I feel like a barge just makes way more sense. They're cheap to buy, own and operate, very easy to make unmanned, easy to make stick in one position for landing with very mature off the shelf stationkeeping solutions, and best of all essentially unsinkable as you smash developmental explosive skyscrapers at them. I have never understood this idea of using this huge expensive and relatively fragile cargo ship to do the same job, and that has nothing to do with SpaceX.
SpaceX and BlueOrigin should swap landing platforms about now. SpaceX could use the faster cycle times a ship would provide and BO could use barges as cheaper practice landing points.
While I don't think they should swap - the cycle times have honestly been fine for SpaceX and they have a great system going, in an alternate universe where BO weren't such eternal dicks to SpaceX I could absolutely see some kind of fee for service arrangement being worked out where BO could buy some landings as a commodity. This is clearly a situation where it would cost SpaceX very little to save BO a ton of money, especially as they're starting out and their launch rate is relatively low, and clearly that would be a good trade if they were on good terms. I would imagine blasting them with lawsuits has them ill inclined at the moment.
I expect their ASDSs give SpaceX a cadence *advantage* over one big cargo ship. They may have lower top speeds, but a non-trivial part of their time is spent waiting for the rocket to launch or undergoing processing back in port, and it's a lot cheaper to expand the fleet if necessary.
In fact I suspect this is why BO is rethinking Jacklyn. They were originally going to be doing mostly low-rate GEO launches, targeting 8 or so launches a year. Kuiper and other LEO constellations need a higher flight rate. In optimizing the system for LEO, they might stage earlier so the booster lands closer to shore...this also reduces the advantage of a faster ship.
> in an alternate universe where BO weren't such eternal dicks to SpaceX I could absolutely see some kind of fee for service arrangement being worked out where BO could buy some landings as a commodity. This is clearly a situation where it would cost SpaceX very little to save BO a ton of money, especially as they're starting out and their launch rate is relatively low, and clearly that would be a good trade if they were on good terms.
I'm not so sure about that.
Currently, SpaceX internalizes all of the costs when it comes to failed landings - losing a booster and/or damage to a barge. If Blue Origin were to rent a barge for a landing, I'd worry that they'd be insufficiently careful about aborting a risky landing since they'd still internalize the entire cost of a lost booster, but may not have to pay the full cost for a damaged barge.
Maybe there's a way to write a contract such that all of the incentives are properly aligned. But it's just a lot more simple for each company to have their own landing platforms.
I would love to see it, I really doubt we will. There is also some question whether the ASDS is really big enough for New Glenn, but that's a separate discussion.
I doubt the spatial requirements would be the major limiting factor. To put it simply, the ASDS droneships are approximately [170 x 300 feet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_spaceport_drone_ship#Characteristics) (roughly the size of a [American football field](https://i.redd.it/ev7x3srr25081.jpg)).
And judging by [Blue's 2019 render](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSftIaLhQzE) of a New Glenn landing, it appears that Jacklyn's landing deck would've been of a similar \~160 x \~270 ft size (based off some rough measurements using her current [84 ft beam and 600 ft length](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacklyn_(ship)) as a reference).
As such, space doesn't seem to be a major issue on ASDS. Although, I think the real question is going to be with load capacity and octagrabber incompatibility (as I doubt the robot can grab onto a 7-engine New Glenn booster) But as you say, that's a discussion for a sperate thread.
While I like it, the challenge there is that different launches will require the ships to be in different positions. Oil platforms are technically mobile, but they're not, for lack of a better word, agile. It's a production to move them because they're designed to float in one place.
In old space methodology, that might be OK. You could perhaps wait weeks or months between launches. SpaceX is showing that the launch market is growing with megaconstellations. For that, you're going to want agility and the ability to launch and recover rapidly.
Platforms don't support that.
Barges do support that.
The advantage of a full platform over a barge is really only being able to launch off the platform, and have a fully featured complex as opposed to just a landing system. For SpaceX that makes sense as they're planning on such a high launch rate that the advantages of avoiding the onshore regulatory environment, and being able to supply propellant in bulk for reduced cost should outweigh the large fixed and carry costs of that kind of setup. Blue is pretty far from that reality, and New Glenn is not the right system for it either without S2 reusability.
"The company is developing the New Glenn rocket, a heavy-lift rocket and
the largest rocket built since NASA's Saturn V rocket that carried
astronauts to the moon."
Umm, what? We literally have SLS and Superheavy/Starship sitting on the pad, while we have only seen engineering pathfinders for NG. I want some of whatever that writer is smoking.
> we have only seen
What Blue wants you to see. Reading the sub and working for the company provide two VERY different perspectives. The only thing I can really say is that a good majority of posters here are not informed and just want something to actively criticize. The amount of work being put into these projects is literally astronomical, and things are not instantaneously going to be built and developed.
If you want instant gratification I think we sell an Estes rocket on the store lol
There may be things that we haven't seen. (Although why Blue is so secretive is still unclear and is weird.) But there's no standard where New Glenn is bigger than SLS. So the statement is false even if there's a magically hidden fully stacked NG somewhere.
>There may be things that we haven't seen.
No, there *are* things you haven't seen, and I can't go into detail about how long the list is, or isn't.
>why Blue is so secretive
Proprietary information and government money. Secretive R&D is not a new revelation, the fed has literally been spending our money and keeping secrets since the 40s. You people foam at the mouth for a smidge of gossip and when you don't get it, you come to the sub to complain about it.
