Blue Origin

https://twitter.com/x/status/2043768091402707399
View: https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/2043768091402707399


Melt. Extract. Fuel. Repeat.

To build an affordable, sustainable presence on the Moon, we must learn to live off the land. Air Pioneer is a scalable, modular system that creates purified oxygen to reduce dependency on supplies from Earth. Using Moon-extracted oxygen for propellant, fuel cells, and breathing reduces our lunar landers’ load by many metric tons of mass. Launching less mass from Earth lowers the cost of our Moon base, fueling a future cislunar economy.
Click to expand...
 
Third New Glenn launch suffers upper stage malfunction

spacenews.com

Third New Glenn launch suffers upper stage malfunction

Blue Origin’s New Glenn suffered a malfunction of its second stage on the rocket’s third flight April 19, stranding its payload in an “off-nominal” orbit.
spacenews.com spacenews.com

https://twitter.com/x/status/2045884586077409457
View: https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/2045884586077409457


LAUNCH at 1125 UTC Apr 19 of New Glenn flight 3 with AST SpaceMobile-007 from Canaveral. Second stage underperformance and lower than planned final orbit, but still waiting for Space Force tracking data for details
Click to expand...


https://twitter.com/x/status/2045886955242565915
View: https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/2045886955242565915


Best estimate for the SECO-1 orbit given the slow observed decrease in altitude in the webcast is somewhere in the range of 164 x 380 km to 116 x 420km, depending on flight path angle at cutoff which was somewhere in the 0 to -1 degree range.
Still waiting for SECO-2 data.
Click to expand...
https://twitter.com/x/status/2045899160293961912
View: https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/2045899160293961912


https://twitter.com/x/status/2045899613966623022
View: https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/2045899613966623022


launch has been tracked by Space Force as catalog 68765, 2026-85A, in a 154 x 494 km x 36.1 deg orbit. Epoch is 1138 UTC which is the time of SECO-1, so this may not be the final orbit. (If it is, then they are indeed toast).
Click to expand...

The next TLE set for this object, hopefully later today, will be definitive (absent any clarifying statement from Blue or ASTS). At this point we can still hold out some hope for a new orbit set at a later epoch time with a higher orbit.
Click to expand...
https://twitter.com/x/status/2045899160293961912
View: https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/2045899160293961912


https://twitter.com/x/status/2045899613966623022
View: https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/2045899613966623022


launch has been tracked by Space Force as catalog 68765, 2026-85A, in a 154 x 494 km x 36.1 deg orbit. Epoch is 1138 UTC which is the time of SECO-1, so this may not be the final orbit. (If it is, then they are indeed toast).
Click to expand...

The next TLE set for this object, hopefully later today, will be definitive (absent any clarifying statement from Blue or ASTS). At this point we can still hold out some hope for a new orbit set at a later epoch time with a higher orbit.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
In the long run re-usable rockets will make spaceflight much cheaper than what it is currently with expendable rockets.
 
I don't know bros, falcon is reaching the four digits launches and it still takes a month to refurbish and the cost is so-so, imagine how much time it will take to refurbish a much more complex and enormous GS1/Super Heavy. Imagine then a returning second stage from LEO let alone higher orbits, not saying they are worthless, but I believe 95% of the capacity would be achievable by making the cheapest and easiest to manufacture rocket possible
 
Confirmed de-orbit by AST: AST SpaceMobile Addresses Today’s Orbital Launch of BlueBird 7 on the New Glenn Launch Vehicle

During the New Glenn 3 mission, BlueBird 7 was placed into a lower than planned orbit by the upper stage of the launch vehicle. While the satellite separated from the launch vehicle and powered on, the altitude is too low to sustain operations with its on-board thruster technology and will de-orbited. The cost of the satellite is expected to be recovered under the company’s insurance policy.
Click to expand...
 
Lepespi said:
I don't know bros, falcon is reaching the four digits launches and it still takes a month to refurbish and the cost is so-so, imagine how much time it will take to refurbish a much more complex and enormous GS1/Super Heavy. Imagine then a returning second stage from LEO let alone higher orbits, not saying they are worthless, but I believe 95% of the capacity would be achievable by making the cheapest and easiest to manufacture rocket possible
Click to expand...
Falcon 9 was the first one. Starship is designed for much quicker turnaround. Obviously they won't get there on the first flights but they'll knock down the bottlenecks and get there.
 
BlueAbyssal said:
One thing I've noted is that now with two companies reusing boosters, there aren't many people still insisting booster reuse is pointless or no cheaper than expendables now.
Click to expand...
Well, with ULA it's the upper stage that actually bails them out.

I begin to believe that Vulcan has the spirits of B-17s in it.

I told you those observations were actually flak hits.

