The cylinder in the middle is the launch abort motor. It is only supposed to fire in case of an emergency to pull the capsule away from the rocket launcher.
Normally, it would not even fire. Still its presence inside the passenger cabin is rather disconcerting. Moreover, it is a solid rocket motor. For solid motors, the combustion chamber is the entire rocket, so if a failure, i.e., a breech does occur it can happen anywhere along the motors length.
A Blue Origins video animation from 2015 shows the solid rocket escape motor with handholds at about the 2:25 point:
Be careful to mind your head while floating though!
The reason Blue Origin decided to put the abort motor inside the cabin likely was for reasons of positioning of the center of gravity(CG) with respect to the center of pressure(CP). A well known rocket stability rule of thumb is the center of pressure should be below the center of gravity.
The trunk and fins helped that for the SpaceX launch abort test by bringing the CP rearward:
But compare this to the Blue Origin abort test:
Notice that the capsule is gyrating while the rocket motor is firing. This would be very unpleasant for the passengers since they would be subjected to high g's while being thrown right and left, albeit while strapped in.
Then for these reasons I suggest giving the New Shepard a trunk with fins as has the SpaceX Dragon capsule.
This could be done by instead of having the ring structure at the top of the New Shepard stay attached to the New Shepard, let it act as the trunk for the capsule:
Then you would move the solid rocket abort motor down into this structure, so it is no longer inside the passenger compartment.
However, this ring structure does have a function as far as the landing of the New Shepard rocket; it holds the fins and the speed brakes used during the landing:
So how could we maintain those functions if that ring structure is instead attached to the capsule? Two possible approaches you could duplicate it so the New Shepard has its own as does the capsule.
Or another possibility would be to have the ring structure only detach along with the capsule only during an abort scenario. For the normal launch, with no abort, the ring structure would stay attached to the New Shepard rocket, carrying also inside the abort motor, while the capsule detaches for the normal flight to suborbital space.
But if there is a need for an abort, the solid rocket abort motor would fire carrying the ring structure and the capsule away from the New Shepard. In this scenario where there would need to be an abort presumably there would be a failure of the New Shepard anyway and you would not expect to recover it.
Blue Origin scored another first by successfully relaunching their vertical landing New Shepard suborbital rocket:
In the blog post "Triple Cored New Shepard as an orbital vehicle", I suggested using three cores of the New Shepard rocket with a small upper stage could form an orbital launcher. However Jonathan Goff on his blog page SelenianBoondocks raised the possibility a single New Shepard could serve as the first stage booster of an orbital rocket:
I think it should be doable using a similar small cryogenic upper stage as for the triple-cored case. The stage I suggested there was the cryogenic upper stage of the Ariane 4, the Ariane H10-3, or one developed by Blue Origin similar to it. It had a dry mass of 1,240 kg and a propellant mass of 11,860 kg. The Isp was 445 s with a vacuum thrust of 64.8 kN. However, simply using a nozzle extension as on the RL-10B-2 can give it likewise an Isp of 462 s and vacuum thrust of 110 kN. So we'll use these values.
To make the estimate of the payload we need the vacuum values for the Isp and thrust of the BE-3 engine. In the "Triple Cored New Shepard as an orbital vehicle" blog post I estimated these to be 360 s and 568.8 kN respectively.
However, to loft the vehicle with the additional weight of the upper stage we'll need to increase the BE-3 thrust slightly. This should doable. For instance the SSME’s could operate at 109% of their originally rated thrust, and the Merlin 1D had a 15% thrust upgrade. So say the BE-3 vacuum thrust is increased 9% to 620 kN, keeping the same Isp.
Now use Dr. John Schilling's payload estimator program. For the "Restartable upper stage" option check "No", otherwise the payload will be reduced. Select Cape Canaveral as the launch site and enter 28.5 for the launch inclination in degrees to match the latitude of the launch site. Then the calculator gives the result:
Mission Performance:
Launch Vehicle:
User-Defined Launch Vehicle
Launch Site:
Cape Canaveral / KSC
Destination Orbit:
185 x 185 km, 28 deg
Estimated Payload:
1690 kg
95% Confidence Interval:
1298 - 2153 kg
"Payload" refers to complete payload system weight, including any necessary payload attachment fittings or multiple payload adapters
This is an estimate based on the best publicly-available engineering and performance data, and should not be used for detailed mission planning. Operational constraints may reduce performance or preclude this mission.
Altitude Compensation to Increase Payload.
