Blue Origin New Glenn Landing Leg Demo 

faster development then starship given less funding

Advertising?

Bruh do you even know BO. They are ne of the most creative private space companies out there but their progress has been pretty impressive for the budget and smaller team compared to spacex

imagine how short this video would be if they didn't.. 8 seconds lol; it's just to lengthen the vid so you have time to comment and like.

A lot of the comments about over complication are well founded. The ideal system would be the simplest, effectively gravity drop and lock. I struggle to see the logic with all these hinges, automations, and hydraulics. It's even more complicated than the initial concepts.

They went back to barge landings, but it's somewhat different than how SpaceX does it. Landing Vessel 1 is nearly finished and the support ship Harvey Stone arrived in Brest, France a couple days ago to pick it up and bring it to the Cape.

When the tanks are low the liquid is at the bottom of the tanks + engine mass probably means good stability when landed due to a low center of mass. Though landing on a barge is something different. Falcon 9 isn't stable at sea they need an octograbber to lock it to the deck and even that was shown to have failed in rough seas. So in response is there enough stability to land. Because of low fuel in the tanks and a low center of mass yes. Stable enough to be towed back into port no. There is no rocket that stable enough to be towed back into port with assistance to secure it.

​@@awaustinl3184low fuel? Should be practically empty at landing.

Same thought F9's legs look deadly simple compared to this. What if that door doesn't open and like you said what are they actually getting from this added complexity. Also guaranteed they save next nothing in terms of aero from this tucked design.

​@@awaustinl3184that's why there is 6 of them :D redundancy!

Me not being a rocket engineer. I'd say it's fine.

You don’t think they will have done trade off studies to find the optimum design for their type of rocket?

@@ATH_Berkshire Any comment on what they did internally to come to this design is speculation. What isn't speculation is the design being shown and tested in front of us. Which looks overly complicated. This aft section of the booster is specifically the widest part of the booster. Meaning this isn't saving them drag on ascent this is increasing their frontal area more than if it was just landing legs on the side. Frankly this widening at the base doesn't make sense. It can't be just for the landing legs to have shielding/cover (because its bad aero + more weight + more complexity for nothing). And if houses other components THERE ARE BETTER PLACES TO PUT IT. If it's flight computers, extra tanks (for engine start up or other gas that Glenn needs I don't know a whole lot about this vehicle or the engines.) Then they should extend the booster and add all of that internally. And then the next logical move would be to place the landing gear on the side. I haven't kept up with new Glenn design so this comment really made me think about how weird this design is. If someone can tell me what this extra diameter section at the aft is for other than landing gear with sources that makes sense lmk. TL:DR It doesn't matter what they did to come to this design. The design in front of us looks overly complicated. (No hate genuinely wanted to answer your question with my honest reason for my opinion.) Also I am in no way saying this will fail/won't work. It's just I like Toyota because I raced a Toyota sienna down I-5 and I knew that dude was comfortable in the fact that car was designed with reliability and safety in mind and that he could whip a mom van around traffic at 90 miles an hour down hill. People will choose reliability and this landing gear design might say a lot about how the rest of the rocket was designed.

It is a very cool design mechanism. I am in way doubting it's rigidity or strength. It's over complicated. I posted on another guy's post exactly why and how this design isn't the most optimum for a number of confusing reasons.

It's over complicated, heavier and expensive.

If by good looking you mean many times more complicated with lots of failure points, you're correct.

Too many parts.

happens on f9 too, as long as they're all indicating locked by touchdown it's no issue

happens on f9. I'm more concerned about the number of moving parts that can fail

I don't like how they slap around.

​@@MrBen527Them slapping around is them locking in place. This is due to the fact that they are using a different mechanism than SpaceX for their landing gear. The piston for most of the beginning is putting most of its force into tension on the landing legs. This is until the piston is horizontal and more of the force is instead being put into rotating it instead.

@MrBen527 Yes, they definitely need to get it operating a lot smother before they try actually landing. It will probably be a few years before they can go for an actual landing attempt, so hopefully, this will be sorted out by then. Of course, this is blue origin, and they take forever to get anything done, so a major delay wouldn't be that surprising.

agree, too much moving parts

YEP XD

It's in slow mo...

@@mathewferstl7042 even the normal speed was slow

@@Starship_30 how many second roughly did it take?

Only now, upon reading your RU-vid post did the design engineers and wind tunnel experts realize that the " flappy door thingos" were not capable of remaining intact and would liberate when opened at the moment of landing. Thanks to you and the three people that gave a thumbs up, it's been corrected, and they will also work on renaming the " flappy door thingos" to "thangamajigs" which will be more recognizable for the southern engineers on the team

@@dawg7915 Spacecraft engineers around the world are blessed to have the RU-vid community provide valuable technical design insight for free. Lord knows how they'd managed before with just their Degrees and PhDs in relevant fields.

Good thing they had your superior intellect, because surely the hundreds of engineers Blue Origin have wouldn’t have been able to figure that out, if it weren’t for your divine wisdom.

​@@dawg7915Oh go get a room, it's obvious the guy turns you on!😏

The sarcastic replies are funny. Some other rocket engineers and I made a bet to see if they survive. Depends on v at deployment. It's already a draggy design, they could probably delete the cover ala Boeing 737 mains and be fine.

Somewhere between 2025 and 2187

Exactly

That's BO all the way.

Why stop there

Redundancy is a good thing. Remember what happened to the DC-X?

...as landing will be shortly after.

Yeah I assume they choose that specific mechanism due to new Glenn larger size to provide more stability and absorption of shock compared to falcon 9.

I thought his favourite saying was I have to be a bigger prick than my dad .

Coming from a man who has built the most complicated rocket catch tower, system, thingy, that has more moving parts than a Swiss watch., all requiring millisecond timing to work.....think about that. ..

@@leschortos9196 it's the people who work for space x that do all the clever stuff , musk too busy trying to impress his dad .

spacex is at least decade ahead of everyone else.

Just based on aesthetic's mechanism is so cool also 6 landing legs is so much cooler than 4 can't wait to see them be used in flight.

@@awaustinl3184 It's over complicated, heavier and expensive

This is going to be the second rocket to have a reusable first stage and it is a very capable rocket

@@kerbal8216 problem is they still don't have an engine after 8 years.

2 engines have already flown. SpaceX is way ahead with starship development but hey we should be glad we have a Saturn v sized reusable rocket on the way.

@@Harald- They have several… 2 have flown!

@@kerbal8216 as opposed to the 100s/1000s SpaceX has

I’m sure you know better than the 10,000 engineers at Blue Origin

@@kerbal8216Everyone seems to know better then the ones at SpaceX so sure why not? Honestly though hardware looking good for BO

They need six legs to overcome uncontrolled wobble

@@Harald- The wobble is fine, the same happens to Falcon 9

@@kerbal8216 Obviously, the most successful launch company in the world, SpaceX, knows better than these bozos.

my thoughts exactly !