OK, I put "spaceship" in quotation marks because it only went up 285 feet, then came back down. But Blue Origin, the spaceship company started by Amazon.com’s megarich Jeff Bezos, has been really secretive about their hardware.
They finally released pictures and video of their test launch, which was in November of last year (yes, this was all released last week, but I’ve been busy). I have to say, it’s pretty cool. The stubby lander goes up, then comes right back down, but they have multiple views including from the side, from below, and looking straight down (probably my favorite).
Funny. As soon as I saw the craft, I recognized it. I mean, instantly. Guys around my age may remember this little beauty:
Yes, the Estes model rocket Mars Lander. I say guys, because when I was into model rockets, there were no girls into it. I mean none. Gosh, I was so cool back then. Sigh.
Anyway, the Mars Lander really was nifty. The legs were on rubber bands or springs, so they absorbed the shock of landing. It was really difficult to build (Skill Level 4 or 5, the highest) and I remember it taking me forever to build it. It never flew well, and I got so frustrated with it that a friend of mine — who was into remote controlled model planes — and I mounted an RC propeller on it and launched it that way. I remember it clearly. It went up about thirty feet, tipped over, and plummeted to the ground.
Sniff. Memories.
Anyway, the Blue Origin (hmmm, BO?) test flight went pretty well. There is very little info on that site about anything, let alone future flights and all that. If I find more I’ll post it.
January 11th, 2007 at 12:23 am
Yeah, I remember that little ‘gem’ all too well. Flew about as good as a rock with a C6-7 strapped to it.
Mine only flew once…if you call it flying. Went up about 40 feet then took a sharp turn to the left and corkscrewed itself into the ground after which the ejection charge deployed the now useless parachute. But it sure did look cool before I launched it. Ahhhh…the good old days. LOL! I am glad however that Blue Origins craft did not suffer the same fate. It may not have gone up very far but it was impressive. Small steps can lead to giant leaps.
January 11th, 2007 at 1:31 am
I can’t remember which company developed it, but back maybe ten or so ago when they were looking to replace the current space shuttle, one of the craft demonstrated was very similar (I’d say identical, but I believe it was a bit more tall & narrow) to this. I did quite a bit of scouring but have not managed to come up with it. Anybody recognize it?
January 11th, 2007 at 3:56 am
You’re probably thinking about the DC-X or Delta Clipper. See here or just google it for more
January 11th, 2007 at 5:33 am
I had that one too. I was a skill level five. It was one of the rockets that helped me get to the top level in the Estes Aerospace Club. I think that I may still have that rocket lying around in my attic somewhere.
January 11th, 2007 at 6:37 am
I’m your age Phil, and I still occasionally buy one of those Estes designer kits and build a home-brew model and see what happens.
I’ve had some very successful models, and some spectacular, send-the-crowd-running failures (if it’s a weird design, I fire with A and 1/2 A first, just in case), which is probably a good reason why I didn’t go into professional rocket design
Just looking around my computer room, I have two model rockets that are launchable. It’s always a crowd pleaser when I fire them at a big soccer park in town, even if they sometimes might have to duck a bit.
I have been thinking up a plan for a model rocket with a tiny computer, GPS receiver and servos aboard that can be launched, deploy wings at apex and glide back to wherever it needs to be. It’s mechanically possible, but I’m not convinced I can do it within a hobbyist budget (or get the thing to even fly with the limitations on model rocket engines here in the great white north).
January 11th, 2007 at 7:02 am
Hey, I resent this “guys” business. I posted a picture of my Estes rocket exhaust plume on BAUT some time ago. Yes, I did lose my Skill Level 1 Der Big Red Max because I put two much engine power on it and it was windier than I thought, but hey, I tried. We never found it. My other rocket was quite successful, though. (And no, I didn’t put the skull & crossbones on the Red Max – I wasn’t that weird).
I had an odd boyfriend then, but he didn’t help me with the rockets. So, I guess I was cool back then, too. So there!
January 11th, 2007 at 7:04 am
Jr Keller said:
I had that one too. I was a skill level five. It was one of the rockets that helped me get to the top level in the Estes Aerospace Club.
Braggart!