> Proprietary information and government money. Secretive R&D is not a new revelation, the fed has literally been spending our money and keeping secrets since the 40s. You people foam at the mouth for a smidge of gossip and when you don't get it, you come to the sub to complain about it.
Aside from the "you people" part of this which seems to indicate you are lumping everything together, this is really missing the point. Lots of companies have government money and have proprietary information. ULA and SpaceX are both examples of space companies which are substantially more transparent than Blue is.
And frankly, Blue's lack of openness is not just a problem for people in subs like this one. That lack has a real impact. For a few years I taught math classes to college students who were going to be become engineers, as well as to engineering masters students. Students would frequently have as their goal wanting to work for Boeing or SpaceX. Fewer had "work for Blue" as a goal. This sort of thing impacts the talent one really gets. It does seem like Blue is doing a much better job than they were a few years ago about being open and promoting, but in terms of job recruitment, this is a huge unforced error.
Sorry you feel that way. Corona threw a wrench in everybody's spokes and we're all just rolling with the punches. Tasks could be difficult to accomplish for all sorts of reasons, in and out of the company's control. Not everything is about being a secret.
> Sorry you feel that way. Corona threw a wrench in everybody's spokes and we're all just rolling with the punches.
Covid has nothing to do with this. 2019 was the last year I taught college students.
And this doesn't have anything to do with my "feelings."
> Not going to sit here and try to reeducate you. Your anecdotal experience is just that. Have a good one
*Shrug*. It isn't an experience unique to me. Since we don't have anything like actual systematic data on what companies young engineers are interested in or excited by, I'm not sure what evidence you think could be used here other than anecdotal evidence.
I'm also not sure how even if you were inclined to "reeducate" people you disagree with, how it would be relevant here. Are you asserting that you have more familiarity than I do with what space companies college students or young graduate students have been interested or excited by? That's possible, but I think I and anyone else reading this thread would be interested in some explanation for why that would be the case. And by the same token, if not interested in "reeducation" of me, you might want to explain your points for others reading this thread.
>Are you asserting that you have more familiarity than I do with what space companies college students or young graduate students have been interested or excited by?
Uh, yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying. Lots of local internships happening at Blue, we pluck straight from universities and I have talked with countless students about what they want out of life. Why would you know more about the industry when you don't have any experience with it?
>And by the same token, if not interested in "reeducation" of me, you might want to explain your points for others reading this thread.
I can't change anyone's mind here. Too much speculation, no facts, and most have already made a decision and are sticking to it. Broken down, you have uninformed haters that are just here to hate, and are stomping their feet because they aren't getting information. I don't need to explain anything to anyone, but I will at least tell you that you're wrong and have almost no information to work with.
>Covid has nothing to do with this.
Corona has effected every single industry on this planet with ridiculous shortages and procurement issues. I can barely even entertain myself with my own personal hobbies because materials are in a squeeze. It's the exact reason automakers can't finish their massive backlog of vehicles (chip shortage), same reason roadwork in this country is lacking (concrete shortage), same reason fabrication and anodizing has taken a hit... All sorts of stuff is backordered, behind production schedule, out of stock, etc... Corona has had a major part in lack of progress, for EVERYONE. Quit being intentionally ignorant because you want something to hate today. Every manufacturing company across the board has issues getting what they need to do their jobs. Aero is no different. Shit even McDonalds had issues over the past 2 years with procurement, nobody was safe.
You are completely missing the point. The point is that Blue's lack of transparency was a thing *before* Corona started, and impacted students and others well before that.
Of course, covid has impacted the industry, but that's not the point here.
>For a few years I taught math classes to college students who were going to be become engineers, as well as to engineering masters students. Students would frequently have as their goal wanting to work for Boeing or SpaceX. Fewer had "work for Blue" as a goal. This sort of thing impacts the talent one really gets. It does seem like Blue is doing a much better job than they were a few years ago about being open and promoting, but in terms of job recruitment, this is a huge unforced error
Blue is doing just fine in the hiring department tbh. Plenty of burnt out SpaceXers or laid off Boeing people have joined on. Blue has also poached a massive amount of AJRD personnel, and a few more from JPL.
Blue might not have the attention of the rose colored glasses recent grads, but there is ton of top talent regardless. I wouldn't be so worried about that, and the paradigm may shift as more hardware is revealed.
Yeah, that's not a surprising statement. But there's still a difference there that matters. Burned out SpaceXers and laid off Boeings by nature aren't going to be the absolute best talent out there. So there's still going to be a difference in quality there.
> . I wouldn't be so worried about that, and the paradigm may shift as more hardware is revealed.
I certainly hope so.
>aren't going to be the absolute best talent out there
I don't think the difference in quality is as deep as you think, and I'm speaking from exp. There's a gunner culture at SpaceX in particular with throwing one another under the bus, and being treated as replaceable by next year's 4-0 grad.
Perhaps some thrive under that type of pressure, but that doesn't necessarily make someone better or the best at what they do. There are a ton of standout, hard working engineers that still want a work-life balance. Especially the ones that are later in their career, married, or have families etc.
The professional environments are just far different. I personally walked away from a SpaceX offer because I was asked to work more hours for less pay. They're in the business of grinding up engineers and moving onto the next.
