8 ms·

Ouch, losing the rocket is unfortunate, but the damage to the launch infrastructure is going to easily mean over a year of repairs. I hope they're going to take

by hgoel 5mo ago

Ouch, losing the rocket is unfortunate, but the damage to the launch infrastructure is going to easily mean over a year of repairs. I hope they're going to take this as an opportunity to update the infrastructure from lessons learned from the flights so far, and to be able to support some of their future ambitions (e.g. Jarvis).

frakkingcylons 5mo ago
Eric Berger of Ars Technica: > I'm hearing that it is possible that Blue Origin decides to go directly to the larger 9x4 variant of New Glenn after this failure. Obviously no decisions like that will be made without more data review. https://xcancel.com/SciGuySpace/status/2060190522539401631#m https://xcancel.com/SciGuySpace/status/2060190522539401631#m
- justinhj 5mo ago
  https://x.com/sawyermerritt/status/2060174287563116696?s=46&t=Ba2dAtOVZf2p2m_enoKJAA https://x.com/sawyermerritt/status/2060174287563116696?s=46&...
- bombcar 5mo ago
  I know it's not, but darned if that doesn't sound like "it exploded real big, so build a bigger one!"
  - locknitpicker 5mo ago
    > I know it's not, but darned if that doesn't sound like "it exploded real big, so build a bigger one!" To me it sounds like "alright, it's silly to waste time and energy on duplicate effort. Let's focus on getting this one right instead."
  - laughing_man 5mo ago
    It makes some sense. If they're not going to be able to launch for a year because the pad is being rebuilt anyway, projects that were going to take a year may as well go to the front burner.
- wongarsu 5mo ago
  This is their only New Glenn launch pad, but the pad for the 9x4 is already under construction. Depending on the damage sustained to the pad that might be a factor in the decision
HerbManic 5mo ago
That is a very fair point. While I have no skin in the game, it is fascinating to see if the Us with Artemus or China with Chang'e will be the first to make it back to the Moon manned. At this point is is looking like the winners will merely be those that have the least loses and launch pad loses can take a long time to recover from. Credit to Space X, they have become very good and fixing launch pads with Starship. What used to be year(s) long pauses, now only take a few months.
- hgoel 5mo ago
  Yes, in that sense SpaceX has really benefited from having the Starbase site. My understanding is that one of the reasons pad rebuilds take so long at the Cape is that they have to work around everyone else's schedule.
- JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
  > the winners will merely be those The best outcome is we get two Moon bases. I say this as someone who remains a fairly patriotic American. But we need competition and, more darkly, we need a backup.
  - hparadiz 5mo ago
    The South Pole of the moon will end up one giant mega city due to it's constant sunlight. It will be a lot easier to get there once there is even one landing strip.
    - kjkjadksj 5mo ago
      I don’t know why we are wasting all this money making it habitable for humans when robotics have taken such strides the last few decades. Manned missions made sense when we didn’t have these compute and robotic abilities we have today. Now, they are undue risk and cost and offer no real functionality but some misplaced national pride perhaps.
      - hparadiz 5mo ago
jillesvangurp 5mo ago
It's an understandable but wrong attitude. If you don't have high profile failures like this, you aren't taking enough R&D risk. It's a fiercely ambitious industry and these launch attempts amount to what literally are moon shots. The race is on between various companies and countries as to who gets there first. Boeing is pretty much out of the race at this point. Just too busy navel gazing and lobbying. There's a big risk that the next person on the moon might be from China. Blue Origin and SpaceX are the best things to happen to the rocket industry in decades. So, yes Blue Origin had a RUD with New Glenn. They should, learn and adapt and launch the next one. It would be good for SpaceX to have credible competition. And New Glenn seems like it could become that. But if they only get their lessons every few years, they'll be competing against a fully reusable Starship rather than Falcon 9 & Falcon heavy by the time this thing becomes a serious launch vehicle. The goal posts are moving.
- hgoel 5mo ago
  High profile failures that take out launch infrastructure are undesirable because the cost to that is much much higher than just losing the rocket. It means having all of your R&D and production pipelines stalled for at least months, usually years, while the rest of that fiercely ambitious industry races ahead. This was routine pre-launch testing, not a launch attempt.
  - superxpro12 5mo ago
    My understanding is that a static fire test is not much different than a launch attempt? The tanks are fully loaded. The engines are throttling up to full. In terms of application its the same amount of energy going into the rocket in either case.
    - chainingsolid 5mo ago
      They might purposely NOT fully fuel one of the 2 tanks, in case this happens...
    - hgoel 5mo ago
      What I was trying to imply is that it wasn't R&D. That it was routine testing, verifying that your machine is working fine. Static fires put more stress on the rocket than an actual launch because the rocket is stuck on the ground, receiving all the shockwaves. They also cause more damage to the launch infrastructure.
Cthulhu_ 5mo ago
I think that if companies want to scale up rocket launches (and let's disregard the cost / environmental impact / etc for now), they also need to scale up launch sites, at the moment they seem like single points of failure. I have only armchair amateur half a world away knowledge of this, but I want to believe all they need is an exhaust diffuser thingy and refueling capabilities; the former can probably be built cheap enough anywhere, the latter can be made portable. (of course then you also have the challenge of assembling and loading a rocket, lmao. But a hub-and-spokes setup with VAB(s) and launch sites spread out around it like an airport could work. Bonus evil villain points if the launch sites are underground to contain explosions in case of failure. (this post is just imagination / castles in the sky)
- NetMageSCW 5mo ago
  Any large rocket needs a water deluge system to prevent damage to the launch pad and reduce sound volume so echoes don’t damage the rocket. The amount of fuel required for these large rockets can’t really be portable. A Starship launch uses hundreds of methane truck tankers worth of fuel. But it is cadence that drives SpaceX to have multiple launchpads plus specialized capabilities and orbital dynamics for F9.

