at space tourism. Sub-orbital flights only, to just above the Kármán line.

by smackfu 11y ago

Gravityloss 11y ago
Looks like a relatively straightforward system. Many of the original X-Prize contenders were pondering something like this more than ten years ago. What happened to the booster?
- edlinfan 11y ago
  The booster couldn't make a soft landing due to a failure in the hydraulics system. > “Of course one of our goals is reusability, and unfortunately we didn’t get to recover the propulsion module because we lost pressure in our hydraulic system on descent,” Jeff Bezos wrote in a blog post. “Fortunately, we’ve already been in work for some time on an improved hydraulic system. Also, assembly of propulsion module serial numbers 2 and 3 is already underway – we’ll be ready to fly again soon.” From: http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2015/04/30/jeff-bezos-spaceship-takes-flight http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2015/04/30/jeff-bezos-... And here's the aforementioned blog post, from Blue Origin's own website. It presents a little more information about the flight: https://www.blueorigin.com/news/blog/first-developmental-test-flight-of-new-shepard https://www.blueorigin.com/news/blog/first-developmental-tes...
jessaustin 11y ago
Sub-orbital flights only, to just above the Kármán line. This seems to be ideal for transport as well? That is, if we're trying to get from Tokyo to NYC quickly, we never want to actually go into orbit, do we?
- Already__Taken 11y ago
  You'll never make a great business model like that if you're landing with parachutes. Spacex might have the control side worked out some years but their capsule is full of fuel you can't expose people to. I would think the fuel costs even with 100% reusability would make rocket commute prohibitive.
  - ISL 11y ago
    Works okay for these guys, and they attach the parachute to the customer! http://www.uspa.org/BecomeaSkydiver/ChooseaSchool/tabid/437/Default.aspx http://www.uspa.org/BecomeaSkydiver/ChooseaSchool/tabid/437/... If BO can demonstrate that the risks of a flight into space are comparable to other hazards we encounter in life (car driving, bungee jumping, heli-skiing, surgery), they're going to have plenty of people (myself included) who want to go.
- smackfu 11y ago
  True in general, although for tourism, you don't really want any horizontal velocity, because you want to land as close as possible to the take-off point.
- DavidSJ 11y ago
  A suborbital trajectory is an ellipse that intersects the ground, and it will do so twice within less than half the world's circumference. If you can make it halfway around the world, you're orbital. New York to Tokyo is nearly half that circumference, so the energy required is nearly that of orbit.
  - jessaustin 11y ago
    A suborbital trajectory is an ellipse that intersects the ground, and it will do so twice within less than half the world's circumference. If you can make it halfway around the world, you're orbital. My experiments with Flappy Space Program contradict this. b^) It is perfectly possible to miss orbit even after a complete circumnavigation. Trajectories are shaped like parabolas, not ellipses. New York to Tokyo is nearly half that circumference, so the energy required is nearly that of orbit. Well it's more like a quarter, but even if it were half it would take significantly less energy than orbit.
    - DavidSJ 11y ago
      > It is perfectly possible to miss orbit even after a complete circumnavigation. Yes, if you have a source of lift, and you're within the atmosphere, then you can circumnavigate the globe without reaching orbital velocities. A ballistic rocket generally has no significant source of lift and spends nearly all of its time in space. > Trajectories are shaped like parabolas, not ellipses. All orbits are conic sections: either an ellipse, hyperbola, or a parabola (the limiting case between the two). But a parabolic or hyperbolic trajectory has escape velocity, whereas only an elliptic trajectory is planet-bound. The apogee of the ellipse is locally approximated well by a parabola, which is why for non-orbital mechanics ballistic trajectories are often modeled by a parabola, but all suborbital trajectories are actually ellipses, not parabolas. If the Earth were flat and the gravity vector were constant, then they would be actual parabolas. Orbital mechanics is very counterintuitive. I recommend Fundamentals of Astrodynamics if you'd like to learn more, or play KSP rather than FSP. > Well it's more like a quarter On this you are correct, the map I looked at deceived me. :)
      - 11y ago

FYI, this particular cute little rocket is aimed at space tourism. Sub-orbital flights only, to just above the Kármán line.

by smackfu 11y ago

FYI, this particular cute little rocket is aimed at space tourism. Sub-orbital flights only, to just above the Kármán line.

