
New Shepard's 8th test flight [video] - thibran
https://www.blueorigin.com/#youtubeZUV53Nn3PhA
======
ChuckMcM
Congrats Blue Origin Team! That was nicely done. I am always amazed when
something so complicated is made to look "easy."

With Virgin Galactic getting back into test flights after losing Spaceship 2,
the possibility that non-astronauts might be making suborbital flights seems
so much closer.

I share the suggestion with other commentators here that using metric units
might be more useful, even if your target audience (the tourists that fly)
might not understand them, is a good one. Even if they don't understand them,
tourists will recognize when something looks "Just like NASA does it" and that
will instill confidence.

The dynamic range on the BE-3 is particularly impressive. I don't believe
anyone else's restartable rocket engine has a similar range of operation.

I can't wait to hear when you guys start taking applications for passengers.

~~~
jackfoxy
Or use both units of measure. Is there a reason not to?

~~~
cm2187
Here is one:
[http://edition.cnn.com/TECH/space/9909/30/mars.metric/](http://edition.cnn.com/TECH/space/9909/30/mars.metric/)

~~~
SmellyGeekBoy
I think jackfoxy was referring to their press releases, not their engineering
team.

------
evv
The behavior of the booster landing looks very different than SpaceX's.

Blue Origin's booster seems to switch to a different control logic at ~30ft
up, from a rapid descent to a slow controlled touchdown procedure. Meanwhile,
SpaceX has a very smooth touchdown that seems to use a single control logic.
I'm sure that the SpaceX approach is better for fuel consumption, but the
slower Blue Origin landings seem better for spectators!

I love watching the physical effects of somebody's code, and I'd love to hear
more about the decisions that led to this behavior.

~~~
pilsetnieks
F9/FH cannot throttle down enough to do a hover landing, so they have to do a
suicide burn (i.e., fire the engine just so the speed goes to 0 m/s at 0 m
altitude.) The engine is too powerful and the body is too light to hover.

Blue Origin might eventually encounter just that problem with New Glenn.

~~~
walrus01
I don't know where you're getting this idea. The grasshopper hovered all the
time in tests and uses the same single-engine as the F9 full thrust.

[https://www.google.com/search?q=spacex+grasshopper+video&num...](https://www.google.com/search?q=spacex+grasshopper+video&num=100&client=ubuntu&hs=kOO&channel=fs&source=lnms&tbm=vid&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiorJPOm-
HaAhVmVWMKHY1WBeUQ_AUICygC&biw=1493&bih=2011)

~~~
doikor
They probably just put extra weight (fuel) in the grasshopper for easier
testing. The F9 on the other hand is basically an empty soda can with engines
at the bottom and small fins at the top when it’s landing so even when firing
just a single engine at minimum power it will generate too much thrust to
hover.

------
jordanthoms
Keep in mind, yes this is just a small suborbital vehicle but Blue Origin is
making a lot of progress on their New Glenn rocket, which has a reusable first
stage and capabilities between the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy with a single
core. They'll be built right next to the launch site in Cape Canaveral and use
Methalox rather than RP-1 (SpaceX is moving to Methalox for the BFR rockets).

I'm a big SpaceX fan and they've got a big lead in terms of actual launches
and recovery experience, but don't count Blue Origin out.

------
51Cards
One difference I find is that Blue Origin's videos almost seem too polished to
me? With the advertising-esque overlays, the rock music, the editing. Always
feels like I'm watching a commercial vs. an actual space flight. SpaceX has
done this but usually it's just during their 3D sim videos. I guess the
difference is that Blue Origin really needs to market this to the "general
public" as that is their projected income source for now.

Edit: I also found it interesting that they chose to show the closeup of the
capsule landing in "slow motion".

Edit 2: Seems they have just added the full live stream video vs. just the
polished edited version I was commenting on earlier.

~~~
_wmd
Maybe stating the obvious, but you are watching a commercial :)

------
nordsieck
Start 31:16
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=31m16s&v=ZUV53Nn3PhA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=31m16s&v=ZUV53Nn3PhA)

Launch 1:09:50
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=69m50s&v=ZUV53Nn3PhA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=69m50s&v=ZUV53Nn3PhA)

~~~
nordsieck
Looks like they edited the livestream.

Launch 38:41
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=38m41s&v=ZUV53Nn3PhA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=38m41s&v=ZUV53Nn3PhA)

------
loeg
Direct link (to the video included in the article as of this writing):
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSDHM6iuogI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSDHM6iuogI)
.

