Whatever happened to Blue Origin?

Rob Coppinger
 on December 8, 2008 10:32 AM | | Comments (5)
|
Blue Origin Goddard.jpg
credit: Blue Origin

Whatever happened to Blue Origin? was to be the title of a blog I had planned to write and then publish over the festive holiday. As Clark Lindsey has done it again and chanced upon a new entry to the Blue Origin website now seems as good a time as any to speculate wildly about this secretive effort funded by Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos 

At the end of October I had contacted Blue Origin's media relations people about any forthcoming news as it is literally years since anything has been heard from them

But the reply was pretty blunt

"I understand you called regarding Blue Origin.  We appreciate your interest.  As you are probably aware, Blue Origin is not conducting any media interviews at this time.  They have made no recent announcements or issued any updates. Thank you."

Well now we know they were looking to provide an update and most interestingly of all we get a timetable


Flight testing of prototype New Shepard vehicles began in 2006. Blue Origin expects the first opportunities for experiments requiring an accompanying researcher astronaut to be available in 2012. Flight opportunities in 2011 may be available for autonomous or remotely-controlled experiments on an uncrewed flight test.


As Clark points out due to legal requirements to issue NOTAMs its likely that many of those flights were tethered with the exception of the single 13 November 2006 flight test that we know of using the technology demonstrator called Goddard

In the comments section of Clark's blog post there is a link to a 17 November Linkedin post regarding engineers at Blue Origin that reveals that a third test vehicle is being integrated    

Just to recap on what exactly Bezos is developing at its Seattle and Van Horn, Texas facilities, his Blue Origin's New Shepard programme is developing a manned suborbital vehicle for tourism and scientific research

Called New Shepard it had been thought that it would be based on the McDonnell Douglas Delta Clipper vehicle, I was even told by people who were working for Bezos that that was the case

And according to the US Federal Aviation Administration's environmental impact assessment for the Van Horn launch site, New Shepard would be conical in shape (like the Goddard), would be 15m (49.1ft) high, have a base diameter of 7m, use 54,400kg (119,000lb) of hydrogen peroxide and kerosene, and have a thrust capability of 230,000lb (1,000kN). It was sounding very DC-X like!

In space, the Crew Capsule will separate from the PM and the two will reenter and land separately for re-use. The Crew Capsule will land softly under a parachute at the launch site.

Now we know that the vehicle's propulsion and Crew Capsule (CC) sections will separate while in the FAA environmental report that was still an open issue. It would seem the inefficiencies of powered descent have finally caught up with Bezos' engineers

And unsurprisingly Bezos' team's progress has been subject to the slippage that all aerospace programmes ultimately suffer with the 2010 in-service date moving to 2012 - who wants to put money on it that that date slips again

According to the FAA report Bezos expected to be "conducting 25 or fewer launches per year" by now. If they mean untethered by the word launches then we know Blue Origin is way, way below where they expected to be

My guess is that this third test vehicle could be the crew capsule. It is also of interest that the new Bezos update refers to "three or more positions to be used by astronauts or experiment racks. Experiment mass allocation [of] 120kg (264lb) available per position (including rack)," indicating a minimum payload capability of 360kg

Now is that experiment mass allocation just the experiment or does it include the rack? Because 120kg does sound like a 95% percentile human being plus launch and entry suit

I think Goddard was strictly a propulsion and control demonstrator. The second unnamed test vehicle could have been either a sub-scale or full-scale first-stage, which it would appear from the qoute above uses powered descent

I think a sub-scale first-stage is plausible as it can be tethered and used as a booster for the crew capsule launch abort system (LAS) tests. Perhaps ground based LAS tests will be the next effort to be made public - hint hint Blue Origin if you're reading this

So, my guestimates for a testing timetable is the following;

  1. End of 2011 first test flight of the entire integrated vehicle, perhaps slipping into 2012
  2. BO's Little Joe (scale first-stage) launches CC test article for parachute landing in 2011
  3. Parachute drop tests in 2010
  4. Increasing altitude powered ascent/descent of first-stage through 2010 and 2011
  5. Ground based LAS tests 2009
  6. BO Little Joe launches of instrumented CC test article for avionics and other subsystems
  7. Lots of altitude chamber testing of the first stage's engines until first test flight
  8. Repeated test stand full mission duration firings of full-scale first-stage test article

5 Comments

riff_raff

What is it about these software/internet/new media multi-millionaires, that makes them think they can jump into a high-tech business, like manned or un-manned space launch, with absolutely no experience, and be financially successful? Especially after well funded, technically competent companies, with decades of experience (like Boeing, Northrop-Grumman, and Lockheed-Martin) have previously failed?

