Back to Squawk list
  • 29

Blue Origin rocket makes historic vertical landing

Watch as the Blue Origin rocket makes the first vertical landing. ( 更多...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

Waow ! It looks like in the cartoon of Hergé in the 50's. ;-)
ChicagoBrain 3
So the empty rocket body makes a nice smooth, controlled landing expending tremendous amounts of energy in the process. While the capsule with the human passengers makes an uncontrolled decent via parachute with a large jolt at the landing. Something seems backwards with the application of the technology here. Either way, congratulations to a job well done!
Colin Seftel 1
On a manned flight, the capsule launch abort system rockets will fire to soften the landing.
babyracer 1
Exactly like Soyuz.
Colin Seftel 1
Not quite. Soyuz has dedicated launch abort rockets, mounted above the capsule, which are jettisoned after a successful launch, and separate landing rockets. Blue Origin's New Shepard capsule (and Space-X's Crew Dragon) have their launch abort systems mounted below the capsule, which allows them to combine these functions to save weight and improve re-usability.
babyracer 1
Sorry, I should have expanded (Fallout 4 induced sleep deprivation) - I meant to say both have soft-landing retros that fire immediately before touch-down. Sure beats the "watch that planet!! What planet? SPLAT!!" method of landing ;)
Dan Chiasson 1
Don't see anything wrong with the approach. Taking operational costs into effect, having a reusable launch unit makes a huge difference in having a business case that supports their model. Also, most likely less risk at this point in time in having the customers parachute back. Controlled landings, as NASA knows, is in its infancy with several spectacular failures.

Cheers , , ,
Ric Wernicke 2
Seems to me a rocket that lands under power that needs an asbestos surface to avoid burning a hole halfway to hell is of limited use. A device that comes down with a high altitude burn and an airfoil for lift makes more sense.

Never mind. I just described the space shuttle.
Mario Accardo 1
The space shuttle required a complicated system of solid and liquid rockets, and assembly process that took a couple of months to turn around. In addition to the complicated reassembly and time, it cost a lot of money to operate. Think of the reduced area of operation required to land thus rocket, versus gliding an airplane with its ceramic tiles, through a precise glide slope across the sky. This rocket is like an elevator to orbit. The control system demonstrated can probable be applied to rockets of greater size. Thus making this scalable for better economy. The STS has always been limited in scaling up.
Victor Engel 2
I think it would make more sense for a vehicle like this to have two or more arms that stick out on landing. This would be much more stable because the center of gravity would be below the thrust rather than above it.
Colin Seftel 1
Most of the deceleration from Mach 3.7 is done by air brakes, which are positioned at the top of the rocket for stability. With most of the fuel expended, I would guess that the weight at landing is concentrated near the motor and the landing leg attachment points are probably above the center of mass.
A Sellitto 1
Sure looks like it has 4 legs that stick out, just not a lot.
Jack Carson 2
Looks like the old science fiction movies where the rocket ship lands on Mars or Venus or wherever.
babyracer 2
No longer science fiction ;)
Flash Gordon, Buck Rogers, and Commander Cory Stayed with the main rocket. Maybe they had a better system?
30west 1
An updated version of an old technique, the Lunar Excursion Module, that was manually controlled by the pilot for landing versus computer control today. First done in July 1969 by LEM pilots Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin, then replicated by five other NASA crews over the following years. Well done gentlemen!!
Jared Smith 1
This was, in a way, much more difficult and complicated than the lunar landing due to the atmosphere that interacted with the exhaust plume in very powerful and non-intuitive ways.
Jeffrey Bue 1
Great achievement by BO. I just don't understand why neither BO or SX don't consider using chutes to slow the 1st stage booster instead of relying totally on an engine restart/thruster system. Maybe they have considered it and it's too complex.
Jared Smith 1
SpaceX tried a number of times to recover boosters using aero drag and parachutes. The boosters broke up or were damaged beyond the ability to deploy the parachutes during the initial uncontrolled atmospheric entry.


还没有帐户吗? 现在就注册(免费),设置诸多自定义功能、航班提醒等等!