r/BlueOrigin 4d ago

Could the New Shepard capsule be adapted for a capsule for the orbital New Glenn?

Blue Origin apparently wants to get to manned missions:

Blue Origin is getting serious about developing a human spacecraft
Company seeks: "Experience with human spaceflight or high-performance aircraft systems?"
ERIC BERGER – MAR 4, 2024 10:10 AM |
https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/03/blue-origin-staffing-up-to-build-a-human-spacecraft/

If you gave the New Shepard capsule a heat shield would that be enough for it to act as an orbital capsule?

26 Upvotes

57

u/kkingsbe 4d ago

It doesn’t have a service module or a way to deorbit. Once all that is added it’s a new vehicle. See dragon 1 to dragon 2

15

u/BobDoleStillKickin 4d ago

I would think NS either doesn't have a rentry shield or if it has 1 for its suborbital route - it wouldn't be sufficient enough. So rentry shield work would be needed

4

u/whitelancer64 4d ago

Both the New Shepherd capsule and booster have heat shielding, it needs it both for ascent and descent, as it exceeds Mach 3 in both directions.

12

u/Grouchy-Garbage6718 4d ago

It does not have heat shielding that is anywhere even close to be able to survive re entry from the heat from orbit.

0

u/whitelancer64 4d ago

I never claimed that it did.

2

u/BobDoleStillKickin 4d ago

Gotcha, im ignorant on that bit. Thx

4

u/New_Poet_338 4d ago

Heat shielding is not a heat shield. Mach 3 is not terribly fast. The SR-71 cruised at that speed and the Mig 25 could reach it in a sprint. Their skin was capable of protecting them. The capsule would need a heat shield for Mach 25 or above.

1

u/Man-o-Trails 3d ago edited 3d ago

Really old guy sez: Actually, with rocket braking, it can be Mach 20 or lower at initial atmospheric contact. Yes, it needs special ablative shielding, but it's remarkably thin and light. Assuming it (the whole structure/system, not just the skin) was well designed while ablating and slowing to about Mach 10, it would be very doable from there on down. The X-15 sustained Mach 6.7...in the days before design code and a lot of work on really good ablative composites.

Basic background: https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/III.4.1.7_Returning_from_Space.pdf

-1

u/whitelancer64 4d ago

A distinction without a difference. Heat shields are made of heat shielding material.

LOL The SR-71 was made of titanium.

It would need a different or at least thicker heat shield for returning from orbit, yes.

2

u/New_Poet_338 4d ago

No, it is not. SR-71 would need a heat shield to return from orbit. It needed no heat shield for Mach 3. Starship's stainless steel skin would allow it to return from hops of 10 km but for return from orbital flight it needs a heat shield consisting of 10 tons of tiles capable of flying through plasma. It is a defined component of the ship.

1

u/whitelancer64 3d ago

Again, the SR-71 was made of titanium. There was also a lot of other heat shielding incorporated into it, normal aircraft grade aluminum alloy is not capable of handling those temperatures.

-11

u/RGregoryClark 4d ago edited 4d ago

Dragon 1 does have a service module even though it’s not manned. The major distinction between Dragon 1 and 2 is the addition of SuperDracos for the launch abort system. The New Shepard capsule does have launch abort system, though I actually am not a fan of the approach Blue Origin took to the LAS.

Deorbit burns are small enough that they can probably be done by reaction control systems(RCS). I don’t know if the New Shepard capsule has those however.

20

u/kkingsbe 4d ago

Yeah I’m aware. My point stands though. Arguably the differences between dragon 1 & 2 are less than what would be needed to convert the new Shepard capsule into an orbital rated capsule, yet they are still two distinct vehicles. This isn’t even accounting for the difference in diameters between NS and NG and a ton of other factors

15

u/_mogulman31 4d ago

The point stands, a suborbital capsule built for a few minutes in space, is wholly changes when you add the needed launch escape, power, life support, reentry, and other systems for orbital operation.

I wouldn't be adapted it would be a new design, perhaps with a few common design elements.

