Much of the software and other details for landing New Glenn have been worked out on Blue's earlier vehicles so I expect that part of it's development to go more smoothly than it did for Falcon 9.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 02/12/2018 12:43 amQuote from: Proxima_Centauri on 02/11/2018 06:17 pmQuote from: joek on 02/11/2018 06:07 pmQuote from: Proxima_Centauri on 02/11/2018 05:54 pmFalcon 9 has already failed several more times than Atlas V has.Hmmm.... "several more times" seems to be a bit vague and a bit of a stretch. At the risk of going down the debate "failure" vs. "partial failure" vs. "partial success" vs. whatever...Seems we are into fractional definitions of "failure". Again, where does the assertion-requirement that "250 more perfect launches in a row" come from? On its face that is absurd given that there have been only ~75 Atlas V has launches.Atlas V had one failure in 75 flight attempts:Falcon 9 had 3 failures in 49 flight attempts:1 in 75 = 3 in 225225 - 49 = 176 176 missions that falcon 9 needs to pull off in a row perfectly to match Atlas V's current record.Only one in-flight Falcon 9 failure. If you're going to count an under-performance as a failure, then you need to count the first Atlas-Cygnus launch, too. That only worked because Cygnus was a particularly lightweight payload.Additionally, Atlas as a launch family has a long tradition which includes plenty of failure. If you're going to say Atlas V has a perfect track record, then Falcon 9 should get to reset the clock with Block 5.......IMHO, you should just could consecutive launches without failure.The Cygnus mission was not a failure. No part of the mission was affected.Why do you ignore Amos-6? That's just being dishonest.If you need to be dishonest in order to be a fan of SpaceX, then maybe you need to reevaluate your morals.
Quote from: Proxima_Centauri on 02/11/2018 06:17 pmQuote from: joek on 02/11/2018 06:07 pmQuote from: Proxima_Centauri on 02/11/2018 05:54 pmFalcon 9 has already failed several more times than Atlas V has.Hmmm.... "several more times" seems to be a bit vague and a bit of a stretch. At the risk of going down the debate "failure" vs. "partial failure" vs. "partial success" vs. whatever...Seems we are into fractional definitions of "failure". Again, where does the assertion-requirement that "250 more perfect launches in a row" come from? On its face that is absurd given that there have been only ~75 Atlas V has launches.Atlas V had one failure in 75 flight attempts:Falcon 9 had 3 failures in 49 flight attempts:1 in 75 = 3 in 225225 - 49 = 176 176 missions that falcon 9 needs to pull off in a row perfectly to match Atlas V's current record.Only one in-flight Falcon 9 failure. If you're going to count an under-performance as a failure, then you need to count the first Atlas-Cygnus launch, too. That only worked because Cygnus was a particularly lightweight payload.Additionally, Atlas as a launch family has a long tradition which includes plenty of failure. If you're going to say Atlas V has a perfect track record, then Falcon 9 should get to reset the clock with Block 5.......IMHO, you should just could consecutive launches without failure.
Quote from: joek on 02/11/2018 06:07 pmQuote from: Proxima_Centauri on 02/11/2018 05:54 pmFalcon 9 has already failed several more times than Atlas V has.Hmmm.... "several more times" seems to be a bit vague and a bit of a stretch. At the risk of going down the debate "failure" vs. "partial failure" vs. "partial success" vs. whatever...Seems we are into fractional definitions of "failure". Again, where does the assertion-requirement that "250 more perfect launches in a row" come from? On its face that is absurd given that there have been only ~75 Atlas V has launches.Atlas V had one failure in 75 flight attempts:Falcon 9 had 3 failures in 49 flight attempts:1 in 75 = 3 in 225225 - 49 = 176 176 missions that falcon 9 needs to pull off in a row perfectly to match Atlas V's current record.
Quote from: Proxima_Centauri on 02/11/2018 05:54 pmFalcon 9 has already failed several more times than Atlas V has.Hmmm.... "several more times" seems to be a bit vague and a bit of a stretch. At the risk of going down the debate "failure" vs. "partial failure" vs. "partial success" vs. whatever...Seems we are into fractional definitions of "failure". Again, where does the assertion-requirement that "250 more perfect launches in a row" come from? On its face that is absurd given that there have been only ~75 Atlas V has launches.
Falcon 9 has already failed several more times than Atlas V has.