The loss of payload put the kibosh on the party NG had planned. I hear it would have really raised the roof

(runs)
 
Lepespi said:
I don't know bros, falcon is reaching the four digits launches and it still takes a month to refurbish and the cost is so-so, imagine how much time it will take to refurbish a much more complex and enormous GS1/Super Heavy. Imagine then a returning second stage from LEO let alone higher orbits, not saying they are worthless, but I believe 95% of the capacity would be achievable by making the cheapest and easiest to manufacture rocket possible
Click to expand...
Not really. SpaceX already has done that and they are reusable. SpaceX has 8 boosters that have 25-33 flights. Not going to be able to make a booster for 3-4% of the cost of a Falcon 9 booster. They have more than 25 boosters in their fleet so time between individual booster launches is not indicative of the actual refurbishment time.
 
Lepespi said:
I don't know bros, falcon is reaching the four digits launches and it still takes a month to refurbish and the cost is so-so, imagine how much time it will take to refurbish a much more complex and enormous GS1/Super Heavy. Imagine then a returning second stage from LEO let alone higher orbits, not saying they are worthless, but I believe 95% of the capacity would be achievable by making the cheapest and easiest to manufacture rocket possible
Click to expand...
Don’t mix cost and price, SpaceX’s internal costs aren’t remotely similar to what they charge other customers. That’s why they can afford to do so many Starlink launches. Should Blue Origin make a profit with TeraWave, they’ll be able to pursue a similar course.
 
Michel Van said:
the second stage had issues
it underperform during first burn and failed to reignite for Second burn
Click to expand...
A somewhat paradoxical rule of modern spaceflight: the re-used stages are more reliable than new ones, because the major risk came from undetected production defects during first flight. If stage survived first flight & returned safely, it is more reliable to re-use than a brand-new stage.
 
Failure is technically correct, I think, but not really properly descriptive. Congrats to Blue Origin on the progress they made today, they'll continue to learn and improve. Competition is a very good thing for everybody and I wish them continued and accelerated success.
 
As we know, New Glenn's upper stage failed to conduct its planned circularization burn; this left the payload in an unrecoverable low orbit.

We have tracking data on the payload however, there is no data provided for the New Glenn upper-stage at this time. It's safe to assume it did not complete a disposal burn.

New Glenn upper stage and payload will re-enter within the next 4-5 days. New Glenn upper stage dry mass is around 25 metric tons and measures in at ~ 77ft x 23ft which is comparable to the Long March 5B stage that the CASC left in orbit a few years ago.

New Glenn's upper stage poses a significant risk to locations between 36.11 degrees N/S latitude and will generate a large debris field. If it re-enters over land, largely intact pieces may be found, possibly as large as 5 feet or more in diameter. Lighter-weight spherical objects such as COPVs are expected to partially/completely survive re-entry.
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/x/status/2046079300999279033
View: https://twitter.com/Dillonshrop06/status/2046079300999279033
 
Chet Wiltshire
@chet_wiltshire
As someone who lost a satellite due to launch failure, I view taking accountability for mission failure seriously. What happened today to AST Spacemobile, and the lack of any accountability from Blue Origin after celebrating their booster recovery is staggering
Click to expand...

I don’t own ANY Astra stock or AST stock. We built and tested those thrusters. It’s more than a write off, it’s years of collective resources
Click to expand...

If you want to ensure your talent and customers leave, this is the best way to encourage that!
Click to expand...

Chet Wiltshire
I work in quality and build reliability BECAUSE I went through years of work alongside others doing the same to have it all cut short due to missed issues and design flaws. I view accountability the same as trust: easy to lose and hard to gain back
Click to expand...


https://twitter.com/x/status/2046025069261115509
View: https://twitter.com/chet_wiltshire/status/2046025069261115509


https://twitter.com/x/status/2046025924571967592
View: https://twitter.com/chet_wiltshire/status/2046025924571967592


https://twitter.com/x/status/2046026770340827272
View: https://twitter.com/chet_wiltshire/status/2046026770340827272
 
GreenBullet said:
Failure is technically correct, I think, but not really properly descriptive. Congrats to Blue Origin on the progress they made today, they'll continue to learn and improve. Competition is a very good thing for everybody and I wish them continued and accelerated success.
Click to expand...
"Failure" properly describes a satellite that is launched in an unuseable orbit and has to be deorbited, anything else is cope.

This is their 4th upper stage to encounter serious problem (2 destroyed on qualification test bench, 1 seriously damaged during final preparation that took a year to repair, and this), they very clearly have some quality problem with them, this may not be surprising since they're trying to make double-digits number of a hydrolox stages larger than a S-IVB each year, but they need to improve that if they want to even think about competing with SpaceX, who can build almost 200 upper stages a year with very high reliability, they also need to solve the problem of their hydrolox stage costing 5x more piece than a F9 S2 while carrying only 50% more payload to orbit..
 
they very clearly have some quality problem with them
Click to expand...

They definitely do, and I'm not what anybody would call a Blue Origin fan. I think they have some culture problems over there and have made some very strange decisions. I still wish them success in the future. Right now they're still learning just how unforgiving the game is.

Like I said, failure is technically correct. Hopefully they'll utilize the learning this offers to its fullest potential. That will dictate the magnitude of the failure in retrospect.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom