billvon 3,110 #1 January 9, 2007 With video. Short hop (only about 300 feet) but cool idea. http://public.blueorigin.com/index.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
funks 1 #2 January 9, 2007 Quotebut cool idea. Not really. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Slappie 9 #3 January 9, 2007 QuoteWith video. Short hop (only about 300 feet) but cool idea. http://public.blueorigin.com/index.html Jeff Bezos is a man with more money then he knows what to do with. This personal space thing is years away. But, some day it will be a huge success. Just like Airlines today. Wish I was smart enough to be in on the ground floor. What an exciting time for those people. "Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stitch 0 #4 January 9, 2007 More like decades away. "No cookies for you"- GFD "I don't think I like the sound of that" ~ MB65 Don't be a "Racer Hater" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Slappie 9 #5 January 9, 2007 QuoteMore like decades away. True.. but still. "Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
guppie01 0 #6 January 9, 2007 QuoteMore like decades away. Hush you.... It's been my dream to live on a lunar base since I was a kid! g"Let's do something romantic this Saturday... how bout we bust out the restraints?" Raddest Ho this side of Jersey #1 - MISS YOU OMG, is she okay? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stitch 0 #7 January 9, 2007 Take a vacation to space camp then. "No cookies for you"- GFD "I don't think I like the sound of that" ~ MB65 Don't be a "Racer Hater" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AFFI 0 #8 January 9, 2007 What is the source of propulsion?Mykel AFF-I10 Skydiving Priorities: 1) Open Canopy. 2) Land Safely. 3) Don’t hurt anyone. 4) Repeat… Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riddler 0 #9 January 9, 2007 Quote What is the source of propulsion? HTP (Peroxide) and Kerosene.Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflir29 0 #10 January 9, 2007 QuoteIt's been my dream to live on a lunar base since I was a kid! I keep meeting people that must live there!?!?!?!? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,110 #11 January 9, 2007 >HTP (Peroxide) and Kerosene. As far as I can tell (from rumors and the look of the exhaust) they are using plain ol catalyzed hydrogen peroxide for their test flights. They say they will eventually use H2O2 and kerosene, but I have my doubts - that's a pretty low specific impulse for a rocket that has to reach orbit. They are looking for people with expertise on the RS-68, which is an LH2/LO2 engine from Boeing with a specific impulse of 360-400 seconds. I'd suspect they are more likely going to go with something like that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #12 January 9, 2007 Vertical takeoff and landing, while very "Buck Rogers", is horribly inefficient and kinda stupid from a safety standpoint. WTF?!? Didn't they learn anything by watching the DC-X Project?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,110 #13 January 9, 2007 >Didn't they learn anything by watching the DC-X Project? I think the DC-X indicates more that retractable landing gear is a problem. VTOL is definitely doable. A combination of a drouge and a VTOL landing is a good compromise between fuel usage (minimal) and structural requirements (low.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #14 January 9, 2007 Quote I think the DC-X indicates more that retractable landing gear is a problem. VTOL is definitely doable. A combination of a drouge and a VTOL landing is a good compromise between fuel usage (minimal) and structural requirements (low.) I strongly disagree. Sexy Sci-fi? Yes! Absolutely. Practical or even safe? No flippin' way! The space craft absolutely MUST have retractable landing gear for the purposes of re-entry into the atmosphere (otherwise they just burn off). If you have a retract . . . there's them that has and them that will land gear up and in this case . . . catastrophic failure. And that's just the landing gear . . . the easy stuff. Engine sputter or computer control malfunction . . . boom.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,110 #15 January 9, 2007 >The space craft absolutely MUST have retractable landing gear for >the purposes of re-entry into the atmosphere (otherwise they just >burn off). I don't buy that it's impossible. I can think of three or four ways to allow external structures like that to survive reentry. In any case, that's a pretty minor issue overall. After all, the space shuttle has retractable gear, and the risks posed by that are pretty low compared to the risks posed by the rest of the flight. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gene03 0 #16 January 10, 2007 Ya right. I'm still waiting for my flying car.