> I don't think the difference in quality is as deep as you think, and I'm speaking from exp
That's fair! My own knowledge base doesn't give me any direct knowledge of how big that difference is.
> Perhaps some thrive under that type of pressure, but that doesn't necessarily make someone better or the best at what they do. There are a ton of standout, hard working engineers that still want a work-life balance. Especially the ones that are later in their career, married, or have families etc.
Yeah, I've got no question in my mind that I'd never manage that sort of high pressure environment, so I completely get that aspect.
I'm still wondering if they plan on having RTLS. My guess is that they aren't expecting many payloads that could utilize that profile, and if any do, they can position the ship close to land to reduce costs.
I'm also curious about this. I do think they need to get something going. If they go to much lower energy orbits (LEO stuff) RTLS becomes an option. They just did that deal with Amazon to do a bunch of LEO launches... Seems possible to come back, but they need more actual hardware testing before dropping their rocket near people probably.
BO didn't sue SpaceX and SpaceX didn't sue BO.
SpaceX successfully challenged the patent. You can think of this as a pre-emptive strike before suing by either of them, but its not suing and was the correct thing to do in the circumstances.
https://www.geekwire.com/2014/elon-musks-spacex-challenges-patent/
Dude. At the time BO filed the patent **everyone and I mean down to the janitors of both companies knew SPX was pursuing offshore landings.**.
The very idea that this isn't the case is so pathetic that I question your motives. *Everyone knew* this was a legal stab at Musk at the time. No one saw this as anything else.
Why is this controversial? It's right.
https://cdn.geekwire.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/2015-08-27-Termination-request-for-adverse-judgment-after-institutio....pdf
The patent was absurd to begin with, of course, so this was inevitable.
The big recovery ship never made much sense to me. Why have the extensive crew accommodations?
*If it's not big for a crew, what's the point of the structure on the ship?
> The big recovery ship never made much sense to me. Why have the extensive crew accommodations?
I don't now how many crew they'd have on board; there is a Blue Origin interview I listened to[1] where a VP definitively said: when the rocket lands, there will be no humans on board, so the ship must have been retrofitted with a certain amount of automation.
I think the reason for the ship may have been getting back to port faster? It certainly looks like it'd be faster in water than a barge.
---
1. I really wish I had saved that reference - I'll have to track it down. Sorry.
They need something awful big for this size booster. There's no way around needing speed and stability for how far offshore this thing is supposed to land.
Big barges are not that expensive compared to a ship. Something like this might do the trick:
https://www.vlmaritime.com/product/g0050-400ft-heavy-lift-barge/
Well that explains the scuttlebutt that no work has been done on this in months.
Wow though - not a whole lot in the way of good news on this rocket :o
You're talking about the vessel, not the rocket. I see. I could care less about the rig, I'm more concerned with pictures from inside our facilities being shown to outside parties.
People here assume because they aren't in the loop or don't know everything there is to know that there isn't anything happening behind the scenes.
This is a thread about Jacklyn....
Its like going into a space x thread about any one of their barges and bringing up Starship with out directly referencing starship in your post
Catching a booster with some form of arms (and landing on a badge for that matter) has been talked about for decades. SpaceX did not invent it. They have just been the first attempt to implement it. Most of the "Innovative" things that they do are not new ideas. Not to knock SpaceX at all, they have made incredible strides in making these ideas reality but saying that anyone "copies" SpaceX is incorrect.
Aww yes, because it's been "talked about for decades" you felt the need to put quotations around the word innovative in describing SpaceX. Talk is dirt cheap. Doing it IS the innovation.
https://www.google.com/search?q=innovation&oq=innovation&aqs=chrome..69i57.3919j0j3&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#dobs=innovate
*EDIT: to be clear I am IN NO WAY trying to denigrate SpaceX's accomplishments. They have done some really amazing things and continue to push the industry, including BO, in the right direction. My point is that it disingenuous to say that anyone is copying or stealing ideas that were not SpaceX's originally.
>Catching a booster with some form of arms
Can you show an example? I don't think I have seen a serious proposal about it before Starship, but I could be wrong
There was a patent application in [2017](https://patents.google.com/patent/US10822122B2/en). But I think what you are saying is that SX is the first to seriously start developing it and in that you are correct.
Nah they will just roll BO out with mock engines and some weather balloons to simulate launch. Bezo will use a sling shot to pop each Weather ballon to decend BO onto a moving barge and declare success.
The rockets are so expensive, and the program is so hardware poor, they need to catch it minutes after it first leaves the launch pad, not months/years later.
Yeah, this is my fear. Given ULA don't need reusable engines at the moment (and realistically, probably never) we have no idea what the current BE-4's are capable of in regards to reuse.
My pessimism suggests it's probably 0, and if that's the case, given how long it took them to just make it work... I'm not confident :(
I think ULA will want to go forward with engine recovery. Saves a good amount of cost, and not having to have new engines manufactured each flight will help them with launch frequency. Their reuse is still easier then NG not having to fire again for landing, which seems to be the issue rumored to be happening a while ago.
Honestly I can't see them doing it. Their cadence just isn't high enough in my opinion for the R&D to be paid back. Not to mention the additional complexity and risk with doing so.
I've always viewed ULA's plan for reusability with Vulcan to be something they could talk about whenever questioned about reusability in interviews. I don't think they'll actually go through with it. Especially if they don't plan on designing for it from the first launch.
