▲Blue Origin's rocket reuse achievement marred by upper stage failure(arstechnica.com)
59 points by rbanffy 5 hours ago | 7 comments
▲eagerpace 3 hours ago
I know insurance for a launch is typical, but seems really tough to do that for this still “rather experimental” launch. I got to imagine it has costs something like 50% on a project like this.
▲staplung 3 hours ago
The failure of the upper stage is a bummer. If it triggers a months-long review, that will almost certainly bump back the schedule for the prototype Blue Moon lander launch.
▲WalterBright 3 hours ago
Once Elon showed how to do it, and how cost-efficient it was, a rocket company that doesn't do it is not viable.
▲sourcegrift 34 minutes ago
It's the 4-minute mile except it's taking everyone else too long to copy it. Really shows how far ahead Musk is.
▲testing22321 3 hours ago
Spacex first landed an orbital booster just over 10 years ago and have now landed 600 times.

The entire rest of the world combined has done it twice.

For a long time people would scoff when it was said they had a 10 year lead, and that others would catch up quickly. Proof meets pudding.

▲gamblor956 2 hours ago
FTA: "SpaceX suffered upper stage failures on three test flights of the massive Starship rocket last year. "

SpaceX has also had numerous failures with the larger generation of second stages and currently doesn't have a lead there. Nobody does.

▲decimalenough 2 hours ago
Nobody else has anything remotely like Starship. If they pull it off, and it's looking like they will, they will extend their dominance for another decade if not more.

Yes, Starship development has been slow and occasionally explodey, but they've successfully demonstrated all the fundamentals and it's "just" iteration from here. (They haven't gone into full orbit, but that's by choice, not lack of capability.)

▲boznz 2 hours ago
It's a hard problem, and both SpaceX and Blue Origin will probably have failures in the future too, I am encouraged that they both see failure as a way to do better and looking forward to both of them eventually succeeding. It's a good time to be a space nerd.
▲WalterBright 1 hour ago
There's a saying in the racing business. If you're not walking back to the pit now and then carrying the steering wheel, you're not trying hard enough. If you're walking back to the pit too often, you're incompetent.
▲WalterBright 1 hour ago
There's another aspect. If you're launching men in rockets, you cannot tolerate failures, so the development cost is way, way higher. The cost effective method is to launch unmanned ones, tolerating a lot of failures, and when the bugs are worked out then launch men.
▲bombcar 1 hour ago
If you always fail, you aren’t trying.

If you never fail, you aren’t trying.

▲mandeepj 1 hour ago
If you always fail, you aren’t learning

Isn't that better?

▲bombcar 45 minutes ago
True, but then you have to differentiate trying and failing vs not doing anything and failing by default.
▲dwd 2 hours ago
What I was not aware of is how many satellites Amazon already has in LEO for it's own Internet service.

They've been flying under the radar there it would seen.

▲cmiles8 1 hour ago
I will be good to have competition for space Internet. It’s unclear though if the market will really support two players. Satellite radio and data quickly ended up consolidating down to one.

Amazon is trying to become more vertically integrated but they seem at a structural disadvantage here competing against SpaceX.

▲jethro_tell 58 minutes ago
You might be counting out the value of government and military contracts that might not want to do business with a wild card.

SpaceX is killing it because the US government gives them a bunch of contracts, but if stability is slightly more important than cost or speed, amazon has a contender.

▲sanex 1 hour ago
They "only" have about 250 but they're authorized for 3000. They just bought a satellite company this week though that might boost the numbers a bit.
▲dwd 20 minutes ago
As late as 2010 there were "only" around 1000 satellites in orbit.
▲sota_pop 51 minutes ago
It came to my attention recently how many TOTAL objects currently exist in LEO. And that a study said that due to light deflection of these objects, that the earth’s night sky is an average of 10% brighter than it was in 1980s… although I generally am excited by technological advancement, that fact (if true) made me feel somewhat melancholy.
▲cryptoz 4 hours ago
Video of the booster landing: https://xcancel.com/JeffBezos/status/2045874068763632017
▲Mistletoe 1 hour ago
Stupid question I know, but are there people on that boat?
▲XorNot 1 hour ago
It's a drone boat, so no.
▲aaron695 13 minutes ago
[dead]
▲cmiles8 1 hour ago
Space is hard.

Losing payloads hurts though, especially for a new platform.