How long will it take to rebuild Blue Origin’s launch pad? We asked some SpaceX vets.
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
The fact that SpaceX had those two other pads nearly ready is a big difference. Blue Origin will most likely put all their efforts towards repairing this one. If that greater sense of urgency helps getting it done faster remains to be seen.
Upvote
55
(56
/
-1)
I thought braun was some sort of technical term or something that I don't know...
Upvote
27
(28
/
-1)
Blue was already starting to build a second pad there at 36, with changes like not needing a transporter-erector. They're probably hoping to simply continue that, meaning they're not starting from scratch.
If they can save 4 months of "pad freeze" for the anomaly investigation, they might be able to finish it very close to year's end.
Upvote
24
(26
/
-2)
To be pedantic, the first letter of a name or other proper noun should be capitalized.
Upvote
-8
(9
/
-17)
The bearing of a child takes nine months, no matter how many women are assigned.
Upvote
70
(71
/
-1)
Having your design and QA engineers spend a week looking for debris in an alligator-infested sub-tropical swamp is quite a way to focus their mind…
Upvote
81
(81
/
0)
Upvote
74
(74
/
0)
The braun could be an uncapitalized SI unit of launch pad size?
("We could be arguing in our spare time!" - M. Python)
Upvote
39
(39
/
0)
The crux of the "Just throw warm bodies at the problem, it'll get solved faster." trope.
Upvote
14
(14
/
0)
Upvote
0
(4
/
-4)
The thing is, per this article it took Space X 11 months after the pad freeze.
Upvote
48
(48
/
0)
It's an alternate Middle English spelling of brawn, clearly Eric has been studying his Chaucer too much.
Upvote
26
(26
/
0)
I thought we were needing to break into Vault 87 to get Ze Gahrden of Eden Creashun Kit. Which is/was unstable technology and fundamentally boring.
Upvote
-5
(2
/
-7)
I've applied for QC of hookers and blow but I keep getting turned down. There's a lot of competition for the fun jobs
Upvote
6
(10
/
-4)
Starting to build isn't quite accurate. They've filed some paperwork with the FAA and presumably USSF to start the approvals process but are nowhere near turning any dirt or building any new launch towers for the second site:
"Blue Origin has filed a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration with the Federal Aviation Administration, signaling plans to build a second launch pad infrastructure at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station.
[..]
The FAA filing is an early procedural step, not a construction approval. It initiates the regulatory review process required before any structure of that height can be built near an active airspace corridor. A formal environmental review and additional approvals would follow before any groundbreaking could occur. "
Upvote
21
(22
/
-1)
I just hope the workers have plenty of Brawndo to mutilate their thirst. It gets hot down there in Florida.
Upvote
8
(9
/
-1)
Not asking NASA I get...because NASA is famously risk averse, and consequently hasn't catastrophically destroyed a launch pad in many many years. I'm not sure who was the last launcher org public or private to set off a ~2kT equivalent fire cracker on their launchpad other than maybe the Soviets with their N1 stack.
SpaceX OTOH...does have a fair bit of experience blowing up launch facilities. Not dunking on SpaceX, just pointing it out. Go where the experience is to get stories and insight.
Upvote
86
(86
/
0)
Upvote
38
(38
/
0)
There's a bit of a Bell curve on that one. Forty weeks is a guideline rather than a hard limit.
Upvote
10
(10
/
0)
Not surprising for a company with the tortoise as its motto. It remains to be seen if BO can up its game.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)
As one of my old CSci professors would say, if you assign twice as many people to a problem, it should only take twice as long. But he was an optimist.
Upvote
34
(34
/
0)
The reason you keep getting turned down is you CLEARLY have no experience with working in QC. "QC of hookers and blow"? shudder shuddering intensifies
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
No thirst breaks allowed in Florida or Texas. Which is perfectly reasonable when you hate your own citizens.
Upvote
-2
(8
/
-10)
Upvote
18
(19
/
-1)
Limp's 7 months timeline, seems more like a PR spin timeline. They were finally starting to gain some traction and this setback could really hit them hard. Considering the last launch failing to put the Sat into the proper orbit and now this. Hard questions will be asked. Insurance companies will also want real answers and time to review in detail, the fixes that were implemented.