“The only fool bigger than the person who knows it all is the person who argues with him. Stanislaw Jerzy Lec quotes (Polish writer, poet and satirist 1906-1966) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #17 January 10, 2007 QuoteAfter all, the space shuttle has retractable gear . . . Even though the shuttle has retracts and doesn't deploy them until just seconds before touchdown, there's a hell of a lot more survivability inherent in a belly or partially deployed landing gear in a shuttle landing than a strictly vertical one. Just the angle alone . . . Also the shuttle isn't carrying any additional highly flamable fuel for its landings as opposed to the vertical landing craft which, presumably, would be carrying at least a few minutes worth. Again, I refer you to the spectacular DC-X crash.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Froggy 0 #18 January 10, 2007 Quote>HTP (Peroxide) and Kerosene. As far as I can tell (from rumors and the look of the exhaust) they are using plain ol catalyzed hydrogen peroxide for their test flights. They say they will eventually use H2O2 and kerosene, but I have my doubts - that's a pretty low specific impulse for a rocket that has to reach orbit. They don't have to reach orbit -- they are talking about suborbital flight, Alan Shepard way.-------------- We were not born to fly. And all we can do is to try not to fall... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #19 January 10, 2007 Hmm they are in Kent WA.. maybe I should stop down and volunteer to test their bailout system... from oh say 120,000 ft or so...and see how fast I can get back down Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,110 #20 January 10, 2007 >there's a hell of a lot more survivability inherent in a belly or partially >deployed landing gear in a shuttle landing than a strictly vertical one. If I were landing in a re-entry vehicle that was seriously fucked up, I think I'd rather be in an Apollo CM than an Orbiter! No landing gear at all to worry about. (Or more accurately a very integrated "landing gear.") >Also the shuttle isn't carrying any additional highly flamable fuel for its landings . . . Hmm - hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide are pretty nasty materials, and the shuttle lands with about 4000 pounds and 2000 pounds of the stuff, respectively. (It's needed for the RCS system and APU's during re-entry.) If I landed hard I'd much prefer to be breathing H2 or O2 fumes than hydrazine fumes. >Again, I refer you to the spectacular DC-X crash. Was spectacular, but then look at the HL-10 test vehicle crash. (It became the intro to the Six Million Dollar Man TV series.) They based the shuttle's landing profile on test flights like that! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,110 #21 January 10, 2007 >They don't have to reach orbit . . . . Bezos said in 2004 that he wants to get to orbit. Maybe this is an intermediate step. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
n23x 0 #22 January 10, 2007 Meh, he can dump all the money he wants into it, but in my opinion he's taking the old approach, and it's not so appealing. On the other hand... I have a ton of respect and raging boner for anything manufactured by Scaled Composites. My first introduction to Rutan designs was our family built LongEZ in the early 80's. I currently work in the aircraft industry (VLJs), and we have some sample components made by Scaled, and all I can say is "damn". .jim"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #23 January 10, 2007 QuoteQuoteMore like decades away. Hush you.... It's been my dream to live on a lunar base since I was a kid! g So then we could LITERALLY say that you're "way out there" instead of figuratively? Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
piisfish 140 #24 January 10, 2007 QuoteVertical takeoff and landing, while very "Buck Rogers", is horribly inefficient and kinda stupid from a safety standpoint.yep but it's sooo Buck Rogers and that makes it real cool. scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #25 January 10, 2007 There seems to have been some renewed interest in HTP/Kerosene in the last 5 years or so. One company tested a pretty big motor, and I think Aerojet was doing injector development and building a new test facility for a large booster. The SI is pretty low, but avoiding the use of cryogenic propellants, would seem to be a pretty big plus. Also, most of the non-cryogenic propellants are hypergolic, and might be ruled out due to safety concerns. Whatever propellant they use, developing liquid rocket motors is going to be quite an undertaking. Might be an interesting place to work. "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)