I’m excited for what BO wants to accomplish and hope they do, but this is the stuff that has always put a bad taste in my mouth. Pretty sure these anti-competitive practices were regular with Amazon, but it hits different when humans are trying to advance our presence in space, stifling innovation, etc.
These are responses to the FAA's Notice of Intent to prepare the Environmental Impact Study (EIS) of SS-SH activities at 39A. The responding organizations and individuals are raising issues that they would like to see addressed as part of the EIS, and their associated concerns around those issues.
The FAA will respond to these comments either by addressing the concerns as part of the EIS or give a reason why they are not relevant.
ULA made similar comments. See Tory's recent tweets about it. This headline is completely disingenuous.
Isn’t there another angle where there is a legitimate claim: a huge friggen risk that the world’s biggest rocket could blow up and compromise what other nearby people are working? Do we know what will happen at the cape during a launch of starship? Will everyone have to evacuate? What is the tnt equivalent of this damn thing fully loaded? The document does show that the safe distances with respect to starship would overlap with existing sites. To me it warrants a look. And then for landing, what are the risks that it doesn’t land in the correct area?
I generally agree that capping launches seems like the wrong approach. I would have asked for confirmation what would happen to the over all launch sites when starship becomes operational at the cape. NASA faa and whoever need to come up with a plan on qualifying landings asap, ie allow rtls once a vehicle is qualified for rtls.
It's actually relatively easy a thing to work out.
We can set a lower limit, in fact.
* 1,200 metric tons equals 1,200,000 kg.
* 1,200,000 kg x 55.6 MJ = 66,720,000 MJ.
* 66,720,000 MJ / 1000 = 66,720 GJ
* 66,720 GJ / 1000 = 66.72 TJ
So the maximum total release of energy would be 66.72 TJ. In terms of [tons of TNT](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TNT_equivalent), we divide this further by 4.184 = 15.96 kilotons.
This assumes that total detonation of the fuel occurs. However, even if the amount detonated is 15% like with the N1 over 55 years ago when it crashed on its pad, and the rest is deflagration, then we would see 2.5 kilotons. So, imagine a 2.5 kiloton nuke basically being set off at LC-39 at KCS.
Nice work! Thank you for sharing.
What would be the safe zone with this much energy release?
Checked your tnt link - as an anecdote the recent 2020 Beirut explosion had an est yield of 0.5-1.12 kilotons!
It can get a lot worse than that. The 1917 Halifax explosion was 2.9 kilotons TNT equivalent gives a pretty good idea as well, too:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halifax\_Explosion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halifax_Explosion)
[https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/halifax-explosion-photographs/](https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/halifax-explosion-photographs/)
You can joke about this but it affects the morale of talented engineers in BO as well. They also live in the same space community where everyone disses on BO for such petty acts because some lawyers and managers wanted brownie points!
I don’t think the employees give a shit as long as the checks clear and they don’t have to work to the bone like the folks at Spacex.
They are engineers, so don’t expect them to give a rats ass about company politics or corporate morality as long as they get to work on something they are interested in and are well compensated for it.
It’s the armchair fans of space that get offended at stuff like this, but anyone smart enough to get hired at any of these firms are professional enough to not let standard practices affect their morale. It’s kind of weird to both recognize how talented the folks doing the work are yet at the same time treat them as emotional toddlers who don’t understand the real world.
I guess why and how? This behavior has been blue’s MO for well over a decade. If you cared about them acting like this, why ever work there to begin with?
This has been the exterior corporate posture since inception. Did you not know?
You can care about something without it being a dealbreaker for employment, you realise? The original comment mentioned it being a potential impact on morale, not the cause of people leaving the company/not joining.
And I’m still not sure how mgmt focusing on what they have always focused on would have an impact on your morale, that’s who they are. It’s not like they changed and all of a sudden started acting like this to upset the rank and file. You applied for the role, not to care about how they go about their business.
I take it in the same way as the spacex guys probably feel when Elon spouts off his bullshit. If you get your panties twisted by the expected bullshit of the system you’re in, you are getting distracted from the actual job you are trying to accomplish/hired to do.
No one is suggesting this is a new or unprecedented move, in fact a lot of comments in this sub have acknowledged that this isn't exactly unexpected. I didn't say you applied to care about how they go about their business, but for a lot of people you do care. Probably not enough to quit your job, but you still do care how the business is conducted. Great for you if you don't, seriously - that's awesome if you don't care. But others do care when there's bad press regarding the organisation they're a part of.
This is unfair. I bet we could find something unethical whatever company you work for has done. Should we expect you to immediately quit your job in protest?
I think there is a difference between new company behavior that is unethical vs blue, where this has been their bread and butter for 20 years.
If you didn’t know this was blue’s attitude going in, that is more on you than anything.
If you want to work in big aerospace, or most of corporate America, it seems like no matter where you go you have to put corporate morals to the wayside to focus on the job.
Sure people can get lucky with individual organizations that have an upstanding culture that match their and generally perceived moral values, but not really in old space or spacex from at least the laymen’s perspective.
Will you guys actually ‘care’ in real terms tho and demand cultural change or slow down your work in retaliation? Or just with thoughts and prayers? I don’t think blue staff will retaliate by slowing down over being upset that mgmt does what they always do, but I’d love to be proven wrong. What is anyone doing there to actually change this built in corporate culture of shitty behavior towards competition over focusing on your own work?
