Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Blue Origin: Future Plans

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
So it's undergoing development testing, qualification testing, AND acceptance testing, simultaneously?

"Development" doesn't really mean anything specific. It's a layperson term that usefully represents the early stages of a product before a "rinse and repeat" type phase.

The two important phases here are:
--Qual, which has to happen once (or as noted above, twice for BE4) and is largely a design verification exercise.
--AT, which will happen on all of the units, and is primarily a workmanship/variablility exercise.

Traditionally the low risk approach is to serialize the two to a significant degree (Qual before AT), if you're trying to save time you can parallelize and increase your risk profile.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grendal and mongo
"Development" doesn't really mean anything specific. It's a layperson term that usefully represents the early stages of a product before a "rinse and repeat" type phase.

The two important phases here are:
--Qual, which has to happen once (or as noted above, twice for BE4) and is largely a design verification exercise.
--AT, which will happen on all of the units, and is primarily a workmanship/variablility exercise.

Traditionally the low risk approach is to serialize the two to a significant degree (Qual before AT), if you're trying to save time you can parallelize and increase your risk profile.
Layperson term?

NASA seems to have it as a specific main phase of the process:

1679939992279.png


They have a design criteria document dedicated to it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pricedm and Grendal
Layperson term?

NASA seems to have it as a specific main phase of the process:

View attachment 921885

They have a design criteria document dedicated to it.
That paper is on "design-development" which is distinct from the overall "development program".

From the text just above your included timeline:

"The design-development tests are the first of three kinds of tests conducted in a typical hardware development program, as shown in figure 1. Qualification tests are conducted to demonstrate that structural design requirements have been achieved. Acceptance tests verify that the materials, manufacturing processes, and workmanship used to produce the flight hardware have met the design specifications."

SmartSelect_20230327_140949_Firefox.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grendal and bxr140
I appreciate the there's a document from 1970 that references the term; In the context of what's going on right now with BE4 it doesn't mean anything specific. These days that pre-CDR phase is where EM's (engineering models) get built and tested in a less rigorous environment than flight-like or flight gizmos, and when discussing program specifics during that phase more useful terms like EM, PDR, prototype, CDR, flatsat/HITL/SITL, breadboard (but only from the greybeards...), etc are used. People know what those terms mean; people understand the implied maturity associated with those terms.

It is true that activity going on during that time is often colloquially referred to as "development" (as can be activity through QM depending on what's actually going on), but that word doesn't mean anything specific.
 
That paper is on "design-development" which is distinct from the overall "development program".

From the text just above your included timeline:

"The design-development tests are the first of three kinds of tests conducted in a typical hardware development program, as shown in figure 1. Qualification tests are conducted to demonstrate that structural design requirements have been achieved. Acceptance tests verify that the materials, manufacturing processes, and workmanship used to produce the flight hardware have met the design specifications."

View attachment 921888
So when you said:

So, "BE-4 is currently undergoing full-scale engine development testing at our facilities in Van Horn, Texas." is accurate.

I can't find that sentence in the subsequent tweet you referenced.

Is this testing something distinct from the Design-Development testing discussed a part of a "typical hardware development program"?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grendal
I appreciate the there's a document from 1970 that references the term; In the context of what's going on right now with BE4 it doesn't mean anything specific. These days that pre-CDR phase is where EM's (engineering models) get built and tested in a less rigorous environment than flight-like or flight gizmos, and when discussing program specifics during that phase more useful terms like EM, PDR, prototype, CDR, flatsat/HITL/SITL, breadboard (but only from the greybeards...), etc are used. People know what those terms mean; people understand the implied maturity associated with those terms.

It is true that activity going on during that time is often colloquially referred to as "development" (as can be activity through QM depending on what's actually going on), but that word doesn't mean anything specific.
Gotcha... that makes sense. So what is meant when BO says they are doing development testing (as per @mongo ) seperately (yet concurrently) from Qual and Acceptance testing?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grendal
So when you said:



I can't find that sentence in the subsequent tweet you referenced.

Is this testing something distinct from the Design-Development testing discussed a part of a "typical hardware development program"?
The line was from their web-site (you posted a snapshot of it). The Tweet showed qualification testing was still ongoing. And really, acceptance testing is continuous as long as new flight hardware is being produced .https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19710021557/downloads/19710021557.pdf
Though, that seems like it would change to production testing vs development...


Gotcha... that makes sense. So what is meant when BO says they are doing development testing (as per @mongo ) seperately (yet concurrently) from Qual and Acceptance testing?

Qual testing is development testing. Acceptance testing is development testing. Design-development testing is development testing.

