TexasCHLforum.com

ELB wrote:I believe I have correctly identified the points of interest below. From south to north, the checkout building, the launch pad, and the landing pad are each about 2 miles apart. Don't know where the crew capsule came down but it wasn't far away.

Interesting; looks like there would be a great view from 54, and probably enough to be really interesting from El Capitan.

That's awesome, thanks for sharing!

That's one of the "strangest" looking rockets I've seen as well.

gthaustex wrote:Wow!!! Pretty impressive.

TVGuy wrote:That's awesome, thanks for sharing!

That's one of the "strangest" looking rockets I've seen as well.

I was very surprised at the curvature [roundness] of the nose section.
I expected it to be blunt like all of the spacecraft from project Mercury through Apollo.

WildBill wrote:

TVGuy wrote:That's awesome, thanks for sharing!

That's one of the "strangest" looking rockets I've seen as well.

I was very surprised at the curvature [roundness] of the nose section.

The shape of the nose depends on what speeds the vehicle is going to fly at (and what is able to be manufactured). Needle-ish cones are better at supersonic speeds, rounded shapes better at subsonic. Something in between is better for the transonic regime. A rocket headed for space will of course transit all three regimes, but experience them at different air densities too. I'm not a aerospace engineer, but I suspect that the shape of the nose has less impact at lower air densities (higher altitudes), where the rocket will be going the fastest. Therefore I also suspect the shape on the Blue Origin rocket is optimized for lower altitudes and lower speeds, where it gives more advantage than it loses at higher altitudes and speeds.

My best guess anyway.

ELB wrote:

WildBill wrote:

TVGuy wrote:That's awesome, thanks for sharing!

That's one of the "strangest" looking rockets I've seen as well.

I was very surprised at the curvature [roundness] of the nose section.

The shape of the nose depends on what speeds the vehicle is going to fly at (and what is able to be manufactured). Needle-ish cones are better at supersonic speeds, rounded shapes better at subsonic. Something in between is better for the transonic regime. A rocket headed for space will of course transit all three regimes, but experience them at different air densities too. I'm not a aerospace engineer, but I suspect that the shape of the nose has less impact at lower air densities (higher altitudes), where the rocket will be going the fastest. Therefore I also suspect the shape on the Blue Origin rocket is optimized for lower altitudes and lower speeds, where it gives more advantage than it loses at higher altitudes and speeds.

My best guess anyway.

I am thinking more about the heat generated during re-entry.
I had the pleasure to have a long conversation with one of the engineers who designed the heat shield for the first American space capsules.
Later on she worked on the design of the heat shield of the nose section of the space shuttle.
She told me about one of the program managers who wanted a rounded shape, but all of the calculations showed that wasn't the best configuration.
This is an interesting interview from the NASA archives with the engineer, Dottie Lee. http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/oral_hi ... -10-99.htm

WildBill wrote:

ELB wrote:

WildBill wrote:

TVGuy wrote:That's awesome, thanks for sharing!

That's one of the "strangest" looking rockets I've seen as well.

I was very surprised at the curvature [roundness] of the nose section.

The shape of the nose depends on what speeds the vehicle is going to fly at (and what is able to be manufactured). Needle-ish cones are better at supersonic speeds, rounded shapes better at subsonic. Something in between is better for the transonic regime. A rocket headed for space will of course transit all three regimes, but experience them at different air densities too. I'm not a aerospace engineer, but I suspect that the shape of the nose has less impact at lower air densities (higher altitudes), where the rocket will be going the fastest. Therefore I also suspect the shape on the Blue Origin rocket is optimized for lower altitudes and lower speeds, where it gives more advantage than it loses at higher altitudes and speeds.

My best guess anyway.

I am thinking more about the heat generated during re-entry.
I had the pleasure to have a long conversation with one of the engineers who designed the heat shield for the first American space capsules.
She told me about one of the program managers who wanted a rounded shape, but all of the calculations showed that wasn't the best configuration.
Initially the program manager got his wish until they tested his prototype design and it failed. Then they went back to the blunt shape.

On reentry, at least for the old space capsules, they came in rear-end first, so what the shape of the nose was not the problem, it was the shape of the butt.

The crew capsule that launched yesterday is intended solely for sub-orbital flights, it just goes up to the edge of space, but doesn't go into orbit. It doesn't face the same reentry challenge that spacecraft that go into orbit and beyond do. In fact, when it gets to apogee (around 330,000 feet for this vehicle, so far, so not quite into space, officially), I think they just separate from the booster and let it fall until it gets to an altitude where the parachutes will be effective.

Blue Origin does have an orbital vehicle in the works tho, and it's overall shape more closely resembles the Apollo capsules, the nose is more conical in shape:


I suspect it will come in butt-first like the old ones tho.

ELB wrote:On reentry, at least for the old space capsules, they came in rear-end first, so what the shape of the nose was not the problem, it was the shape of the butt.

The crew capsule that launched yesterday is intended solely for sub-orbital flights, it just goes up to the edge of space, but doesn't go into orbit. It doesn't face the same reentry challenge that spacecraft that go into orbit and beyond do. In fact, when it gets to apogee (around 330,000 feet for this vehicle, so far, so not quite into space, officially), I think they just separate from the booster and let it fall until it gets to an altitude where the parachutes will be effective.

Blue Origin does have an orbital vehicle in the works tho, and it's overall shape more closely resembles the Apollo capsules, the nose is more conical in shape:


I suspect it will come in butt-first like the old ones tho.

Thanks for straightening me out!

This is an interesting article about the shape of space vehicles.
http://www.airspacemag.com/space/how-th ... 82/?no-ist

Is this a NASA vehicle or private?

ScottDLS wrote:Is this a NASA vehicle or private?

Private, from Jeff Bezos' company Blue Origin, the founder of Amazon.