Quote from: Proxima_Centauri on 02/12/2018 04:38 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 02/12/2018 12:43 amQuote from: Proxima_Centauri on 02/11/2018 06:17 pmQuote from: joek on 02/11/2018 06:07 pmQuote from: Proxima_Centauri on 02/11/2018 05:54 pmFalcon 9 has already failed several more times than Atlas V has.Hmmm.... "several more times" seems to be a bit vague and a bit of a stretch. At the risk of going down the debate "failure" vs. "partial failure" vs. "partial success" vs. whatever...Seems we are into fractional definitions of "failure". Again, where does the assertion-requirement that "250 more perfect launches in a row" come from? On its face that is absurd given that there have been only ~75 Atlas V has launches.Atlas V had one failure in 75 flight attempts:Falcon 9 had 3 failures in 49 flight attempts:1 in 75 = 3 in 225225 - 49 = 176 176 missions that falcon 9 needs to pull off in a row perfectly to match Atlas V's current record.Only one in-flight Falcon 9 failure. If you're going to count an under-performance as a failure, then you need to count the first Atlas-Cygnus launch, too. That only worked because Cygnus was a particularly lightweight payload.Additionally, Atlas as a launch family has a long tradition which includes plenty of failure. If you're going to say Atlas V has a perfect track record, then Falcon 9 should get to reset the clock with Block 5.......IMHO, you should just could consecutive launches without failure.The Cygnus mission was not a failure. No part of the mission was affected.Why do you ignore Amos-6? That's just being dishonest.If you need to be dishonest in order to be a fan of SpaceX, then maybe you need to reevaluate your morals.I'd like to understand the justification for including Amos-6 as a flight failure. Do static test fires that discover problems but don't lead to LOV count as partial flight failures too? Is there a proper topic that discusses what counts as part of a launch and what is pre-launch preparation?On topic:I don't see the payloads to justify a business case for NG in 2018. AFAIK Bezos hasn't set a price. IF the availability of SHLVs leads payload makers to make payloads for SHLVs, and NG has a competitive price, there will be a business case. The Magic 8-ball says ask again later.Edits: Fixed quote.
Quote from: Patchouli on 02/15/2018 06:48 pmMuch of the software and other details for landing New Glenn have been worked out on Blue's earlier vehicles so I expect that part of it's development to go more smoothly than it did for Falcon 9.I still don't buy it. There's not a lot of commonality between the landing scenarios--Shepard was on land, with negligible horizontal velocity, with a deep-throttling engine that could literally hover the rocket, at sub-hypersonic speeds, and on a stationary pad. Glenn will be at sea, on a moving ship, will have lots of horizontal velocity, entering at hypersonic speeds, and with a new engine that can't throttle as deeply.Again, I think Blue Origin can and will solve these issues. But not going to walk in with a mature design and nail everything on their first go.
Quote from: Toast on 02/15/2018 07:02 pmQuote from: Patchouli on 02/15/2018 06:48 pmMuch of the software and other details for landing New Glenn have been worked out on Blue's earlier vehicles so I expect that part of it's development to go more smoothly than it did for Falcon 9.I still don't buy it. There's not a lot of commonality between the landing scenarios--Shepard was on land, with negligible horizontal velocity, with a deep-throttling engine that could literally hover the rocket, at sub-hypersonic speeds, and on a stationary pad. Glenn will be at sea, on a moving ship, will have lots of horizontal velocity, entering at hypersonic speeds, and with a new engine that can't throttle as deeply.Again, I think Blue Origin can and will solve these issues. But not going to walk in with a mature design and nail everything on their first go.What makes you think that New Glenn cannot hover? I think Blue is building in lots of margin and isn't going to try to push the envelope nearly as fast SpaceX does. If the first NEw Glenn booster gets through reentry I think they have a 95% chance of landing it just fine. But getting to staging, getting the upper stage to orbit, and getting the booster back through entry are not going to be easy.
Quote from: Joseph Peterson on 02/15/2018 08:05 pmQuote from: Proxima_Centauri on 02/12/2018 04:38 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 02/12/2018 12:43 amQuote from: Proxima_Centauri on 02/11/2018 06:17 pmQuote from: joek on 02/11/2018 06:07 pmQuote from: Proxima_Centauri on 02/11/2018 05:54 pmFalcon 9 has already failed several more times than Atlas V has.Hmmm.... "several more times" seems to be a bit vague and a bit of a stretch. At the risk of going down the debate "failure" vs. "partial failure" vs. "partial success" vs. whatever...Seems we are into fractional definitions of "failure". Again, where does the assertion-requirement that "250 more perfect launches in a row" come from? On its face that is absurd given that there have been only ~75 Atlas V has launches.Atlas V had one failure in 75 flight attempts:Falcon 9 had 3 failures in 49 flight attempts:1 in 75 = 3 in 225225 - 49 = 176 176 missions that falcon 9 needs to pull off in a row perfectly to match Atlas V's current record.Only one in-flight Falcon 9 failure. If you're going to count an under-performance as a failure, then you need to count the first Atlas-Cygnus launch, too. That only worked because Cygnus was a particularly lightweight payload.Additionally, Atlas as a launch family has a long tradition which includes plenty of failure. If you're going to say Atlas V has a perfect track record, then Falcon 9 should get to reset the clock with Block 5.......IMHO, you should just could consecutive launches without failure.The Cygnus mission was not a failure. No part of the mission was affected.Why do you ignore Amos-6? That's just being dishonest.If you need to be dishonest in order to be a fan of SpaceX, then maybe you need to reevaluate your morals.I'd like to understand the justification for including Amos-6 as a flight failure. Do static test fires that discover problems but don't lead to LOV count as partial flight failures too? Is there a proper topic that discusses what counts as part of a launch and what is pre-launch preparation?On topic:I don't see the payloads to justify a business case for NG in 2018. AFAIK Bezos hasn't set a price. IF the availability of SHLVs leads payload makers to make payloads for SHLVs, and NG has a competitive price, there will be a business case. The Magic 8-ball says ask again later.Edits: Fixed quote.He's sold some launches, so obviously he's set a price and it's at least reasonably competitive. New Glenn isn't a SHLV by any definition. It has about the same payload to GTO as Ariane 5. It will have to compete in that market at those prices.