20

u/NASATVENGINNER 4d ago

The missions it would fly would be better served with a purpose built capsule.

24

u/Robert_the_Doll1 4d ago

Um, no.

New Shepard's capsule would need a lot more upgrades, almost a complete redesign, in fact.

Even assuming a simple single orbit mission (perigee is kept at 70 km or less) where you could conceivably delete a service module, you have to increase the onboard consumables for a 4-6 person crew, they would definitely need partial pressure IVA suits like Soyuz, Shenzou, Dragon, and Starliner do in case of atmosphere loss since it will not be able to return quickly.

In addition, the entire base of the vehicle will need to be redesigned and rebuilt because the NO2 landing thrusters, the outlet nozzle for the launch escape rocket motor, and more will wind up being covered by the new heat shield. So, a whole new LES will need to be designed and qualified.

The windows may need to be reduced in size or reinforced due to higher aerodynamic loads induced by faster acceleration by the larger, more powerful New Glenn, particularly during Max Q.

Navigation and Control: Orbital re-entry requires sophisticated navigation and control systems to manage re-entry corridors, which are significantly different from those used for sub-orbital flights.

Communication: An orbital mission requires different communication systems, including capabilities for longer range and possibly inter-satellite links.

If the capsule is expected to land in the ocean rather than on land, it will need to be certified for water landing, and downrange recovery units will need to be purchased along with hiring and training personnel for recovery. The weight of the capsule will likely go up, thus necessitating redesigning the parachutes to handle the increased loading, and then certifying them.

So, while the experience and some modular systems from the NS could be beneficial, a nearly clean-sheet design would be necessary to transition from sub-orbital to orbital capabilities, essentially building a new spacecraft that borrows concepts but not components directly from NS.

1

u/sebaska 3d ago

Adding to that: the windows would also have to be upgraded for re-entry reasons. Radiative heating is a thing and at re-entry plasma temperatures a non-trivial part of it happens via visible wavelengths. It would require proper analysis, but it's quite likely they would be enough to make the cabin uncomfortably (or even dangerously) hot.

9

u/scotyb 4d ago

There is most certainly learnings and opportunities to repurpose many common components, but no chance they would take one up as is with just adding a heat shield.

So it depends on your definition of "adapted" and how much adaptation qualifies vs a new vehicle.

-5

u/RGregoryClark 4d ago

The large windows are probably impractical for a capsule under the extreme heat of orbital reentry. The Dragon for example doesn’t have windows. The Apollo capsule and the Orion capsule do have windows though they are quite small.

15

u/Bdr1983 4d ago

Dragon has windows, just pretty small ones.

2

u/EsotericGreen 4d ago

Didnt NASA ask them to delete the one on the door due to heating concerns?

1

u/sebaska 3d ago

They blocked 2 of them, but AFAIR it was to meet PRA for MMOD - i.e. to reduce window related MMOD caused failure probabilities on the fault tree to cross below the 1:270 loss of crew and mission probability on half year ISS stays.

1

u/sebaska 3d ago

Dragon has windows. But you're right any orbital capsule windows are small. At orbital velocities a non-negligible part of heating happens via radiative heating at optical wavelengths, including visible ones. Windows would have to be upgraded at least.

4

u/xman2000 4d ago

Go back and watch some of the videos. It is about as airtight as an average SUV. They just overpressure the thing for the short flight and don't worry about leaks. So, no, I wouldn't want to ride that thing to orbit even with a few upgrades.

4

u/Dark_Aurora 4d ago

I’m sure there’s lots of learnings from it, but it would need an entirely new ECLSS for longer duration missions.

1

u/WeylandsWings 4d ago

Which to be totally fair Blue is already making an ECLSS system for Blue Moon HLS lander. So if you take the learning/system from the lander and some of the knowledge from NS Capsule then all you need is reentry hardware.

-1

u/RGregoryClark 4d ago

Good point. I wonder if they could just add a heat shield to the Blue Moon crew module.

3

u/WeylandsWings 4d ago

No. Totally wrong shape and dynamics as it isn’t designed with reentry in mind.