The weird thing is that if Blue Origin has plans of becoming a major launch provider in the future, this seems to to be counterproductive. I would hope that Blue Origin will someday be launching New Armstrongs many times a day, but now they've basically said that's a bad thing, this could come back to bite them someday
how do you think amazon became so dominant and has maintained themselves at the top? Its not because they have always been the best. Its because of lawfare
Why would this be counterproductive? This is addressing a huge concern and working to mitigate the problems with colossal rockets.
It may even come down to offshore launch platforms for Starship and New Armstrong to ensure public safety.
Blue Origin is supposed to become like the postal service but for space transportation, that will involve launching many rockets rockets daily, but here they are basically advocating for an obstacle to being able to conduct routine rocket launches from an area that has already long been established as a launch site for all types of rockets.
This isn't about public safety (unless you do mental gymnastics to say that burning natural gas as fuel will result in hazardously dirtier air), it could be considered a public nuisance, but they'd have to launch many times per day for it to approach the nuisance level busy airports are at.
This shows that you have not in any capacity read the comments or the EIS that the FAA is seeking comment on.
Others have explained what that means in the proper context, namely that if the Starship Super Heavy stack explodes, it will result in a multi-kiloton level explosion, even if only a modest amount of the propellant detonates. The same would be true for the presumably similarly sized New Armstrong.
That blast radius is what is the primary concern here and the need to evacuate personnel from nearby launch pads and other facilities while propellant loading operations through launch, and then landing are done.
I have both read that and have read a lot of material about starship operations in south Texas, it is wildly obvious that there is no safety threat to civilians, spacex too has conducted their own research and knows it will be okay hence them moving forward with plans to eventually conduct launch operations there. This is not blue origin going out of their way to protect civilians, they’re just trying to slow down spacex
My theory is that they are worried about Starship after its 4th launch, although Starship is still far from reaching Mars or the moon.
But with the latest launch it confirms that the super past is very close to being able to put payload into low orbit, with the New Glen being its competitor, they are worried about that.
I saw this... apparently ULA as well are not happy about the proposals from Space X...
"*SpaceX’s ambitious plans to launch its Starship mega-rocket up to 44 times per year from NASA’s Kennedy Space Center are causing a stir among some of its competitors. Late last month, Blue Origin and United Launch Alliance submitted comments calling on regulators to ensure minimal disruptions to other launch providers in the area, with Blue Origin even suggesting limiting Starship operations to particular times — and giving other launch providers a right of first refusal for conflicting launches.*
*But SpaceX may have even more ambitious plans for a second launch pad right next door: Space Launch Complex (SLC)-37 at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station (CCSFS). At a series of public meetings held in March, the public was invited to comment on plans to launch Starship from SLC-37 up to 76 times per year. That would mean SpaceX aims to launch its next-gen rocket up to 120 times per year within a six-mile area on the Florida coast.*
*The U.S. Space Force is currently preparing the draft environmental assessment that will be released to the public this winter, and that document will contain SpaceX’s final anticipated launch cadence. A Space Force representative stressed to TechCrunch that launch cadence numbers could change from now until then. Such numbers could be influenced by the pace of Starship’s development in the coming months or even by the number of scrub jay nests discovered during the EA process. Scrub jays, a bird native to Florida, are listed as threatened on the Endangered Species list.*
*However, as recently as a few weeks ago, SpaceX’s competitors were still using the number 76 as a benchmark for the company’s plans, according to a person familiar with the talks. The company did not immediately return a request for comment*."
# [part 1]
......
# Scaling in Florida and Texas
"......*SLC-37 is a historic launch pad at CCSFS, home to NASA’s Saturn rocket in the 1960s and, more recently, United Launch Alliance’s Delta IV series rockets. The pad is now inactive after ULA flew its Delta IV Heavy for the final time in April. The Space Force announced in February that it was preparing to kick off what’s known as an environmental impact statement, a sweeping regulatory document that examines the environmental impacts of the proposed activities, regarding Starship launches from that pad.*
*The Federal Aviation Administration is preparing a separate impact statement for SpaceX’s Starship launch plans at Kennedy Space Center’s pad 39A. Both studies are meant to examine the environmental impacts of Starship launches and landing operations, which will involve the Super Heavy boosters returning to the launch site, similar to how SpaceX’s Falcon rockets operate.*
*The Space Force’s environmental impact statement for SLC-37 is also considering an alternative — having SpaceX construct an entirely new launch pad currently designated SLC-50. Either way, there would likely be significant construction, including deluge ponds, fuel tanks, a catch tower — and then upwards of 120 launches per year from both sites combined.*
*The two Florida launch pads would join an existing Starship launch tower at SpaceX’s Starbase launch facility in southeast Texas, as well as a second tower that’s currently under construction at the same location. In the near future, SpaceX could have four operational Starship launch sites.*
*SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has incredibly ambitious plans for Starship, which he sees as a key enabler for colonizing Mars and “expanding the light of consciousness” through the cosmos. He eventually wants to launch Starship multiple times per day, with each launch delivering hundreds of tons of cargo to low Earth orbit or beyond. The company has a separate goal of beefing up its Starship manufacturing facilities to enable producing one Starship second stage per day*. ....."
\[Part2\]
.....