In the bizjet market, I'm sure established companies like Cessna and Gulfstream are getting a chuckle out of the recent failures of upstarts Eclipse and Adams.

And I'm sure Lockheed-Martin and Boeing are amused by the efforts of SpaceEx, Kelly, Kistler, Beal and others.

As for Virgin Galactic, sooner or later they will have a mission failure resulting in the loss of life. It's just the nature of the business. And when that happens, that will be the end of the space tourism business.

kris ringwood

It is dependent upon nepotism. If one has friends, family and other group connentions in high places, one finds that paths which lead to cliff-tops for those that don't,lead to the Promised Land instead. Jeff Bazos clearly does not have the connections that, for example Elon Musk of SpaceX has. The latter prevailed over a much more experienced and technically superior team from Kistler which included Apollo alumni. Bazos is in the same boat as Kistler.
Musk's paths are obstacle free...I have been amazed at how with a firm bootstrap from first, the USAF, and second NASA a totally inexperienced team have got to where they have where anyone else would have been given their marching orders on the 3rd failure to match their hype.

MT Rob Coppinger

I think it is a bit harsh to say Musk has got where he is just because of who he knows. From what I know about his staff I would say that SpaceX made some shrewd personnel decisons early on that enabled them to gain the confidence of the DOD's office of responsive space and in fact that is the body that has made Falcon 1 and therefore Falcon 9 possible. While Jeff Bezos has decided to go down the super secret route. Fine, it is his money. I do know someone with DC-X experience who worked for Bezos and has now left but due to an NDA they can't say anything. But the fact that they left speaks volumes. I think Bezos has hit some major snags with his fully reusable system and that is why the latest info on his website talks about parachute recovery. DC-X like powered descent has faded away. Surprise, surprise.

Maury Markowitz

> What is it about these software/internet/new media multi-millionaires, that
> makes them think they can jump into a high-tech business, like manned or
> un-manned space launch, with absolutely no experience, and be financially
> successful?

Oh I don't know, perhaps it's the way they jumped into a high-tech business with absolutely no experience and turned it into a immensely financially successful effort? Maybe it's that?

> Especially after well funded, technically competent companies, with decades of experience
> (like Boeing, Northrop-Grumman, and Lockheed-Martin) have previously failed?

The theory, for what it is worth, is identical to the startup concept as a whole. Any company that grows ends up with bureaucracy that is dedicated to keeping existing products running. In order to really innovate they need to get lots of cash quickly, which is difficult to do when you have a diverse product line and a couple of cash cows. It MS went to the market and said they were doing a new search engine, no one would give a hoot, because it's Office and Windows that makes the money. But Google goes to the exact same market and quickly rakes in massive amounts of investment because its up and coming. Thus the startups constantly trump the incumbents, IMHO the best thing that could happen to the markets.

So does this apply to aerospace? Very likely. Boeing, for instance, has a massive infrastructure that they need to keep running. If they want to produce a new product they have to do it within that system, they can't step outside themselves. GM tried it with Saturn and were extremely successful, which caused corporate immune response that quickly killed it.

So yeah, there's every possibility that a new company can come into this market the same way it happens in the rest of the tech world. It's not like the 60's when you needed to go work for a large company to get anything done, today the startup is a key part of the economy and engineers jump at the chance to work there. A aerospace startup can get the exact same people as Boeing, perhaps even better ones. SpaceX proves the point.

The real question is whether or not aerospace ventures can get the funding that someone like Google can. The answer appears to be "no", judging by Eclipse. The timelines are too long and the payoffs appear extremely dubious.

Maury

Build away Jeff My son and I have property that backs up to your ranch We want developers to come in Help me retire early

Leave a comment

Want a user picture? Get a Gravatar!

Like Flightglobal on Facebook