Talk:New Shepard/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

DYK

++Lar: t/c 15:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

links and info

The extarnal link document refers to "space travel participants" throughout and also references the DC-X which had a crew of three and no passenger capacity. After re-reading, I believe this means: space travel participants (total personnel on board) = crew + passengers. Also, powered verticle-landing passenger vehicles are unusual enough that you might want to put more emphasis on that. Also, I recently worked on IOS, a nearly identical company that uses different design philosophy; would it be appropriate to link the two articles as they are so closely related? Just some thoughts to try and help you towards your DYK bid :) --Doc Tropics 19:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Indeed, I went back to the document and Blue Origin is using the term "space flight participants", which is the exact term used by NASA to designate the three tourists who have already flown to the ISS (Tito, Shuttleworth, Olsen). So I think that space flight participants should be the space tourists themselves. Anyway since the number of paying passengers is critical to the business plan of such a project, I understand quite well that Blue Origin does not want to disclose too clealy such an information. IOS goes to a disambiguation page ??? Thanks a lot, please edit the page to improve it, I think it is an interesting topic ! Hektor 19:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I see your point about participant/tourists...you convinced me. As for the link I suggested, not only does IOS link to a disambig page, the article I worked on Interorbital Systems isn't even listed there! I guess I need to fix that. I agree that this is a very interesting topic; I suspect that the future of space travel is in the hands of individual companies like these rather than government agencies. Your article is informative and well written; good luck to you :) --Doc Tropics 00:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Confusing tense and other questions

Hello, the article says this is a planned spacecraft, but he present tense is used throught - such as "The New Shepard launches vertically..." Has it ever been launched? If not, future tense would be more appropriate. When is the first launch? What is the name of the launch facility which it plans to use for launches? Our article on spaceport does not seem to mention a site in Texas so this site should be added to that article. Has it been licensed yet by the FAA? Thanks for helping me with these questions. Johntex\talk 01:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

There may be confusion because the New Shepard is basically a newer version of the DC-X, which did have 8 successful (more or less) test flights. As far as I can tell, the New Shepard itself is still in the design and licensing stage. --Doc Tropics 02:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

But this article isn't about the DC-X. If the New Shepard has never flown, then references to its flights should be in the future tense. Do you know anything about my questions related to the spaceport they plan to use or where it stands in getting FAA approval? Johntex\talk 04:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You're right that those segments should be written in the future tense; I was just trying to explain the possible confusion that the author might have had, but I didn't want to take it upon myself to do a rewrite. I did try to check the company's current licensing status but didn't get far. When I confirmed the licensing of IOS through the FAA it took bloody hours, so I'm inclined to let the author pursue that on his own :) --Doc Tropics 05:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Oh, I re-read my comments and I realize I sounded snippy. I'm sorry about that. I didn't mean to be rude. I'll re-write the tense and we'll see if anyone comes up with the other info. Thanks! Johntex\talk 05:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
No problem JT, it's hard to emote well in text. Besides, you were right. --Doc Tropics 05:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

New link

I added a "Related article" link. Feel free to delete if inappropriate. --Doc Tropics 02:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


Name change

  • What is the rationale for the change in the name of the article ? I thought the convention was name of the aerospace company + name of the vehicle... like Boeing 707 or Orbital Sciences X-34. Isn't it no longer the case ? Thanks for clarifying. Hektor 04:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I have switched back.. Hektor 13:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


Orbit ?

  • All the discussion about reentry from orbit and heat shield stuff seems odd to me. If you do a suborbital tourist vehicle you don't go to orbit and you barely go beyond Mach 3. So a coat of paint is enough you don't need a heat shield and stuff. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.56.37.1 (talk) 11:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Agreed. The article seems confused whether it is a SUBorbital vehicle or an orbital vehicle. The mission section indicates that it is suborbital (straight vertical ascent - with 100kms apogee). Yet other sections indicate it is orbital ("single stage to orbit" category, mentions of heat shielding and orbital mathematics). Roidroid (talk) 03:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Propellant Issues

The article states that New Shepard will use a Kerosene / Hydrogen Peroxide combination. It may be worth exploring the technical trade-offs this implies. The Specific impulse will be lower than with the liquid hydrogen / liquid oxygen combination used in DC-X, the Space Shuttle and the Ariane launcher series. However, it is denser, therefore reducing the tank mass, and is technically less demanding. Peroxide is nasty stuff and requires great care in handling it, but the British Black Knight launcher used the same fuel combination successfully.

