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

491–500 of 588 posts

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

#491

Post by chainingsolid »

superxpro12 wrote: post #441
hgoel wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

They might purposely NOT fully fuel one of the 2 tanks, in case this happens...

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

#492

Post by Matl »

chihuahua wrote: post #395
rhubarbtree wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there any reason to doubt that the Chinese will get (back) there first?

Not first. Seventh. The successful manned moon landings so far: 1. United States of America 2. United States of America 3. United States of America 4. United States of America 5. United States of America 6. United States of America Now we're watching a riveting race for 7th place.

There was no race anymore once the first Moon landing happened. Same as the Soviets won the 'space race' since they were the first to get into space.

The Moon landing race was a new race.

Now the Back to the Moon race is a different one altogether.

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

#493

Post by ceejayoz »

NetMageSCW wrote: post #480
ceejayoz wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/

I don’t see how it can do much transporting if it is part of launchpad.

It transports the (horizontal) rocket to the pad, erects it, and provides umbilical connections for power and fuel to the rocket during launch; TEL.

You can see them disconnect in the video I linked.

SpaceX does similar; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transporter_erector / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transporter_erector_launcher

> SpaceX uses the central spine of the transporter erector as a strongback, restraining the rocket, providing stability until the tanks are pressurized with fuels, and contain the fluid hoses along with power and telemetry cables. Consequently, it remains at the launch pad through the launch and is typically tilted away 1.5° from the rocket just a few minutes prior to launch and 45° away from the rocket at the moment of liftoff.

The Shuttle's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_launcher_platform played a similar dual role.

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

#494

Post by ASalazarMX »

bell-cot wrote: post #390
Jackson__ wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one inside SpaceX, except for Elon Musk himself? https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/05/spacex-pushed-sniper-t...

From that article - > The “sniper” theory > The lack of a concrete explanation for the failure led SpaceX engineers to pursue hundreds of theories. One was the possibility that an outside “sniper” had shot the rocket. This theory appealed to SpaceX founder Elon Musk, who was asleep at his home in California when the rocket exploded. Within hours of hearing about the failure, Musk gravitated toward the simple answer o…

There's a lot, A LOT of money in play here. Technical reasons are usually the cause, but I wouldn't completely discard sabotage if there's some way they could get away with it, if only to improve procedures.

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

#495

Post by chainingsolid »

mr_toad wrote: post #468
hparadiz wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could land at 500 km/h on wheels and use breaks to stop. This makes it much safer and lowers how much propellant you need to bring to the moon by a lot. Similarly it makes getting back into lunar orbit much safer and easier because you can use electric motors to propel a craft to around 500 km/h before ditching the wheels and starting your chemical rockets. This lowers your propellant mass by 30%. Also the landin…

> you can use electric motors to propel a craft to around 500 km/h before ditching the wheels and starting your chemical rockets. Makes me wonder if you could accelerate to orbital velocity using something like a maglev train and not have to worry about rockets at all.

You would have to do at least a circulization burn no matter the budget spent on maglev.

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

#496

Post by smallmancontrov »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #482
MPSimmons wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I worked at SpaceX at the time, and I cannot speak for the company, but I can tell you that approximately nobody inside SpaceX took the idea of a sniper seriously. There was a lot of internet talk about it, and it was one of hundreds of avenues that were explored, and ruled out basically as soon as it was explored. The very interesting part of the liquid oxygen failure (and this was published in the investigative fin…

> it was one of hundreds of avenues that were explored, and ruled out basically as soon as it was explored. Sounds like me during a troubleshooting call trying to think of the wildest crap possible based on current available information, even if I sound crazy, sometimes my crazy question hits the nail. Never shun someone for trying to think of any crazy thing, sometimes they hit the nail on the head.

Sure, but give a group too long a leash and they will overindex on a tarpit idea. The reason why conspiracy theories are notorious is not because conspiracies don't exist, it's because they are non-falsifiable, fun to speculate about, and easy to understand so everyone can participate. Viral, in other words. Good leaders should steer away from tarpits (and privately ensure that they were scouted, just in case).

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

#497

Post by hparadiz »

mr_toad wrote: post #468
hparadiz wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could land at 500 km/h on wheels and use breaks to stop. This makes it much safer and lowers how much propellant you need to bring to the moon by a lot. Similarly it makes getting back into lunar orbit much safer and easier because you can use electric motors to propel a craft to around 500 km/h before ditching the wheels and starting your chemical rockets. This lowers your propellant mass by 30%. Also the landin…

> you can use electric motors to propel a craft to around 500 km/h before ditching the wheels and starting your chemical rockets. Makes me wonder if you could accelerate to orbital velocity using something like a maglev train and not have to worry about rockets at all.

You can do that but it would require a track that is tens of kilometers long along with a magnetic levitation technology. My suggestion is something we can do right now with a basic landing strip. But yes a meglev is the end game. Needs to reach 8,570 km/h for moon orbital velocity.

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

#498

Post by ianburrell »

Laremere wrote: post #273
oconnor663 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://web.archive.org/web/20120503175355/https://www.nasa.... > The percent propellant has huge implications on the ease of fabrication and robustness in achieving the engineering design (and cost). If a vehicle is less than 10% propellant, it is typically made from billets of steel. Changes to its structure are readily done without engineering analysis; you simple weld on another hunk of steel to reinforce the fra…

To add to this excellent explanation: Rockets have a fundamental problem. They need to go absurdly fast. If you have a rocket that can reach speed X, to go faster than X you need to reach X but also have fuel left over. However to get that fuel to speed X, you need even more fuel. This is the tyranny of the rocket equation. Roughly put, the rocket equation is: change in speed = (engine efficiency) * log(mass of the r…

Nuclear rockets aren't suitable to get orbit, they are too heavy. Also, nuclear rockets can separate the reactor and the propellant, called close cycle. I think the solid core reactors that are feasible send propellant through reactor but all of the fuel is encased.

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

#499

Post by ponector »

cmiles8 wrote: post #375
ponector wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Achievements of SpaceX are enormous. But is US actually far ahead? Both China and EU have pretty much the same capabilities for space exploration.

China is behind and making progress, but still hasn’t hit key milestone the US hit decades ago. The EU isn’t even close.

You can say the same about US: still hasn't hit key milestone US hit decades ago.
Post reply on HN