Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Breaking News
posted by martyb on Wednesday July 18 2018, @01:29PM   Printer-friendly
from the will-there-be-a-kaboom? dept.

[Update 2: Successful mission! Successful separation, clean booster and escape capsule landing.

Mission launch time:  11:11AM EDT (15:11 UTC)
Max ascent velocity:  2,236 mph
max capsule apogee:   389,846ft (119km)
Mission elapsed time: 11m17s

Overheard on the live feed that max G forces for the escape capsule was: 10G.]

[Update 1: there was a brief hold of approximately 10 minutes; countdown has resumed.]

Watch Live: Blue Origin Subjects its Rocket to High-Altitude Escape Test:

As it continues to progress toward human flights, Blue Origin will perform another potentially dangerous, uncrewed test today of its New Shepard rocket and spacecraft. Although it has not yet provided details, the company says it will fly "a high altitude escape motor test—pushing the rocket to its limits." The test is scheduled to begin at 11 am EDT (15:00 UTC) [corrected times] at the company's West Texas launch site.

This is the ninth test of the reusable New Shepard system, and the third in which it has included commercial payloads on it short suborbital flights. This time, the company is also flying a suite of materials from Blue Origin employees as a part of its internal “Fly My Stuff” program. (It's unclear at this point exactly how "abort test" and "payload" fit together in the same mission—presumably the high altitude abort will be followed by the New Shepard spacecraft pressing to orbit, but we're not exactly sure. Blue Origin will have more details about exactly what's going on when its webcast starts.)

This is not the first high-energy test of New Shepard. In October, 2016, the company conducted a lower altitude in-flight escape test when engineers intentionally triggered the spacecraft's launch abort system at about 45 seconds after launch, and an altitude of 16,000 feet. Such systems are designed to fire quickly and separate the crew capsule from the booster during an emergency.

Live feed on YouTube should start approximately 20 minutes before the 11:00 EDT (15:00 UTC) launch.

Note: it appears the launch may have originally been scheduled at 14:00 UTC but now appears to be scheduled for 15:00 UTC.

See also: spaceflightnow and space.com (which still has the original launch time).


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 18 2018, @03:02PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 18 2018, @03:02PM (#708798)

    Stream starts ~15:40 UTC - Mannequin Skywalker awaiting liftoff. [twitter.com]

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 18 2018, @03:06PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 18 2018, @03:06PM (#708802)

      Assumed the YT countdown clock was accurate - stream must have frozen.

      • (Score: 2) by suburbanitemediocrity on Wednesday July 18 2018, @03:25PM (1 child)

        by suburbanitemediocrity (6844) on Wednesday July 18 2018, @03:25PM (#708817)

        Worked for me. Watched entire flight, all good.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 18 2018, @04:07PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 18 2018, @04:07PM (#708846)

          Yeah, I got it - just needed a page refresh.

  • (Score: 2) by Revek on Wednesday July 18 2018, @03:31PM (13 children)

    by Revek (5022) on Wednesday July 18 2018, @03:31PM (#708822)

    I know they are working on a different type of system but its more like a toy rocket.

    --
    This page was generated by a Swarm of Roaming Elephants
    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by martyb on Wednesday July 18 2018, @04:00PM (12 children)

      by martyb (76) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 18 2018, @04:00PM (#708837) Journal

      I know they are working on a different type of system but its more like a toy rocket.

      Yes, they are. Blue Origin is taking a measured, step-wise refinement approach.

      This rocket, the New Shepard [wikipedia.org], is slated for providing flights for tourists to reach above the Kármán Line [wikipedia.org]:,?p>

      The Kármán line, or Karman line, lies at an altitude of 100 km (62 mi; 330,000 ft) above Earth's sea level and commonly represents the boundary between Earth's atmosphere and outer space.[2] This definition is accepted by the Fédération aéronautique internationale (FAI), which is an international standard-setting and record-keeping body for aeronautics and astronautics.

      The line is named after Theodore von Kármán (1881–1963), a Hungarian American engineer and physicist, who was active primarily in aeronautics and astronautics. He was the first person to calculate that the atmosphere around this altitude becomes too thin to support aeronautical flight, since a vehicle at this altitude would have to travel faster than orbital velocity to derive sufficient aerodynamic lift to support itself.[3] The line is approximately at the turbopause, above which atmospheric gasses are not well-mixed. The mesopause atmospheric temperature minimum has been measured to vary from 85 to 100 km, which places the line at or near the bottom of the thermosphere.

      Blue Origin is also working on New Glenn [wikipedia.org] which is an orbital rocket. So, instead of 'just' going up and down about 100km, it would have the capability to lift payloads into orbit around the earth.

      --
      Wit is intellect, dancing.
      • (Score: 4, Interesting) by DannyB on Wednesday July 18 2018, @04:36PM (11 children)

        by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 18 2018, @04:36PM (#708866) Journal

        Taking a measured approach. That's a nice euphemism. Only someone in marketing could think of that.