Reliability and ease of operation arguably trump performance when you are considering a sub-orbital spacecraft designed for space tourism.

However, Blue Origin's stated goal on their website is to lower the cost of space flight and enable exploration of the Solar System. New Shepard is only the first step. They are now hiring engineers with experience of cryogenic rocket engines, and it is a reasonable inference that the next step will be an orbital spacecraft. Of course, even reasonable inferences may be inappropriate here.

See Delft University of Technology "Comparison of liquid, solid and hybrid chemical rockets"

PeterAtJET 00:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Veil Lifts Slightly on Secretive Blue Origin Rocket Project

At the recent Boulder confab on the use of suborbital space by researchers, the veil was lifted just a bit. Here is the link to the 26 Feb 2010 article by Leonard David on Space.com. N2e (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

DC-X details and picture

Why is the design section filled with so much DC-X guff? I can't see any of it applying to the Blue Shepard. Blue Shepard is not based on the DC-X, it doesn't share any design traits (except for being VTVL.) And some of it is even self-contradicting.

  • Its appearance and technical concept are similar to the DC-X. Except, As a result, the craft is much "rounder" than the DC-X and so The resulting craft looks something like a scaled-up version of the Apollo Command Module and thus nothing like the DC-X in the photo or description.
  • Likewise the long winded discussion of cross-range and polar orbits is just confusing. In this case when the spacecraft returns to its launch area after one orbit. No, "in this case" the Blue Shepard is a sub-orbital hopper, it goes pretty much straight up, straight down, there is no orbit.

I understand the love for the DC-X, I thought it was a cool project too, but if you want people to read about the DC-X, include a link to that article in the see-also. If you want to discuss cross-range issues, go to that article. Why is any of it in this article?
-- PaulxSA (talk) 22:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

New photos of the "second test vehicle" released

Blue Origin just released several new photos of the "second test vehicle", they can be seen on the Blue Origin website. Perhaps a "fair use" rationale could be made to utilize one of these photos in this article. I will leave it for other editors more familiar with the arcane Wikipedia image policy to make that call.

Requesting a photo. Cheers. N2e (talk) 23:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

What is the scope of "Blue Shepard"?

Is Blue Shepard just the capsule, or is it a descriptor that applies to the entire suborbital booster vehicle and the capsule atop it? The take we have in the article currently is that it is both; but it time to assess how the secretive company and major media are referring to it following the 27 April 2015 successful test flight.

This is relevant now that Blue Origin just flew both on a successful attempt to reach space, as it has commonly been defined over the past five or six decades.

I'll watch for sources that clarify, or confirm, over the coming days as media coverage of this test event proliferates. N2e (talk) 18:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, found more info today. It appears rather clearly from these two sources that Blue Origin intends the term New Shepard to apply to the totality of both the "capsule" and the "propulsion module".

Competition with SS2

According to [1] BONS and VGSS2 are in direct competition to make the first commercial spaceflight -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 07:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Pictures

Why are there no pictures? Can't just someone make a photograph and give permissive license to it? 2A02:8388:1600:A880:BE5F:F4FF:FECD:7CB2 (talk) 19:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Move to New Shepard?

Is it just me or should this page be titled "New Shepard"? Blue Origin is the name of the company that manufacturers it. I don't think we usually include the manufacturer in the article title for rockets (e.g. Falcon 9). NickCT (talk) 15:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

NickCT, I think you are correct, but I'm a bit unsure. You might want to ask over at WP:WikiProject Spaceflight to get the attention of a few editors familiar with such things. Or could just be bold, do the move, and see if it sticks. N2e (talk) 13:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Whoops. I see that you subsequently did do the move. And it seems to have stuck. Good on you. N2e (talk) 13:53, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
@N2e: - Thanks for weighing-in. As you saw, I made the move after no one objected here. I like you am a bit unsure if this was right. Titles for aircraft sometimes include manufacturer (e.g. Ayres LM200 Loadmaster) and I think this is something we do as matter of policy. Not sure if the same rule applies to rockets, but having glanced at a few other pages, it doesn't appear to be.
Anyways, probably not a conversation worth raising too much fuss about...... NickCT (talk) 15:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I'm a bit familiar with that. The Aircraft Wikiproject has tended to go with a "Manufacturer AircraftName" approach to naming. It is not 100%, but close. I believe the Spaceflight project, and most spaceflight-related articles, have gone with just the name of the launch vehicle or spacecraft. Cheers. N2e (talk) 15:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Most spacerockets are government projects, hence, no need to name the primary contractor since the primary design is a government design. The legacy of that carried over, so that spacerocket articles have the unusual naming pattern that does not match commercial product articles. All other commercial products are named "Manufacturer Model" if disambiguation is needed. The era of private commerce rocket designs is now dawning, so those products should be treated just as any other commercial product, instead of as a government project. This particular article isn't ambiguous though, so would be similar to the Filet-O-Fish; or if it is a primary topic like the Whopper; unlike the disambiguated Burger King chicken nuggets -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 12:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Needs to be updated to relevant info - Reflects Marketing by Blue Origin more than reality