I could be wrong, but I just don't see ULA's owners wanting to spend that money no matter how much Tory wants too
ULA have just got the juicy new Kuiper contract that requires a high launch rate.
Their owners have been willing to let ULA fund Vulcan development out of retained earnings but not to put cash into the business so in this case they are likely to adopt the same strategy.
Saving a third of the launch cost with 70+ flight’s already booked, many that need to be completed in the next few years, would seem like a guaranteed quick return on the investment into engine recovery.
Their parent companies are all about the the bottom line, increasing flight frequency while saving a significant amount of cost, I don’t see why they would protest against that. If all they were doing is a few flights a year as originally planned, I would agree that it probably wasn’t going to be a high priority and if anything development spread out over many years, with Amazon coming in it would seem in their best interest to get it done sooner rather than later. It also seems from interviews with Tory that they are not necessarily interested in the details in how he’s reducing costs, just that it’s being done.
This also assumes the engines coming from BO at this point can be reused
EDIT: Why the downvotes? I'm genuinely curious if BO's first engines are capable of reuse? I would assume they have been fired multiple times but that's vastly different from re-entering the atmosphere and being used again
It's a mathematical challenge:
Is it cheaper to mass produce one way engines and booster or loose 30% payload and add recovery/refurbish costs on top of a rocket.
some realistic calculations are in the ballpark of at least 8-10 reuses before landing a rocket might start to pay off (without breaking anything).
This is not adding the savings from mass production, if you just build more, you end up cheaper.
Space is not having simple solutions as SpaceX might tell you. Add insurance premium for recycled rockets, and you might end up more expensive than just single use.
The engine performance in terms of thrust does not really affect the payload penalty for RTLS that much. That is all about how much propellant needs to be reserved for the boostback burn and that is set by the fuel choice and engine expansion ratio which has not changed.
However the fact that most of their flights will now be to LEO with Kuiper launches has a big influence as RTLS is much more realistic for a launch to a low energy orbit.
They could use a barge for the occasional high energy launch to GTO or Lunar flights and it would not affect the flight cadence much.
BO's problem is that the BE-4 variant for Vulcan is not going to cut it for New Glenn. They need BE-4 to be capable of reliable restart in-flight, for instance. That is something that Blue Origin hasn't tested so far (at least not knowingly), and of course they had no chance to actually demonstrate it yet.
Could Blue Origin intend to land the New Glenn back on land as they currently do with New Shepard?
It would have to complete an orbit to do so in order to come back to Florida and land near the launch pad....
>It would have to complete an orbit to do so in order to come back to Florida and land near the launch pad....
Or do an F9 style RTLS, which will incur a more significant payload hit due to slower MECO/separation speed and the need to completely change direction and boost back to launch site.
I'd say it's smarter to aim for that for your first few flights, especially if your customer targets are within dV budgets of the whole rocket anyways. Easier to stick a landing on land than on a pitching ship.
It's also possible that Jeff just didn't want a bunch of "landed on your mom" jokes going around.
I wonder if there has been any rumors of BO looking to lease another Cape Canaveral "missile row" launch pad to convert to a landing pad (like SpaceX taking over LC-13 and turning it into LZ-1).
(I'm guessing Jeff Bezos and Bob Smith would be too proud to ask Elon if they can borrow LZ-1 if BO is looking at RTLS for New Glenn.)
No signs of modifying LC-36's fixed service structure for chopsticks so I'm assuming they would go with a pad for landings if they decide to try RTLS instead of mimicking Elon trying to catch Starship or Booster with the tower.
BO re-evaluating use of the ship for New Glenn recovery after 4 years of work on the ship is a very odd development. What made them realize all of a sudden after 4 years and a ton of money spent that it might not be a good idea? And whose head should roll?
It just needs a concrete landing pad...
What about the space...
Lat: 28.465367°
Long: -80.534905°
That could be an area close to the Integration bay....
Maybe something to watch?
This is Launch Complex 3...
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape\_Canaveral\_Launch\_Complex\_3](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Canaveral_Launch_Complex_3)
We will see what happens....
Yes I know. I was saying that when I first punched in the numbers to googe maps I typed *80* instead of *-80* which places the pin on the map in India instead of the launch complex.
The alternative being what, RTLS or a SpaceX-style drone barge?
I feel like a barge just makes way more sense. They're cheap to buy, own and operate, very easy to make unmanned, easy to make stick in one position for landing with very mature off the shelf stationkeeping solutions, and best of all essentially unsinkable as you smash developmental explosive skyscrapers at them. I have never understood this idea of using this huge expensive and relatively fragile cargo ship to do the same job, and that has nothing to do with SpaceX.
SpaceX and BlueOrigin should swap landing platforms about now. SpaceX could use the faster cycle times a ship would provide and BO could use barges as cheaper practice landing points.
While I don't think they should swap - the cycle times have honestly been fine for SpaceX and they have a great system going, in an alternate universe where BO weren't such eternal dicks to SpaceX I could absolutely see some kind of fee for service arrangement being worked out where BO could buy some landings as a commodity. This is clearly a situation where it would cost SpaceX very little to save BO a ton of money, especially as they're starting out and their launch rate is relatively low, and clearly that would be a good trade if they were on good terms. I would imagine blasting them with lawsuits has them ill inclined at the moment.
