Updates Blue Origin New Shepard News and Updates

[Urwumpe]

Interesting that they call the people onboard "astronauts". According to NASA and the IAF, only a person that orbits Earth is an astronaut. But I guess it's one of those things one can argue about endlessly. But they are for sure spacemen though, having crossed the Kármán line for a short period of time.

There I would like a citation. I case of NASA, thats wrong and they would not declare the Redstone astronauts or some X-15 pilots non-astronauts any time in the future as well. And the IAC still uses the FAI definition as well since the 1960s, which means "crossed the Karman line". NASA is actually MORE permissive than FAI (and Blue Origin, which uses the same definition), since they only require passing about 85 km altitude (approximately the mesopause, the boundary between mesosphere and thermosphere).

There was an oral proposal from Iran in 2013 to let IAC use their own definition of an astronaut, but it did not get approved or have any lasting consequences.

 

[TheShuttleExperience]

There I would like a citation. I case of NASA, thats wrong and they would not declare the Redstone astronauts or some X-15 pilots non-astronauts any time in the future as well. And the IAC still uses the FAI definition as well since the 1960s, which means "crossed the Karman line". NASA is actually MORE permissive than FAI (and Blue Origin, which uses the same definition), since they only require passing about 85 km altitude (approximately the mesopause, the boundary between mesosphere and thermosphere).

There was an oral proposal from Iran in 2013 to let IAC use their own definition of an astronaut, but it did not get approved or have any lasting consequences.

It seems I mixed up abbreviations. I am referring to the ASE, of which Ulrich Walther is a member. I remembered an interview in which he pointed out that orbital flight matters to qualify for astronaut (since we talked about Walther in a different thread recently).

Home

As for NASA, the Redstone guys were selected and trained to fly in orbit and beyond, which both Shepard and Grissom did after Mercury.

Astronauts - NASA

Exploration is really the essence of the human spirit.

www.nasa.gov

Before the FAA ended the astronaut wings program a few years ago, people aboard New Shepard did not qualify for the astronaut wings

The 85 km and 100 km definitions are strange, since space flight isn"t really possible at that altitude. It just means atmospheric flight/atmospheric lift is not possible anymore. But you can't enter orbit at tgat altitude. So "astronaut" is a strange term in that context. Especially if you consider the actual meaning of the word.

 

[Thunder Chicken]

The 85 km and 100 km definitions are strange, since space flight isn"t really possible at that altitude. It just means atmospheric flight/atmospheric lift is not possible anymore.

The von Karman limit of about 83 km was estimated to be the point where a lifting body would need to travel at a velocity greater than escape velocity in order for lift to balance the weight of the body. The 100 km limit is basically derived from our love of base 10 arithmetic in SI units. The US definition of 50 miles translates to about 80 km which crudely agrees with the von Karman limit and makes for a nice round number in miles.

 

[TheShuttleExperience]

The von Karman limit of about 83 km was estimated to be the point where a lifting body would need to travel at a velocity greater than escape velocity in order for lift to balance the weight of the body. The 100 km limit is basically derived from our love of base 10 arithmetic in SI units. The US definition of 50 miles translates to about 80 km which crudely agrees with the von Karman limit and makes for a nice round number in miles.

Afaik it is the limit of aerosoace design since hehicles can't fly by lift at that altitude anymore.

Hard to imagine how going up below the altitude of entry interface (400k ft) for vehicles that orbit earth or return from deep space; aka return from a space flight; does qualify to become an "astronaut", in the sense NASA and other agencies use that term. I think it's just marketing and who defines what. Like the jump of Baumgartner "from the edge of space"... or the name of Starliner, CST "100" (km), referring to the Karman line. Although Starliner offers real space flight.

 

[Thunder Chicken]

Afaik it is the limit of aerosoace design since hehicles can't fly by lift at that altitude anymore.

They can fly using lift at that altitude, they just need to be going faster than escape velocity to do so (i.e. they can't orbit Earth, they can blast past Earth at high velocity).