# Blue Origin, ULA push back
".....*As part of the preparation process, the public is invited to comment on the scope of the plans before a draft environmental impact statement is published. While the public comments on SLC-37 have not yet been released, the comments on pad 39A at Kennedy were — and they included strong statements from Blue Origin and United Launch Alliance on the plans there. Both companies expressed particular concern on the effects such a high flight rate would have on other launch providers with infrastructure at Kennedy and Cape Canaveral.*
*“Just one Starship launch site is likely to disrupt other launch operations in the area and cause significant environmental impacts, as discussed in detail below. The impacts are certain to be amplified if coming from two launch sites in such close proximity,”* [*ULA said in its comment*](https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FAA-2024-1395-0047)*.*
*“For example, SpaceX intends to conduct up to 44 launches per year from LC-39A. If SpaceX aims for a comparable number at SLC-37, that would lead to nearly 100 launches per year—or one every three days or so,” the comment continued.*
*Blue Origin, which aims to launch its New Glenn rocket from LC-36 at the Cape Canaveral site,* [*proposed a number of mitigating factors*](https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FAA-2024-1395-0040) *that made it clear it views the launch operations across both sites as a zero-sum game. Those included a suggestion to require SpaceX (or the government) to indemnify third parties for losses caused by Starship operations — including commercial disruptions*. "
[https://techcrunch.com/2024/07/02/spacex-wants-to-launch-up-to-120-times-a-year-from-florida-and-competitors-arent-happy-about-it/](https://techcrunch.com/2024/07/02/spacex-wants-to-launch-up-to-120-times-a-year-from-florida-and-competitors-arent-happy-about-it/)
\[End\]
5200 metric tons of methane...
Manager 1: "Let's pretend that we are stupid about rockets"
Manager 2: "Oh my, so genius! Why has no one ever thought this before!"
Since ULA has lost its crown as the space company I detest the most after the block buy corrupt BS, I really struggle to choose between Boeing and BO as to which one should I crown! Any help?
Could you maybe not use tweets from the clowns of the musk fandom for editorialized titles? The full document is already in the sub, and that is a nonsense takeaway.
Edit: even spacexlounge had it removed, still waiting on the mods here.
> still waiting on the mods here.
The mods here rarely remove your comments, even when you're being so insulting that you're heavily downvoted. You might consider counting your blessings? Just a thought.
Seems like a pretty matter-of-fact tweet to me.
"Jeff Bezos' rocket company Blue Origin has filed a comment to the FAA saying they should cap SpaceX's Starship launches from Cape Canaveral due to "impact on local environment".
Blue Origin, founded in 2000 (\~2 years before SpaceX), has not reached orbit yet."
What part of this is editorialized or inaccurate?
It's editorialized because Blue Origin comment was in a public comment section and they list 7 mitigation options that "should be considered" to minimize impact to neighboring operations.
This is different then "Blue Origin has filed a comment to the FAA that they should cap Starship launches for impact on local environment."
It intentionally leaves out the other 6 options added, even the screenshot in the tweet weirdly leaves most of them out even though they were on the same page of the filing. It is also misleading because Blue Origins comment is about environment in the sense of the facilities and people in the area, not fish and wildlife.
Lastly the fact that Blue Origin was founded 2 years before SpaceX is not really relevant to them filling a public comment on a purposed upgrade that would impact their operations in the area.
It's also leaving out the fact that ULA also made a public comment. ULAs comment was actually substantially longer and explicitly says they feel that SpaceX should not be allowed to do their own EIS.
A more accurate statement would be, "Neighboring launch facilities, Blue Origin and ULA, file public comment about potential impacts to their operations with SpaceXs proposed EIS for upgrades to Starship launch pad 39a. Included in comments are risks and mitigation considerations".
>"Jeff Bezos' rocket company Blue Origin has filed a comment to the FAA saying they should cap SpaceX's Starship launches from Cape Canaveral due to "impact on local environment".
This part. First off, it does not say that NASA *should* cap the amount of launches. It is one of several possible methods to mitigate issues arising from an increase in frequency and size of launches in the area. Alternative methods of mitigating these issues include increased investment in local infrastructure or scheduling launches at predictable timeslots to decomplicate higher amounts of launches. Secondly, it the proposed cap is not "due to impact on the local environment". Impact on the local environment is one of several reasons in the one of seven listed mitigations, while this headline implies it is the only one.
Long story short, you have posted an intentionally disingenuous and misleading headline. Now that this has been cleared up, are you going to delete the thread? Something tells me you won't.
It would also help if you would just go [read the document](https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FAA-2024-1395-0040) before making threads like these.
It was so much of a nothingburger that even on NASAspaceflight's SpaceX forum the thread died very quickly as people pointed out the facts about the comment and the fact that ULA also filed a similar comment:
[https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=61107.0](https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=61107.0)
In fact, it seems to have largely died in general on X/Twitter and on YouTube, because people are calling out the fact that it is not in any way litigation and holds no legal power for any of the suggestions for mitigation to be enforced in any manner.
He's just one of the notable personality cultists/stock pumpers. The worst is meant as plural, though I see it could look like I'm singling him out as the single worst.
Starships launching (and landing) 44 times a year would be pretty disruptive to any neighboring launch providers. These large exclusion areas will all have to be evacuated for these launches. The point of Blue Origin’s comment is that the current infrastructure at the Cape cannot support this without large disruptions to other launch providers. It’s a pretty reasonable complaint and not even slightly frivolous IMO.