(Edit: Note that it's an earlier launch from December. They've pulled the
livestream video of this launch, which is
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUV53Nn3PhA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUV53Nn3PhA)
.)

~~~
wmf
Note that's from December; there's another flight today but that isn't it.

~~~
rory096
The webcast was removed from Youtube when it ended — we'll have to wait for
them to recut and reupload it.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUV53Nn3PhA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUV53Nn3PhA)

------
iamcreasy
Can anybody answer me, why BlueOrigin has to detach the passenger module?
Can't they just land the passenger module with the booster since the booster
have such controlled landing?

~~~
jessriedel
I don't know, but one possibility is that they think it's easier to ensure the
extremely high degree of safety with a separate parachute capsule. If the
boosters can be recovered 99% of the time, but are destroyed 1% of the time,
that would be plenty reliable to drastically cut the cost of the trip but
obviously not reliable enough for humans. And it might not make sense to bring
that reliability to something like 0.1% or 0.01%, which you need for humans,
if it doubles the cost of the booster.

------
ckdarby
Curious what happens if the parachute for the landing capsule fails or only
one deploys? Does it spin out of control and not land at 1 mph?

~~~
shirro
They tested that already. They can land with two just fine. There is video on
their youtube channel
[https://youtu.be/xYYTuZCjZcE?t=2m10s](https://youtu.be/xYYTuZCjZcE?t=2m10s)
where they test this.

They also tested an emergency escape from the booster near maximum dynamic
pressure
[https://youtu.be/ESc_0MgmqOA?t=51s](https://youtu.be/ESc_0MgmqOA?t=51s)

~~~
greglindahl
Yes, a one-chute-fails test is standard for these sorts of systems.

~~~
ckdarby
What about a two-chute fail?

------
callesgg
It is fun to see that they are trying to get some publicity the same way that
spacex has pulled of so nicely.

I guess they could work on the polish of the video.

I have become quite used to the insane production value levels that spacex
has. I have asked myself how many people is involved in just the
filming/streaming of spacex launches on multiple occasions.

------
elvirs
'beautiful soft landing' ? really? at the beginning of the video she said the
capsule will touch the ground at 1-2 mph speed because the rockets will come
on kicking up dust and all. no visible dust and speed went from constant 16-17
mph in last 5 seconds to 0. Did the rockets fail?

~~~
rory096
As she said, it happens in the last _milliseconds_. You can see the cloud of
dust kicked up just before impact at 49:00 in the video — that the speed
reduction didn't make it to the on-screen indicator is probably more a
reflection of the short time window than the rockets failing.

Compare to the nominal landing at 1:14 in this video.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSDHM6iuogI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSDHM6iuogI)

~~~
plicense
Pardon me for the stupid question, but how is bringing the speed down to 0
milliseconds before landing by firing the rocket thrusters different from just
letting the capsule hit the ground? I thought the thrusters were there to make
the passengers not feel the inertia due to sudden arrest of speed from
16-17mph to 0mph. Firing the thrusters milliseconds before landing seems to
have the same effect as just letting the capsule hit the ground? Or is it to
protect the capsule itself?

~~~
kevan
I'm a bit rusty on my physics, but the general idea is that with both methods
the total impulse (force over a time interval) is the same. The capsule goes
from 16mph to 0mph.

But, if you let the ground stop you, you end up with all of the energy
transfer in a few milliseconds. Because the time is so short, the force spikes
to crazy high levels. This breaks equipment and people. The rockets firing
spread out that force over a longer period of time.

For example (all numbers made up):

Time the ground takes to stop you: 25ms

Time rockets fire before touchdown: 100ms

Landing capsule weight: 2000kg

Impulse needed to stop capsule: 7.15264m/s * 2000kg = 14300Ns

Assuming in both cases the force is evenly applied over the time period...

Force from the ground stopping you: 14300Ns / 25ms = 572,000N

Force from the rockets + the ground: 14300Ns / (100ms + 25ms) = 115,000N

------
akaryocyte
It feels odd to see such a transparent exhaust from a rocket

~~~
saagarjha
The Space Shuttle burned hydrogen and produced water, none of which are really
easily visible to the human eye. If you look closely at a launch you might be
a able to catch a glimpse of the heat shimmer from the main engine.

~~~
greglindahl
Worth noting that you're talking about what's going on after the SRBs finish
firing. The solids produce a lot of visible exhaust.

