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

311–320 of 588 posts

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

#311

Post by _moof »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #235
_moof wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, tha…

Sorry, no, I've worked on multiple launch vehicles and "full duration" doesn't mean anything consistent to anyone actually working on rockets.

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

#312

Post by mrsmrtss »

bob1029 wrote: post #306
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…

> if you take that approach when testing all the thousands of components together, which is simply just too complex to exhaustively model[1], you'll never get anywhere. This is exactly why ideas like test-driven development don't work well as a general approach. Most realistic systems exhibit non-linear interactions where correctness is not compositional. Local correctness does not compose upward in any meaningful se…

That's not how TDD works. You test the whole chain and all the components with tests and you can move from top to bottom with TDD, it's actually how you should do it.

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

#313

Post by ceejayoz »

WalterBright wrote: post #209

> A source indicated that one of the lightning towers may not be salvageable, and that the transporter-erector may also be damaged beyond repair. My first thought is why wasn't the t-e moved away before launch?

Blue’s TEL is part of the launch pad. You can see it retract in some of the explosion videos.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C87e9x0tLix/

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

#314

Post by wongarsu »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #77
HerbManic wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

> 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.

I believe that's the inevitable outcome.

The Chinese will build a moon base, as a sign from the Chinese government to the Chinese people that China is capable of cutting-edge engineering and science (notably a demonstration to their own citizens - when was the last time you heard about the Chinese space stations outside China?).

America seems a bit shaky in their determination to actually build a moon base, though having Jared Isaacman as administrator gives hope. But regardless of whether America is currently on track, a successful Chinese moon base won't stay without answer

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

#315

Post by K0balt »

Blowing up on the launch pad is like a rite of passage for every serious rocket program. The engineering margins are thin out of necessity, and lots of things conspire to eat through them.

Rocket science is hard, and rocket physics are unforgiving. If the planet was just a little bit heavier, we would not be able to leave it with chemical rockets at all.

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

#316

Post by HacklesRaised »

vkou wrote: post #160
gorgoiler wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One might make the same observations about software “bugginess” and complexity. The pace of improvement is such that everyone is riding the bleeding edge and, as such, the carpet inevitably gets a few spots of blood on it.

Software quality sucks because the consequences for getting it wrong are low for the people and organizations making it. Which is often fine, but sometimes isn't.

I have come to think that the reason why people are prepared to accept AI slop is because the software industry was so blase about quality. They already had slop, now they get it cheaper.

AI is the fentanyl to JavaScript bootcamp heroin.

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

#317

Post by wongarsu »

frakkingcylons wrote: post #58
hgoel wrote: post #37

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).

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

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

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

#318

Post by wongarsu »

haunter wrote: post #285
mrcwinn wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That rocket appears to have crashed into an open plain. It was a village?

1996 The village is pretty much gone https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZTFgZ9zl74

Wow, that certainly gives context to why modern range safety is so strict about automatically or manually blowing the rocket up once it deviates too far from the planned path

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

#320

Post by ted_bunny »

nixass wrote: post #292
infinitewars wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real concern was Russia, given SpaceX has always been a MIC project, now publicly manifest as "Golden Dome" .. a program which undermines M.A.D. and obviously greatly incentives sabotage. There just happened to be a ULA building nearby that was in range and investigated as a possible vector of attack.

> now publicly manifest as "Golden Dome "Golden" goes perfectly in line with the current president's office decor

"Home Depot presents the Apparently Gilded Dome" didn't have the same ring
Post reply on HN