Interesting: who was paying for the dummy contration launch pictured ? The
conical “missile” shape reminds of the Sprint ABM of the 70-ies:
http://www.nuclearabms.info/Sprint.html
During the nineties centrifugal launching was discussed briefly on AR.
Considered as a principle for space travel taking off from the lunar surface
f.i. or from some asteroid.
Dismissed only because of the bang of it hitting the atmosphere? Still, the
idea requires no propellant when considered as a first stage.
To make it to space or as an IBM, some chemical multi stage propulsion payload
would be still be required. So it was said then.
In those days liear light gas expansion tubes (not guns really) were also
tested for pneumatic launch. Not sufficiently powerful without a few rocket
stages to make it to orbit or ICBM interception.
Only an explosive gas compressor is necessary as most of the decompressed gas
could’ve been re-used after compression. On the lunar surface… Re-used, not
vented.
John
From: arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On ;
Behalf Of J. Cameron Cooper
Sent: woensdag 10 november 2021 18:01
To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [AR] Re: New Glen mock-up.
While I believe they have some stuff made with real tooling, this in particular
is a steel boilerplate version made by a local steel fab shop. It's destined
for ground handling tests and practice:
https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1457793865100902402?s=20
On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 10:15 AM Henry Vanderbilt <hvanderbilt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
I haven't been following New Glenn closely - I've had distractions - but it
seems obvious to me that IF this "dummy version" was built using some of the
same manufacturing processes and tooling as the flight vehicle - I'd guess so
from the photo but don't know - it's a very useful workup for the production
team, a chance to practice and get up to speed on building the main structures
where minor mistakes are not critical and easily corrected.
And if as seems very likely it has been built to the same dimensions and specs
as the flight first stage (and presumably had mass added to accurately simulate
the missing bits, engines, tanks etc) then it's also a very useful
workout/debugger tool for the (necessarily substantial) ground handling
arrangements for the flight boosters, again with much less worry about making
and correcting minor mistakes.
IOW, they only have to learn to avoid ONE flight-booster destroying error with
this test piece for it to more than pay for itself. Not so?
Henry
On 11/10/2021 4:45 AM, roxanna Mason wrote:
It's a moral booster not rocket,
Otherwise a waste of money,
Ken
On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 6:53 PM Anthony Cesaroni <anthony@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
https://www.geekwire.com/2021/blue-origin-practices-dummy-version-new-glenn-orbital-rocket-florida/
Anthony J. Cesaroni
President/CEO
Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
<http://www.cesaronitech.com/> http://www.cesaronitech.com/
(941) 360-3100 x1004 Sarasota
(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto
--
J Cameron Cooper
jccooper@xxxxxxxxx
jccooper@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:anything@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>