Space

Watch Blue Origin's silky smooth landing from onboard rocket-cam

Watch Blue Origin's silky smoo...
Had the engines failed to fire it would have brought the rocket crashing to the ground within six seconds
Had the engines failed to fire it would have brought the rocket crashing to the ground within six seconds
View 5 Images
The recent flight and landing of the reusable New Shepard rocket was intended to test its engines ability to restart quickly at high thrust
1/5
The recent flight and landing of the reusable New Shepard rocket was intended to test its engines ability to restart quickly at high thrust
Had the engines failed to fire it would have brought the rocket crashing to the ground within six seconds
2/5
Had the engines failed to fire it would have brought the rocket crashing to the ground within six seconds
Bezos described the rocket's performance as flawless
3/5
Bezos described the rocket's performance as flawless
Had the engines failed to fire it would have brought the rocket crashing to the ground within six seconds
4/5
Had the engines failed to fire it would have brought the rocket crashing to the ground within six seconds
On April 2 New Shepard flew to an altitude of 339,178 ft (103 km), releasing its unmanned Crew Capsule, which returns to Earth using parachutes, and then came plummeting down itself
5/5
On April 2 New Shepard flew to an altitude of 339,178 ft (103 km), releasing its unmanned Crew Capsule, which returns to Earth using parachutes, and then came plummeting down itself

Between SpaceX and Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin, powered rocket landings are becoming almost commonplace. Last month, the latter's New Shepard rocket touched down for the third time in a row, and the company has now offered us a fresh (and pretty awesome) perspective from the side of the booster as it returned to Earth.

The recent flight and landing of the reusable New Shepard rocket was intended to test the ability of its engines to restart quickly at high thrust. On April 2 it flew to an altitude of 339,178 ft (103 km) and releasing its unmanned Crew Capsule, which returned to Earth using parachutes, before re-entering the atmosphere and plummeting down itself.

Had the engines failed to fire, gravity would have brought the rocket crashing to the ground within six seconds. But at 3,600 ft (1,100 m) they kicked into action and steadily guided the craft down to safety. Bezos described the rocket's performance as flawless, and nothing in the video shot from just below its ring fin seems to suggest otherwise.

You can check out the clip below.

Source: YouTube

Flight 3: GH2 Vent Cam

5 comments
Bob809
Stunning piece of video. Shame the sound cut out near the end. Love the way re-usability is taking to the space program.
bobcat4424
The problem is that the velocities and distance for New Shepard vehicle is far less than what SpaceX was doing in 2012. But the major concern should be the choice of a single engine with a liquid hydrogen fuel --- both are high-risk choices. If something goes wrong with the one engine then it is "Game Over." SpaceX boosters can lose as many as three engines and still achieve orbital goals. But using hydrogen is a concern because gaseous hydrogen is almost impossible to seal. When you see rockets being started up and the massive shower of sparks at the base, most people assume that that is how the rocket is "lit." But in actuality, it is an attempt to find any tiny pockets of escaped hydrogen and ignite them before they can build up and explode. This seems an awfully large risk to take for 4 minutes of weightlessness at the technical edge of space. The capsule would have to be very crowded, about 60-80% of the passengers and crew would vomit. And all for the bargain price of $250,000. For that price a person could buy two Tesla Model S's and two Model 3's.
DonHodges
BAD ASS.
Wayne Strawbridge
Seeing the clear shadow of the rocket get closer and more clear as it descends was either very fortuitous or very clever thinking. It gave a very real indicator of height and descent rate. However the shadow also indicated some "outriggers" around the bottom of the rocket that don't appear in any other pictures, does anyone know what's going on with that?
TatianaCovington
The way God and Robert A. Heinlein intended spaceships to land!