Landing the first attempt? Maybe, maybe not. I definitely think that they'll try to.At the end of the day it does not matter if they stick the landing. As long as Blue charges customers enough to set of a chunk of another stage they can afford to do so almost indefinitely.Previously there were some opinions that NG would not be able to deliver a payload to orbit on the first attempt. Or the second. That seems to be a bit too pessimistic.My guess is that they'll set out to build a small number of stages to the initial design and then start ground testing and launching as hardware becomes available. If they have to mod hardware after the first launch so be it. Learning how to produce stages effectively is valuable in itself. (Say 4. 2 not necessarily complete units for testing and 2 for launching.)
What makes you think that New Glenn cannot hover?
I think Blue is building in lots of margin and isn't going to try to push the envelope nearly as fast SpaceX does. If the first NEw Glenn booster gets through reentry I think they have a 95% chance of landing it just fine. But getting to staging, getting the upper stage to orbit, and getting the booster back through entry are not going to be easy.
I guess what really irks me is that people are acting like New Glenn will be a cakewalk because it was "designed to be reusable". But plenty of rockets were designed to be reusable. Virtually all of them failed anyways. What really set SpaceX apart wasn't the intent to reuse the rocket, it was their aggressive use of rapid iteration on design. No matter how slow Blue Origin takes things, no matter how much they plan in advance, New Glenn will still have unforeseen problems when it debuts. For them to catch up to SpaceX's reuse will require them to make rapid iteration a core competency as well.
IMHO the large size for New Glenn will mean that it is ill suited for the common satellites of today - F9 really hits the sweetspot for those missions and I think the large size of NG will make it difficult for BO to cut the price down to levels below $70M. I also sincerely doubt that BO can fly it as announced by 2020, as their operation experience is so far very sparse. IMHO first flight in 2023 +- 1 year is more realistic.Given that however, I think there are 3 areas where NG will excel at:1. Large scale deployment of LEO/MEO comsat constellations (see e.g. the OneWeb contract)2. Carrying people around LEO with their own spacecraft (this assumes however that they have developed the spacecraft first)3. Carrying cargo/fuel (and later people) to cis-lunar space (e.g. in the context of a COTS-like program for cargo delivery to an EM-L2 outpost as proposed by NASA).These missions might not be present if they launch by 2020-21, but the few missions they have already signed might be enough to keep it running in the interim (and I sincerely doubt that they can hit that time mark anyway, given the pace they are handling New Shepard). By the mid-2020s the market might be more favorable for those missions I listed above.Another interesting thing to speculate is how will the BO-ULA partnership turns out, especially given that NG is planned to be certified for NASA and US military payloads. My own speculation is that BO isn't usually interested in such missions that requires lots of reviews to the launcher and will nominally leave those to ULA/Vulcan, but the two will agree to use NG as a secondary launcher a la Delta IV today in case of a crowded manifest. ULA-BO will agree (at least initially) to minimize competition of launches contracts in each others' areas and co-operate in areas such as bread-and-butter US government missions (as mentioned here) and maybe even partner on lunar fuel depots, should the demand for it arises later on.I may be completely wrong, but this is what I think the business case for New Glenn will turn out by 2030.
I'd like to understand the justification for including Amos-6 as a flight failure. Do static test fires that discover problems but don't lead to LOV count as partial flight failures too? Is there a proper topic that discusses what counts as part of a launch and what is pre-launch preparation?
Quote from: Toast on 02/16/2018 01:45 amI guess what really irks me is that people are acting like New Glenn will be a cakewalk because it was "designed to be reusable". But plenty of rockets were designed to be reusable. Virtually all of them failed anyways. What really set SpaceX apart wasn't the intent to reuse the rocket, it was their aggressive use of rapid iteration on design. No matter how slow Blue Origin takes things, no matter how much they plan in advance, New Glenn will still have unforeseen problems when it debuts. For them to catch up to SpaceX's reuse will require them to make rapid iteration a core competency as well.I believe Blue is using a different process, they're more traditional where they front load a lot of analysis and try to get it right the first time, "measure twice and cut once" as they say. How well this will work out for reusability remains to be seen, they did ok with New Shepard, but the year long delay between 2nd and 3rd vehicle seem to show they had to do some iteration on design at least.
Blue is not starting from zero, they should be able to make NG work from day one. Of course things will go wrong, but there is no requirement to blow up your first attempts.