Live data from Hacker News

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

twitter.com

411–420 of 588 posts

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

#411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Because it's better for Earth's biosphere to mine things like lithium on the moon rather than polluting our biosphere. The North and South pole of the moon also serves as an excellent staging ground to put solar energy collectors that can then transmit continuous concentrated power to Earth.

The moon is dangerous because there's no people and civilization is 5 days away at best but if there was already civilization at the moon you wouldn't think it was dangerous.

On top of that the materials on the moon are already "on the high ground" meaning you don't need to spend a lot of money on propellant to get it into orbit. So building space habitats and delivering them into an appropriate orbit on the moon is a tiny fraction of the fuel needed from Earth. To put this into perspective the Apollo Lunar Module only needed 2.2 Tons of propellant to get the upper part of it back into orbit to meet up with the service module. 2.2 tons of propellant is basically nothing with the scales we are talking about.

On top of that if we could produce the propellant on the moon the costs and logistics and difficulty of all of this drop significantly.

So in short the best possible way to lower the risk, cost, and provide functionality is to establish civilization on the moon and get to the industrial age there as quickly as possible.

We're doing it regardless of what you naysayers will say about it because it's the right thing to do for a thousand different reasons. And we're doing the robot thing too. At the same time.

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

#412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Calling Blue Origin a vanity project is so ridiculous.

What would you say is Jeff Bezos' motivation behind it?

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

#413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

BO was founded in 2000 and has about 2 orbital launches with a partly reusable system. They build rockets. SpaceX was founded in 2002 and has around 660 orbital launches with a fully reusable system. They build rocket factories. BO is absolutely the underdog, in every way, unless you want to count 38 suborbital joyrides, then they're ahead at 38 to 0.

None of the SpaceX orbital launches so far have been fully reusable. The second stage is not recovered.

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

#415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

One more very minor step towards making the human race meteor-proof.

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

#416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The modern version of "It must be a compiler bug!"

The modern version is "LLMs produce bad code"

LLMs aren't nearly mature or deterministic enough to earn that distinction. I've had an agent tell me it read a link I gave it, when actually it lied. I don't see how you could possibly compare that to a compiler where thinking "maybe it's a compiler bug" means you've almost certainly missed something.

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

#417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd bet lots of telemetry, comprehensive design and change documentation, along with engineers tacit knowledge. Something like: telemetry shows dramatic drop of temperature on this, that given the location of the sensor could only be caused by a specific LOX line leak, and vibration sensors show data compatible with friction as the ignition event and not a short circuit because the relevant telemetry doesn't show any…

Yeah, but at the end of the day you can't be sure right? That doubt would eat away at me

Nothing of the level of rocket failure, but I've tracked down issues where you are never sure of the cause. You keep the doubt and let it drive you. You aren't as much sure of a theory, as you have the theory you most want to disprove and keep failing to do so. The more you fail to disprove a given theory while other people with their own personal 'targets' do end up disproving them, the more you can report that the theory is the reasonable conclusion. But you never given up the idea of looking to disprove it. Eventually others join you and work to disprove your theory. As the group continues to fail to disprove it, it becomes the officially stated cause unless someone can provide evidence otherwise.

Sometimes I'll have one that I'm stuck on for a month before finally disproving it, and it is an interesting feeling. There is some level of happiness I succeeded at my goal, but it is very bittersweet because it normally was my last working theory and now I'm simply lost until I can formulate a new one. Sometimes disappointment in myself that I might've missed some easy way to disprove it for so long, but other times the way to disprove it was sufficiently hard enough that I just accept it is what it is.

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

#418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can always use the existing ISS suits modified for the moon.

The Moon is frankly a totally different environment. Lunar dust is notorious. Also the ISS suits themselves are being replaced, by Axiom, because they are failing in near-fatal ways periodically.

Been thinking about this quite a bit. I think every lunar airlock will end up with a wash station and will end up using basic water sprays to get the job done. Soil compactors can be used outside to compact the dust and prevent it from being an issue during moon walks as well. I think once a moon base is established most moon walks will be on-base where dust would have been dealt with in the first few years and then after that it's basically like walking on compacted soil so it won't be loose.

And if you're wondering why they might use water for this well... water will be abundant and basically every habitat will have a municipal water hookup. A moon base might quickly find itself with several hectares of water and no where to put it. Might even end up injecting it into the ground where the water will be able to maintain it's liquid state (moon crust quickly reaches room temperature only a few dozens of meters underground).

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

#419
post #248

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…

> They even requested access to a ULA building to see if a sniper could have taken a shot at the rocket. > It turned out to be an exotic failure: liquid oxygen had gotten caught inside a buckled liner I gotta say, suspecting "Rival company hired a sniper" before "Dealing with liquid oxygen is very fucking hard and incredibly flammable" feels very Elon

Dealing with liquid oxygen is hard, but we've been dealing with it in rocket engines since the 1940s at least. It's not a mystery, but like anything in aerospace, as the saying goes, it is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity or neglect.

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

#420
post #304

The video angle published by the BBC is better, it appears to show one side of the rocket disintegrating and sliding down non-explosively before the large explosion really kicked in. Would hate for this all to be described by a few missing bolts https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/cvgz0pdg32mo edit: the failure appears to start at the bottom, this seems to have damaged the structure enough to cause the sliding to start…

What you're seeing is not a 'side' of the rocket sliding down, it's the rocket itself. The other part on the right is the erector stand it was mounted to. Looks like the bottom of the rocket blows out first and begins to collapse. The rocket begins to slide vertically before it all becomes one large fireball. The erector stand didn't survive the explosion either in the end.
Post reply on HN