computerdork

Agreed. And even if they don't ever fully reuse the second stage, they still could use this gigantic working rocket as a (probably still) very cost effective to transport things into space.

There should be an in depth academic study on their two approaches, it seems like it'd be valuable.

To me at least, given the (probably) positive affects iterative dev has (overall) had on software development, my personal feeling is it'd be useful for most other types of engineering. But (as someone else also pointed out) iterative is much more expensive in hardware fields, given the high cost of materials, and you need to have a lot more funds to build hardware this way.

His loss :)

Ah, focus on quality of products being listed. And, maybe that means there is room for a high-end competitor to Amazon eventually (am not seeing this anytime soon, but maybe in a couple decades??)

Was thinking this too. It reminds me of how TSMC's fab has a lot more volume than Intel's, because TSMC has outside customers and high-volume is what is needed to perfect a chip fabrication process (getting many more chances to fix any problems, and once you finally do, have the volume necessary to make it profitable). What a great idea it was:)

Hmm, don't know, easy to say it was obvious in hindsight. But over the years, Google project Loon and other similar attempts at increasing internet coverage (think Facebook tried too at one point) have not been nearly as successful. Yeah, still not convinced it was obviously going to be successful, but maybe am missing some aspect you're seeing.

Well, sure, agree that there is a natural logic to the idea, but to actually go through with something that no one has done before and actually execute it (which as we all from the tech/sci industries here know), and also do it on a large scale and be very successful is an entirely different matter. Yeah, the number of things that need to go right is still pretty high, and at least to me, was extremely impressive. But to each his own.

yeah, didn't state it clearly. only meant that Blue Origin has actually been at it longer than SpaceX, and probably has around the same amount of patents as them because of it. Yeah, Blue Origin doesn't get as much credit for commercial space flight as spacex, and rightful so, but seems like they still did contribute a great deal (in fact, Blue Origin was the first to complete a vertical takeoff and landing, although it was with a suborbital vehicle).

Thanks:)

We should talk to him given his lack of interest, it'd be win-win for you both:)

Super interesting. Didn't know this.

One question for you since your worked at SpaceX. Starship v4 is supposed to be able to bring 200 metric tons to LEO vs 35 metric tons for v2. Do you have any guesses on the finally amount that New Glenn will be able to bring up when it reaches its version/block 4?

Yeah, Bezos has been putting most of his attention there for the past few years. And why not? What's more interesting, running a online marketplace (which still actually seems pretty interesting), or building rockets to fly into space:)

Was talking with someone else, yeah, focusing on a rocket factory instead of just building a couple of rockets does seem like a good idea. Allows you to build a lot of test articles during development, even ones that you'll launch like Space X, and during real flights, you'll have a lot of rockets available for real launches.

Yeah, it does seem like iterative development with hardware is an extremely cash intensive way of development. And yes, what a genius move to fund a lot of this development with Starlink - it's amazing this seemingly off the cuff idea is such a cash cow, and it seemed at least like they got it up and running relatively quickly. Yeah, regardless how someone feels about Elon these days, Starlink has got to be up there for one of the most brilliant moves by an entrepreneur of all time.

And to come back to you point, yeah, I do see, you need the funds first to be able to support such a cash hungry way of development - which, on a tangent, kind of disappointed me (and a few others online) when Stoke Space decide to build their own 1st stage instead of just focusing on their unique 2nd stage. Like many in the past have mentioned, it seems like they'd be getting to space a lot quicker if they had just designed their 2nd stage to fit on a Falcon 9.

Good point, this is probably the right way to go, to have a factory that is able to build a lot of your rockets quickly and cheaply. Yeah, during development, this would allow for quicker build and launches, to test your vehicles. And afterwards, with a usable rocket, allows for a high number of rockets available for real missions.

ah, yeah, patent trolling is pretty horrible (and Bezos is known for this - one click)...

