3 ms·

I'm staying up to see Blue Origin crash their rocket into the barge, but they keep pushing back the launch so idk if it's even going to take off :/

Klaus23 2y ago
New Glenn has the throttle range to hover and they test more than SpaceX. You will probably be disappointed.
- lutorm 2y ago
  Given their development pace, they really must succeed if they want their "slowly and carefully" model to be competitive.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- somenameforme 2y ago
  Testing in simulations and testing in reality are radically different. I hadn't actually heard anything about this until now but I'd be surprised if they're giving themselves more than a 10% chance of success, assuming it's an orbital test. Looking things up, it turns out that the booster is named "So You're Telling Me There's a Chance", and that is probably not entirely tongue in cheek!
  - Klaus23 2y ago
    The chances of the rocket reaching orbit on the first attempt are not too bad. Ariane 6 did it and only failed on the third engine relight. Nailing the landing is a lot trickier, but if they have any early problems they would ditch it in the sea. They would have to have a problem just before landing for the rocket to take out the barge. If you want to count tipping over as a crash, that would make it more likely, but still less than SpaceX because of the soft landing and more legs.
    - somenameforme 2y ago
      Those barges can withstand a ridiculous amount of force - it'll be standing at the end of the day regardless of what happens. But I generally agree. I think the orbital test is likely to succeed, but landing on the first go - that would be simply epic. There's just too many unknown unknowns to go straight to success IMO, but I'd love to be proven wrong!
      - purpleidea 2y ago
        I guess you were wrong, they scrubbed. But do you really think the barge would survive a direct hit? I mean it might not sink but all the equipment on it would be very broken, would it not?
        somenameforme 2y ago
        A scrub isn't generally considered a failure. Lots of things like the cross winds, weather, and so on have to align in order to try to launch, and those are simply outside your control. And there's a lot of normal variance with the different subsystems that can cause a scrub if anything is sub-nominal. Of course things like the SLS 'scrubbing' over a period of years is a bit different, but I'd call that more of an entire program failing, as opposed to a launch. You can see videos of the SpaceX barges taking multiple direct hits before they managed to start nailing the landings. There's very little exposed equipment and the barges are mostly unharmed.
BozeWolf 2y ago
Hold on, some engineer is doing a few last git commits to make it work. When cicd job is done, t0 in 10minutes.
- purpleidea 2y ago
  I always genuinely wondered how close to the various launches someone actually runs `git commit`. One day our ancestors will look back on this time and wonder why we all re-developed similar code over and over again, instead of sharing it with copyleft and spending our energy as a society solving real problems like disease, fundamental physics, and so on...
  - throw5959 2y ago
    Future generations will be dumbfounded why didn't everyone just ask the computer to get what they need.
  - panick21_ 2y ago
    They have costume avionics and costume ground system. The hardware both on the rocket and the launch site is just completely different. And likely plugs into back-ends that are pretty company specific. I question how much of that code can reasonably unified. And why only talk about software? You can make the same argument for the avionics hardware, hell you can make the argument for the whole rocket. And if you just think this far enough you can just make the socialism argument "why have 2 companies at all, only have 1 (potentially government) company (ie Design Bureau) that enough". And that argument generally doesn't work, doing the same thing multiple times to figure out what is best isn't such a bad idea. > disease, fundamental physics, and so on We need space and rockets to research fundamental physics. Diseases get researched in space all the time. Making access to space cheaper has lead to more companies wanting to do more with space research.
  - swed420 2y ago
    > One day our ancestors will look back on this time "You see, capitalism was indeed a necessary and inevitable bootstrapping phase of human development. Even Marx agreed this was the case. However, by the 21st century, generations had been indoctrinated to an extent that left them assuming capitalism was an unalterable and fundamental law of nature, instead of the global existential threat it had evolved into by its late stages."

Klaus23 2y ago

New Glenn has the throttle range to hover and they test more than SpaceX. You will probably be disappointed.

lutorm 2y ago
Given their development pace, they really must succeed if they want their "slowly and carefully" model to be competitive.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
somenameforme 2y ago
Testing in simulations and testing in reality are radically different. I hadn't actually heard anything about this until now but I'd be surprised if they're giving themselves more than a 10% chance of success, assuming it's an orbital test. Looking things up, it turns out that the booster is named "So You're Telling Me There's a Chance", and that is probably not entirely tongue in cheek!
- Klaus23 2y ago
  The chances of the rocket reaching orbit on the first attempt are not too bad. Ariane 6 did it and only failed on the third engine relight. Nailing the landing is a lot trickier, but if they have any early problems they would ditch it in the sea. They would have to have a problem just before landing for the rocket to take out the barge. If you want to count tipping over as a crash, that would make it more likely, but still less than SpaceX because of the soft landing and more legs.
  - somenameforme 2y ago
    Those barges can withstand a ridiculous amount of force - it'll be standing at the end of the day regardless of what happens. But I generally agree. I think the orbital test is likely to succeed, but landing on the first go - that would be simply epic. There's just too many unknown unknowns to go straight to success IMO, but I'd love to be proven wrong!
    - purpleidea 2y ago
      I guess you were wrong, they scrubbed. But do you really think the barge would survive a direct hit? I mean it might not sink but all the equipment on it would be very broken, would it not?
      - somenameforme 2y ago
        A scrub isn't generally considered a failure. Lots of things like the cross winds, weather, and so on have to align in order to try to launch, and those are simply outside your control. And there's a lot of normal variance with the different subsystems that can cause a scrub if anything is sub-nominal. Of course things like the SLS 'scrubbing' over a period of years is a bit different, but I'd call that more of an entire program failing, as opposed to a launch. You can see videos of the SpaceX barges taking multiple direct hits before they managed to start nailing the landings. There's very little exposed equipment and the barges are mostly unharmed.

BozeWolf 2y ago

Hold on, some engineer is doing a few last git commits to make it work. When cicd job is done, t0 in 10minutes.

purpleidea 2y ago
I always genuinely wondered how close to the various launches someone actually runs `git commit`. One day our ancestors will look back on this time and wonder why we all re-developed similar code over and over again, instead of sharing it with copyleft and spending our energy as a society solving real problems like disease, fundamental physics, and so on...
- throw5959 2y ago
  Future generations will be dumbfounded why didn't everyone just ask the computer to get what they need.
- panick21_ 2y ago
  They have costume avionics and costume ground system. The hardware both on the rocket and the launch site is just completely different. And likely plugs into back-ends that are pretty company specific. I question how much of that code can reasonably unified. And why only talk about software? You can make the same argument for the avionics hardware, hell you can make the argument for the whole rocket. And if you just think this far enough you can just make the socialism argument "why have 2 companies at all, only have 1 (potentially government) company (ie Design Bureau) that enough". And that argument generally doesn't work, doing the same thing multiple times to figure out what is best isn't such a bad idea. > disease, fundamental physics, and so on We need space and rockets to research fundamental physics. Diseases get researched in space all the time. Making access to space cheaper has lead to more companies wanting to do more with space research.
- swed420 2y ago
  > One day our ancestors will look back on this time "You see, capitalism was indeed a necessary and inevitable bootstrapping phase of human development. Even Marx agreed this was the case. However, by the 21st century, generations had been indoctrinated to an extent that left them assuming capitalism was an unalterable and fundamental law of nature, instead of the global existential threat it had evolved into by its late stages."