January 11th, 2007 at 7:18 am
I didn’t have the lander (though I wanted it), but I did build – and fly – once – the Saturn 1b. The 3′ tall one. It was worse.
So much bloody paint on it, probably needed much more than the engines it had – I think it was two Ds? this was a very, very long time ago. I think it may have achieved 20′ – exactly once.
Jack
January 11th, 2007 at 8:14 am
you could launch the Saturn model (the one we had anyway) with 2 D or 5 C. I saw it go with 5C.
Go is the operative word. It was a much better model flyer than model impactor and didn’t survive the first flight.
I think my longest lived kit was an Estes Cobra 1500. 1.5m tall. Got dozens of flights out of it before it finally gave up the ghost.
January 11th, 2007 at 8:28 am
As far as girls in model rocketry; I have two daughters who love to launch and recover but have absolutely no interest in building.
The last time we launched it was a little windy and the rocket landed at the other end of the park. These two little punks about 8 or 10 years old came out of nowhere, grabbed our rocket and took off on bikes with it.
I can only hope it inspired them to pursue the hobby.
January 11th, 2007 at 8:35 am
I don’t recall having the 5 C option – was that a later addition? Did they use the tubes along the side? It makes a lot of sence really – but after my one flight, I didn’t have heart enough to rebuild.
Of course, now, I would like to find the kit again and do it all over. heck – I have even considered the V. That would be extreme.
Does anyone launch these things in the frozen NE any more? Last time I tried – I was chased out of the park by some uniformed functionary or other. Seems everyone is afraid we are trying to blow something up. I need to find a nice, big, impersonal park where no one cares – or can see me. I know my youngest would enjoy this stuff.
JC
January 11th, 2007 at 9:06 am
> Does anyone launch these things in the frozen NE any more?
Sure! Check out
Dennis
January 11th, 2007 at 9:11 am
> Does anyone launch these things in the frozen NE any more?
Sure! Check out CMASS.
Dennis
PS: I hope the link worked *this* time…
January 11th, 2007 at 10:01 am
I have to say the original Mars Lander is neat and all, but this one is a lot cooler.
http://rocketry.wordpress.com/2006/08/30/10x-mars-lander/
Good Day
Jake
January 11th, 2007 at 10:47 am
Sorry, Phil, I can’t say those two look particularly alike, other than being bullet shaped. The landing struts are completely different, and even the overall shape is different. The Blue Origin has a single parabolic curve profile, whereas the Estes Mars Lander has 4 different body sections with different profiles. Including that knobby bit on top.
The principle may be similar, but only as much as the DC-X. The concept is single stage VTOL, with atmospheric reentry. So duh, they look similar.
Okay, you may now return to reliving fond childhood memories.
January 11th, 2007 at 11:47 am
Figure Blue Origin may have the fast track in getting the the Bigelow Aerospace modules when they’re launched…
January 11th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
Regarding the Blueorigin “rocket”, I see no smoke, no fire. There’s a just a hissing sound and a cloud of fog which quickly dissipates. In the downward video, what appears to be a frost pattern appears on the pad. All of which makes me think they’re blasting cold compressed gas out the thrusters — probably very cold as it expands. Not a real rocket, and probably not much potential for flying higher/longer than this, but a good way to test control systems on a reasonably safe prototype.
January 11th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
The reason why there was no smoke and fire is because Goddard was using high test peroxide (TPP) as a monopropellant. While they didn’t say what Goddard was using as fuel in the recent release, the information was documented in Blue Origin’s environmental impact statement for the Corn Ranch launch site required by the FAA. Link below (beware, about 20 MB):
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/media/20060829_Blue_Origin_EA_Signed.pdf
Quoting from “Section 2.1.2 New Shepard Prototype Test Vehicles”
“…The first of these vehicles would be a low-altitude demonstrator of the propulsion
module using approximately 2,042 kilograms (4,500 pounds) of HTP as a monopropellant,
capable of reaching an altitude of no more than 610 meters (2,000 feet) with a mission time of
less than one minute.”
January 11th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
Please alter (TPP) above to (HTP); dyslexic acronym syndrome.