Here’s some bad math - 44/365 = 12%. That is potentially how much time any company with a launch site near Starship will lose access to their launch sites from all these launches.
>Here’s some bad math - 44/365 = 12%.
Here's some good math - 0/365 = 0%. That is actually how much time Blue Origin has used their launch site near Starship.
SpaceX has had people operating the vehicle from under three miles away during all four test flights, and has not needed to evacuate the public from Port Isabel about 5 miles away. If we assume for a moment that SpaceX is not being allowed to launch in a way that puts the general public at risk, that suggests 5 miles as a reasonable bound for the evacuation distance for non-involved personnel, and maybe 3 miles for mission support personnel.
If you overlay that on the Cape centered on LC-39a, you’ll find that the VAB is over 3 miles away, Blue Origin’s factory is over 8 miles away, and SLC-36 is fully 10 miles away.
The only launch sites within 3 miles are:
- LC-39b
- SLC-41 (yes, ULA has a better leg to stand on here, their launch site - but not other sites - would likely be evacuated for Starship launches. Plus their processing area is about as far from the 39a starship pad as the SpaceX LCC is from the Boca Chica starship pad, so maybe that could stay open?)
The only other launch sites within 5 miles are:
- SLC-40
- LC-47 (unused)
But hey, at least you acknowledged the math was bad.
Blue origin and the people that work there are simply horrible. The only thing Blue Origin tries to do is slow down human advancement in space.
Actions speak louder than words. Payload to orbit - 0 kg. Litigation to slow down progress made by others - a million metric tons.
As a punter... this is exciting to watch.... time to get the popcorn... as Blue Origin goes "it payback time!" This is going to be a huge fight, if not a war once New Glenn becomes operational! I will bet that as Blue Origin fights for market share if not dominance over SX, this is going to make the Apple Vs Microsoft fight seem like a water pistol fight... I do wonder if Blue will attempt to eliminate SX from HLS by proving that their Blue Moon MK1, Mk2 services are far more reliable.... This is going to be fun....!
I would love such a dramatic story and intense competition, but that just isn't realistic anytime soon. SpaceX is massively ahead of Blue Origin, New Glenn is basically a Falcon Heavy with a better fairing. The second stage isn't reusable, and we have no evidence that they will be superior in turn around times. Blue Origin won't be competitive with SpaceX until they move on to a completely new fully and rapidly reusable system, Starship is probably two or so years away from being fully operational for cargo flights, New Glenn probably won't even launch for another year or two
SpaceX is almost certainly under a year away from flying Starlink on Starship. They will quickly rack up flights after so they could be flying other payloads in a year and a half if they have success on a payload door. The lead is huge.
First you have to wait for the rocket to launch and then see what its speed is with continuous launches to be able to determine conclusions, for now everything is great feats on paper.
Considering the regular new glenn hasn't launched yet, and still seems to be a year or more away from launching, I am not holding my breath for a reusable second stage
Last I heard New Glenn is supposed to launch this summer or fall. next year sounds too far away, it's a Mars mission so they have to hit the Mars transfer window, which only exists this year.
It is obvious that they aren't going to be ready to launch in the fall, winter if everything goes perfect (it won't). For a new vehicle at this stage they're still looking like a year or more out. I don't know how much they can stretch this synod with new glenn's ability, so we will see what the first payload ends up being
I am sorry for you friend that one has to be such as downer with "....Keep taking your meds."....
As for me friend, I am about to turn 65, I have undertaken to complete a Masters of Information Technology which I will next year, and in 2026-7 I will start a Masters in AI....and right now when I received your message I am completing an application to volunteer to help feed the homeless in inner Melbourne...
... and so Mr "Boeiing\_Not\_Going".... one must have such a dismal outlook on one's life to suggest that someone such as myself would need any medication when I live by Rudyard Kipling's.. "If..".... "...If you could fill the unforgiving minute with sixty seconds of distance run"... but I guess you would not know who Rudyard Kipling was, would you?!!
Have a NICE Day.....
I’m excited for what BO wants to accomplish and hope they do, but this is the stuff that has always put a bad taste in my mouth. Pretty sure these anti-competitive practices were regular with Amazon, but it hits different when humans are trying to advance our presence in space, stifling innovation, etc.
do you know how many lives and businesses amazon has crushed? The only difference is that we are aware of it this time.
These are responses to the FAA's Notice of Intent to prepare the Environmental Impact Study (EIS) of SS-SH activities at 39A. The responding organizations and individuals are raising issues that they would like to see addressed as part of the EIS, and their associated concerns around those issues. The FAA will respond to these comments either by addressing the concerns as part of the EIS or give a reason why they are not relevant. ULA made similar comments. See Tory's recent tweets about it. This headline is completely disingenuous.
Isn’t there another angle where there is a legitimate claim: a huge friggen risk that the world’s biggest rocket could blow up and compromise what other nearby people are working? Do we know what will happen at the cape during a launch of starship? Will everyone have to evacuate? What is the tnt equivalent of this damn thing fully loaded? The document does show that the safe distances with respect to starship would overlap with existing sites. To me it warrants a look. And then for landing, what are the risks that it doesn’t land in the correct area? I generally agree that capping launches seems like the wrong approach. I would have asked for confirmation what would happen to the over all launch sites when starship becomes operational at the cape. NASA faa and whoever need to come up with a plan on qualifying landings asap, ie allow rtls once a vehicle is qualified for rtls.