        I sure hope it isn't too measured. Or SpaceX will eat up the market before they ever enter it.

        Quick Googling:

        "When was Blue Origin founded?" -- September 8, 2000

        "When was SpaceX founded?" -- May 6, 2002

        So with a two year head start, Blue Origin hasn't produced an orbital rocket, let alone gained valuable experience (eg, failures) launching commercial payloads. Docking with the ISS. Demoing a much heavier lift launch system. Oh, but they have taken a measured approach building a space joyride system for rich amusement park ride seekers.

        I think this criticism of Blue Origin is well deserved. I don't see any good reason (yet) to take Blue Origin very seriously. Especially seeing video of Bezos bragging about firsts that SpaceX was first at but just didn't do such bombastic bragging. Yeah, taking a measured approach.

        --
        People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
        • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 18 2018, @07:12PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 18 2018, @07:12PM (#708950)

          Yeah, taking a measured approach.

          This is often cited as the reason the Apollo program (of which Gemini was under the umbrella of) beat the Russians to the moon.

        • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday July 18 2018, @07:14PM (2 children)

          by bob_super (1357) on Wednesday July 18 2018, @07:14PM (#708953)

          Very true.
          To be fair, SpaceX had some pretty impressive failures in their rush to try new stuff, and got really close to folding.
          Bezos' slow-and-steady timeline is more traditional, and probably less risky. It just looks bad when the other guy's risk-taking pays off.

          • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday July 18 2018, @08:18PM (1 child)

            by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 18 2018, @08:18PM (#708972) Journal

            That is a good point. SpaceX was one launch away from folding. If that one launch had failed, they would be only a memory.

            So your risk taking point is excellent.

            That said, it is paid off so well, and so many times, that it seems SpaceX is doing something right.

            I remember hearing, I think even back in the 1980's about the Shuttle program, if Apollo had to be done the way the Shuttle is done, it never would have made it off the ground, let alone the moon. It is a dangerous business. People are going to die. One day even on a SpaceX rocket. Just like automobiles. Just like aviation. We can only try to make it as safe as possible. There are no absolute guarantees of safety -- even sitting wherever you are sitting right now reading this post. Is there something about to crash through the ceiling in a giant fireball?

            Another saying I heard: The Shuttle isn't ready to launch until the stack of signed-off paperwork is as high as the launch stack.

            Shuttle was re-usable. But at what cost? If the turnaround cost could buy a new shuttle every 3 to 4 launches, that's not economically feasible reusability as SpaceX wants.

            --
            People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
            • (Score: 3, Interesting) by bob_super on Wednesday July 18 2018, @08:57PM

              by bob_super (1357) on Wednesday July 18 2018, @08:57PM (#708991)

              > Is there something about to crash through the ceiling in a giant fireball?

              Just went to check, and with his usual slurred speech, the guy cooking meth on the roof said "probably not".

        • (Score: 2) by martyb on Wednesday July 18 2018, @09:28PM (6 children)

          by martyb (76) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 18 2018, @09:28PM (#709008) Journal

          Taking a measured approach. That's a nice euphemism. Only someone in marketing could think of that.

          I see I need to clarify my statement.

          Take, for example, software development. Which one of these is easier?

          A.) Write individual functions and modules; merge into the entire application; test the entire application.

          B.) Write individual modules and functions; test each individually; merge into the entire application; test the entire application.

          Hence, unit tests, function tests, and system tests are generally performed in that order.

          The sooner in the development process that a defect is found, the quicker (and less expensive) it is to fix.

          Another perspective: start with a prototype, find out what unanticipated problems arise and fix those, then move on to the next version.

          The basic premise, in as much as it is reasonably possible, only change one thing at a time so that when something goes wrong, it is clear where the defect arose.

          Oh, and as for 'only someone in marketing could think of that', I base my comment on nearly 4 decades of software test and development. Hmmm, maybe I should try a career in sales and marketing? =)

          --
          Wit is intellect, dancing.
          • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday July 19 2018, @12:40AM (5 children)

            by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday July 19 2018, @12:40AM (#709107) Journal

            While I cannot know for sure, I strongly suspect that SpaceX does test smaller modules and sub assemblies.

            --
            People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
            • (Score: 2) by martyb on Thursday July 19 2018, @01:32AM (4 children)

              by martyb (76) Subscriber Badge on Thursday July 19 2018, @01:32AM (#709134) Journal

              While I cannot know for sure, I strongly suspect that SpaceX does test smaller modules and sub assemblies.

              Oh, most certainly agree!

              But, and this is the key point, how much testing is performed?

