Blue Origin New Shepard launch Abort

Blue Origin launched an unamnned New Shepard capsule containing a number of scientific experiments on a suborbital flight

The capsule suffered an "anomaly" 1 minute 30 seconds into the flight at altitude of 35,000 feet The Launch abort system fired the capsule away from the booster landing in the west Teas desert shortly after

www.msn.com...

This will probably put a severe crimp in Blue Origin New Shepard flights until the source of the anomaly is discovered and corrected

Video of anomaly

www.youtube.com...

I've said this before, but man we really could use that magical technology from 1969.

Crazy how all technology since then has improved exponentially, besides the tech involved in space exploration.

a reply to: cooperton

Blue Origin are the new kids on the block.

Watch a SpaceX launch and tell me we haven't had any advancements. I watched one Saturday night and the seperation happened at the same time the booster came back and did a vertical landing so it can be reused. SpaceX is doing launches all the time and most go without issue.

a reply to: firerescue

If I understood correctly, the anomaly occurred just after "throttle back" after reaching max Q.

In liquid fuelled rockets, if a turbo pump stalls, fails to maintain the correct fuel delivery pressure, even for a moment, the back pressure from the combustion can cause a flashback and cause the rocket to blow up.

Telemetry should show how the fuel system was performing just before it pranged.

originally posted by: cooperton
I've said this before, but man we really could use that magical technology from 1969.

Namely a slide rule?

Hard to underscore how good the Apollo folks really were. And how much was lost, when NASA and Congress called it a wrap and went into low-orbit trucking.

originally posted by: cooperton
I've said this before, but man we really could use that magical technology from 1969.

Crazy how all technology since then has improved exponentially, besides the tech involved in space exploration.

Yeah all that technology screws things up. They could write Front burner and back burner on the stove way bigger instead of putting a picture on it with four dots under the knob, if the controls are behind the left burners, why do they need a picture of four burners? People need symbols these days instead of just writing front and back.

And that is on a regular burner on an old style stove, my daughters both have fancy ones with all kinds of weird stuff on them and a little flicker in the power turns off the burners and resets the program. My youngest daughter and her husband put a meter to measure the electric usage on their freezer. When the power went off for a few minutes, it turned off the tester and the power to the freezer, five days later they found out that all the stuff in their freezer was thawed and blood from the meats contaminated everything including around eight pounds of butter. Technology causes more problems than it solves, a small power surge can screw up that fine circuitry.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: cooperton

Blue Origin are the new kids on the block.

Watch a SpaceX launch and tell me we haven't had any advancements. I watched one Saturday night and the seperation happened at the same time the booster came back and did a vertical landing so it can be reused. SpaceX is doing launches all the time and most go without issue.

Yes Blue Origin is relatively new, but SpaceX is still trying to figure out how to travel to the moon. To put things in perspective, The ISS and low earth orbit are 1/1000th of the way to the moon

Don't get me wrong I'm all for privatized space travel, but it's odd that they're trying to figure out how to get to the moon again?? Given the abundance of success in the 70's it seemed like we had it very well understood.

a reply to: rickymouse

Yeah I've heard that argument and that may be the case, but i doubt it. We could just copy and paste that same technology from back then and be better off. We will see the truth in the coming years if things keep getting delayed or not.

originally posted by: cooperton
I've said this before, but man we really could use that magical technology from 1969.

Yep. What did they call it again? Oh yeah. An almost unlimited budget.

originally posted by: JIMC5499

Yep. What did they call it again? Oh yeah. An almost unlimited budget.

But computers have gotten smaller, more efficient, and cheaper. Heat and radiation resistant materials and other relevant tech has also only gotten better

originally posted by: gb540

Namely a slide rule?

Hard to underscore how good the Apollo folks really were. And how much was lost, when NASA and Congress called it a wrap and went into low-orbit trucking.

Yeah if it turns out they did in fact pull it off and it wasn't faked, that would be so legendary... a group of scientists from more than 50 years ago doing better with less technology.

a reply to: cooperton

The moon question isn't how to get there... It's how to monetize it.

Low earth orbit is where the cash is at now. LEO requires smaller sats, which means more sats.

If someone found a way to deliver internet from the moon they'd be there in months.

To be fair, they're using much smaller rockets for the orbit launches. SpaceX is currently working on the starship, and they have had issues with it. But I think it's because they're dead set on it being reusable, and being able to vertically land. I wouldn't say they are having issues being able to do things we've already done in the past... It's that they want to do that with other features that were previously thought to be impossible (verticle landing reusable platform).

a reply to: cooperton

For comparison:

Deusenberg J from the 1930's used a straight 8 cylinder engine of with some 400 cubic inches to produce 320 HP when supercharged.

Current Honda Civic R uses 2.0 liter 4 cylinder engine to produce 300HP.


We're doing more, with less.

a reply to: JIMC5499

We think that NASA had altruistic goals of exploring and discover, and while a part of them did... It was always about putting a warhead in the lap of the Kremlin.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: cooperton

The moon question isn't how to get there... It's how to monetize it.

Low earth orbit is where the cash is at now. LEO requires smaller sats, which means more sats.

That's a good point. I would argue that a moonbase would have substantial strategic benefit, such as the survival of a nuclear holocaust.

If someone found a way to deliver internet from the moon they'd be there in months.

If Nixon was able to call them on a radio then we should have that figured out by now

To be fair, they're using much smaller rockets for the orbit launches. SpaceX is currently working on the starship, and they have had issues with it. But I think it's because they're dead set on it being reusable, and being able to vertically land. I wouldn't say they are having issues being able to do things we've already done in the past... It's that they want to do that with other features that were previously thought to be impossible (verticle landing reusable platform).

Time will tell !

Space X is over due for some major problems. People don't like the fact they launch every week without issues. They are holding off on starship for NASA's Artemis but can only hold off for so long. NASA will never make it to the moon again.

originally posted by: mikell
Space X is over due for some major problems.

Why? They seem to be doing it right.

a reply to: cooperton

Radiation shielding in space isn't the same as on earth. It's much more difficult. As for the computer argument, yes they have, but they're also much more susceptible to radiation. You have to ensure that they'll be protected, and that they're going to keep working when hit with cosmic rays and ionizing radiation in space (which is much different than on earth). It also isn't cheap. Artemis is looking at something insane like $4B per launch. Adjusting for inflation, Apollo (1960-1973) cost $257B ($25.8B in 1960s dollars). Add in Gemini and the robotic lunar program and it hit $280B adjusted. Between 1960 and 1973 NASA spent $482B adjusted for inflation ($49.4B in then dollars). In 1967, the NASA budget was almost 4.5% of the total federal budget. In 2014 it was down to 0.5% of the federal budget. From 2005-2021 (also a 13 year period) NASA had less than half of the budget that they had during Apollo. That much money makes a huge difference.