Hard to imagine how going up below the altitude of entry interface (400k ft) for vehicles that orbit earth or return from deep space; aka return from a space flight; does qualify to become an "astronaut", in the sense NASA and other agencies use that term. I think it's just marketing and who defines what. Like the jump of Baumgartner "from the edge of space"... or the name of Starliner, CST "100" (km), referring to the Karman line. Although Starliner offers real space flight.

Not so much marketing (except for the space tourism folks who want to be "astronauts"), but fuzzy estimates of where aerodynamic forces become small (for various interpretations of the word "small"). In theory one can go into orbit at any altitude, the only question is how quickly the atmosphere will degrade that orbit. Above 80-100 km you might be able to complete an orbit or two before that occurs, depending on the aerodynamic properties of the vessel. Below that altitude drag will degrade orbits very quickly, again depending on the aerodynamic properties of the vessel.

 

[Urwumpe]

They can fly using lift at that altitude, they just need to be going faster than escape velocity to do so (i.e. they can't orbit Earth, they can blast past Earth at high velocity).

That is a bit too high, the velocity is much lower. Its approximately first orbital velocity (circular orbit), but not quite so, since the centrifugal force must be equal to the theoretical possible lift force.

 

[TheShuttleExperience]

The altitude for at least one stable orbit is 150 km. Which is the reason why I am curious one can become an astronaut at 100 km (but not according to NASA).

Going faster than escape velocity between 85 to 100 km isn't something I would try You are not really in space, and you would get a very nice "reentry" effect...

 

[Urwumpe]

The altitude for at least one stable orbit is 150 km. Which is the reason why I am curious one can become an astronaut at 100 km (but not according to NASA).

The estimate for the lowest possible orbit has a period of 88 minutes or 6553,6 km semimajor axis radius, or 175 km altitude - if its circular.

In reality though, thanks to physics, you can dip much lower as long as you have eccentricity.

 

[TheShuttleExperience]

The estimate for the lowest possible orbit has a period of 88 minutes or 6553,6 km semimajor axis radius, or 175 km altitude - if its circular.

In reality though, thanks to physics, you can dip much lower as long as you have eccentricity.

I don't think it would be a smart idea to try this at the Kármán line, other than just out of curiosity / for a short-term very low Earth orbit experiment.

There are actually two interesting questions involved, related to a ride with New Shepard and people talking about "astronauts" in this context: where does space begin, and what or who is an astronaut?

Near space might "begin" at the Kármán line. But you don't operate space stations or space shuttles at that altitude You are still very close to the mesopause. Sure, the sky is pitch-black and the Earth looks quite curved at that altitude. But it does look so within the upper stratosphere already. Of course conventional airplanes won't work at that altitude, both in terms of lift and propulsion. But atmospheric influence is still significant. Orbital space flight therefore does not take place that low.

As for the term "astronaut", it is a person that sails to or between the stars. Of course nobody does do so yet. But in that sense it actually means a person that is equipped with a vehicle/technology that allows him to travel through and explore space, either in an orbit around Earth or around the Sun or flying on other trajectories to get to another celestial body. New Shepard does not provide any of that. Actually it goes nowhere but just straight up to the mesopause and returns within only a few minutes. They don't even have to deal much with frictional heating during return.

And some people think being weightless does qualify to become an astronaut or has something to do with space. But freefall is a location-independent effect one can create everywhere, even at home on a trampoline. It's not characteristic for being in space, it is just characteristic for being in a freefall condition, which of course happens as soon as you are not on a powered flight anymore in Earth orbit or on your way into deep space. But you can have the same effect on Earth, momentarily (like New Shepard, for about 3 minutes).

Don't get me wrong. It's not that I understate the efforts that were put into New Shepard. It's just always interesting how people get the idea to talk about "astronauts" in this context. For sure I would love to fly with New Shepard. But I would never call myself an "astronaut" afterwards. Because that would mean I am equivalent to Ulrich Walther and every other person that has traveled to and lived in LEO or beyond. I would not be professionally educated and trained to be qualified as a person that travels through, explores and lives in space, aka an astronaut. I would rather consider myself a "near space tourist" or "near space traveler" I'm also not an airline pilot only because I know how airplanes work and are operated and because I am a passenger every so often.