              When I first got into programming, computer time was very expensive. Typing a deck of punch cards to be submitted for a run and getting the results back 10-20 minutes later encouraged some rather vigorous desk checking! I'd look at my code listing and walking through as many different code paths by hand as I reasonably could before I'd even think of submitting things for a run!

              Now, computers are so fast that it can be more time-efficient to come up with a design, and then just throw things at the compiler and go back and fix any typos and/or syntax errors (mismatched braces) it found. Repeat with multiple runs of the object code to find any logic errors and then you are good-to-go®

              My personal view is that Blue Origin has a stricter view of what "good enough" is for any given level of unit or assembly than does SpaceX. Think more waterfall model* of software design than agile.

              Disclaimer: I'm basing that purely on what I've read; I have no direct connection to either company or the people who work there.

              [*] Waterfall model way, way back when I worked at a "major mainframe manufacturer" involved: requirements specs, design specs, logic specs, code reviews, unit tests, function tests, system tests, and performance tests... never mind all the user-facing documentation that needed to be planned, written, and reviewed!

              --
              Wit is intellect, dancing.
              • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday July 19 2018, @01:46PM (3 children)

                by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday July 19 2018, @01:46PM (#709370) Journal

                I have no connection to either company either. So my perception is purely my own opinion formed by what I observe of both companies.

                I have to reason to believe that Blue Origin tests any more thoroughly than SpaceX.

                Based on Blue Origin's own efforts, Bezos public appearances, etc, my perception is that their focus has primarily been on amusement park space joyrides for the rich. Until recently I had seen nothing to change my opinion. Now they just have to, as SpaceX did, go through the long and expensive learning and development process to do something more serious.

                Like you, I once too had to punch decks of cards to run programs on the computer. It is amusing that what we called "programs" back then, even moderately large ones, are what we could call functions today. Or possibly a "library". Software has become vastly more sophisticated.

                --
                People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
                • (Score: 2) by martyb on Thursday July 19 2018, @05:12PM (2 children)

                  by martyb (76) Subscriber Badge on Thursday July 19 2018, @05:12PM (#709508) Journal

                  Thanks for the reply, fellow gray(white?) beard!!

                  So, that got me to looking at Blue origin [wikipedia.org] on Wikipedia. From a quick read-through, I get the impression that they were content to do a lot of work without announcing all that they were doing. The company motto is Gradatim Ferociter, Latin for Step by Step, Ferociously. Maybe that is where I got my impression from? That, and by comparison, SpaceX seems to employ/espouse the "Fail fast, fail early" silicon valley approach. For a quick summary about that which references SpaceX, see this article on WaPo [washingtonpost.com], though I no doubt imagine you are already familiar with that concept! (That's just my being thorough, and I guess, not a strong adherent to that philosophy!)

                  From the Wiki article, my sense is that BO had orbital aspirations from the outset, but just did not publicize them. I got the impression that things would not be announced until a few years' development had already taken place. Then again, BO is self-funded by Jeff Bezos who can afford to spend $1B/year from his own pocket. SpaceX needed a more, umm, flashy(?) approach to get backers, contracts, funding. As it was, SpaceX reached a point when one of its test flights, had it failed, would have meant the end of the company... Musk was already leveraged to the hilt and was just barely making payroll IIRC.

                  In short, and like I stated at the outset, I have no hard data to support my thesis that BO employs a more gradual approach that involves more testing at each stage than SpaceX. Based on what I've seen from those two organizations, it just matches up with my experience at a number of companies over the years. I'd happily revise that should more/other data/information become available.

                  Again, thanks for the discussion -- much appreciated!

                  --
                  Wit is intellect, dancing.
                  • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday July 19 2018, @05:36PM (1 child)

                    by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday July 19 2018, @05:36PM (#709529) Journal

                    Yeah, I had read about fail fast.

                    It seems that SpaceX really did roll the dice. Maybe BO really is better funded and taking a more conservative approach -- and not getting to orbit, and a customer base as quickly as SpaceX. Maybe BO didn't see SpaceX coming.

                    I would think that two years after BO was founded, seeing the founding of SpaceX might have lit a fire under them to accelerate their program somewhat.

                    But whatever else is at work in both companies, we can only speculate.

                    --
                    People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
                    • (Score: 2) by martyb on Thursday July 19 2018, @05:58PM

                      by martyb (76) Subscriber Badge on Thursday July 19 2018, @05:58PM (#709542) Journal

                      Yep. At this point, I think we are generally in furious agreement =) Can't disagree with anything you wrote there.

                      I watched the original space race unfold between the US and Russia... even got into model rocketry for a spell. Lusted to build a model rocket with an 'F' engine, but finances kept that in check. probably just as well because I grew up within a few miles of an airport. They tend to frown on things violating their airspace!

                      Many thanks for the chat! May both companies have continued good luck and progress in their endeavors... Go Space!

                      --
                      Wit is intellect, dancing.
(1)