Reusable rocket gone to space for the second time

So a few months on 23 November 2015 ago Blue Origin launched their rocket New Shepard into space. Just making it past the 100km threshold.

Well, yesterday 22 January they did it again with the same craft.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

The New Shepard rockets is designed to take tourists just above the official 100km Kármán line and back. It varies with the SpaceX rocket that is intended to take many tonnes of payload into orbit.

Yep, cool stuff.

Yep, cool stuff.

'Conservation of momentum' in action, eh?

LOL!!!

This place is lulzy.

Absolutely brilliant site to see.  Science and tech in action.

Shame they forgot to include aerodynamics in the 'science'.

Just made it look like a big fat dildo cos yeah, that's the most efficient shape for a hypersonic vehicle...

Again: LOL!!!

How can aerodynamic be studied without conservation of momentum?

Lol what shape should it be then? And just out of curiosity do you know the velocities it achieved?

Lol it should at least be streamlined lol.

Lol and some control surfaces would help too lol.

And lol I don't know the exact velocities lol but if it's not highly supersonic lol then how's it supposed to reach 100km lol?

By the same magic lol it lands vertically lol?

Lol.

Wow papa, control surfaces for something designed to operate at extremely high altitude and extremely low air density? Why didn't they think about that?

I mean... I would only add weight, drag and complexity and being useful till less than half the target altitude.... Isn't it smart?

So why are all real rockets streamlined & with control surfaces?

You know; like the V2 for example?

There's a lot of atmosphere to be navigated at LOW altitude before your 'extremely high' altitudes are reached, you know?

Streamlining & control surfaces are generally needed for such conditions.

Only fake rockets don't need to be streamlined or have stabilising fins...

& your ridiculous Blue Origin is as fake as they get.

They're not even trying for realism any more...

Pathetic stuff, Hypnopoodle.

How many icbms have control surface? Does the trident or the minuteman have control surfaces?

No, because they are FAKE.

You'd know this if you understood anything about how rockets function.

The Trident is especially lulzy; really, it is a BIG joke!

Sorry if it disappoints you that 'nuclear armageddon' is just a propaganda myth.

You should be glad, really; only psychopaths would want to be able to destroy the world.

Ciao, Topolino!

https://www.blueorigin.com/technology

Read this and tell me how it does not have controle surfaces.

Lol and some control surfaces would help too lol.

So would a gimballed rocket engine,

Gimballed rocket engines are useless without control surfaces; ideally both fore & aft, & slaved to the chosen thrust vectoring system.

You'd know this if you understood anything about either rocketry or aerodynamics.

But you don't, which is why you believe in sci-fi nonsense.

*Yawn!*

Toodle-pip, Death-Worshippers!

It has controle surfaces. Read the link.

It has controle surfaces. Read the link.

Nothing has 'controle' surfaces; learn to spell.

Your fraud-rokkit is an aerodynamic joke.

It cannot exist because of that FACT.

Stop Lying.

You saying they don't exist is not proof. It's just you bieng stubborn nothing more. Look at the flight you can see the fins on the top deployed and the fins on the bottom that are always deployed.

Gimballed rocket engines are useless without control surfaces; ideally both fore & aft, & slaved to the chosen thrust vectoring system.

You'd know this if you understood anything about either rocketry or aerodynamics.

Hovering rocket going sideways with no control surfaces

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">#

Hovering rocket going sideways with no control surfaces and you can see the engine gimbal

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

I love the grass hopper videos. Amazing to see how far they have come.

Amazing how the only way you had to refute the following FACTS was with shitty fake youtubes:

Gimballed rocket engines are useless without control surfaces; ideally both fore & aft, & slaved to the chosen thrust vectoring system.

You'd know this if you understood anything about either rocketry or aerodynamics.

But you don't, which is why you believe in sci-fi nonsense.

*Yawn!*

Toodle-pip, Death-Worshippers!

No, because they are FAKE.

You'd know this if you understood anything about how rockets function.

The Trident is especially lulzy; really, it is a BIG joke!

Sorry if it disappoints you that 'nuclear armageddon' is just a propaganda myth.

You should be glad, really; only psychopaths would want to be able to destroy the world.

Ciao, Topolino!

So why are all real rockets streamlined & with control surfaces?

You know; like the V2 for example?

There's a lot of atmosphere to be navigated at LOW altitude before your 'extremely high' altitudes are reached, you know?

