tater Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 Decent image. Still, not seeing the hordes of extreme close ups we usually see, I have a feeling BO didn't allow cameras the way other providers do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AckSed Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 (edited) ED made the observation that this could be the first US methalox rocket to go to orbit. It's debatable, but I suppose it can have that, as a treat. Disregard Edited January 16 by AckSed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 2 minutes ago, AckSed said: ED made the observation that this could be the first US methalox rocket to go to orbit. It's debatable, but I suppose it can have that, as a treat. Vulcan already did this. Over a year ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AckSed Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 (edited) Oops. Oh well, it can be the first US methalox engine to reach orbit... *remembers Relativity* Dammit! Edited January 16 by AckSed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 11 minutes ago, AckSed said: Oops. Oh well, it can be the first US methalox engine to reach orbit... *remembers Relativity* Dammit! Terran failed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthgently Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 19 minutes ago, AckSed said: Oops. Oh well, it can be the first US methalox engine to reach orbit... *remembers Relativity* Dammit! Actually, we should remember Zhuque-2 from Landspace in June ‘23. Yes, we are in a race y’all and don’t ya forgit it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultimate Steve Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 Went to sleep before the stage 2 burn - Congratulations to Blue Orign on this success! I was only a little bit sad when they showed the Kent team and I was like "If I had a slightly better interview I could have been in that crowd" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 54 minutes ago, AckSed said: Oops. Oh well, it can be the first US methalox engine to reach orbit... *remembers Relativity* Dammit! I say leaving out 200 m/s for safety on an test launch count as orbital. Its obvious an fail if you try to launch something to orbit unless you had an kick stage who is an 3 or 4th stage anyway. But this leaves SS as the winner. Race is who put an usable payload into orbit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthgently Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 (edited) 22 minutes ago, magnemoe said: I say leaving out 200 m/s for safety on an test launch count as orbital. Its obvious an fail if you try to launch something to orbit unless you had an kick stage who is an 3 or 4th stage anyway. But this leaves SS as the winner. Race is who put an usable payload into orbit. Agreed. I’m just reflecting on all the jeering about starship not making orbit. If enough orbital energy is reached that if an orbit with the same energy could be entirely above the atmosphere or if there is enough propellant remaining to raise perigee above the atmosphere at apogee that is “orbital” in my book, or at minimum, “orbital capable”. Especially if upper stage relight has been successful Edited January 16 by darthgently Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brotoro Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 3 hours ago, darthgently said: As for the TWR, they may have been throttled down. That would make sense, but with only seven engines that TWR makes for a dramatic hypothetical engine out scenario It matches my memory of the liftoff speed of a Saturn V (the only video I can easily find of the Saturn V right now are slow motion movies). I presumed they were doing it to go easy on the engines, since they had almost no payload. Or maybe so that somebody here could rant about how they are lying about the actual thrust capacity and reliability (since they failed to relight for landing) of the BE-4 engines. But I don't see that rant. Odd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthgently Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 Great observation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 This seems too coincidental to not be true, tbh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthgently Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 (edited) What we need is an LLM that is rigorously trained specifically to look for conversion errors in code. It has one job. But probably better if vars in a computer language had a units type as well as data type inherent in its definition. In fact you’d need this to truly do the paragraph above Edited January 16 by darthgently Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AckSed Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 7 minutes ago, darthgently said: Great observation The first director of ARPA-E, a new/renewable-energy think-tank, said, "Culture eats strategy for breakfast, lunch and dinner." A workplace culture with a person or persons at the helm that listens to their engineers, has a clear objective and is able to make changes to its direction when needed, is a culture that gets the job done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 40 minutes ago, Brotoro said: It matches my memory of the liftoff speed of a Saturn V (the only video I can easily find of the Saturn V right now are slow motion movies). I presumed they were doing it to go easy on the engines, since they had almost no payload. Or maybe so that somebody here could rant about how they are lying about the actual thrust capacity and reliability (since they failed to relight for landing) of the BE-4 engines. But I don't see that rant. Odd. Think Saturn 5 was 1.1 TWR, this was on purpose as longer fuselages and more fuel is cheaper than more engines. Later on SRB become standard to kick the rocket up. For reusability higher TWR has benefits, way more so if you want to do an boost back. Now engines might be run below max trust to increase reliability? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minmus Taster Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 1 hour ago, tater said: This seems too coincidental to not be true, tbh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeSchmuckatelli Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 Any news on the landing attempt.? Other than it didn't work? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minmus Taster Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 (edited) Edited January 16 by Minmus Taster Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AckSed Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 NG GS1 staged very low in the atmosphere and the landing barge was relatively close-by to land. I think this is splitting the difference between Starship/Super Heavy's RTLS, 'near-SSTO with just enough booster to get out of the atmosphere' approach, and a F9 far-out landing barge. The closer the landing barge, the less time GS1 takes to reach port and be processed, improving cadence. Other possibilities are that this was a test of booster re-entry, and they were making this as gentle as possible. 'Proper ' payloads might necessitate a further-out landing barge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 Will need to be addressed the same way SpaceX will address theirs—BO will determine causes, propose mitigations, and will get their next launch license. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceception Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 And it looks like their next mission will be to the Moon with Mk 1, which is exciting. I hope the imperial/metric mess up is just an odd/funny coincidence, and not the actual reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 26 minutes ago, Spaceception said: And it looks like their next mission will be to the Moon with Mk 1, which is exciting. I hope the imperial/metric mess up is just an odd/funny coincidence, and not the actual reason. No more likes, but I agree Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exoscientist Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 (edited) New Glenn must be underpowered as indicated by its too slow lift-off acceleration. NasaSpaceFlight commenters during their livestream said it so slow they thought it might not even complete the launch. Mystified why Blue Origin would even field it when they must know from the start they would have to upgrade engine thrust or number of engines. They should have done that from the beginning. The 4.51 million pound thrust in the first image is 2,050 tons, or 290 ton thrust per BE-4 engine, a 16% upgrade over the current BE-4’s 250 ton thrust. Upgrading to 9 engines using the current BE-4’s would be a 28.5% upgrade in total thrust. I’d go for the 9 engine upgrade. Gives even greater capability when you also upgrade BE-4 engine thrust, possibly reaching Saturn V 100-ton to LEO capacity. It could do single launch Moon missions. Edited January 17 by Exoscientist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codraroll Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Exoscientist said: New Glenn must be underpowered as indicated by its too slow lift-off acceleration. Like all the rest of your arguments, this hinges on the bogus presumption that your observational assumptions are universal truths. Who's to say this was "too slow"? Until we know what acceleration they were aiming for, your entire argument has no substance whatsoever. Not for the first time, I might add. You might want to revise your approach to statements like that. Edited January 17 by Codraroll Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.