On the other hand, Earth actually is a natural, self-sustaining space station, with a natural ECLSS, that travels through our solar system. Earth is not an abstract object in the vicinity of space. Space doesn't actually begin or end somewhere - we are just in the middle of space, we are a product of the universe; we actually are the universe. And we even travel through interstellar space by about 2 million kilometers per hour afaik (speed of the milky way). So, aren't we all astronauts?

Anyway, it just always seems strange to me when people talk about "astronauts" in terms of New Shepard or something similar.

 

[Urwumpe]

I am maybe too liberal there, but:

Astronaut = Operates a spacecraft in space.

Analog to what makes a seaman ("nautes"): Just being passenger can't be enough to be called a seaman, even if you spent the later half of your life on cruise ships. You don't have to be very skilled for being one, but no nautic skills at all make you a landlubber.

Also, it has to happen in the right environment. A worker in a wharf or a lasher is also operating ships, but is not a seaman, unless it happens on the ocean. And there is still the case of the Titanic wharf crew on her maiden voyage, which were not treated as seaman by history.

So, categorizing by that scheme:

New Shephard is a spacecraft.
It flies into space.
The usual Blue Origin tourist has minimal training in operating the spacecraft.

Only few skills of that training are actually used.
They mostly serve company purposes, but are no professionals.

I see nothing that exclude Blue Origins passengers from this definition, but it should be obvious by the later points: They are just one step above chimpanzees like Ham.

 

[Notebook]

From the capsule noise on yesterdays launch, chimps would be better behaved. Several times they muted the audio after swearing went out.

 

[TheShuttleExperience]

I am maybe too liberal there, but:

Astronaut = Operates a spacecraft in space.

It depends...

According to NASA, an astronaut is someone who flew aboard a (NASA) spacecraft, that orbited the Earth or went beyond. According to ESA, an astronaut is someone who has successfully completed basic astronaut training and went on a mission to space. According to the CSA, an astronaut is a modern-day explorer, who travels beyond the Earth to help discover new scientific knowledge.

But that's space agency / government astronaut stuff I guess. On the other hand, the Association of Space Explorers also is referring to Earth orbit, since it only accepts members that completed at least one orbit, which I think is logical. While the FAA does no longer define or designate astronauts for example; they talk about "space flight participants" concerning Blue Origin / commercial human space flight, which I think makes more sense than "astronauts".

Analog to what makes a seaman ("nautes"): Just being passenger can't be enough to be called a seaman, even if you spent the later half of your life on cruise ships. You don't have to be very skilled for being one, but no nautic skills at all make you a landlubber.

I don't know if a ten minute trip, a few meters away from a dock, in an autonomous boat, makes you a seaman

Also, it has to happen in the right environment. A worker in a wharf or a lasher is also operating ships, but is not a seaman, unless it happens on the ocean. And there is still the case of the Titanic wharf crew on her maiden voyage, which were not treated as seaman by history.

So, categorizing by that scheme:

New Shephard is a spacecraft.
It flies into space.
The usual Blue Origin tourist has minimal training in operating the spacecraft.

Only few skills of that training are actually used.
They mostly serve company purposes, but are no professionals.

I see nothing that exclude Blue Origins passengers from this definition, but it should be obvious by the later points: They are just one step above chimpanzees like Ham.

Does it really fly "into space"? I know, officially it does, barely. But the Kármán line basically is a boundary at which conventional atmospheric flight is not possible anymore. Afaik it's actually controversial if that's already "real" space or "outer space". Orbital flight is not possible at 105 km (the altitude New Shepard reaches), and also not provided by New Shepard. What it does is just slightly exceeding the defined 100 km boundary for a very short period of time.

I mean, Alan Shepard went above 180 km altitude, which was the height for the later Earth parking orbits during the Apollo lunar flights. He was in space without any doubt, decelerating to 11g if I remember correctly, while observing the effects of frictional heating during reentry. The people aboard ISS orbit the Earth every 90 minutes, without falling back to Earth after a few minutes. New Shepard travels just 105 km up and down again within a few minutes, to a boundary that is intended to define the "beginning of space".