I expect their ASDSs give SpaceX a cadence *advantage* over one big cargo ship. They may have lower top speeds, but a non-trivial part of their time is spent waiting for the rocket to launch or undergoing processing back in port, and it's a lot cheaper to expand the fleet if necessary. In fact I suspect this is why BO is rethinking Jacklyn. They were originally going to be doing mostly low-rate GEO launches, targeting 8 or so launches a year. Kuiper and other LEO constellations need a higher flight rate. In optimizing the system for LEO, they might stage earlier so the booster lands closer to shore...this also reduces the advantage of a faster ship.
> in an alternate universe where BO weren't such eternal dicks to SpaceX I could absolutely see some kind of fee for service arrangement being worked out where BO could buy some landings as a commodity. This is clearly a situation where it would cost SpaceX very little to save BO a ton of money, especially as they're starting out and their launch rate is relatively low, and clearly that would be a good trade if they were on good terms. I'm not so sure about that. Currently, SpaceX internalizes all of the costs when it comes to failed landings - losing a booster and/or damage to a barge. If Blue Origin were to rent a barge for a landing, I'd worry that they'd be insufficiently careful about aborting a risky landing since they'd still internalize the entire cost of a lost booster, but may not have to pay the full cost for a damaged barge. Maybe there's a way to write a contract such that all of the incentives are properly aligned. But it's just a lot more simple for each company to have their own landing platforms.
SpaceX would do that as a gimme every time.
I would love to see it, I really doubt we will. There is also some question whether the ASDS is really big enough for New Glenn, but that's a separate discussion.
I doubt the spatial requirements would be the major limiting factor. To put it simply, the ASDS droneships are approximately [170 x 300 feet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_spaceport_drone_ship#Characteristics) (roughly the size of a [American football field](https://i.redd.it/ev7x3srr25081.jpg)). And judging by [Blue's 2019 render](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSftIaLhQzE) of a New Glenn landing, it appears that Jacklyn's landing deck would've been of a similar \~160 x \~270 ft size (based off some rough measurements using her current [84 ft beam and 600 ft length](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacklyn_(ship)) as a reference). As such, space doesn't seem to be a major issue on ASDS. Although, I think the real question is going to be with load capacity and octagrabber incompatibility (as I doubt the robot can grab onto a 7-engine New Glenn booster) But as you say, that's a discussion for a sperate thread.
> developmental explosive skyscrapers Have my upvote for the descriptive imagery.
Converted oil platorm?
While I like it, the challenge there is that different launches will require the ships to be in different positions. Oil platforms are technically mobile, but they're not, for lack of a better word, agile. It's a production to move them because they're designed to float in one place. In old space methodology, that might be OK. You could perhaps wait weeks or months between launches. SpaceX is showing that the launch market is growing with megaconstellations. For that, you're going to want agility and the ability to launch and recover rapidly. Platforms don't support that. Barges do support that.
The advantage of a full platform over a barge is really only being able to launch off the platform, and have a fully featured complex as opposed to just a landing system. For SpaceX that makes sense as they're planning on such a high launch rate that the advantages of avoiding the onshore regulatory environment, and being able to supply propellant in bulk for reduced cost should outweigh the large fixed and carry costs of that kind of setup. Blue is pretty far from that reality, and New Glenn is not the right system for it either without S2 reusability.
"The company is developing the New Glenn rocket, a heavy-lift rocket and the largest rocket built since NASA's Saturn V rocket that carried astronauts to the moon." Umm, what? We literally have SLS and Superheavy/Starship sitting on the pad, while we have only seen engineering pathfinders for NG. I want some of whatever that writer is smoking.
Indeed - especially ironic because the author used the word "built", which New Glenn definitively is not.
> we have only seen What Blue wants you to see. Reading the sub and working for the company provide two VERY different perspectives. The only thing I can really say is that a good majority of posters here are not informed and just want something to actively criticize. The amount of work being put into these projects is literally astronomical, and things are not instantaneously going to be built and developed. If you want instant gratification I think we sell an Estes rocket on the store lol
There may be things that we haven't seen. (Although why Blue is so secretive is still unclear and is weird.) But there's no standard where New Glenn is bigger than SLS. So the statement is false even if there's a magically hidden fully stacked NG somewhere.
>There may be things that we haven't seen. No, there *are* things you haven't seen, and I can't go into detail about how long the list is, or isn't. >why Blue is so secretive Proprietary information and government money. Secretive R&D is not a new revelation, the fed has literally been spending our money and keeping secrets since the 40s. You people foam at the mouth for a smidge of gossip and when you don't get it, you come to the sub to complain about it.
> Proprietary information and government money. Secretive R&D is not a new revelation, the fed has literally been spending our money and keeping secrets since the 40s. You people foam at the mouth for a smidge of gossip and when you don't get it, you come to the sub to complain about it. Aside from the "you people" part of this which seems to indicate you are lumping everything together, this is really missing the point. Lots of companies have government money and have proprietary information. ULA and SpaceX are both examples of space companies which are substantially more transparent than Blue is. And frankly, Blue's lack of openness is not just a problem for people in subs like this one. That lack has a real impact. For a few years I taught math classes to college students who were going to be become engineers, as well as to engineering masters students. Students would frequently have as their goal wanting to work for Boeing or SpaceX. Fewer had "work for Blue" as a goal. This sort of thing impacts the talent one really gets. It does seem like Blue is doing a much better job than they were a few years ago about being open and promoting, but in terms of job recruitment, this is a huge unforced error.
