Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New Glenn Update

blueorigin.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 154 posts

Re: New Glenn Update

#131

Post by rbanffy »

zamadatix wrote: post #128
rbanffy wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you want hundreds of nukes in orbit? If you think about that, a lot of fuel for in-space nuclear reactors will already have been launched, so, if a new peace treaty outlaws them, it'll be a boon to whoever operates fission reactors in space. Or wants to use them for propulsion. Once in space, they can't be disposed of - deorbiting is a big no-no, as it's blowing them up.

If one is using a nuclear reactor for long term power or propulsion you shouldn't need to be disposing of it in the Earth's vicinity anyways - there is plenty of solar in Earth orbit. Not that peace treaties around nukes will inherently ban reactors.

If the nuke is already in orbit, harvesting it for fissile fuel seems like a sensible way of decommissioning it. They you can power your NTR (or RTG if you must) from its fuel. It'll require some in-orbit metallurgy work, to get it in the proper shape and composition.

Re: New Glenn Update

#132

Post by palata »

lesuorac wrote: post #126
palata wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But you can't! Metric uses Kilograms not Grams all the time for things like Force (Kg *m/s^2) A gram is 1000 times a gram, it's written in the word. Are you serious when you say you can't easily multiply or divide by 1000? A mile is 5280 feet. I can't just convert 231 miles into feet like that, and that's assuming I remember "5280".

If you can't multiple 231 by 5280 what are you going to do when you measure a length of 23.1 cm and need to multiple it by the height of 52.80 cm? > Are you serious when you say you can't easily multiply or divide by 1000? You have missed the point. Force is a mass * distance / time. So, if I have a 1 g weight I want to move 1 meter in 1 second then it takes 1 Newton of force. Except it doesn't because Force is actua…

> If I need to look up (or memorize) stuff like this then the entire advantage of metric goes away

Hmmm... no?

With metric, once you know what a "meter" is, you have the distances. meter, meter, meter, ... It's one unit: the meter. And fractions of it that require trivial conversions.

With imperial, you have multiple units of distance: inches, feet, yards, football fields, miles.

The benefit of metric is that you have to memorise fewer units, period. Your example is a formula in physics. There you have to memorise F = m * a AND in which units those are (bonus if they are consistent between the formulas, of course). That's strictly equivalent between imperial and metric there.

> It just comes down to what you're familiar with.

Of course, if you're familiar with imperial and not metric, then you're better off with imperial!

> There's certainly a benefit to everybody using Metric in the same reasoning as there's a benefit to everybody using Mandarin.

That's an interesting example: Mandarin is known for being a lot harder than English. Obviously, if you grew up with Mandarin and no English, you will be more comfortable with Mandarin. But people speaking Mandarin don't insist on saying that Mandarin is not harder than English, in my experience :-).

Re: New Glenn Update

#133

Post by palata »

lacksconfidence wrote: post #130
palata wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am ready to bet big that you would never hear that kind of opinions from someone who learned the metric system first. Am I right in your case? As someone who grew up with metric, my opinion is that nothing that imperial people claim is unintuitive with metric is, in fact, unintuitive to me. Nothing. And I tried hard. We're used to what we're used to :-). > Some things are ridiculously better in the imperial system…

I think the mistake you have is starting from the wrong premise. The premise, IMO, should be that OP has been harassed, demeaned, and otherwise been made to feel bad for 20+ years for using the units they were raised with. At least that's my experience as an American. Most people don't seem to care about the units, what the haters care about (not you, but the general experience) is having an opportunity to proclaim h…

I totally feel for that, you should not be harassed, demeaned or made to feel bad for that (or anything else for that matter).

But I don't think that the rational answer is to try to convince everybody that your system is more intuitive because the other has "ridiculous" features. I answered to a comment that said: "ridiculously better in the imperial system".

Re: New Glenn Update

#134

Post by DennisP »

testing22321 wrote: post #24
DennisP wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, 70 tons to LEO is more than the Falcon Heavy.

Thing that doesn’t exist yet will have better specs than thing that’s been in use for over 7 years! News at 10

I'm just comparing specs, not dissing anybody. SpaceX of course also has Starship, which may well be fully operational by then.

Re: New Glenn Update

#135

Post by jmyeet »

Zigurd wrote: post #124
jmyeet wrote: post #65

I think Blue Origin's biggest problem is they don't currently have a planned or real Falcon 9 competitor. These expected and incremental updates (to a years late system that still needs to be proven) are putting the payload capacity in the Falcon Heavy range and there's roughly 1 Falcon Heavy launch per year. There are over 100 Falcon 9 launches per year. Yes a bunch are Starlink so you can exclude those when estimat…

Trying to compete against Falcon 9 is like entering the TV market against TCL. At best, you won't lose your shirt trying and can quit gracefully. Several other rockets startups think they do want to try. Let them. Being a better Falcon Heavy is a much more realistic goal. Just having a larger payload fairing is enough to win some business. I'm not sure what Starship is designed for. But I don't think it's worth even…

You have no choice. It’s the largest and most profitable sector of your market. If you don’t compete in it, SpaceX can subsidize Falcon Heavy launches with their Falcon 9 launches to put you out of business.