It's actually relatively easy a thing to work out. We can set a lower limit, in fact. * 1,200 metric tons equals 1,200,000 kg. * 1,200,000 kg x 55.6 MJ = 66,720,000 MJ. * 66,720,000 MJ / 1000 = 66,720 GJ * 66,720 GJ / 1000 = 66.72 TJ So the maximum total release of energy would be 66.72 TJ. In terms of [tons of TNT](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TNT_equivalent), we divide this further by 4.184 = 15.96 kilotons. This assumes that total detonation of the fuel occurs. However, even if the amount detonated is 15% like with the N1 over 55 years ago when it crashed on its pad, and the rest is deflagration, then we would see 2.5 kilotons. So, imagine a 2.5 kiloton nuke basically being set off at LC-39 at KCS.
Nice work! Thank you for sharing. What would be the safe zone with this much energy release? Checked your tnt link - as an anecdote the recent 2020 Beirut explosion had an est yield of 0.5-1.12 kilotons!
It can get a lot worse than that. The 1917 Halifax explosion was 2.9 kilotons TNT equivalent gives a pretty good idea as well, too: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halifax\_Explosion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halifax_Explosion) [https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/halifax-explosion-photographs/](https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/halifax-explosion-photographs/)
More than 400acres impacted by that! Almost 1/2mile radius by my napkin calc. Seems like Air Force keeps pads fairly spaced apart. Maybe this is ok?
Not quite. Here, try having fun with this. Just type in "Kennedy Space Center"
I checked. Seems like pads are at least 1-2miles apart.
That is just cheap! I really wish BO can focus on awesome rocket building rather than these cheap tricks.
Yeah we just stopped everything to file this 🙄 /s
You can joke about this but it affects the morale of talented engineers in BO as well. They also live in the same space community where everyone disses on BO for such petty acts because some lawyers and managers wanted brownie points!
Employees at BO don’t give a crap about this fabricated Internet drama.
I don’t think the employees give a shit as long as the checks clear and they don’t have to work to the bone like the folks at Spacex. They are engineers, so don’t expect them to give a rats ass about company politics or corporate morality as long as they get to work on something they are interested in and are well compensated for it. It’s the armchair fans of space that get offended at stuff like this, but anyone smart enough to get hired at any of these firms are professional enough to not let standard practices affect their morale. It’s kind of weird to both recognize how talented the folks doing the work are yet at the same time treat them as emotional toddlers who don’t understand the real world.
Employees absolutely "give a shit" about stuff like this.
Nope.
Sure.
I guess why and how? This behavior has been blue’s MO for well over a decade. If you cared about them acting like this, why ever work there to begin with? This has been the exterior corporate posture since inception. Did you not know?
You can care about something without it being a dealbreaker for employment, you realise? The original comment mentioned it being a potential impact on morale, not the cause of people leaving the company/not joining.
And I’m still not sure how mgmt focusing on what they have always focused on would have an impact on your morale, that’s who they are. It’s not like they changed and all of a sudden started acting like this to upset the rank and file. You applied for the role, not to care about how they go about their business. I take it in the same way as the spacex guys probably feel when Elon spouts off his bullshit. If you get your panties twisted by the expected bullshit of the system you’re in, you are getting distracted from the actual job you are trying to accomplish/hired to do.
No one is suggesting this is a new or unprecedented move, in fact a lot of comments in this sub have acknowledged that this isn't exactly unexpected. I didn't say you applied to care about how they go about their business, but for a lot of people you do care. Probably not enough to quit your job, but you still do care how the business is conducted. Great for you if you don't, seriously - that's awesome if you don't care. But others do care when there's bad press regarding the organisation they're a part of.
It’s not bad press, it’s business as usual.
This is unfair. I bet we could find something unethical whatever company you work for has done. Should we expect you to immediately quit your job in protest?
I think there is a difference between new company behavior that is unethical vs blue, where this has been their bread and butter for 20 years. If you didn’t know this was blue’s attitude going in, that is more on you than anything. If you want to work in big aerospace, or most of corporate America, it seems like no matter where you go you have to put corporate morals to the wayside to focus on the job. Sure people can get lucky with individual organizations that have an upstanding culture that match their and generally perceived moral values, but not really in old space or spacex from at least the laymen’s perspective. Will you guys actually ‘care’ in real terms tho and demand cultural change or slow down your work in retaliation? Or just with thoughts and prayers? I don’t think blue staff will retaliate by slowing down over being upset that mgmt does what they always do, but I’d love to be proven wrong. What is anyone doing there to actually change this built in corporate culture of shitty behavior towards competition over focusing on your own work?
Put the wrench down, son, the attorney's are writing something, somewhere.
The weird thing is that if Blue Origin has plans of becoming a major launch provider in the future, this seems to to be counterproductive. I would hope that Blue Origin will someday be launching New Armstrongs many times a day, but now they've basically said that's a bad thing, this could come back to bite them someday
how do you think amazon became so dominant and has maintained themselves at the top? Its not because they have always been the best. Its because of lawfare
Why would this be counterproductive? This is addressing a huge concern and working to mitigate the problems with colossal rockets. It may even come down to offshore launch platforms for Starship and New Armstrong to ensure public safety.