My hole point is that "astronaut" and "in space" just seems a little bit exaggerated concerning New Shepard

 

[TheShuttleExperience]

From the capsule noise on yesterdays launch, chimps would be better behaved. Several times they muted the audio after swearing went out.

True I was already thinking the same while watching the recorded stream. It seemed more like a funfair ride rather than people trying to enjoy a once in a lifetime experience.

I mean... come on, we talk about space, right?

 

[Notebook]

Quite. If Blue Origin aren't careful it will start to look like a glorified Ferris Wheel ride.
The two commentators did say some science was being done during the zero-g part, but didn't follow it up.
Not taking away any of the engineering and operational side from it, well done to them.

 

[TheShuttleExperience]

Quite. If Blue Origin aren't careful it will start to look like a glorified Ferris Wheel ride.
The two commentators did say some science was being done during the zero-g part, but didn't follow it up.
Not taking away any of the engineering and operational side from it, well done to them.

Yeah. I think things will change once they go orbital.

 

[Urwumpe]

I don't know if a ten minute trip, a few meters away from a dock, in an autonomous boat, makes you a seaman

Where do you put the border? Is 15 minutes of Mercury-Redstone enough? What about Yuri Gagarin, if you complain about autonomous flight, who only had the task to eject manually?

Does it really fly "into space"? I know, officially it does, barely. But the Kármán line basically is a boundary at which conventional atmospheric flight is not possible anymore. Afaik it's actually controversial if that's already "real" space or "outer space". Orbital flight is not possible at 105 km (the altitude New Shepard reaches), and also not provided by New Shepard. What it does is just slightly exceeding the defined 100 km boundary for a very short period of time.

Its inside the same thermosphere layer of the atmosphere as almost all manned spacecraft, so by the physical environment, it can't get more real.

 

[TheShuttleExperience]

Where do you put the border? Is 15 minutes of Mercury-Redstone enough? What about Yuri Gagarin, if you complain about autonomous flight, who only had the task to eject manually?

My example was just related to becoming a seaman.

I think in space flight altitude matters. Grissom and Shepard reached 180/190 km, which would enable orbital flight and provide flight in space. Whereas altitudes between the Kármán line up to the lowest possible altitude for achieving more or less stable orbits, should be considered near space. So, yeah, Grissom, Shepard, and Gagarin flew into space. But New Shepard barely flies in near space.

Flight in near space = 100 to 150 km (at 100 km conventional atmospheric flight ends, but stable orbits aren't really feasible due to aerodynamic drag)
Space flight: above 150 km (enables orbits; the higher you get the less you are exposed to aerodynamic drag)

Its inside the same thermosphere layer of the atmosphere as almost all manned spacecraft, so by the physical environment, it can't get more real.

What changes with altitude though, above the Kármán line, is temperature and especially density I think.

JAXA set a Guinness World Record in 2019, for having achieved the lowest altitude by an Earth observation satellite in orbit, which was 167 km. They called it "Super Low Altitude Test Satellite" (SLATS). It was operated at different orbital altitudes between 167 and 250 km, to measure atmospheric drag, density, and atomic oxygen. It was equipped with an ion engine and RCS jets. They used the ion engine above 180 km. At 167 km they used both, the ion engine and RCS "because of the large atmospheric drag."

JAXA | Super Low Altitude Test Satellite (SLATS) “TSUBAME” has set a GUINESS WORLD RECORDS(R)

Get information on the Super Low Altitude Test Satellite (SLATS) “TSUBAME” has set a GUINESS WORLD RECORDS(R). The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) performs various activities related to aerospace as an organization, from basic research in the aerospace field to development and...

global.jaxa.jp

The SLATS was inside the same thermosphere layer as ISS for example. But SLATS would fall out of orbit without its RCS jets rather quick I guess. While above 400 km the ISS has a significantly longer "lifetime". Skylab's orbit lasted 5 years after its final boost at the end of Skylab 4. At 105 km, New Shepard wouldn't even be able to enter orbit I guess. So flight in near space at the lowest altitude, that is used to define the edge of space, isn't as real as orbiting Earth aboard the ISS

 

[Urwumpe]

What changes with altitude though, above the Kármán line, is temperature and especially density I think.