It will be all eyes on Limp now, was he the right choice or not? Maybe a real rocket engineer would be best to run a rocket company, call me crazy? I am not blaming him but if you don't have decades of experience with investigations like this, it puts you at a disadvantage. The whole R&D process of developing a launch system is dealing with design failures and fixes as you move forward.
I am expecting at least a 3-5 month investigation to happen. I am sure they have also learned some lessons in their 3 launches about the entire pad infrastructure that they would like to make improvements with or upgrades to it. One can't rule out that it was a ground infrastructure issue that failed and caused this problem. You want to move forward rebuilding but only once you really know what the issue was.
Blue should look at this as an opportunity to reset and take a hard look at everything. Stop worrying about trying to catch SX and be more worried about the smaller rocket companies starting to catch up to them nipping at their heels. Sound engineering can't be rushed, just ask Boeing's Starliner team.
It will be all eyes on Limp now, was he the right choice or not? Maybe a real rocket engineer would be best to run a rocket company, call me crazy? I am not blaming him but if you don't have decades of experience with investigations like this, it puts you at a disadvantage. The whole R&D process of developing a launch system is dealing with design failures and fixes as you move forward.
I am expecting at least a 3-5 month investigation to happen. I am sure they have also learned some lessons in their 3 launches about the entire pad infrastructure that they would like to make improvements with or upgrades to it. One can't rule out that it was a ground infrastructure issue that failed and caused this problem. You want to move forward rebuilding but only once you really know what the issue was.
Blue should look at this as an opportunity to reset and take a hard look at everything. Stop worrying about trying to catch SX and be more worried about the smaller rocket companies starting to catch up to them nipping at their heels. Sound engineering can't be rushed, just ask Boeing's Starliner team.
Upvote
5
(6
/
-1)
Christ.
SpaceX went through THIS EXACT SCENARIO not that many years ago. Of course they're the obvious people to ask. When was the last time NASA had to rebuild a pad trashed by an anomaly?
It's not expertise you're looking for, it's experience. It's having been in this movie.
Sometimes, every now and again, SpaceX personnel are actually, truly the subject matter experts for a particular story, whether it's about SpaceX or not. That's not bias, that's journalism.
I get that Eric isn't always the most objective writer when it comes to SpaceX. But you're not being any more objective in your criticism here.
Upvote
50
(51
/
-1)
Reminded me of the Dubliners song " McAlpines Fusiliers "
"McAlpine's God was a well filled hod, your shoulders cut to bits and seared,
And woe to he who looked for tea with McAlpine's Fusiliers"
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
You don't need to know exactly what went wrong to start moving forward with the rebuilt. There are a lot of parts that need building that aren't going to change significantly after you know exactly what went wrong.
For example, removing the broken concrete and building it new. Fixing the broken structure of the remaining lighting tower. Building the other lighting tower. Checking that the tanks works and can hold cryogenic liquids. Checking the water tank. The main parts of the transporter.
Yeah, you might need to change some fueling system in the transporter, but a lot of the main body is going to remain the same.
Upvote
12
(12
/
0)
normally butters
Ars Praefectus
I dunno if it would be classified as "catastrophic" destruction, but Artemis I severely damaged the flame deflector at LC-39B, requiring 7-8 months to repair the deflector structure and replace the steel cladding with upgraded panels. NASA had many years to convert LC-39B from Shuttle to SLS, but they still badly miscalculated the loads that SLS would put on the flame deflector with the switch to how the SRB and RS-25 loads are distributed across the two sides of the deflector. The good news is that the upgraded deflector cladding appears to have performed well on Artemis II, and it doesn't seem like they'll have months of repairs after each SLS launch.
Upvote
24
(24
/
0)
The multiplayer speedrunning record for Factorio was beating the game in ~1hour 15 minutes with like 5 people.
SpiffingBrit marshaled 170 players on his own private server who practiced as a team for weeks. HIs record? Was like 45 minutes. Hello, diminishing returns.
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
Memes aside, some problems really can be solved faster if you throw more money or people at them. But it does take skill to make sure that happens even with all the money in the world.
Upvote
17
(17
/
0)