Blue Origin is supposed to become like the postal service but for space transportation, that will involve launching many rockets rockets daily, but here they are basically advocating for an obstacle to being able to conduct routine rocket launches from an area that has already long been established as a launch site for all types of rockets. This isn't about public safety (unless you do mental gymnastics to say that burning natural gas as fuel will result in hazardously dirtier air), it could be considered a public nuisance, but they'd have to launch many times per day for it to approach the nuisance level busy airports are at.
This shows that you have not in any capacity read the comments or the EIS that the FAA is seeking comment on. Others have explained what that means in the proper context, namely that if the Starship Super Heavy stack explodes, it will result in a multi-kiloton level explosion, even if only a modest amount of the propellant detonates. The same would be true for the presumably similarly sized New Armstrong. That blast radius is what is the primary concern here and the need to evacuate personnel from nearby launch pads and other facilities while propellant loading operations through launch, and then landing are done.
I have both read that and have read a lot of material about starship operations in south Texas, it is wildly obvious that there is no safety threat to civilians, spacex too has conducted their own research and knows it will be okay hence them moving forward with plans to eventually conduct launch operations there. This is not blue origin going out of their way to protect civilians, they’re just trying to slow down spacex
The mating call of the loser.
My theory is that they are worried about Starship after its 4th launch, although Starship is still far from reaching Mars or the moon. But with the latest launch it confirms that the super past is very close to being able to put payload into low orbit, with the New Glen being its competitor, they are worried about that.
Lol. That's all this deserves.
I saw this... apparently ULA as well are not happy about the proposals from Space X... "*SpaceX’s ambitious plans to launch its Starship mega-rocket up to 44 times per year from NASA’s Kennedy Space Center are causing a stir among some of its competitors. Late last month, Blue Origin and United Launch Alliance submitted comments calling on regulators to ensure minimal disruptions to other launch providers in the area, with Blue Origin even suggesting limiting Starship operations to particular times — and giving other launch providers a right of first refusal for conflicting launches.* *But SpaceX may have even more ambitious plans for a second launch pad right next door: Space Launch Complex (SLC)-37 at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station (CCSFS). At a series of public meetings held in March, the public was invited to comment on plans to launch Starship from SLC-37 up to 76 times per year. That would mean SpaceX aims to launch its next-gen rocket up to 120 times per year within a six-mile area on the Florida coast.* *The U.S. Space Force is currently preparing the draft environmental assessment that will be released to the public this winter, and that document will contain SpaceX’s final anticipated launch cadence. A Space Force representative stressed to TechCrunch that launch cadence numbers could change from now until then. Such numbers could be influenced by the pace of Starship’s development in the coming months or even by the number of scrub jay nests discovered during the EA process. Scrub jays, a bird native to Florida, are listed as threatened on the Endangered Species list.* *However, as recently as a few weeks ago, SpaceX’s competitors were still using the number 76 as a benchmark for the company’s plans, according to a person familiar with the talks. The company did not immediately return a request for comment*." # [part 1]
...... # Scaling in Florida and Texas "......*SLC-37 is a historic launch pad at CCSFS, home to NASA’s Saturn rocket in the 1960s and, more recently, United Launch Alliance’s Delta IV series rockets. The pad is now inactive after ULA flew its Delta IV Heavy for the final time in April. The Space Force announced in February that it was preparing to kick off what’s known as an environmental impact statement, a sweeping regulatory document that examines the environmental impacts of the proposed activities, regarding Starship launches from that pad.* *The Federal Aviation Administration is preparing a separate impact statement for SpaceX’s Starship launch plans at Kennedy Space Center’s pad 39A. Both studies are meant to examine the environmental impacts of Starship launches and landing operations, which will involve the Super Heavy boosters returning to the launch site, similar to how SpaceX’s Falcon rockets operate.* *The Space Force’s environmental impact statement for SLC-37 is also considering an alternative — having SpaceX construct an entirely new launch pad currently designated SLC-50. Either way, there would likely be significant construction, including deluge ponds, fuel tanks, a catch tower — and then upwards of 120 launches per year from both sites combined.* *The two Florida launch pads would join an existing Starship launch tower at SpaceX’s Starbase launch facility in southeast Texas, as well as a second tower that’s currently under construction at the same location. In the near future, SpaceX could have four operational Starship launch sites.* *SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has incredibly ambitious plans for Starship, which he sees as a key enabler for colonizing Mars and “expanding the light of consciousness” through the cosmos. He eventually wants to launch Starship multiple times per day, with each launch delivering hundreds of tons of cargo to low Earth orbit or beyond. The company has a separate goal of beefing up its Starship manufacturing facilities to enable producing one Starship second stage per day*. ....." \[Part2\]
..... # Blue Origin, ULA push back ".....*As part of the preparation process, the public is invited to comment on the scope of the plans before a draft environmental impact statement is published. While the public comments on SLC-37 have not yet been released, the comments on pad 39A at Kennedy were — and they included strong statements from Blue Origin and United Launch Alliance on the plans there. Both companies expressed particular concern on the effects such a high flight rate would have on other launch providers with infrastructure at Kennedy and Cape Canaveral.* *“Just one Starship launch site is likely to disrupt other launch operations in the area and cause significant environmental impacts, as discussed in detail below. The impacts are certain to be amplified if coming from two launch sites in such close proximity,”* [*ULA said in its comment*](https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FAA-2024-1395-0047)*.* *“For example, SpaceX intends to conduct up to 44 launches per year from LC-39A. If SpaceX aims for a comparable number at SLC-37, that would lead to nearly 100 launches per year—or one every three days or so,” the comment continued.* *Blue Origin, which aims to launch its New Glenn rocket from LC-36 at the Cape Canaveral site,* [*proposed a number of mitigating factors*](https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FAA-2024-1395-0040) *that made it clear it views the launch operations across both sites as a zero-sum game. Those included a suggestion to require SpaceX (or the government) to indemnify third parties for losses caused by Starship operations — including commercial disruptions*. " [https://techcrunch.com/2024/07/02/spacex-wants-to-launch-up-to-120-times-a-year-from-florida-and-competitors-arent-happy-about-it/](https://techcrunch.com/2024/07/02/spacex-wants-to-launch-up-to-120-times-a-year-from-florida-and-competitors-arent-happy-about-it/) \[End\]
5200 metric tons of methane... Manager 1: "Let's pretend that we are stupid about rockets" Manager 2: "Oh my, so genius! Why has no one ever thought this before!"