As I discussed in the "Triple Cored New Shepard as an orbital vehicle" blog post, altitude compensation provides a simple, low cost method of improving payload. For instance by attaching a nozzle extension the vacuum Isp of the BE-3 can be increased to the 462 s range of the RL-10B-2 engine. The vacuum thrust will then be increased proportionally to (462/360)*620 = 796 kN.
Then the Schilling calculator gives the result:
Mission Performance:
Launch Vehicle:
User-Defined Launch Vehicle
Launch Site:
Cape Canaveral / KSC
Destination Orbit:
185 x 185 km, 28 deg
Estimated Payload:
2324 kg
95% Confidence Interval:
1841 - 2895 kg
"Payload" refers to complete payload system weight, including any necessary payload attachment fittings or multiple payload adapters
This is an estimate based on the best publicly-available engineering and performance data, and should not be used for detailed mission planning. Operational constraints may reduce performance or preclude this mission.
Bob Clark
UPDATE, Feb. 28, 2016:
This considered an Ariane hydrolox upper stage as the upper stage for this New Shepard launcher. This would be problematical since it would be a direct competitor to Arianespace's Vega rocket at a much lower cost than the Vega's $35 million.
Blue Origin very likely could develop a hydrolox upper stage that would be cheaper than the Ariane one. But that would take time and significant development cost. Instead of that, Blue Origin could produce a New Shepard derived launcher for cubesats at minimal extra development cost since the required small upper stages already exist.
Existing upper stages that could work would be the large Star solid rocket upper stages such as the Star 63F:
Considering the quoted prices there, this New Shepard based launcher very likely could beat these prices especially using the reusable New Shepard.
And since the upper stage already exists, it very likely would also beat to launch these other systems still in development.
About the quick route to operational status of this orbital rocket, I think it is significant that Blue Origin was able to beat SpaceX on a relaunch of its returned booster. The argument has been made that New Shepard is not an orbital launcher. But if Blue Origin developed this orbital launcher from New Shepard then they would be able to beat SpaceX at reusing a booster for a true orbital launcher as well.
My opinion is SpaceX will have difficulty with getting their booster to land in reliable fashion as long as it does not have hovering ability. And because the New Shepard does have hovering ability it will be more reliable as a reusable booster.
BTW, as Blue Origin develops its large high performance dense propellant engines, it will have the same problem as SpaceX it getting its booster to be able to hover, resulting in the same problem of reduced reliability on landing. For this reason I think Blue Origin should investigate methods of giving its large planned boosters hovering ability such as discussed here:
Blue Origin made a significant achievement in successfully landing their New Shepard rocket after a suborbital spaceflight:
As their next development Blue Origin intends to make a several million pound thrust rocket capable of sending 25 metric tons to LEO. This would be a very large and expensive development for their first orbital rocket, comparable in size to the largest orbital rockets available now, larger for example than the Falcon 9. I suggest an intermediate development for their first orbital rocket. Running the numbers, their New Shepard suborbital rocket could be used to make an orbital rocket using three cores with a smaller upper stage, a la the Delta IV Heavy. It would have a payload to LEO in the range of 3,000 kg, about the size of the Arianespace Vega rocket. The Vega costs in the range of $35 million. Considering the small size of the New Shepard, even at three cores, Blue Origin should be able to beat this price. Moreover, this version would have the capability to be reusable. SpaceX is planning to make the three cores of the Falcon Heavy reusable by returning the two side cores to the launch site and recovering the central core by a barge landing out at sea. Quite likely this would work for a 3-cored New Shepard launcher as well. Specifications of the New Shepard BE-3 engine.
Here's a formula for calculating the sea level thrust from the vacuum thrust and back pressure: F = q × Ve + (Pe - Pa) × Ae where F = Thrust q = Propellant mass flow rate Ve = Velocity of exhaust gases Pe = Pressure at nozzle exit Pa = Ambient pressure Ae = Area of nozzle exit http://www.braeunig.us/space/sup1.htm Estimating the nozzle exit diameter as 1 meter, the exit plane area would be: π*0.5^2 = .7854. Then the back pressure to be subtracted off would be 101,000Pa*.7854 = 79,325 N. Blue Origin has given the sea level thrust as 110,000 lb, 110,000*4.45 = 489,500 N. So the vacuum thrust is 489,500N + 79,325N = 568,825 N. We also need to calculate the Isp. One other piece of information will allow us to calculate this. This Blue Origin page gives the horsepower of the BE-3 as over 1,000,000 hp: https://www.blueorigin.com/technology The power of a jet or rocket engine is (1/2)*(thrust)*(exhaust velocity). The 1,000,000 hp at sea level is 1,000,000*746 = 746,000,000 watts. Then using the formula the exhaust velocity at sea level is 3,048 m/s, and the Isp is 310 s.
