Jump to content

Blue Origin thread.


Vanamonde

Recommended Posts

  • 3 weeks later...
17 minutes ago, tater said:

This YEAR?

Not "this month" or "this quarter"?

 

I'm not quite convinced, I think a likely timeline could be 2030-2100.

Maybe they'll get their act together and actually make something worth while for once.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, AtomicTech said:

I'm not quite convinced, I think a likely timeline could be 2030-2100.

Maybe they'll get their act together and actually make something worth while for once.

Come on now, let's not bash them too much. I'm sure they'll be able to build New (first person to land on Mars from SpaceX) in 2060.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

Whatever happened to “the first two flight engines are in acceptance testing and are almost ready to be shipped to ULA”?

Yeah, exactly.

That was a statement by Smith, the CEO. Seriously, he should be saying, "Our absolute first priority is getting flight engines out to our customer ASAP. We're working 3 shifts to make it happen."

When SpaceX's customer, NASA, made noise about them spending a single digit % of their capability on Starship, SpaceX responded by visibly doing everything possible to accelerate Crew Dragon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hypothesis: The first set of “flight” engines that should have been in qualification testing, failed qualification testing. 
 

Eventually, Bezos will be pleased to announce that they’re “shipping the first flight engines, serial numbers *coughthirteenfourteencough* to ULA for installation on Vulcan, which has now been proofed twenty times”

Rocket engines are hard….

Edited by StrandedonEarth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen an alternate theory that the engines they're talking about now are the BONG config, which explains why they would just now start being assembled when the first Vulcan engines should be finishing up qualification. Still, why they'd be working on those when they have a customer clearly in more urgent need of the engines than they are eludes me. I'm more inclined to believe the engines failed, but that's not what I'd expect from a "medium-performing version of a high-performance architecture."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
1 hour ago, RCgothic said:

Doesn't bode well TBH.

Oh, I dunno. Judging by the article, he took a division that was sinking fast (not enough hardware to plug the leaks?) and got it running “shipshape and Bristol fashion.” The mark of a good leader is one who can get their team running efficiently and effectively with or without them. And then that leader is free to go do something else, like assemble  another team and get it running properly and smoothly. .

 

Edited by StrandedonEarth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...