~~~
exDM69
The space shuttle main engines did fire at liftoff while the SRBs were firing.
They may be a bit hard to see at launch but the exhaust mach diamonds are
clearly visible e.g. in [0]. They were much more clearly visible in the 7-ish
seconds before liftoff, after the SSMEs had been ignited but before the SRBs
go off.

[0]
[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/STS120La...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/STS120LaunchHiRes-
edit1.jpg)

~~~
greglindahl
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that the SSMEs were not firing at liftoff. Since
they fire for a few seconds before the SRBs get lit, I suspect most people
know what's going on with them.

------
newnewpdro
Didn't it seem like the capsule speed suddenly dropped from ~18MPH to 0MPH at
landing? I was under the impression there would be a short burn smoothing that
transition, it did not appear to be the case to me.

Also, the whole commercial advertisement format of the launch is far too
contrived. Hearing the host describe the capsule window as gorgeous cheapens
the entire thing, it's like I'm watching home shopping network.

~~~
jessriedel
The burn just before impact is very short. It is designed to ensure there are
no injuries, but not to make the landing feather soft. I don't know what the
technical restrictions are that motivate this, but I'm sure the design choice
is deliberate; the Soyuz landing is very similar.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-l7MM9yoxII&feature=youtu.be...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-l7MM9yoxII&feature=youtu.be&t=17m38s)

------
__john
The exciting bit

[https://youtu.be/ZUV53Nn3PhA?t=4202](https://youtu.be/ZUV53Nn3PhA?t=4202)

------
zargath
Im a huge SpaceX fan, but Blueorigin's New Shepard does seem more robust.
Maybe just because its a smaller and more thick rocket, but somehow by not
being as spectacular it makes space travel more "normal" as we all hope it
someday will become.

~~~
ceejayoz
> Im a huge SpaceX fan, but Blueorigin's New Shepard does seem more robust.

That's a little like comparing a F1 racer to a wheelbarrow, isn't it? Both are
immensely useful for specific things, and would fail miserably if applied to
the other's thing. New Shepard is cool, and I'd love to hop in it some day,
but it's doing a little up-and-down suborbital hop. The two launchers have
totally different purposes, and are constructed in entirely different ways as
a result.

------
pipboy
why not show metric units, only on screen if not while they present. Please :)

------
FPGAhacker
Hey listen, people that work at these companies also like and read hackernews.
Maybe try to have a little compassion before you sound off with thoughtless
comments like “it looks cartoonish compared to spacex.”

People work pretty damn hard on these things that you piss on without a care.

~~~
jessriedel
More important than the feelings of employees is probably just the fact that
HN doesn't need uninformed comments talking exclusively about how the music in
the video makes the commenter feel, or which company they think is cooler.

~~~
bkor
> uninformed comments talking exclusively about how the music in the video
> makes the commenter feel

If someone is talking exclusively about themselves, why is this considered
uninformed?!?

~~~
jessriedel
I don't mean "uninformed about the comment's claim", I mean "uniformed about
the topic of discussion"

------
jacquesm
I hope internally Blue Origin uses the metric system, it's been a long time
since Miles per hour and feet were used to talk about rocketry, NASA learned
this the hard way.

[http://edition.cnn.com/TECH/space/9909/30/mars.metric.02/](http://edition.cnn.com/TECH/space/9909/30/mars.metric.02/)

~~~
rory096
>it's been a long time since Miles per hour and feet were used to talk about
rocketry

Falcon 9 is built on the imperial system, as are Atlas and Delta. SpaceX is
only switching to metric with BFR.

~~~
justinclift
Ouch. They use Siemens NX, which AFAIR has to be set to _either_ metric _or_
imperial for all models and assemblies.

Getting them mixed up sounds potentially risky. :/

Definitely would expect they've added some automatic safety checks around
that, which is quite do-able in NX from memory.

------
notaki
BO, lol.

------
pavs
Looks a bit cartoonish compared to falcon9. I know they have a different
purpose and are different in size.

~~~
CommieBobDole
I agree, though 'different purpose' might even be understating it a bit. While
impressive, New Shepard is really just a small-scale test vehicle, designed to
do exactly what you see here and nothing more; it goes straight up and comes
straight down; it can't get anywhere near orbital altitude or orbital speed -
on the latter, it maxes out around 2000 mph, which is about 15,000 mph short
of orbital velocity.

I don't want to minimize what Blue Origin is doing here; they've got a good
test vehicle, smart people, lots of funding, and ambitious plans, and they
will no doubt be very successful, but what SpaceX does with the Falcon 9 on a
regular basis is orders of magnitude more difficult and impressive.