by hgoel 5mo ago

frakkingcylons 5mo ago

Eric Berger of Ars Technica: > I'm hearing that it is possible that Blue Origin decides to go directly to the larger 9x4 variant of New Glenn after this failure. Obviously no decisions like that will be made without more data review. https://xcancel.com/SciGuySpace/status/2060190522539401631#m https://xcancel.com/SciGuySpace/status/2060190522539401631#m

justinhj 5mo ago
https://x.com/sawyermerritt/status/2060174287563116696?s=46&t=Ba2dAtOVZf2p2m_enoKJAA https://x.com/sawyermerritt/status/2060174287563116696?s=46&...
bombcar 5mo ago
I know it's not, but darned if that doesn't sound like "it exploded real big, so build a bigger one!"
- locknitpicker 5mo ago
  > I know it's not, but darned if that doesn't sound like "it exploded real big, so build a bigger one!" To me it sounds like "alright, it's silly to waste time and energy on duplicate effort. Let's focus on getting this one right instead."
- laughing_man 5mo ago
  It makes some sense. If they're not going to be able to launch for a year because the pad is being rebuilt anyway, projects that were going to take a year may as well go to the front burner.
wongarsu 5mo ago
This is their only New Glenn launch pad, but the pad for the 9x4 is already under construction. Depending on the damage sustained to the pad that might be a factor in the decision

HerbManic 5mo ago

That is a very fair point. While I have no skin in the game, it is fascinating to see if the Us with Artemus or China with Chang'e will be the first to make it back to the Moon manned. At this point is is looking like the winners will merely be those that have the least loses and launch pad loses can take a long time to recover from. Credit to Space X, they have become very good and fixing launch pads with Starship. What used to be year(s) long pauses, now only take a few months.

hgoel 5mo ago
Yes, in that sense SpaceX has really benefited from having the Starbase site. My understanding is that one of the reasons pad rebuilds take so long at the Cape is that they have to work around everyone else's schedule.
JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
> the winners will merely be those The best outcome is we get two Moon bases. I say this as someone who remains a fairly patriotic American. But we need competition and, more darkly, we need a backup.
- hparadiz 5mo ago
  The South Pole of the moon will end up one giant mega city due to it's constant sunlight. It will be a lot easier to get there once there is even one landing strip.
  - kjkjadksj 5mo ago
    I don’t know why we are wasting all this money making it habitable for humans when robotics have taken such strides the last few decades. Manned missions made sense when we didn’t have these compute and robotic abilities we have today. Now, they are undue risk and cost and offer no real functionality but some misplaced national pride perhaps.
    - hparadiz 5mo ago

jillesvangurp 5mo ago

It's an understandable but wrong attitude. If you don't have high profile failures like this, you aren't taking enough R&D risk. It's a fiercely ambitious industry and these launch attempts amount to what literally are moon shots. The race is on between various companies and countries as to who gets there first. Boeing is pretty much out of the race at this point. Just too busy navel gazing and lobbying. There's a big risk that the next person on the moon might be from China. Blue Origin and SpaceX are the best things to happen to the rocket industry in decades. So, yes Blue Origin had a RUD with New Glenn. They should, learn and adapt and launch the next one. It would be good for SpaceX to have credible competition. And New Glenn seems like it could become that. But if they only get their lessons every few years, they'll be competing against a fully reusable Starship rather than Falcon 9 & Falcon heavy by the time this thing becomes a serious launch vehicle. The goal posts are moving.

hgoel 5mo ago
High profile failures that take out launch infrastructure are undesirable because the cost to that is much much higher than just losing the rocket. It means having all of your R&D and production pipelines stalled for at least months, usually years, while the rest of that fiercely ambitious industry races ahead. This was routine pre-launch testing, not a launch attempt.
- superxpro12 5mo ago
  My understanding is that a static fire test is not much different than a launch attempt? The tanks are fully loaded. The engines are throttling up to full. In terms of application its the same amount of energy going into the rocket in either case.
  - chainingsolid 5mo ago
    They might purposely NOT fully fuel one of the 2 tanks, in case this happens...
  - hgoel 5mo ago
    What I was trying to imply is that it wasn't R&D. That it was routine testing, verifying that your machine is working fine. Static fires put more stress on the rocket than an actual launch because the rocket is stuck on the ground, receiving all the shockwaves. They also cause more damage to the launch infrastructure.

Cthulhu_ 5mo ago

I think that if companies want to scale up rocket launches (and let's disregard the cost / environmental impact / etc for now), they also need to scale up launch sites, at the moment they seem like single points of failure. I have only armchair amateur half a world away knowledge of this, but I want to believe all they need is an exhaust diffuser thingy and refueling capabilities; the former can probably be built cheap enough anywhere, the latter can be made portable. (of course then you also have the challenge of assembling and loading a rocket, lmao. But a hub-and-spokes setup with VAB(s) and launch sites spread out around it like an airport could work. Bonus evil villain points if the launch sites are underground to contain explosions in case of failure. (this post is just imagination / castles in the sky)

NetMageSCW 5mo ago
Any large rocket needs a water deluge system to prevent damage to the launch pad and reduce sound volume so echoes don’t damage the rocket. The amount of fuel required for these large rockets can’t really be portable. A Starship launch uses hundreds of methane truck tankers worth of fuel. But it is cadence that drives SpaceX to have multiple launchpads plus specialized capabilities and orbital dynamics for F9.