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

Blue Origin's New Glenn blows up during static fire test

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 588 posts

Re: Blue Origin's New Glenn blows up during static fire test

#231

Post by baq »

lunar_mycroft wrote: post #217
wahern wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Crushing only because their cadence is so slow compared to SpaceX. Their process seems much closer to the highly risk averse methodology of traditional incumbents than to SpaceX's style. Failure becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Rockets are ridiculously complex. Slow-and-steady wins the race makes sense for many individual components, depending on how well understood the problem domain is, and your ability to rigor…

No, this would be crushing regardless. Even if Blue Origin had dozens of rockets ready to go, they can't fly without without the pad, which will take around a year to repair (based on previous examples).

Yeah exactly. Blowing up the rocket is the easy part. Reliably blowing up rockets on a high cadence is hard.

Re: Blue Origin's New Glenn blows up during static fire test

#232

Post by red75prime »

malux85 wrote: post #199
red75prime wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a plausible sounding but incorrect answer That is an incorrect but plausible hypothesis. Do you really think that people can't make such mistakes? If you want to say that people have understanding, then define understanding in an operationalizable way first. It doesn't mean that I would recommend a general-purpose AI model without additional training to do a fault analysis.

>That is an incorrect but plausible hypothesis. >Do you really think that people can't make such mistakes? Where did I say that? You just pulled that out of nowhere and then refuted it - strawman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

> it would hallucinate a plausible sounding but incorrect answer

"Hallucinate" as used in this context does not apply to humans and presupposes a qualitative difference.

Re: Blue Origin's New Glenn blows up during static fire test

#233

Post by steve1977 »

GMoromisato wrote: post #133

This is a crushing setback for Blue Origin. I feel for the engineers. They have been the underdogs for so long, but with the recent successful recovery of the New Glenn booster, it finally seemed like they had some bragging rights. Now they're looking at a year minimum before they get back to a regular launch rhythm. The question now is: What went wrong? If they're lucky, it's just a stupid mistake. Maybe an incorrec…

I'm not sure if I would call the vanity project of one of the richest people on earth an "underdog".

Btw, "If they're lucky, it's just a stupid mistake" is actually interesting.

If you're at that stage and spending so much money, I would consider making stupid mistakes to be catastrophic.

Re: Blue Origin's New Glenn blows up during static fire test

#234

Post by malux85 »

red75prime wrote: post #232
malux85 wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>That is an incorrect but plausible hypothesis. >Do you really think that people can't make such mistakes? Where did I say that? You just pulled that out of nowhere and then refuted it - strawman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

> it would hallucinate a plausible sounding but incorrect answer "Hallucinate" as used in this context does not apply to humans and presupposes a qualitative difference.

I was saying that an AI would more likely hallucinate an incorrect answer than correctly diagnose the root cause failure. At no time was I comparing an AI to a human, thats the bit you made up.

Re: Blue Origin's New Glenn blows up during static fire test

#235

Post by JumpCrisscross »

_moof wrote: post #171
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> not clear what "full duration static fire" means You fire the rocket as if it’s going to space, but you keep it on the pad. (From the engine’s perspective, it did a full launch.)

From the industry: I would expect to hear "mission duty cycle" in that case. "Full duration" doesn't have a consistent meaning (a fact which is sometimes used to the marketing team's advantage).

Flight computer tells engine to go. Full go, launch sequence. Engine goes. To me, anything but that isn’t a full-duration anything.

If clamped down, it’s a full-duration static fire. If clamps release, it goes to space. Basically, if the engine can’t tell (apart from atmosphere, which is a big apart) it isn’t going to space, it’s a FDSF. It’s a whole-engine show. If you’re running parts through a full duty cycle, that can be done in a lab (or on a stand).

Re: Blue Origin's New Glenn blows up during static fire test

#236

Post by russdill »

AustinDev wrote: post #166
perlgeek wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say on a scale of bad 1-10, 9 and 10 are reserved for incidents that cause loss of human life. YMMV.

Loss of human life in a static fire is criminal. Why would anyone be that close? There was no loss of life in this static fire failure.

I mean, there was that one static fire recently where the rocket broken loose and started flying. This was not for from a populated area. Ok, maybe that was pretty criminally negligent.

Re: Blue Origin's New Glenn blows up during static fire test

#238

Post by JumpCrisscross »

avmich wrote: post #154
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s a fair criticism. I’m just never remembering anyone thinking BO was the safer option.

Can't we, at worst, use Apollo-level suits - maybe actial suits? - for small Moon walks?

No. One, they don’t exist in working condition. Two, the tolerances and materials were unacceptable by modern standards. (And for modern purposes. We’re going there to do shit. Not be Boy Scouts.)
Post reply on HN