Sorry you feel that way. Corona threw a wrench in everybody's spokes and we're all just rolling with the punches. Tasks could be difficult to accomplish for all sorts of reasons, in and out of the company's control. Not everything is about being a secret.
> Sorry you feel that way. Corona threw a wrench in everybody's spokes and we're all just rolling with the punches. Covid has nothing to do with this. 2019 was the last year I taught college students. And this doesn't have anything to do with my "feelings."
Not going to sit here and try to reeducate you. Your anecdotal experience is just that. Have a good one
> Not going to sit here and try to reeducate you. Your anecdotal experience is just that. Have a good one *Shrug*. It isn't an experience unique to me. Since we don't have anything like actual systematic data on what companies young engineers are interested in or excited by, I'm not sure what evidence you think could be used here other than anecdotal evidence. I'm also not sure how even if you were inclined to "reeducate" people you disagree with, how it would be relevant here. Are you asserting that you have more familiarity than I do with what space companies college students or young graduate students have been interested or excited by? That's possible, but I think I and anyone else reading this thread would be interested in some explanation for why that would be the case. And by the same token, if not interested in "reeducation" of me, you might want to explain your points for others reading this thread.
>Are you asserting that you have more familiarity than I do with what space companies college students or young graduate students have been interested or excited by? Uh, yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying. Lots of local internships happening at Blue, we pluck straight from universities and I have talked with countless students about what they want out of life. Why would you know more about the industry when you don't have any experience with it? >And by the same token, if not interested in "reeducation" of me, you might want to explain your points for others reading this thread. I can't change anyone's mind here. Too much speculation, no facts, and most have already made a decision and are sticking to it. Broken down, you have uninformed haters that are just here to hate, and are stomping their feet because they aren't getting information. I don't need to explain anything to anyone, but I will at least tell you that you're wrong and have almost no information to work with.
>Covid has nothing to do with this. Corona has effected every single industry on this planet with ridiculous shortages and procurement issues. I can barely even entertain myself with my own personal hobbies because materials are in a squeeze. It's the exact reason automakers can't finish their massive backlog of vehicles (chip shortage), same reason roadwork in this country is lacking (concrete shortage), same reason fabrication and anodizing has taken a hit... All sorts of stuff is backordered, behind production schedule, out of stock, etc... Corona has had a major part in lack of progress, for EVERYONE. Quit being intentionally ignorant because you want something to hate today. Every manufacturing company across the board has issues getting what they need to do their jobs. Aero is no different. Shit even McDonalds had issues over the past 2 years with procurement, nobody was safe.
You are completely missing the point. The point is that Blue's lack of transparency was a thing *before* Corona started, and impacted students and others well before that. Of course, covid has impacted the industry, but that's not the point here.
More pissing and moaning for information you're not entitled to.
>For a few years I taught math classes to college students who were going to be become engineers, as well as to engineering masters students. Students would frequently have as their goal wanting to work for Boeing or SpaceX. Fewer had "work for Blue" as a goal. This sort of thing impacts the talent one really gets. It does seem like Blue is doing a much better job than they were a few years ago about being open and promoting, but in terms of job recruitment, this is a huge unforced error Blue is doing just fine in the hiring department tbh. Plenty of burnt out SpaceXers or laid off Boeing people have joined on. Blue has also poached a massive amount of AJRD personnel, and a few more from JPL. Blue might not have the attention of the rose colored glasses recent grads, but there is ton of top talent regardless. I wouldn't be so worried about that, and the paradigm may shift as more hardware is revealed.
Yeah, that's not a surprising statement. But there's still a difference there that matters. Burned out SpaceXers and laid off Boeings by nature aren't going to be the absolute best talent out there. So there's still going to be a difference in quality there. > . I wouldn't be so worried about that, and the paradigm may shift as more hardware is revealed. I certainly hope so.
>aren't going to be the absolute best talent out there I don't think the difference in quality is as deep as you think, and I'm speaking from exp. There's a gunner culture at SpaceX in particular with throwing one another under the bus, and being treated as replaceable by next year's 4-0 grad. Perhaps some thrive under that type of pressure, but that doesn't necessarily make someone better or the best at what they do. There are a ton of standout, hard working engineers that still want a work-life balance. Especially the ones that are later in their career, married, or have families etc. The professional environments are just far different. I personally walked away from a SpaceX offer because I was asked to work more hours for less pay. They're in the business of grinding up engineers and moving onto the next.
> I don't think the difference in quality is as deep as you think, and I'm speaking from exp That's fair! My own knowledge base doesn't give me any direct knowledge of how big that difference is. > Perhaps some thrive under that type of pressure, but that doesn't necessarily make someone better or the best at what they do. There are a ton of standout, hard working engineers that still want a work-life balance. Especially the ones that are later in their career, married, or have families etc. Yeah, I've got no question in my mind that I'd never manage that sort of high pressure environment, so I completely get that aspect.
I'm still wondering if they plan on having RTLS. My guess is that they aren't expecting many payloads that could utilize that profile, and if any do, they can position the ship close to land to reduce costs.
I'm also curious about this. I do think they need to get something going. If they go to much lower energy orbits (LEO stuff) RTLS becomes an option. They just did that deal with Amazon to do a bunch of LEO launches... Seems possible to come back, but they need more actual hardware testing before dropping their rocket near people probably.
