Beat Musk to the punch (though he's trying to land one on a barge). This is a big step toward reusable rockets and MUCH cheaper space flight.
Post Reply
1 of 1
Blue Origin Flies Rocket to Space then Lands it Successfully
2,305 Views |
22 Replies |
Last: 8 yr ago by Deputy Travis Junior
Oh snap they landed that *****.
HOW WAS THIS NOT BIGGER NEWS?
Although to be fair to SpaceX, the Falcon 9 rocket travels to a max altitude of 90 miles, whereas Blue Origin only went to 50 miles.
As a result, the Falcon 9 hits a max speed of Mach 10 instead of Blue Origin's Mach 3.7. Much, much harder to land.
Still though, this is very impressive.
As a result, the Falcon 9 hits a max speed of Mach 10 instead of Blue Origin's Mach 3.7. Much, much harder to land.
Still though, this is very impressive.
The was absolutely incredible to watch!
That was COOL
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
If Musk is as intense to work for as I've read, I would NOT want to work for SpaceX today. I doubt he'll be happy that SpaceX wasn't the first to land it, even if it didn't go as high up.
And regardless of that, it's a hell of a feat.
And regardless of that, it's a hell of a feat.
quote:I read that. This one went to orbit (100k feet) instead of space/outer orbit (300k feet). But shouldn't that matter very little to the landing? They turned the thrusters completely off at ~100k feet and let it free-fall to 5k feet before turning them back on. That's more than enough height to reach terminal velocity, so where's the increased difficulty coming from?
Although to be fair to SpaceX, the Falcon 9 rocket travels to a max altitude of 90 miles, whereas Blue Origin only went to 50 miles.
As a result, the Falcon 9 hits a max speed of Mach 10 instead of Blue Origin's Mach 3.7. Much, much harder to land.
Still though, this is very impressive.
quote:He's bleeding all over Twitter.
If Musk is as intense to work for as I've read, I would NOT want to work for SpaceX today. I doubt he'll be happy that SpaceX wasn't the first to land it, even if it didn't go as high up.
And regardless of that, it's a hell of a feat.
It does seem to answer my question, though. Going higher requires more fuel, which requires a bigger rocket, which is heavier, which is harder to land.
The descent at the end reminded me of a few model rocket landings I've done, of course there was no reverse thrust/parachutes to slow it down.
quote:quote:I read that. This one went to orbit (100k feet) instead of space/outer orbit (300k feet). But shouldn't that matter very little to the landing? They turned the thrusters completely off at ~100k feet and let it free-fall to 5k feet before turning them back on. That's more than enough height to reach terminal velocity, so where's the increased difficulty coming from?
Although to be fair to SpaceX, the Falcon 9 rocket travels to a max altitude of 90 miles, whereas Blue Origin only went to 50 miles.
As a result, the Falcon 9 hits a max speed of Mach 10 instead of Blue Origin's Mach 3.7. Much, much harder to land.
Still though, this is very impressive.
This one didn't go to orbit. It was a suborbital trajectory.
I don't know if either of the rockets ever reach terminal velocity, simply because there's so much energy and they are falling so fast. Could be wrong about that though.
If I'm right, then it takes much, much more energy to slow down the Falcon 9 for landing, as it would be going much faster.
Very cool, but is it just me, or does that rocket look like someone's Johnson?
quote:It's not height, its speed needed to become orbital without falling right back.
It does seem to answer my question, though. Going higher requires more fuel, which requires a bigger rocket, which is heavier, which is harder to land.
Imagine the arm strength you would need to fire a baseball or football in order for it to travel around the whole world at a height of 5 feet, it needs to travel fast enough that it covers so much distance that by the time gravity pulls it toward the ground, the ground is also already falling away due to the curve of the earth so that the ball would be in orbit at a height of 5 feet (it would be traveling at like 20,000 mph). Then, having done that, imagine trying to catch it again when it comes back around...