... although, just to play a little devil's advocate, Bezos doesn't get enough credit for jump starting private spaceflight companies. Blue Origin was started 2 years before SpaceX. Am sure Blue Origin racked up a ton of patents.

Was thinking about that. It is interesting how they got so much working in just two launches compared to SpaceX, which works so incrementally.

Still, am wondering though if SpaceX's highly iterative approach is a better way, because with Blue Origin's more standard approach of getting everything right the first time, you may need to over engineer everything, which seems like it may take longer.

On the flipside, SpaceX's approach might tax the engineers, because they have to deal with launching so often, and maybe if they had done less launches, they might have actually gotten falcon and starship out quicker...

...But, then again maybe at Spacex, the "launch" engineers are really the ones that have to deal with getting the rockets ready for launch, while the core design engineers can focus on building the latest version. And all the launches are used to test out different ideas and gather real life data). Hmm, for my part, am leaning towards the spacex way of doing things.

(maybe SpaceX and Blue Origin engineers could share their thoughts if they're reading this??)

agreed, they need to pick more engineer focused people who love building rockets rather than impersonal PR people. Sometimes, the broadcast felt like a standard business seminar.

agreed, new glenn will only make the space industry as a whole better

although, they were doing it with a more complicated vehicle than the falcon 9, so the delay is "somewhat" understandable.

And only "somewhat," because new glenn seemed to take forever compared to starship. It does go to show, maybe the highly iterative approach that spacex takes really is faster (or, it could just be spacex has more highly skilled engineers, but I for one can't tell what the reasons are).

Interesting, did see a couple of small pops after landing on the drone ship, was that them?

wow, given the recent starship milestones that were reached, this is a really strange comment (well, they are behind schedule, but that's Elon Musk way of working).

Well, yeah, everything has limits and this issue seems like a very practical one. Seems like it depends on how much work would be needed to teach the user base, which, at least to me, feels out of reach. As your being in IT, you may agree that teaching a large majority of 60+ year-olds standard things on something like Windows is difficult and extremely slow. Feels like it would take at least a month of dedicated training, where they are full on board. Having helped my older friends out, don't see that happening anytime soon (a half hour here and there is all they seem willing to do).

But you know, if there is a method that you know that can teach the masses these skills, then am all for it (maybe barrage them with youtube commercials teaching basic tech skills?:)

eh, think this is a bit much to ask. Are we going to educate a majority of the baby boomers who just never got a feel for how technology works? Yeah, my Dad also just got scammed by a phishing scheme on his PC (and if a scammer had walked him through how to install an apk on his phone, he'd probably do that too).

In my humble opinion, in the design of a UI or any type of system, kind of have to go where the users take you to some degree. And Android, being an OS for consumer devices, should be geared toward the masses and the mistakes they'll make.

Anyone remember Bob's number?? Bob?! Oh the humanity! We're all gonna be canned!

Well, half us Americans did:) The other half is still in total disbelief

Yeah, agree with this too. Apple tends to create products that are more fully realized than Samsung or even Microsoft (especially in how it looks), but it's been pretty well know that Apple software tends to be buggy, as they aren't an engineering-focused company like let's say Google. They are a consumer products company.

IMHO, people are thinking about how well thought-out and usable the products and software tends to be - Yeah, Apple makes it so anyone can use it - But their software has always been buggy.

this looks awesome, don't have a lot of extra time for a new game, but such an interesting concept!

Me too:)

Btw, to all that are reading this, actually, found out the that Weird Al's music makes a lot more from Spotify than buying himself a sandwich - His rights holders get paid by spotify. These middlemen then take a cut and pay Weird Al. But on top of this, since Weird Al does parodies, the musicians he parodies also take a share (Michael Jackson, Nirvana...).

He got 80 million streams of his music in 2023, which paid out $386k to his rights holders according to a Spotify payout calculator. Not great, but not bad. https://musically.com/2023/12/01/weird-al-yankovics-spotify-...