New Glenn
-
wrote on 16 Jan 2025, 16:13 last edited by 89th
New Glenn launched early this morning, see video below. Feed starts about half way through. Cool video of their rockets at 40 seconds into the flight.
It looked slow getting off the launch pad. So I compared it to the MUCH heavier, MUCH taller Starship 6 (admittedly it has more rocket engines, too).
At 0:15 into the flight, New Glenn 50mph, Starship 134mph.
At 0:30 into the flight, New Glenn 100mph, Starship 323mph.
At 1:00 into the flight, New Glenn 340mph, Starship 707mph.
Also at 1:00, New Glenn was 12,000 feet high, Starship was at 30,000 feet high.
So I guess you could say Starship is about 2.5x "faster", which is remarkable given how much taller and heavier it is.
-
wrote on 16 Jan 2025, 16:14 last edited by
-
wrote on 16 Jan 2025, 17:43 last edited by
-
wrote on 16 Jan 2025, 18:06 last edited by
Awww, rocket cheers
-
wrote on 16 Jan 2025, 21:52 last edited by
T - 44 minutes.
Link to video -
wrote on 16 Jan 2025, 22:03 last edited by Copper
About 30 minutes late according to this
-
wrote on 16 Jan 2025, 22:46 last edited by
Mechazilla success!!!
-
wrote on 16 Jan 2025, 22:47 last edited by
Just remarkable. They make it look so easy!
-
wrote on 16 Jan 2025, 22:52 last edited by
They lost contact with Starship....
-
wrote on 16 Jan 2025, 23:29 last edited by
Wow. Spectacular breakup!
-
wrote on 16 Jan 2025, 23:48 last edited by
Not a failure because they learn so much.
No, it is a failure.
-
wrote on 16 Jan 2025, 23:48 last edited by
-
wrote on 16 Jan 2025, 23:56 last edited by
~20 flights apparently.
-
wrote on 17 Jan 2025, 02:29 last edited by
Very cool stuff. Makes it all the more amazing what the Apollo's did and the moon landing.
-
Very cool stuff. Makes it all the more amazing what the Apollo's did and the moon landing.
wrote on 17 Jan 2025, 02:43 last edited by@taiwan_girl said in New Glenn:
Makes it all the more amazing what the Apollo's did and the moon landing.
Indeed. It was more than half a century ago.
But...the motivations were different. We were in a "space race." The goal of putting a human on the moon was the primary goal. It had to be done right - the first time. If you look at clips from "The Right Stuff," there's a whole sequence of US rockets in the early 60s blowing up. It would have been a national embarrassment if the Apollo missions had failed (look at Apollo 1!).
SpaceX's philosophy is different: "Let's blow 'em up and learn from the errors. It's less expensive to fail and learn than to spend millions perfecting things."
Consider the successes of Boeing in human space flight vs that of SpaceX.
-
wrote on 17 Jan 2025, 03:07 last edited by
@George-K Agree. I was also thinking of the technology, etc. I think it was you(?) who educated me that the computer power in the Apollo was less than my current computer by a lot!!
-
@George-K Agree. I was also thinking of the technology, etc. I think it was you(?) who educated me that the computer power in the Apollo was less than my current computer by a lot!!
wrote on 17 Jan 2025, 14:20 last edited by@taiwan_girl said in New Glenn:
the computer power in the Apollo
The computing power of the Apollo Guidance Computer (AGC) used in the Apollo capsules can be described as follows:
- CPU: The AGC had a single 2.048 MHz (some sources cite 1.024 MHz due to the clock being divided by 2) RTL (Resistor-Transistor Logic) processor.
Memory: - ROM: It had 36 kilowords (about 72 KB) of core rope memory, which was non-volatile and used for storing the program code.
- RAM: There was 2 kilowords (about 4 KB) of magnetic-core memory for data storage.
- Word Size: The AGC used 16-bit words.
- Instructions: It had around 90 basic instructions.
- Performance: The speed was quite limited by today's standards; it could perform around 40,000 additions or 8,000 multiplications per second.
- Software: The software was written in assembly language, using a unique system called "Interpretive" for higher-level operations, which made the limited hardware more efficient by running compiled code.
To give a modern comparison, the Apollo Guidance Computer was roughly equivalent in processing power to the first generation of home computers in the late 1970s or early 1980s, like the Commodore 64, but with much less memory and without the benefit of modern microprocessor advancements. It was, however, incredibly advanced for its time given its reliability and role in space missions.
This computing power was sufficient to navigate to the Moon, perform mid-course corrections, and manage the lunar module's descent and ascent, all while being robust enough to handle the harsh environment of space travel.
- CPU: The AGC had a single 2.048 MHz (some sources cite 1.024 MHz due to the clock being divided by 2) RTL (Resistor-Transistor Logic) processor.
-
@taiwan_girl said in New Glenn:
Makes it all the more amazing what the Apollo's did and the moon landing.
Indeed. It was more than half a century ago.
But...the motivations were different. We were in a "space race." The goal of putting a human on the moon was the primary goal. It had to be done right - the first time. If you look at clips from "The Right Stuff," there's a whole sequence of US rockets in the early 60s blowing up. It would have been a national embarrassment if the Apollo missions had failed (look at Apollo 1!).
SpaceX's philosophy is different: "Let's blow 'em up and learn from the errors. It's less expensive to fail and learn than to spend millions perfecting things."
Consider the successes of Boeing in human space flight vs that of SpaceX.
wrote on 17 Jan 2025, 14:34 last edited by@taiwan_girl
If you look at clips from "The Right Stuff," there's a whole sequence of US rockets in the early 60s blowing up. It would have been a national embarrassment if the Apollo missions had failed (look at Apollo 1!).Good call about that movie. Similarly, and I've mentioned it a few times recently I know, the movie First Man is really "authentic" and you see some of the closer calls they had to deal with such as the first successful docking (Gemini
but resulting near-disaster when it went into an uncontrolled roll. Very intense. And of course during the actual Apollo 11 moon landing let's not talk about how they were down to the last few seconds of fuel before touching ground.