Reference the article that is linked in the "First Vertical Soft Landing" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VTVL

The historic is irrelevant or at best inaccurate to the reality. Needs to be adjusted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.206.254.50 (talk) 19:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Word 'historic' only appears in title of a reference. Non Blue origin reference is also given both times this is linked. It may have been played up in some previous versions and possibly also by Blue Origin. However, what is in this article now seems accurate, referenced and reasonable. I don't see any contradiction with VTVL page. Inclined to think contradictions note should be removed. crandles (talk) 15:14, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Launch and landing of booster stage

Here's the PopMech writeup of the first stage flight with comparison with the SpaceX Orbcomm 2 mission [2]
-- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. That is the best (albeit brief and non-technical) coverage in a reliable source that looks at the comparison of the two accomplishments. From an economic point of view however, with the two companies aimed at different objectives in the short run, both are significant accomplishments in the history of human spacefligt technology. N2e (talk) 13:53, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Landing photos?

Are there any photos available of the 2015 VTVL landing that we can use? It would be good to have one we could use in the VTVL article. -- The Anome (talk) 13:30, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Anome, I very much agree with you. The article would be MUCH improved with a still shot, or short video clip, of the historic landing from November 2015. An editor with video experience could probably capture such from the video Blue Origin released, but not sure it would be licensable to Wikipedia without Blue Origin releasing it with an appropriate license. Possibly WP:Fair Use? N2e (talk) 13:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on New Shepard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Date formats

I don't understand the policy rationale for this major edit one month ago (diff), by User:Elisfkc.

The edit summary is: 2017-12-17T17:26:48‎ Elisfkc (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (37,747 bytes) (+461)‎ . . (Filled in 1 bare reference(s) with reFill (), date formats per MOS:DATEFORMAT by script)

There is no rationale provided in MOS:DATEFORMAT for changing all dd mmmm yyyy date formats to the US-preferred mmmm dd, yyyy format. We are a global encyclopedia and there is no preference given in policy for US styles here.

MOS:DATEFORMAT allows both date formats, and this article has been using the dd mmmm yyyy date format for years now, since it was new. For example, look at the state of the article in 2007, shortly after it was initially fleshed out, here. Once an article has a predominant style, there would be no justification to change it unless a Talk page consensus to do so had formed.

I think this is an erroneous edit, and should be undone.

However, the simple undo function won't work for me as there have been too many intermediate edits without anyone catching this breach of editing policy.

User:Elisfkc, can you use the tools you used to make the edit to fix the edit? ... and use the format this article has been used in this article from the beginning, a format explicitly allowed by MOS:DATEFORMAT. Or if you think I'm missing something, lets discuss. Cheers. N2e (talk) 15:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@N2e: Both versions are acceptable per MOS:DATEFORMAT, but one should be used throughout. I thought I saw that mdy was being used some, so I set it to that. However, looking back, I am wrong, so I will switch it to dmy. Elisfkc (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. And thanks User:Elisfkc for being agreeable and using your handy tool to help set things straight. N2e (talk) 02:52, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Landing platform, size and weight?

How is this landed, what about sizes and weight of the reusable vehicles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mideal (talk • contribs) 15:23, 31 January 2018 (UTC) (Sorry, didn't recognize I was loggin in as I didn't want to with this IE instance). WTF did the signature button go here?--Mideal (talk) 15:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

March/April 2017 long interviews with Jeff Bezos: more New Shepard info

It does not appear that these have been noted here before. Bezos is continuing his pattern, begun in 2015, of actually talking relatively freely, and taking interview questions, about his space interests and entrepreneurial venture. After 15 years of being extremely limited in releasing information.