Since (thrust) = (exhaust velocity)*(propellant flow rate), we also get the propellant flow rate as 489,500/3,048 = 160.6 kg/s. Now we can get the exhaust velocity and Isp at vacuum. From the 568,825 N vacuum thrust, we get the vacuum exhaust velocity as 568,825 N/160.6 = 3,540 m/s, and the vacuum Isp as 360 s. It is interesting that the diameter and sea level and vacuum Isp's are close to those of the RL-10A5, the sea level version of the RL-10 used on the DC-X: http://www.astronautix.com/engines/rl10a5.htm Size Specifications for the New Shepard. The Blue Origin environmental impact statement: Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment for the Blue Origin West Texas Launch Site. February 2014 https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/media/Blue_Origin_Supplemental_EA_and_FONSI.pdf
on p. 4 lists the max dry mass as 30,000 pounds (13,600 kg) and max propellant load as 60,000 pounds (27,300 kg). This corresponds to estimates made of the New Shepard gross mass based on its dimensions.
We need also a small upper stage. The cryogenic upper stage of the Ariane 4 will suit the purpose, the Ariane H10-3. It had a dry mass of 1,240 kg and a propellant mass of 11,860 kg. The Isp was 445 s with a vacuum thrust of 64.8 kN. However, simply using a nozzle extension as on the RL-10B-2 can give it likewise an Isp of 462 s and vacuum thrust of 110 kN. So we'll use these values.
Use now Dr. John Schilling's Launch Performance Calculator to estimate the payload. We'll also use cross-feed fueling to increase the payload. Cross-feed fueling is not an unknown technology having been used on jet aircraft such as the Concorde for decades and also on the Space Shuttle's OMS engines.
To emulate cross-feed fueling with the Schilling calculator for two side boosters, enter in 2/3rds of the actual propellant load into the propellant field for the side boosters. And for the central core enter in (1 + 2/3) times the propellant load in the field for the first stage. (See discussion here for explanation of how the Schilling calculator emulates cross-feed fueling.)
So in the dry mass fields for the side boosters and first stage enter 13,600 kg. And in the propellant field for the side boosters enter 18,200 kg and 45,500 kg for the first stage. For the second stage enter 11,860 kg for the propellant and 1,240 kg for the dry mass.
In the thrust fields and Isp fields enter in the vacuum values. So for the side boosters and first stage enter 568.8 for the thrust in kilonewtons and 110 for the second stage. In the Isp fields enter 360 for the side boosters and first stage Isp in seconds and 462 for the second stage.
For the "Restartable upper stage" option check "No", otherwise the payload will be reduced. Select Cape Canaveral as the launch site and enter 28.5 for the launch inclination in degrees to match the latitude of the launch site.
The calculator gives:
Mission Performance:
Launch Vehicle:
User-Defined Launch Vehicle
Launch Site:
Cape Canaveral / KSC
Destination Orbit:
185 x 185 km, 28 deg
Estimated Payload:
3420 kg
95% Confidence Interval:
2766 - 4205 kg
"Payload" refers to complete payload system weight, including any necessary payload attachment fittings or multiple payload adapters
This is an estimate based on the best publicly-available engineering and performance data, and should not be used for detailed mission planning. Operational constraints may reduce performance or preclude this mission.
This would be using an Arianespace upper stage. But this would be a competitor to their Vega launcher so that is problematical. Blue Origin could use instead the Rl-10B2 engine and their own constructed upper stage. The RL-10 though is a rather expensive engine. Another possibility is the 25,000 lb thrust hydrolox engine being developed by XCOR. Altitude Compensation Increases Payload Even for Multistage Vehicles. It is unfortunate that SSTO's have (incorrectly) been deemed unviable. Since altitude compensation has only been thought of in terms of improving the payload of SSTO's, little research has gone into such methods, with SSTO's not being considered worthwhile.
However, in point of fact altitude compensation improves the payload even for multistage rockets. As with the RL-10B-2 we can get a vacuum Isp of 462 s on the New Shepard hydrolox engine simply by the addition of a nozzle extension. Other methods of accomplishing it are discussed in the blog post "Altitude compensation attachments for standard rocket engines, and applications."