January 11th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
Trebuchet Says: “Regarding the Blueorigin “rocketâ€, I see no smoke, no fire. There’s a just a hissing sound and a cloud of fog which quickly dissipates. Not a real rocket…”
Maybe you can clear up what you consider a “real rocket.” If it moves by means of a reaction motor using a high speed gas for the reaction mass, that’s close enough in my book. The ISP sucks (that’s “specific impulse”, not the Internet service provider), but it works. As long as we’re dredging up childhood memories, anyone else remember the Vashon rocket line?
I’m sure this was just a control system test to make sure everything was stable and able to move the craft around. Much safer to do without worrying about fire if the system isn’t stable any you have a crash.
- Jack
January 11th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
JackC Says: “I don’t recall having the 5 C option – was that a later addition?”
I think you guys are talking about different models. The S 1B (which debuted in 1967) used four 18mm mounts, and the largest motor Estes made at the time was a “C”. The later Saturn V model used either five 18mm or two 24mm. I’ve never built one, so I might be confusing the Estes and Centuri models. They were about the same size, but were different inside.
- Jack
January 11th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
Evolving Squid Says: “I have been thinking up a plan for a model rocket with a tiny computer, GPS receiver and servos aboard that can be launched, deploy wings at apex and glide back to wherever it needs to be. It’s mechanically possible, but I’m not convinced I can do it within a hobbyist budget”
It sounds like you’ve been out of the hobby a while. You might want to check out George Gassaway’s page:
http://members.aol.com/GCGassaway/gcghome.htm
George isn’t the only one doing things of this sophistication, but he’s been the pioneer in so many areas of servo control. Check out his “sun seeker” and fully functional Shuttle stack.
- Jack
January 12th, 2007 at 7:16 am
Jack H says: “I think you guys are talking about different models.”
I built the 1B – differentiated in that it was somewhat smaller (I don’t even think there was a V when I built mine – but maybe I just couldn’t afford it) and had several (8?) individual tubes down the first stage module just like the real one.
The V models have all had smooth sides in the first stage – again, like the real V. It was larger and surely would have had a multi-engine configuration.
I ran D motors regularly in the late 60s and early 70s – though they weren’t easy to find, I seem to recall. I believe the bird may have called for C engines, but I didn’t think they would fly – and in truth, wheterver it was that I used, failed totally to lift the mass more than 20 feet.
At least it didn’t fly itself into the ground though. It rose – nearly like the real thing, slow and graceful – then faltered and rather gracefully came back down on it’s tail a few feet before dropping a bit sideways and just dashing itself to bits more or less on it’s side. Followed by a rather impotent pop as the chute tried to do something and failed utterly.
JC
January 12th, 2007 at 7:58 am
I must confess that I followed the “girl” stereotype and had never built or launched a single rocket during my whole childhood. But a couple of summers ago that all changed. I got a job teaching summer school (the fun elective courses) and taught three different rocket classes. It was a K-2 class, 3-5th grade, and 6-8th grade. These kids were motivated, and some of the older ones were very skilled, so right before classes started, I built and launched a rocket. I soon became an expert in helping the students build and launch all difficulty levels of rockets and we all literally had a “blast”. It was, without a doubt, one of the most rewarding jobs I have ever had. To see the look on a child’s face with building and launching a rocket is priceless. And yes, we did have girls in the classes (as this was pretty recent), I’d say about 1/4 on average were girls in the 9 total classes I taught for the 3 summer sessions.
January 12th, 2007 at 10:29 am
I had that rocket also. Flew badly, I only flew mine once, but it looked darn cool.
I got mine for free. I took a rocketry class in Jr. High school (yeah, that was a real class back then in the early 80s!) and there was a competition to build a rocket that would stay aloft the longest. Prize was $10 toward any Estes rocket in the catalog. I won with a skinny little rocket with a huge chute. Stayed up 24 seconds (We had to use a wimpy ‘A’ engine). I paid $2 additional and got the lander.
I miss that thing, if only I knew the value it would have now! *sniff*
January 12th, 2007 at 11:28 am
> The reason why there was no smoke and fire is because Goddard was using high test peroxide (TPP) as a monopropellant.
Apparently the Real Thing is going to use kerosine/peroxide bipropellant, which has a decent Isp. Whether the present peroxide monopropellant engines have any relation to the future bipropellant ones isn’t clear.