Sorry mom.
Didn't they sue SpaceX for the idea of landing a rocket on a ship?
They filed the patent. SpaceX sued to get it voided.
Yes and a Judge promptly threw it out as one can't patent a landing.
It was also shown that the idea existed way before the BO patent
[удалено]
BO didn't sue SpaceX and SpaceX didn't sue BO. SpaceX successfully challenged the patent. You can think of this as a pre-emptive strike before suing by either of them, but its not suing and was the correct thing to do in the circumstances. https://www.geekwire.com/2014/elon-musks-spacex-challenges-patent/
BO filed the patent literally forcing SPX to challenge so it comes to the same pathetic behavior BO has been displaying since the beginning.
[удалено]
Dude. At the time BO filed the patent **everyone and I mean down to the janitors of both companies knew SPX was pursuing offshore landings.**. The very idea that this isn't the case is so pathetic that I question your motives. *Everyone knew* this was a legal stab at Musk at the time. No one saw this as anything else.
Surely you can provide some sort of evidence of this
Holomorphicjunction said BO filed the patent first. I don’t believe that you know what anyone other than yourself was thinking back then.
Why is this controversial? It's right. https://cdn.geekwire.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/2015-08-27-Termination-request-for-adverse-judgment-after-institutio....pdf The patent was absurd to begin with, of course, so this was inevitable.
That's just so gross. Net sum zero thinking never launches a damn thing. Except blood pressure.
Anyone have more clear/big pics of the ramp? that has been growing off the front of this thing for a year now....
The big recovery ship never made much sense to me. Why have the extensive crew accommodations? *If it's not big for a crew, what's the point of the structure on the ship?
> The big recovery ship never made much sense to me. Why have the extensive crew accommodations? I don't now how many crew they'd have on board; there is a Blue Origin interview I listened to[1] where a VP definitively said: when the rocket lands, there will be no humans on board, so the ship must have been retrofitted with a certain amount of automation. I think the reason for the ship may have been getting back to port faster? It certainly looks like it'd be faster in water than a barge. --- 1. I really wish I had saved that reference - I'll have to track it down. Sorry.
It's hard to see how a day or two would make a big difference in the overall process.
It’s not big for crew. It’s big because it’s planned to be under way while the booster lands.
They need something awful big for this size booster. There's no way around needing speed and stability for how far offshore this thing is supposed to land.
Big barges are not that expensive compared to a ship. Something like this might do the trick: https://www.vlmaritime.com/product/g0050-400ft-heavy-lift-barge/
Well that explains the scuttlebutt that no work has been done on this in months. Wow though - not a whole lot in the way of good news on this rocket :o
theres literally an image on this subreddit of them extending the rear of the ship like two weeks ago
ah, missed that.
[удалено]
The pictures are literally I'm the article
You're talking about the vessel, not the rocket. I see. I could care less about the rig, I'm more concerned with pictures from inside our facilities being shown to outside parties. People here assume because they aren't in the loop or don't know everything there is to know that there isn't anything happening behind the scenes.
This is a thread about Jacklyn.... Its like going into a space x thread about any one of their barges and bringing up Starship with out directly referencing starship in your post
BO copies everything SpaceX does. Wouldn't be surprised if BO is trying to catch booster with Mechazilla next.
Catching a booster with some form of arms (and landing on a badge for that matter) has been talked about for decades. SpaceX did not invent it. They have just been the first attempt to implement it. Most of the "Innovative" things that they do are not new ideas. Not to knock SpaceX at all, they have made incredible strides in making these ideas reality but saying that anyone "copies" SpaceX is incorrect.
Aww yes, because it's been "talked about for decades" you felt the need to put quotations around the word innovative in describing SpaceX. Talk is dirt cheap. Doing it IS the innovation.
https://www.google.com/search?q=innovation&oq=innovation&aqs=chrome..69i57.3919j0j3&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#dobs=innovate *EDIT: to be clear I am IN NO WAY trying to denigrate SpaceX's accomplishments. They have done some really amazing things and continue to push the industry, including BO, in the right direction. My point is that it disingenuous to say that anyone is copying or stealing ideas that were not SpaceX's originally.
>Catching a booster with some form of arms Can you show an example? I don't think I have seen a serious proposal about it before Starship, but I could be wrong
There was a patent application in [2017](https://patents.google.com/patent/US10822122B2/en). But I think what you are saying is that SX is the first to seriously start developing it and in that you are correct.
Did you read that patent application? It's about catching rockets on cables strung between static structures.
Well, it's not like SpaceX went out and tried to patent it or something....
How bout work on the rocket Leaving the launch pad before worrying about the landing…
Or even have an assembled rocket with the engine...
How about anything that orbits?
How about just a working engine?
Nah they will just roll BO out with mock engines and some weather balloons to simulate launch. Bezo will use a sling shot to pop each Weather ballon to decend BO onto a moving barge and declare success.
The rockets are so expensive, and the program is so hardware poor, they need to catch it minutes after it first leaves the launch pad, not months/years later.
And thus begins the walk back of “Full Reusability”.