Gravityloss 11y ago

Looks like a relatively straightforward system. Many of the original X-Prize contenders were pondering something like this more than ten years ago. What happened to the booster?

edlinfan 11y ago
The booster couldn't make a soft landing due to a failure in the hydraulics system. > “Of course one of our goals is reusability, and unfortunately we didn’t get to recover the propulsion module because we lost pressure in our hydraulic system on descent,” Jeff Bezos wrote in a blog post. “Fortunately, we’ve already been in work for some time on an improved hydraulic system. Also, assembly of propulsion module serial numbers 2 and 3 is already underway – we’ll be ready to fly again soon.” From: http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2015/04/30/jeff-bezos-spaceship-takes-flight http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2015/04/30/jeff-bezos-... And here's the aforementioned blog post, from Blue Origin's own website. It presents a little more information about the flight: https://www.blueorigin.com/news/blog/first-developmental-test-flight-of-new-shepard https://www.blueorigin.com/news/blog/first-developmental-tes...

jessaustin 11y ago

Sub-orbital flights only, to just above the Kármán line. This seems to be ideal for transport as well? That is, if we're trying to get from Tokyo to NYC quickly, we never want to actually go into orbit, do we?

Already__Taken 11y ago
You'll never make a great business model like that if you're landing with parachutes. Spacex might have the control side worked out some years but their capsule is full of fuel you can't expose people to. I would think the fuel costs even with 100% reusability would make rocket commute prohibitive.
- ISL 11y ago
  Works okay for these guys, and they attach the parachute to the customer! http://www.uspa.org/BecomeaSkydiver/ChooseaSchool/tabid/437/Default.aspx http://www.uspa.org/BecomeaSkydiver/ChooseaSchool/tabid/437/... If BO can demonstrate that the risks of a flight into space are comparable to other hazards we encounter in life (car driving, bungee jumping, heli-skiing, surgery), they're going to have plenty of people (myself included) who want to go.
smackfu 11y ago
True in general, although for tourism, you don't really want any horizontal velocity, because you want to land as close as possible to the take-off point.
DavidSJ 11y ago
A suborbital trajectory is an ellipse that intersects the ground, and it will do so twice within less than half the world's circumference. If you can make it halfway around the world, you're orbital. New York to Tokyo is nearly half that circumference, so the energy required is nearly that of orbit.
- jessaustin 11y ago
  A suborbital trajectory is an ellipse that intersects the ground, and it will do so twice within less than half the world's circumference. If you can make it halfway around the world, you're orbital. My experiments with Flappy Space Program contradict this. b^) It is perfectly possible to miss orbit even after a complete circumnavigation. Trajectories are shaped like parabolas, not ellipses. New York to Tokyo is nearly half that circumference, so the energy required is nearly that of orbit. Well it's more like a quarter, but even if it were half it would take significantly less energy than orbit.
  - DavidSJ 11y ago
    > It is perfectly possible to miss orbit even after a complete circumnavigation. Yes, if you have a source of lift, and you're within the atmosphere, then you can circumnavigate the globe without reaching orbital velocities. A ballistic rocket generally has no significant source of lift and spends nearly all of its time in space. > Trajectories are shaped like parabolas, not ellipses. All orbits are conic sections: either an ellipse, hyperbola, or a parabola (the limiting case between the two). But a parabolic or hyperbolic trajectory has escape velocity, whereas only an elliptic trajectory is planet-bound. The apogee of the ellipse is locally approximated well by a parabola, which is why for non-orbital mechanics ballistic trajectories are often modeled by a parabola, but all suborbital trajectories are actually ellipses, not parabolas. If the Earth were flat and the gravity vector were constant, then they would be actual parabolas. Orbital mechanics is very counterintuitive. I recommend Fundamentals of Astrodynamics if you'd like to learn more, or play KSP rather than FSP. > Well it's more like a quarter On this you are correct, the map I looked at deceived me. :)
    - 11y ago