There is quite a bit of New Shepard info in both of these, especially in the first video. N2e (talk) 03:31, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

In-flight abort test (closed)

There was another test flight of the NS3 on 6 April, but it gained very little media attention, probably partly due to VSS Unity's test flight one day before and partly because Jeff Bezos is very modest and doesn't...well...inform about his flights much as long as no tourists fly. This is why there are so few sources and info about this month's NS3 test flight. I can't find them anymore, nor the video of it. I'll go on searching for sources, maybe you also find one. Because the in-flight abort test flight really occured. --212.186.7.98 (talk) 09:47, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Alright, finally I've found it (through my browser record): [3] --212.186.7.98 (talk) 09:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
There's no date in the source, but you can learn it through Google. --212.186.7.98 (talk) 11:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Alright, there's a date mentioned below. Google must be buggy. But there was no need of suspecting me being a troll. Google showed the wrong date. --212.186.7.98 (talk) 11:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Statistics

Should we add a section of launch statistics for the flight test program? Maybe Launch Outcomes and Landing Outcomes. Cheers! UnknownM1 (talk) 14:32, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Article does not give masses

Would be great if article could list empty and fuelled mass of propulsion module, and empty and crewed mass of capsule. If BO have not published figures can we give any published estimates ? - Rod57 (talk) 11:26, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Some estimates for propulsion module from 4 years ago [4] : About 20,000 kg propellant, about 10,000 kg empty mass.
LouScheffer calculates : "Total takeoff mass is 34,600 kg or so. 19,000 kg of fuel is used for the trip uphill, leaving a mass of 15,600 kg at cutoff. The 3,600 kg capsule is jettisoned leaving 12,000 kg, composed of 2,000 kg fuel for landing plus 10,000 kg for the empty booster." NSF New Shepard.
- Rod57 (talk) 12:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Units

I think the table looks very cluttered with the apogee being reported in feet, miles, and kilometres. If nobody objects I'll cut it down to miles and kilometres only. Tercer (talk) 18:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Since nobody objected I did it. Tercer (talk) 07:43, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Full flight list - Apogee

Where all flights, which have not mentioned the apogee for the capsule, flown without a capsule? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.248.253.110 (talk) 07:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Mark Bezos

Generally the first individuals on a new spacecraft get their own article. Hektor (talk) 12:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Several of the Soviet cosmonauts in the 70s and 80s don't. As more and more people go into space, that will probably become the norm.
Flights usually do get their own pages, though.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.91.66 (talk • contribs) 08:43, June 7, 2021 (UTC)
I have checked : all Soviet cosmonauts in the 70s and 80s who actually went to space have their own article. Of course you are going to answer with back-ups and unflown guys for medical reasons. So I think that does not constitute a sound precedent. Furthermore we are talking about the crew of the first crewed flight of a new vehicle, not some random flight. Hektor (talk) 16:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Also it is probably the first case of two siblings launching together to space. Hektor (talk) 09:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

July 20, 2021, flight

We should name the four passengers. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Parachute on propulsion module?

Does the propulsion module also use parachutes before landing? AxelBoldt (talk) 20:14, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

You mean the booster? No it doesn't, the landing is purely propulsive. Tercer (talk) 21:13, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

AGL or MSL?

The altitude indicator on the live stream seemed to portray altitude in AGL (above ground level) rather than sea level, right? Van Horn has an elevation of more than 4,000 ft but the indicator has shown around 0 (and even negative altitude) close to the ground. Therefore, are the values for the list of flights in AGL or in MSL? If the former, one should edit the list to state the MSL altitudes. 213.142.97.55 (talk) 06:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Success or failure of test flights

On list of Spacex starship flights it was decided that we didn't know SpaceX's objectives in anywhere near the level of detail required to be able to say whether test flight were successful or not. Shouldn't the same apply here so we shouldn't be saying whether test flights are success failure or partial success. C-randles (talk) 20:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Capsule

The "vehicle" list is only listing boosters, it should be split into "Booster" and "Capsule" to list the capsules, since the capsules and vehicles can be interchanged, and seemingly were, since Capsule 1.0 was used with multiple boosters. It should list RSS Jules Verne, RSS H.G. Wells, and RSS First Step, as which capsule was in use for which flight. -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 04:30, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Booster

Are all flights flown with the same booster? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.248.245.122 (talk • contribs) 07:41, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

No. If you read the article, there's several propulsion modules listed. -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 03:03, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_Shepard/Archive_1&oldid=1198435606"