-2

u/RGregoryClark 4d ago

Getting it the right shape is just a matter of giving it a conical shell.

3

u/WeylandsWings 4d ago

It REALLY isn’t that simple.

4

u/rustybeancake 4d ago

They will be building an orbital crew vehicle in Blue Moon, just not one that needs to reenter earth’s atmosphere. They can take many learnings from that work to apply to an orbital earth reentry vehicle.

5

u/enzo32ferrari 4d ago

The amount of retrofit the New Shepard capsule would need for orbital flight and reentry, you might as well build a new capsule from scratch.

4

u/sidelong1 4d ago edited 4d ago

Blue, as I understand it, will aim to have NG be certified for human flight. Blue is aiming to have an Orbital Capsule to dock at the ISS before it is decommisioned, about 2028. Before it is human rated, NG could concievably use an orbital capsule to ferry cargo to the ISS.

Another Lunar Capsule, not exceeding the 4,100m/s requirement for LEO-NRHO-Earth Return, could see Blue launch cargo/crew to the Gateway.

2

u/EsotericGreen 4d ago

Where have you read that they intend to have it capable of sending humans by 2028? Very curious about that!

2

u/sidelong1 4d ago

Try as I might the discussion points that I make are not meant to have pretensiousness included or misinformation in them. Unmanned capsules have previously and will continue to dock at the ISS and that is what I expect Blue to attempt to do by at least 2028.

So, Blue does an incredible amount of testing to prepare for success in all its work. Tests of all the space systems is at work at this very time. Everything Blue does, each individual space system being worked, is in its maturation stage. These efforts lean toward the dicovery of some new science, which is inherently exciting.

Tests of their knowledge of space systems ought to provide real success for any of their space systems when they use them. Therefore, I believe that NG will have a more or less flawless first launch, release of GS2 and its flight, and with a landing, without mishap, of the GS2.

The SAA-UA-23-38915 pdf has much of Blue's plan for Orbital Capsule; its docking and more can be found about Blues's Orbital Capsule, by reference to the NSF website. Try going to this link:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46404.100

2

u/RGregoryClark 2d ago

The cargo version of the Blue Origin lunar lander Blue Moon Mark 1 is scheduled to be test flown to and land on the Moon, as launched on New Glenn this year. This is smaller than the planned crewed Mark 2 version, 21 tons gross mass compared to 45 tons.

Supposed you gave the Mark 1 a crew cabin? Judging from the Apollo LEM’s ascent stage, its dry mass could be ca. 2 tons. It actually could be less than this because for this purpose it would not have the ascent engine or propellant tanks.

Key question: could such a small dry mass crew cabin be adapted to be a crew capsule for launch from Earth to LEO? It could hold consumables for a crew of 3 for 90 hours, about 4 days:

AI Overview
According to available information, the Apollo Lunar Module (LEM) was designed to support two astronauts for approximately 45 hours on the Moon, including depressurization and repressurization cycles, but could potentially stretch to support three astronauts for 90 hours without such cycles.
Key points about the Apollo LEM: Designed for two astronauts: The primary design of the LEM was to sustain two astronauts for a 45-hour mission. Flexibility for longer stays: In certain situations, the system could potentially support three astronauts for a longer duration (up to 90 hours) by omitting depressurization cycles. Apollo 17 record: The longest stay on the Moon by an Apollo mission was achieved by Apollo 17, with the astronauts spending around 75 hours on the lunar surface.

An Apollo era heat shield was about 15% of the dry mass of the capsule, but the PICA-X material of SpaceX used on the Dragon is about 7%, so that would add only 140 kg to a 2 ton dry mass.

A conical shell added would only be proportionally small mount.

5

u/whitelancer64 4d ago

Blue Origin was developing a biconic capsule for the commercial crew program. I would imagine that, unless they buy Starliner, they would use that as the basis for a future crew capsule.

3

u/PixelAstro 4d ago

It’d be cool to see them swap out the second stage with a giant crew capsule for suborbital missions and fly New Glenn like they fly New Shepherd. Surely the rocket could be launched in a similar trajectory.