Streamlining & control surfaces are generally needed for such conditions.

Only fake rockets don't need to be streamlined or have stabilising fins...

& your ridiculous Blue Origin is as fake as they get.

They're not even trying for realism any more...

Pathetic stuff, Hypnopoodle.

Like I say; Science is your Enemy; Propaganda is your Friend.

Toodle-pip, Liars!

If they are facts why is no evidence presented to support your claims?

Gimballed rocket engines are useless without control surfaces; ideally both fore & aft, & slaved to the chosen thrust vectoring system.

You'd know this if you understood anything about either rocketry or aerodynamics.

Nonsense.  Control surfaces can be helpful, but are hardly required for gimballed rocket engines to be useful. 

You'd know this if you ever tried balancing a broomstick on your finger.

Reusable rockets were available when I was a kid.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Quote from: Papa Legba on January 23, 2016, 11:00:21 AM

Gimballed rocket engines are useless without control surfaces; ideally both fore & aft, & slaved to the chosen thrust vectoring system.

You'd know this if you understood anything about either rocketry or aerodynamics.

Nonsense.  Control surfaces can be helpful, but are hardly required for gimballed rocket engines to be useful. 

You'd know this if you ever tried balancing a broomstick on your finger.

On the Space Shuttle the SRB's were gimballed ±8° and the main engines were gimballed ±10.5°.
With the slow initial acceleration the shuttle is bit of a "balancing broomstick" problem.
The V2 used carbon vanes in the exhaust stream.

I have visited https://www.blueorigin.com/ but there are little details of the rocket. It apparently just goes straight up ... and that's it!

On the other hand there is a little container where I can put my luggage to be sent up.



Why not?

But the rocket and capsule can only reach 100 000 m altitude and after that both drops down again. Anyting dropping from 100 000 m altitude has a speed of  1 253 m/s, when passing 20 000 m altitude after 128 seconds, and will crash after say 15 seconds unless you do something.

Parachutes? Mach 3.6! Not possible.

Rocket thrust providing brake force? Well, the fuel (liquid oxygene and liquid hydrogene) must be carried up to 100 000 m altitude and I wonder what weight it has.

The whole thing looks like a hoax.

Rocket thrust providing brake force? Well, the fuel (liquid oxygene and liquid hydrogene) must be carried up to 100 000 m altitude and I wonder what weight it has. 

You have this insistence that fuel can not be carried with without it being used up. Your essentially saying that a car can not go to the shops and then back again because you only put enough fuel in for the trip there.

Here is an idea, build the rocket a little bigger to carry extra fuel. Wow, amazing, your biggest issue is solved.

More importantly, this argument that "its fake" is becoming harder and harder to sustain.
2014 had zero rockets returning from space and re-usability was a distant dream.
2015 there was only 1 rocket that has come back from space and zero reusable ones.
This year there are 2 rockets that have returned from space and 1 reusable one.
Those numbers are going to keep climbing, the people involved will keep increasing and the videos will keep coming until you might as well tell us that cars are fake too.

Do the parachutes deploy at mach 3.6?

Quote

Rocket thrust providing brake force? Well, the fuel (liquid oxygene and liquid hydrogene) must be carried up to 100 000 m altitude and I wonder what weight it has. 

You have this insistence that fuel can not be carried with without it being used up. Your essentially saying that a car can not go to the shops and then back again because you only put enough fuel in for the trip there.

In a zero gravity field, e.g. vacuum space, you cannot carry the fuel with you to brake after the trip, because you need extra fuel to get that fuel off the ground to start with and you get too heavy.

It is slightly different in a strong gravity field, e.g. between ground and 100 000 m altitude on Earth. Just to get off the ground, you need plenty energy and then, suddenly you are at 100 000 m altitude and start to drop down again.

If you just ascend to 10 000 m altitude, there is no problem. You use external means to brake when dropping down, e.g. a parachute in fairly thick air.

But 100 000 m altitude! No external means are prossible. Air is 1000X too thin. There is no air to talk of.  And internal means? Fuel to fire a rocket engine! Do your calculations. Can you get it with you up to 100 000 m altitude to suffice to stop you coming back? I doubt it.

So what did we see on the video? Probably a stunt starting at max 15 000 m altitude.

Do the parachutes deploy at mach 3.6?

Do they or not? I only ask because you are known to knowingly post incorrect information.