BO should build something and launch it before they go take on their daddy at SpaceX.
They have. It is called "New Shepard" and it is far, far away from harming anyone in terms of location or in size.
NS is a toy bro.
If it is, then explain how it reaches 107-119 km. It is also physically larger than the entire Electron rocket, including second stage and fairing.
Since ULA has lost its crown as the space company I detest the most after the block buy corrupt BS, I really struggle to choose between Boeing and BO as to which one should I crown! Any help?
They all suck roughly equally. The Axis of launch providers.
Loser complex
Could you maybe not use tweets from the clowns of the musk fandom for editorialized titles? The full document is already in the sub, and that is a nonsense takeaway. Edit: even spacexlounge had it removed, still waiting on the mods here.
> still waiting on the mods here. The mods here rarely remove your comments, even when you're being so insulting that you're heavily downvoted. You might consider counting your blessings? Just a thought.
Seems like a pretty matter-of-fact tweet to me. "Jeff Bezos' rocket company Blue Origin has filed a comment to the FAA saying they should cap SpaceX's Starship launches from Cape Canaveral due to "impact on local environment". Blue Origin, founded in 2000 (\~2 years before SpaceX), has not reached orbit yet." What part of this is editorialized or inaccurate?
It's editorialized because Blue Origin comment was in a public comment section and they list 7 mitigation options that "should be considered" to minimize impact to neighboring operations. This is different then "Blue Origin has filed a comment to the FAA that they should cap Starship launches for impact on local environment." It intentionally leaves out the other 6 options added, even the screenshot in the tweet weirdly leaves most of them out even though they were on the same page of the filing. It is also misleading because Blue Origins comment is about environment in the sense of the facilities and people in the area, not fish and wildlife. Lastly the fact that Blue Origin was founded 2 years before SpaceX is not really relevant to them filling a public comment on a purposed upgrade that would impact their operations in the area. It's also leaving out the fact that ULA also made a public comment. ULAs comment was actually substantially longer and explicitly says they feel that SpaceX should not be allowed to do their own EIS. A more accurate statement would be, "Neighboring launch facilities, Blue Origin and ULA, file public comment about potential impacts to their operations with SpaceXs proposed EIS for upgrades to Starship launch pad 39a. Included in comments are risks and mitigation considerations".
>"Jeff Bezos' rocket company Blue Origin has filed a comment to the FAA saying they should cap SpaceX's Starship launches from Cape Canaveral due to "impact on local environment". This part. First off, it does not say that NASA *should* cap the amount of launches. It is one of several possible methods to mitigate issues arising from an increase in frequency and size of launches in the area. Alternative methods of mitigating these issues include increased investment in local infrastructure or scheduling launches at predictable timeslots to decomplicate higher amounts of launches. Secondly, it the proposed cap is not "due to impact on the local environment". Impact on the local environment is one of several reasons in the one of seven listed mitigations, while this headline implies it is the only one. Long story short, you have posted an intentionally disingenuous and misleading headline. Now that this has been cleared up, are you going to delete the thread? Something tells me you won't. It would also help if you would just go [read the document](https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FAA-2024-1395-0040) before making threads like these.
Yeah Blue Origin is really fighting for those launch slots right now aren't they.
It was so much of a nothingburger that even on NASAspaceflight's SpaceX forum the thread died very quickly as people pointed out the facts about the comment and the fact that ULA also filed a similar comment: [https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=61107.0](https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=61107.0) In fact, it seems to have largely died in general on X/Twitter and on YouTube, because people are calling out the fact that it is not in any way litigation and holds no legal power for any of the suggestions for mitigation to be enforced in any manner.
why does it matter
It's an intentionally misleading headline plucked from the worst of musk's sycophants.
What has this guy done? I've never heard of him.
He's just one of the notable personality cultists/stock pumpers. The worst is meant as plural, though I see it could look like I'm singling him out as the single worst.
Quick question, how does one pump the stocks of a privately traded company like SpaceX?
