SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the close-enough-for-government-work dept.
Blue Origin is now the first company to launch a rocket above the Karman line, land it safely, then relaunch it a second time. According to this blog post on Blue Origin's web site, the New Shepard booster that was used in the November 2015 launch was reused for a new launch on January 22, 2016. The blog post has some interesting information about the reuse and some of the adjustments they have made to the return and landing algorithms.
The very same New Shepard booster that flew above the Karman line and then landed vertically at its launch site last November has now flown and landed again, demonstrating reuse. This time, New Shepard reached an apogee of 333,582 feet (101.7 kilometers) before both capsule and booster gently returned to Earth for recovery and reuse.
Data from the November mission matched our preflight predictions closely, which made preparations for today's re-flight relatively straightforward. The team replaced the crew capsule parachutes, replaced the pyro igniters, conducted functional and avionics checkouts, and made several software improvements, including a noteworthy one. Rather than the vehicle translating to land at the exact center of the pad, it now initially targets the center, but then sets down at a position of convenience on the pad, prioritizing vehicle attitude ahead of precise lateral positioning. It's like a pilot lining up a plane with the centerline of the runway. If the plane is a few feet off center as you get close, you don't swerve at the last minute to ensure hitting the exact mid-point. You just land a few feet left or right of the centerline. Our Monte Carlo sims of New Shepard landings show this new strategy increases margins, improving the vehicle's ability to reject disturbances created by low-altitude winds.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 25 2016, @08:05PM
Being that Houston's Basketball team is The Rockets, and the baseball team Astros, and it being home to Johnson Space Center where practically all astronauts train for some length of time, I thought I'd look into rocketry.
Turns out that launching rockets, or other fireworks is forbidden in Houston. There are a few places outside city limits where rocketry clubs meet and launch at. One of them is actually at a NASA location, but to gain admittance one must put themselves on a security list to have their background checked in case they... are terrorists? Forgive me, but wouldn't a terrorist with a clean record check out fine then just bring in some bombs or something? At the site they also allow flight of model airplanes, and so we rocketeers are to drive on the gravel and not the concrete, to keep the landing strip clean, that's about the only sane restriction I've read so far.
Unfortunate, because I had a novel idea for the ultimate in take off, land, repeat: An RC car with wings and a rocket motor that ignited remotely. The RC car would have rudders and flaps to control flight. Selection of an RC car rather than adapting a rocket body is due to the superior landing gear already on the car. Alas, if one built such a device it would fall afoul of so many laws against weaponized rocket systems that it would be prohibitively expensive to get a munitions license for. In fact, one can not even add a guidance system of any sort to the rockets you can launch in their designated areas... Wouldn't a terrorist simply ignore the regs and build a Hell Canon improvised artillery anyway [youtube.com], and haven't there been reports of large theft of propane tanks [patch.com] and plumbing supplies [wral.com] needed to build such things already? Indeed, after we taught the FSA how to use them, ISIS began building them. [youtube.com] Clearly, hobbyist registration will only restrict honest people from doing bad things that they wouldn't do anyway.
Perhaps, and forgive me if this sounds insane, it would be better to allow more tinkering if you really wanted people to advance the science of rocketry esp. affordable take off / land / reuse? My platform would be safer than any current rocket as it utilizes an onboard Oxy-Hydrogen generator [youtube.com] to produce explosive gas on demand, keeping the majority of its fuel supply as safe non explosive water. Sadly, I've had to shelve the design. Meanwhile, a model airplane with internal combustion engine or jets and a highly flammable fuel reservoir is perfectly legal, even though one can cause marvelous fires by crashing such things. Perhaps before I retire I'll save up enough to get the proper licenses, but I doubt it. Poor people are meant to remain such, elites believe only the "innovator class" should invent.
Alas, no sea-fueled rocket recharging platforms for you filthy Earthlings.
(Score: 1) by _1156277 on Tuesday January 26 2016, @12:37AM
Perhaps, and forgive me if this sounds insane, it would be better to allow more tinkering if you really wanted people to advance the science of rocketry esp. affordable take off / land / reuse? My platform would be safer than any current rocket as it utilizes an onboard Oxy-Hydrogen generator [youtube.com] to produce explosive gas on demand, keeping the majority of its fuel supply as safe non explosive water. Sadly, I've had to shelve the design. Meanwhile, a model airplane with internal combustion engine or jets and a highly flammable fuel reservoir is perfectly legal, even though one can cause marvelous fires by crashing such things. Perhaps before I retire I'll save up enough to get the proper licenses, but I doubt it. Poor people are meant to remain such, elites believe only the "innovator class" should invent.
Alas, no sea-fueled rocket recharging platforms for you filthy Earthlings.
By platform, I hope you mean a sea-based launch/landing platform, and not the rocket itself....