Its right inside the thermosphere. For any "strong" changes (strong relative to a near-vacuum), you have to climb to the variable altitude of the thermopause, where the thermosphere switches into the exosphere: Thats the limit for the heavier atoms in our atmosphere, above exists only lighter stuff like hydrogen and helium. But for that, you have to climb to 600-1500 km altitude, depending on solar activity. Aside of one Gemini mission and the lunar Apollo missions, all manned spacecraft happened inside the thermosphere. Below roughly 160 km, the atmosphere is theoretically still able to transmit sound. Above 90 km, there are not even weak turbulences anymore. In the whole thermosphere, the temperature is highly variable and the atoms easily ionized by UV radiation. Thats why this place is also the place where most the "ionosphere" actually takes place. The coldest place is the mesopause, the US limit of space, the whole thermosphere shows increasing "temperatures" with altitude, but since density drops faster than the temperature climbs, it actually "feels" colder (less conductive heating, but also less cooling) than the mesopause and the temperatures are more a direct representation of the speed at which the atoms travel on ballistic arcs.

The karman line is also slightly higher than the line where molecular oxygen ceases to exists, the whole thermosphere only contains atomic oxygen. The molecular nitrogen lasts a bit higher, but it also drops to near-zero in about 500 km altitude.

 

[TheShuttleExperience]

Its right inside the thermosphere. For any "strong" changes (strong relative to a near-vacuum), you have to climb to the variable altitude of the thermopause, where the thermosphere switches into the exosphere: Thats the limit for the heavier atoms in our atmosphere, above exists only lighter stuff like hydrogen and helium. But for that, you have to climb to 600-1500 km altitude, depending on solar activity. Aside of one Gemini mission and the lunar Apollo missions, all manned spacecraft happened inside the thermosphere. Below roughly 160 km, the atmosphere is theoretically still able to transmit sound. Above 90 km, there are not even weak turbulences anymore. In the whole thermosphere, the temperature is highly variable and the atoms easily ionized by UV radiation. Thats why this place is also the place where most the "ionosphere" actually takes place. The coldest place is the mesopause, the US limit of space, the whole thermosphere shows increasing "temperatures" with altitude, but since density drops faster than the temperature climbs, it actually "feels" colder (less conductive heating, but also less cooling) than the mesopause and the temperatures are more a direct representation of the speed at which the atoms travel on ballistic arcs.

The karman line is also slightly higher than the line where molecular oxygen ceases to exists, the whole thermosphere only contains atomic oxygen. The molecular nitrogen lasts a bit higher, but it also drops to near-zero in about 500 km altitude.

That's the chemical and physical properties which still exist even a few thousand kilometers above Earth I think.

But when someone says "space flight" or "space", or when I just read the term anywhere, my brain immediately creates images of satellites, Mercury/Gemini/Apollo/Skylab/STS/ISS/Mir/Soyuz/Salyut/Gagarin/Glenn etc., space suits/EVAs, astronauts on the Moon or Mars, space probes in the solar system... you name it I would never think about going just to the Kármán line / 100 km alt / slightly above the mesopause, although I know that definition exists. I mean, there is nothing really going on below the minimum orbital altitude, in an area in which orbits are not stable and even atmospheric entry is supposed to begin (400 k feet) If it all, it's an area of transition after passing the basic layers of the atmosphere with a launch vehicle, on the way into an orbit or beyond Earth.

It's similar with the term "astronaut". I would never think about paying passengers going up slightly above 100 km (for the books). I think about a person that is trained to live and work in a scientifically and technologically complex spacecraft environment, while traveling through space in an orbit or on a trajectory to another celestial body.

 

[Urwumpe]

Would you claim that an EVA is easier at merely 100 km?

Again: There must be a definition where space begins, or we don't have ANY spaceflight at all.