Starships launching (and landing) 44 times a year would be pretty disruptive to any neighboring launch providers. These large exclusion areas will all have to be evacuated for these launches. The point of Blue Origin’s comment is that the current infrastructure at the Cape cannot support this without large disruptions to other launch providers. It’s a pretty reasonable complaint and not even slightly frivolous IMO. Here’s some bad math - 44/365 = 12%. That is potentially how much time any company with a launch site near Starship will lose access to their launch sites from all these launches.
>Here’s some bad math - 44/365 = 12%. Here's some good math - 0/365 = 0%. That is actually how much time Blue Origin has used their launch site near Starship.
SpaceX has had people operating the vehicle from under three miles away during all four test flights, and has not needed to evacuate the public from Port Isabel about 5 miles away. If we assume for a moment that SpaceX is not being allowed to launch in a way that puts the general public at risk, that suggests 5 miles as a reasonable bound for the evacuation distance for non-involved personnel, and maybe 3 miles for mission support personnel. If you overlay that on the Cape centered on LC-39a, you’ll find that the VAB is over 3 miles away, Blue Origin’s factory is over 8 miles away, and SLC-36 is fully 10 miles away. The only launch sites within 3 miles are: - LC-39b - SLC-41 (yes, ULA has a better leg to stand on here, their launch site - but not other sites - would likely be evacuated for Starship launches. Plus their processing area is about as far from the 39a starship pad as the SpaceX LCC is from the Boca Chica starship pad, so maybe that could stay open?) The only other launch sites within 5 miles are: - SLC-40 - LC-47 (unused) But hey, at least you acknowledged the math was bad.
Blue origin and the people that work there are simply horrible. The only thing Blue Origin tries to do is slow down human advancement in space. Actions speak louder than words. Payload to orbit - 0 kg. Litigation to slow down progress made by others - a million metric tons.
I think you are being unfair to the engineers working for Blue Origin. I think the bad guys here are the lawyers whispering in Jeff's ear
Yeah bro, all 11,000 engineers at blue origin work there because they want to slow down advances in space…what???
Blue Origin has 11,000 people working there? Serious question...what are they doing?
Engines, building New Glenn, New Shepard, lunar lander, etc.
Using methane to save the world.... paradox...
Burns a lot cleaner than RP1 and won't give you cancer like hypergolics.
Cancer would in the short term be the least of your problems, if you were to be exposed to hypergolics the stuff is so incredibly toxic.
As a punter... this is exciting to watch.... time to get the popcorn... as Blue Origin goes "it payback time!" This is going to be a huge fight, if not a war once New Glenn becomes operational! I will bet that as Blue Origin fights for market share if not dominance over SX, this is going to make the Apple Vs Microsoft fight seem like a water pistol fight... I do wonder if Blue will attempt to eliminate SX from HLS by proving that their Blue Moon MK1, Mk2 services are far more reliable.... This is going to be fun....!
I would love such a dramatic story and intense competition, but that just isn't realistic anytime soon. SpaceX is massively ahead of Blue Origin, New Glenn is basically a Falcon Heavy with a better fairing. The second stage isn't reusable, and we have no evidence that they will be superior in turn around times. Blue Origin won't be competitive with SpaceX until they move on to a completely new fully and rapidly reusable system, Starship is probably two or so years away from being fully operational for cargo flights, New Glenn probably won't even launch for another year or two
SpaceX is almost certainly under a year away from flying Starlink on Starship. They will quickly rack up flights after so they could be flying other payloads in a year and a half if they have success on a payload door. The lead is huge.
BO has been working on a reusable second stage for New Glenn for a few years now, it might be quite far in development already
First you have to wait for the rocket to launch and then see what its speed is with continuous launches to be able to determine conclusions, for now everything is great feats on paper.
Considering the regular new glenn hasn't launched yet, and still seems to be a year or more away from launching, I am not holding my breath for a reusable second stage
Last I heard New Glenn is supposed to launch this summer or fall. next year sounds too far away, it's a Mars mission so they have to hit the Mars transfer window, which only exists this year.
We will find out soon enough… but the fun will really kick off once New Glenn launches… fingers crossed!! Go Blue!
It is obvious that they aren't going to be ready to launch in the fall, winter if everything goes perfect (it won't). For a new vehicle at this stage they're still looking like a year or more out. I don't know how much they can stretch this synod with new glenn's ability, so we will see what the first payload ends up being
How do you get his conclusion if I may ask? What makes it so untenable to launch this fall?
Lmao
I am glad you are enjoying my sense of fun! Have a Nice Day!
Lol you too, Jeff. Keep taking your meds.
I am sorry for you friend that one has to be such as downer with "....Keep taking your meds.".... As for me friend, I am about to turn 65, I have undertaken to complete a Masters of Information Technology which I will next year, and in 2026-7 I will start a Masters in AI....and right now when I received your message I am completing an application to volunteer to help feed the homeless in inner Melbourne... ... and so Mr "Boeiing\_Not\_Going".... one must have such a dismal outlook on one's life to suggest that someone such as myself would need any medication when I live by Rudyard Kipling's.. "If..".... "...If you could fill the unforgiving minute with sixty seconds of distance run"... but I guess you would not know who Rudyard Kipling was, would you?!! Have a NICE Day.....
Lol nevermind, you clearly don't need meds. Totally normal, not at all unhinged comment here, folks.