The arm you would need to flip the ball from the ground to 5 feet off the ground and catch it again is miniscule in comparison
Just an FYI.
IIRC, Flash Gordon had all all of this figured out back in the '50's, when I was a kid.
I am glad to see people catching up.
IIRC, Flash Gordon had all all of this figured out back in the '50's, when I was a kid.
I am glad to see people catching up.
Raptor
Joined:
Feb 23, 2001
Posts:
25,999
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I love the Musk tweet with a link to xkcd.
quote:I think you misunderstood what I was saying. Point is, you need a much more powerful rocket to reach "space" as you need to hit mach 30 instead of mach 9 (according to Musk's Twitter post). A rocket that can hit mach 30 is going to be much bigger and heavier than a rocket that only needs to hit mach 3 (as the 1st will need to carry MUCH more fuel), and a rocket that is much bigger and heavier is going to be more difficult to land upright.quote:It's not height, its speed needed to become orbital without falling right back.
It does seem to answer my question, though. Going higher requires more fuel, which requires a bigger rocket, which is heavier, which is harder to land.
Imagine the arm strength you would need to fire a baseball or football in order for it to travel around the whole world at a height of 5 feet, it needs to travel fast enough that it covers so much distance that by the time gravity pulls it toward the ground, the ground is also already falling away due to the curve of the earth so that the ball would be in orbit at a height of 5 feet (it would be traveling at like 20,000 mph). Then, having done that, imagine trying to catch it again when it comes back around...
The arm you would need to flip the ball from the ground to 5 feet off the ground and catch it again is miniscule in comparison
I think your ball catching analogy is inaccurate as a reason for the difficulty of the landing. Both rockets slowed down enough to basically hover above the ground (so the height from which they fell was irrelevant at that point), but the BO rocket stuck the landing whereas the SpaceX rockets have landed in unstable positions, fallen over, and blown up.
quote:quote:I think you misunderstood what I was saying. Point is, you need a much more powerful rocket to reach "space" as you need to hit mach 30 instead of mach 9 (according to Musk's Twitter post). A rocket that can hit mach 30 is going to be much bigger and heavier than a rocket that only needs to hit mach 9 (as the 1st will need to carry MUCH more fuel), and a rocket that is much bigger and heavier is going to be more difficult to land upright.quote:It's not height, its speed needed to become orbital without falling right back.
It does seem to answer my question, though. Going higher requires more fuel, which requires a bigger rocket, which is heavier, which is harder to land.
Imagine the arm strength you would need to fire a baseball or football in order for it to travel around the whole world at a height of 5 feet, it needs to travel fast enough that it covers so much distance that by the time gravity pulls it toward the ground, the ground is also already falling away due to the curve of the earth so that the ball would be in orbit at a height of 5 feet (it would be traveling at like 20,000 mph). Then, having done that, imagine trying to catch it again when it comes back around...
The arm you would need to flip the ball from the ground to 5 feet off the ground and catch it again is miniscule in comparison
I think your ball catching analogy is inaccurate as a reason for the difficulty of the landing. Both rockets slowed down enough to basically hover above the ground (so the height from which they fell was irrelevant at that point), but the BO rocket stuck the landing whereas the SpaceX rockets have landed in unstable positions, fallen over, and blown up.
Right you need a bigger rocket to do what Musk is trying because they are going into orbit and not just to space and back.
To get into orbit you need enough fuel to fling the ship around the Earth at 16000 mph relative to the ground, so you dont just fall right back. You don't need near as much fuel to just go up and come right down, you almost don't even need rocket propulsion to do that. So we agree.
Just pointing out that the extra speed isn't needed to go "higher" it's needed to make the ship travel at a faster orbital speeds in relation to the ground.
quote:quote:I think you misunderstood what I was saying. Point is, you need a much more powerful rocket to reach "space" as you need to hit mach 30 instead of mach 9 (according to Musk's Twitter post). A rocket that can hit mach 30 is going to be much bigger and heavier than a rocket that only needs to hit mach 3 (as the 1st will need to carry MUCH more fuel), and a rocket that is much bigger and heavier is going to be more difficult to land upright.quote:It's not height, its speed needed to become orbital without falling right back.