I’m honestly not sure what Starship is designed for either. Despite all the hype, it might bankrupt SpaceX. Or seems like the poster child for second system syndrome.

Re: New Glenn Update

#136

Post by Zigurd »

jmyeet wrote: post #135
Zigurd wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trying to compete against Falcon 9 is like entering the TV market against TCL. At best, you won't lose your shirt trying and can quit gracefully. Several other rockets startups think they do want to try. Let them. Being a better Falcon Heavy is a much more realistic goal. Just having a larger payload fairing is enough to win some business. I'm not sure what Starship is designed for. But I don't think it's worth even…

You have no choice. It’s the largest and most profitable sector of your market. If you don’t compete in it, SpaceX can subsidize Falcon Heavy launches with their Falcon 9 launches to put you out of business. I’m honestly not sure what Starship is designed for either. Despite all the hype, it might bankrupt SpaceX. Or seems like the poster child for second system syndrome.

I strongly suspect they already have been pricing Falcon Heavy launches below cost, with the exception of national security launches. IIRC spaceX claims that falcon heavy has a lower cost per kilogram to orbit than Falcon 9.

I also suspect that they are burning capital everywhere and their margins are extremely thin. The charitable assessment of that is that they are being like Amazon and they know what they are doing. A less charitable assessment is that Amazon could simply turn a pricing knob and become profitable. There is no knob at SpaceX. They need to make a very risky rocket project work for things to work in general. Not that that's a pattern in Elon's businesses or anything.

Re: New Glenn Update

#137

Post by Zigurd »

Seanambers wrote: post #37
dylan604 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems BO is taking the NASA approach of not being so cavalier with testing. You can tell people you expect the thing to fail, but repeatedly seeing them fail is still seen as a negative.

Sad part is that even though SpaceX / Elon has been very clear about expected outcomes it's still used against them.

How many years ago was it that Elon said that if Starship wasn't completed by the end of the year SpaceX would go out of business? Elon really isn't a candidate for carefully-set-expectations martyrdom.

Re: New Glenn Update

#138

Post by Zigurd »

Zigurd wrote: post #136
jmyeet wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have no choice. It’s the largest and most profitable sector of your market. If you don’t compete in it, SpaceX can subsidize Falcon Heavy launches with their Falcon 9 launches to put you out of business. I’m honestly not sure what Starship is designed for either. Despite all the hype, it might bankrupt SpaceX. Or seems like the poster child for second system syndrome.

I strongly suspect they already have been pricing Falcon Heavy launches below cost, with the exception of national security launches. IIRC spaceX claims that falcon heavy has a lower cost per kilogram to orbit than Falcon 9. I also suspect that they are burning capital everywhere and their margins are extremely thin. The charitable assessment of that is that they are being like Amazon and they know what they are doin…

"Or seems like the poster child for second system syndrome." is spot on. Finding that they could actually land a Falcon 9 is exactly the serendipitous kind of win that leads to second system syndrome. There's a bit of Cybertruck-ism in the mix, too.

Re: New Glenn Update

#139

Post by margalabargala »

exomonk wrote: post #57
margalabargala wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Starship has only flown 11 times. I suspect it's more cost effective than the Falcon 9 was when it had 11 launches, long before any reuse.

Counting all those explosions as "flown" is pretty charitable.

It's a technical rocketry term that encompasses all attempted flights, successful or otherwise.

Your confusion stems from trying to use a different definition of the word when reading. Context clues are your friend here :)

Re: New Glenn Update

#140

Post by overfeed »

jdranczewski wrote: post #99
sam_goody wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I split my time between Europe and the US, and I am totally not convinced that metric is better. Some things are ridiculously better in the imperial system - like temperature: In Fahrenheit, 0 is roughly the coldest mean day in densely inhabited areas, and 100 is the hottest. In Metric, 0 is the freezing point of water at sea level in ambient temperatures and with a low barometer reading, 100 is boiling in the same c…

I've always found the weather argument somewhat unconvincing, because 0°C being the freezing point of water is very much a useful point of reference in weather contexts - it's roughly where one may expect iced-over pavements and rain to turn to snow! And then the higher temperatures are a question of getting used to it - 40°C instead of 100°F is very very warm, 30 is pretty hot, 20 is reasonably warm, etc. But then I…

> But then I grew up with Celsius, so no wonder I'm used to it!

People confuse familiarity with intuitiveness all the damn time. It's a recurring theme in OS "ease of use" superiority debates as well as metric vs imperial. And date, time or number formats. And road signs.

Post reply on HN