5

u/Williebe86 4d ago

A space partybus of sorts

2

u/trash-berd 4d ago

With the size of the fairing you could literally wad a whole new shepard, booster and all up there.
Whether or not the mass capacity is actually threre though I have no idea.

3

u/Mindless_Use7567 4d ago

In short No. it doesn’t have the life support or orbital manoeuvring capability to function as a orbital crew capsule. Better to design a purpose built spacecraft for the job.

But it does give them some relevant knowledge that can be applied to a space crew vehicle.

3

u/EsotericGreen 4d ago

I so hope we get that BO biconic capsule some day, but intended to be used with a seperately launched TLI stage for Lunar visits

3

u/3x10to8th 4d ago

It's kind of like asking if a VW beetle could be used as a submarine if you just caulk the windows and vents shut... like, you'll survive underwater for a few minutes... then die...

Said differently, no. You need a full redesigned module... which is in the works.

-3

u/RGregoryClark 4d ago

Irony: when an argument against a false equivalence itself uses a false equivalence.

2

u/LittleHornetPhil 4d ago

They’re already working on a capsule but they may end up buying Boeing’s space business also

2

u/SeaAndSkyForever 4d ago

Just curious, where did you hear they are working on a capsule for NG?

2

u/dukeofgibbon 4d ago

I thought there was a plan to use Sierra Nevada's space plane.

2

u/fluffysilverunicorn 4d ago

New Shepard fits inside the New Glenn fairing; it would be dramatically undersized

1

u/atactical_dad 4d ago

Three new Shepard’s…

2

u/Grouchy-Garbage6718 4d ago

I worked on NS Crew Capsules version 1 and 2. They are current on version 3 which is very similar.

It does not have sufficient life support systems (oxygen system, water systems, waste management, sufficient heat shielding, etc.)

There’s no way it would ever be able to be an orbital vehicle.

Blue origin is exploring concepts for orbital vehicles or maybe buy CST-100 from Boeing is what I hear from friends that are still at BO.

-1

u/RGregoryClark 4d ago

Thanks for that. Perhaps the crew module for the Blue Moon can be so adapted?

2

u/marc020202 2d ago

The NS capsule is missing a lot of things needed for orbital missions:

A heat shield. Not as simple to bolt on as in ksp

The abort motor in the middle of the heat shield probably won't work. Different abort system needed.

An attitude control system (NS is essentially spin stabilized afaik)

Manoeuvring engines for orbit adjustments and de-orbit

A life support system lasting longer than a couple of minutes

I'd also question if the structure itself can survive the entry forces combined with the heat. I'm pretty sure the windows wouldn't survive the heat.

Some kind of ofsett cog for lower g re entry and re entry steering

So my answer is, no, the NS capsule cannot be used for orbital missions.

1

u/RGregoryClark 4d ago

The reason I’m asking is how rapidly Blue Origin could compete with SpaceX for manned flight.

13

u/paulhockey5 4d ago

It’s built specifically as a suborbital capsule, it would be easier and cheaper to take the lessons learned and design a purpose built orbital ship. Or they could throw Dreamchaser on it, that would be cool.

3

u/jdownj 4d ago

Depends on what you mean by “compete”. All the NASA $ for flights to the ISS are basically committed now. A demo flight or space tourism is possible. They would need to be further along on a capsule then they appear to be for it to involve the ISS(of course they could pull a fully built capsule out of a secret skunk works hanger, but that’s low probability). NG is larger than it needs to be for any of the existing capsules.

Of course they will have a capsule, whether their own, or buying/flying somebody else’s. They have a lot of long term ambitions in LEO. I just expect that we are talking more like 2030-ish involving a private station.

1

u/nic_haflinger 4d ago

Too small.

0

u/NewCharlieTaylor 4d ago

No. NS CC has next to nothing in the way of "hotel" functions. It would flounder as a NG CC.

2

u/PropLander 2d ago

Same as asking if a Prius can be “adapted” into a pick truck. You might as well just start over.