Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

seanbrockest t1_j7yugvl wrote

Reply to comment by ChrisJD11 in Blue Origin awarded NASA launch contract for Mars mission (Studying magnetic field) by kuroimakina

It's even worse than that, not only have they not gotten to orbit, they've never even tried to get to orbit. They've never built anything that was even capable of trying for orbit, and right now they don't have anything that launches at all.

64

danielravennest t1_j80uyvo wrote

Jeff's engines are on the launch pad right now. The ULA Vulcan rocket uses two of them in the first stage. New Glenn will use 7 of them and be reusable (eventually).

Vulcan is a standard throw-away rocket intended to replace the Atlas that has flown for many years.

24

seanbrockest t1_j81905h wrote

I'm still highly skeptical that an engine with that large of a chamber and that high of a chamber pressure can survive, but I guess we'll see!

−1

seanflyon t1_j81h7ea wrote

They have test fired several of them. It is a hard problem and they have had their share of difficulties in development, but it looks like they have gotten it to work. Time will tell.

14

Argon1300 t1_j80avpf wrote

I mean... is that really worse? Wouldn't it be worse, had they tried for a decade and never managed?

6

homelessdreamer t1_j80whg6 wrote

Not in rocket science. It is famously difficult to get to orbit. At least companies that have tried understand what they don't know. Blue Origin only knows how to build gas powered shaftless elevators. Which isn't nothing, but certainly is an order of magnitude easier than orbit.

11

Argon1300 t1_j80yjid wrote

I mean... lets give them some credit. New Shepard has worked pretty reliably, even considering the recent failure. They have more experience with operating rocket powered vehicles than most other NewSpace companies. More importantly, they have experience with operating human rated reusable spacecraft, even if they just launch vertically up and then fall back down.

The difficulty in spaceflight for most companies arises in keeping their engines running for long enough to make orbit. Chaining two stages together when you already have the experience to operate them is not that much of a leap.

The only reason Blue is taking so long at the moment is because they wanted to skip smallsat launchers (a wise move given their small market and many competitors) and instead start out with a true monster of a rocket in the form of New Glenn. Rockets of that size take time. Compared to any development program of this type that is not SpaceX they are doing perfectly fine.

16

homelessdreamer t1_j81fg0n wrote

You are absolutely correct, they deserve credit where credit is due. The only thing I would counter you on is the difficulty of launching a large rocket is the number of systems required to work in those environments without failures. Not just the rockets running that long. The reason most space companies start small isn't because they hope to take over the small sat market but because it is more attainable to start small for quicker test and iterations. Bezos strategy is certainly bold but I would argue not very pragmatic. He is basically going all in blind on New Glen. If he pulls it off it will be an incredible feat. But if it fails how many chances will he have to recover. Even Boing, a company with significant industry experience has struggled to keep up with large rocketry in recent years by comparison to Space X. I absolutely love all the competition in space right now but I won't be holding my breath for the first launch of New Glen.

12

VikingBorealis t1_j81e0bs wrote

Strangely nonenof that translates to orbit or interplanetary travel...

7

seanbrockest t1_j81b987 wrote

In this case they've literally spent the last TWO decades working on this, and still have yet to even try, so yeah I'd say that's worse when they're applying for contracts.

7