It does seem to answer my question, though. Going higher requires more fuel, which requires a bigger rocket, which is heavier, which is harder to land.
Imagine the arm strength you would need to fire a baseball or football in order for it to travel around the whole world at a height of 5 feet, it needs to travel fast enough that it covers so much distance that by the time gravity pulls it toward the ground, the ground is also already falling away due to the curve of the earth so that the ball would be in orbit at a height of 5 feet (it would be traveling at like 20,000 mph). Then, having done that, imagine trying to catch it again when it comes back around...
The arm you would need to flip the ball from the ground to 5 feet off the ground and catch it again is miniscule in comparison
I think your ball catching analogy is inaccurate as a reason for the difficulty of the landing. Both rockets slowed down enough to basically hover above the ground (so the height from which they fell was irrelevant at that point), but the BO rocket stuck the landing whereas the SpaceX rockets have landed in unstable positions, fallen over, and blown up.
Mach 30 was what Musk said is needed to reach GTO (Geostationary Transfer Orbit). It was a massively oversized strawman argument on his part, as GTO is far and above (literally) the baseline for being considered to be in orbit.
GTO reaches a maximum altitude of 36,000 km above the Earth. For comparison, the ISS orbits the Earth at an altitude of 400km.
It's a somewhat applicable argument, as SpaceX has put a couple payloads in GTO. But also definitely reeks of Elon bleeding all over twitter.
quote:quote:It's not height, its speed needed to become orbital without falling right back.
It does seem to answer my question, though. Going higher requires more fuel, which requires a bigger rocket, which is heavier, which is harder to land.
Imagine the arm strength you would need to fire a baseball or football in order for it to travel around the whole world at a height of 5 feet, it needs to travel fast enough that it covers so much distance that by the time gravity pulls it toward the ground, the ground is also already falling away due to the curve of the earth so that the ball would be in orbit at a height of 5 feet (it would be traveling at like 20,000 mph). Then, having done that, imagine trying to catch it again when it comes back around...
The arm you would need to flip the ball from the ground to 5 feet off the ground and catch it again is miniscule in comparison
quote:quote:quote:I read that. This one went to orbit (100k feet) instead of space/outer orbit (300k feet). But shouldn't that matter very little to the landing? They turned the thrusters completely off at ~100k feet and let it free-fall to 5k feet before turning them back on. That's more than enough height to reach terminal velocity, so where's the increased difficulty coming from?
Although to be fair to SpaceX, the Falcon 9 rocket travels to a max altitude of 90 miles, whereas Blue Origin only went to 50 miles.
As a result, the Falcon 9 hits a max speed of Mach 10 instead of Blue Origin's Mach 3.7. Much, much harder to land.
Still though, this is very impressive.
This one didn't go to orbit. It was a suborbital trajectory.
I don't know if either of the rockets ever reach terminal velocity, simply because there's so much energy and they are falling so fast. Could be wrong about that though.
If I'm right, then it takes much, much more energy to slow down the Falcon 9 for landing, as it would be going much faster.
The Falcon 9 first stage doesn't reach orbit, either. The first stage burns-out and is discarded on a suborbital trajectory. The added difficulty of recovering the Falcon 9 is that:
1. The Falcon 9 is carrying real payloads for paying customers that must hit a specific orbit. This puts way more constraint on SpaceX where recovery can take place. The Blue Origin flight is purely a test flight.
2. SpaceX is trying to land on a barge that is pitching & rolling in the ocean, not a nice flat concrete pad.
So... Who wants to pay to go to space?
Gotcha. Yea I misunderstood what you were getting at, but, as you said, the point is the same. A bigger, heavier rocket is needed, and a bigger, heavier rocket is trickier to land vertically.