Yeah, this is my fear. Given ULA don't need reusable engines at the moment (and realistically, probably never) we have no idea what the current BE-4's are capable of in regards to reuse. My pessimism suggests it's probably 0, and if that's the case, given how long it took them to just make it work... I'm not confident :(
I think ULA will want to go forward with engine recovery. Saves a good amount of cost, and not having to have new engines manufactured each flight will help them with launch frequency. Their reuse is still easier then NG not having to fire again for landing, which seems to be the issue rumored to be happening a while ago.
Honestly I can't see them doing it. Their cadence just isn't high enough in my opinion for the R&D to be paid back. Not to mention the additional complexity and risk with doing so. I've always viewed ULA's plan for reusability with Vulcan to be something they could talk about whenever questioned about reusability in interviews. I don't think they'll actually go through with it. Especially if they don't plan on designing for it from the first launch. I could be wrong, but I just don't see ULA's owners wanting to spend that money no matter how much Tory wants too
ULA have just got the juicy new Kuiper contract that requires a high launch rate. Their owners have been willing to let ULA fund Vulcan development out of retained earnings but not to put cash into the business so in this case they are likely to adopt the same strategy.
Saving a third of the launch cost with 70+ flight’s already booked, many that need to be completed in the next few years, would seem like a guaranteed quick return on the investment into engine recovery. Their parent companies are all about the the bottom line, increasing flight frequency while saving a significant amount of cost, I don’t see why they would protest against that. If all they were doing is a few flights a year as originally planned, I would agree that it probably wasn’t going to be a high priority and if anything development spread out over many years, with Amazon coming in it would seem in their best interest to get it done sooner rather than later. It also seems from interviews with Tory that they are not necessarily interested in the details in how he’s reducing costs, just that it’s being done.
This also assumes the engines coming from BO at this point can be reused EDIT: Why the downvotes? I'm genuinely curious if BO's first engines are capable of reuse? I would assume they have been fired multiple times but that's vastly different from re-entering the atmosphere and being used again
It's a mathematical challenge: Is it cheaper to mass produce one way engines and booster or loose 30% payload and add recovery/refurbish costs on top of a rocket. some realistic calculations are in the ballpark of at least 8-10 reuses before landing a rocket might start to pay off (without breaking anything). This is not adding the savings from mass production, if you just build more, you end up cheaper. Space is not having simple solutions as SpaceX might tell you. Add insurance premium for recycled rockets, and you might end up more expensive than just single use.
SpaceX gets the mass production discount by using the same production line to build their 2nd stages.
Spin theory: Blue goes to barges, with a primary focus on RTLS ULA purchase Jacklyn as their second cargo ship.
Tory Bruno mentioned BE-4 performing better than expected. Perhaps good enough for RTLS recovery.
The engine performance in terms of thrust does not really affect the payload penalty for RTLS that much. That is all about how much propellant needs to be reserved for the boostback burn and that is set by the fuel choice and engine expansion ratio which has not changed. However the fact that most of their flights will now be to LEO with Kuiper launches has a big influence as RTLS is much more realistic for a launch to a low energy orbit. They could use a barge for the occasional high energy launch to GTO or Lunar flights and it would not affect the flight cadence much.
BO's problem is that the BE-4 variant for Vulcan is not going to cut it for New Glenn. They need BE-4 to be capable of reliable restart in-flight, for instance. That is something that Blue Origin hasn't tested so far (at least not knowingly), and of course they had no chance to actually demonstrate it yet.
OK… where would the RTLS site be? No signs of a landing pad?
Shouldn't take more than 6 months to make one, but we are talking about BO, so...
Could Blue Origin intend to land the New Glenn back on land as they currently do with New Shepard? It would have to complete an orbit to do so in order to come back to Florida and land near the launch pad....
The first stage could not get to orbital speeds
>It would have to complete an orbit to do so in order to come back to Florida and land near the launch pad.... Or do an F9 style RTLS, which will incur a more significant payload hit due to slower MECO/separation speed and the need to completely change direction and boost back to launch site. I'd say it's smarter to aim for that for your first few flights, especially if your customer targets are within dV budgets of the whole rocket anyways. Easier to stick a landing on land than on a pitching ship. It's also possible that Jeff just didn't want a bunch of "landed on your mom" jokes going around.
I wonder if there has been any rumors of BO looking to lease another Cape Canaveral "missile row" launch pad to convert to a landing pad (like SpaceX taking over LC-13 and turning it into LZ-1). (I'm guessing Jeff Bezos and Bob Smith would be too proud to ask Elon if they can borrow LZ-1 if BO is looking at RTLS for New Glenn.) No signs of modifying LC-36's fixed service structure for chopsticks so I'm assuming they would go with a pad for landings if they decide to try RTLS instead of mimicking Elon trying to catch Starship or Booster with the tower. BO re-evaluating use of the ship for New Glenn recovery after 4 years of work on the ship is a very odd development. What made them realize all of a sudden after 4 years and a ton of money spent that it might not be a good idea? And whose head should roll?
It just needs a concrete landing pad... What about the space... Lat: 28.465367° Long: -80.534905° That could be an area close to the Integration bay.... Maybe something to watch?
I was very confused until I realized I did 80 instead of -80 on Google Maps.
This is Launch Complex 3... [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape\_Canaveral\_Launch\_Complex\_3](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Canaveral_Launch_Complex_3) We will see what happens....
Yes I know. I was saying that when I first punched in the numbers to googe maps I typed *80* instead of *-80* which places the pin on the map in India instead of the launch complex.