Increasing the Isp will also increase the thrust proportionally. So at a 462 s Isp for the BE-3, the thrust becomes 568.8*(462/360) = 730 kN. Entering these values into the thrust and Isp fields for the side boosters and first stage gives the result:
Mission Performance:
Launch Vehicle:
User-Defined Launch Vehicle
Launch Site:
Cape Canaveral / KSC
Destination Orbit:
185 x 185 km, 28 deg
Estimated Payload:
5302 kg
95% Confidence Interval:
4359 - 6438 kg
"Payload" refers to complete payload system weight, including any necessary payload attachment fittings or multiple payload adapters
This is an estimate based on the best publicly-available engineering and performance data, and should not be used for detailed mission planning. Operational constraints may reduce performance or preclude this mission.
This now is a serious payload capability. Note for example NASA awarded Orbital Sciences with a billion dollar contract to deliver payload to the ISS with their Antares rocket with a 5,000 kg payload to LEO capacity.
Bob Clark
UPDATE, February, 3, 2016:
Jonathan Goff on his SelenianBoondocks.com blog raised the possibility that a single New Shepard could serve as a booster for an orbital rocket. I confirmed it could at the 1 to 2 metric ton payload range by using the same type of hydrolox upper stage as discussed above in the triple-cored case:
It could also serve as a booster for a smaller launcher by using instead one of the Star solid rocket upper stages, giving a few hundred kilos payload. This would have the advantage that little extra development would be required.
Plus, it may allow Blue Origin to beat SpaceX at reusing a booster for an orbital launcher.
Blue Origin successfully landed their New Shepard rocket after reaching suborbital space:
Observing the last portion of the video showing the landing, deviations from the vertical are visible but the ability to hover allowed it sufficient time to correct.
Comparing this to the SpaceX Falcon 9 failed attempts at landing it is apparent the inability to hover for the F9 did not allow it sufficient time to make the needed corrections.
SpaceX has said they want their next test landing to be on land at the launch site. My opinion, they might succeed on the next test or two but they will always have failures without hovering ability.
Merlins in a pressure-fed mode.
Achieving hovering is not even difficult. In the blog post "Hovering capability for the reusable Falcon 9, page 2: Merlin engines in a pressure-fed mode?" I suggested giving the Merlin the ability to run in a pressure-fed mode. The question was whether this was technically feasible. I found in fact that this process of giving a turbopump powered engine a pressure-fed mode, called an idle mode, had been successfully tested during the Apollo days on the J-2 upper stage engine.
In giving the J-2 an idle mode though, it was changed from the gas generator cycle that is used by the Merlin 1D to a tap-off cycle:
In this idle mode though the thrust is significantly less than at full thrust, only 3% in the LE-5 case. If it is a similar low percentage for the Merlin's then all 9 engines would have to be used in this idle mode to allow it to hover on landing.
The idle mode has an additional advantage since it does not use the turbopumps. It could be used to burn both residual liquid propellant and gases in the tanks. This would mean much less residual fluid would be left in the tank. This then reduces the amount of propellant that needs to be kept on reserve for the landing.
Elon Musk has also recently said in his Twitter account that the F9 first stage has single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) capability. For an SSTO the residuals in a first stage can subtract a significant amount from the payload it can deliver to orbit. Then the ability to run in an idle mode with minimal residuals left over can significantly increase the payload for an SSTO. So this would be a further advantage of giving the Merlins an idle mode.
Hovering by use of flexible nozzle extensions. In the blog post "Altitude compensation attachments for standard rocket engines, and applications", I discussed another method of achieving hovering capability, attaching nozzle extensions to the bottom of the engines that would allow restriction of the thrust. The flexible high temperature materials already exist in the reentry materials used in NASA's Inflatable Re-entry Vehicle Experiment (IRVE). This has the advantage that the nozzle extension would have to only be applied to the one central engine to reduce its thrust on landing.
However, the extendable nozzle attachments also have an advantage to the SSTO case. By using an extension that can be retracted at launch and fully extended at high altitude, you can get engines usable at sea level that can reach the high vacuum Isp's usually reserved for upper stage engines. In this way the 311 s vacuum Isp of the Merlin 1D can be raised to the same level of 340 s as the Merlin Vacuum. An increase in the vacuum Isp to this extent can as much as double the payload of a SSTO.
Note that both of these techniques, idle mode or flexible nozzle extensions, would mean hovering capability can actually increase the payload rather than reduce it.