BO saying they are doing development testing only means they haven't finished testing, it doesn't specify the type of testing currently being done.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grendal
The line was from their web-site (you posted a snapshot of it). The Tweet showed qualification testing was still ongoing. And really, acceptance testing is continuous as long as new flight hardware is being produced .https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19710021557/downloads/19710021557.pdf
Though, that seems like it would change to production testing vs development...




Qual testing is development testing. Acceptance testing is development testing. Design-development testing is development testing.

BO saying they are doing development testing only means they haven't finished testing, it doesn't specify the type of testing currently being done.
It does seem to me that design-development testing and development testing is used somewhat interchangeably, and I had understood them to be referring to the same thing.

But, are you suggesting that Development testing is not a separate activity, but rather encompasses Qualification and Acceptance testing? It seems just about everything I can find, seems to show design-development as a distinct phase (as per the images I've posted above), with different timelines that don't necessarily overlap. This NASA services description also calls out development as a separate thing...
 
It does seem to me that design-development testing and development testing is used somewhat interchangeably, and I had understood them to be referring to the same thing.

But, are you suggesting that Development testing is not a separate activity, but rather encompasses Qualification and Acceptance testing? It seems just about everything I can find, seems to show design-development as a distinct phase (as per the images I've posted above), with different timelines that don't necessarily overlap. This NASA services description also calls out development as a separate thing...
Yeah, I'm saying NASA refers to design-development testing within the scope of hardware development along with qualification and acceptance testing.

From that, BO can rightly refer to any of the three phases under the development testing umbrella and their wording need not be interpreted to directly imply the "design-development" phase.
 
  • Like
Reactions: scaesare
Which they?
BO for saying development or NASA for not just saying "design"?😉

Apparently the aerospace industry in general. To have a separate design-development phase documented with a separate (earlier) timeline, and then do Quality as well as Acceptance testing, later in the time frame outlined for those phases, but call it "Development Testing" is a tad convoluted.
 
Apparently the aerospace industry in general. To have a separate design-development phase documented with a separate (earlier) timeline, and then do Quality as well as Acceptance testing, later in the time frame outlined for those phases, but call it "Development Testing" is a tad convoluted.
The development process encompasses both the item and the systems involved in constructing it. Acceptance could pass while qualification fails and vice versa.

Automotive product design version:
Engineering development: bench/ prototype builds and tests
Design verification/validation: production intent, prototype tooling
Production verification/validation: production design, suppliers, and assembly

NASA:
Design-development: test articles, prototype builds, engineering tests (what works)
Qualification: flight intent design, test to margin limits (or failure) (was design correct/ does reality match simulation)
Acceptance: flight intent design with production assembly process (does this instance built with this process have the same characteristics as the qualified article)
 
  • Like
Reactions: scaesare
This is kind of an odd video... not sure what to make of it.

It feels like it wants to be inspirational, and that BO needed an end goal as the aspirational target.... and they chose "earth". It not-so-subtly is the counter to "let's go to Mars". But then it doesn't really outline a cohesive path.. it kind of throws buzzwords and imagery around: pace mining, gotta go to the moon first, energy usage, reusability(!)... and then kinda says "we'll launch alot to get the price down so others can do all this".

Strange.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grendal
This is kind of an odd video... not sure what to make of it.

It feels like it wants to be inspirational, and that BO needed an end goal as the aspirational target.... and they chose "earth". It not-so-subtly is the counter to "let's go to Mars". But then it doesn't really outline a cohesive path.. it kind of throws buzzwords and imagery around: pace mining, gotta go to the moon first, energy usage, reusability(!)... and then kinda says "we'll launch alot to get the price down so others can do all this".

Strange.
In other words, very on brand for BO 😂
 
It feels like it wants to be inspirational, and that BO needed an end goal as the aspirational target.... and they chose "earth". It not-so-subtly is the counter to "let's go to Mars". But then it doesn't really outline a cohesive path.. it kind of throws buzzwords and imagery around: pace mining, gotta go to the moon first, energy usage, reusability(!)... and then kinda says "we'll launch alot to get the price down so others can do all this".
Many of the elements of that video we’ve seen before. It does relentlessly pitch the message that BO is all about “saving Earth” and is clear that the BO mission has nothing to do with Mars. So we have two billionaires with wildly contrasting visions for the future of space.

Some of the suppositions in that video I take issue with. The idea that energy supplies on Earth are inadequate to meet the needs of humanity, because humans will always demand and use more and more energy is questionable. It assumes an ever-expanding human population (not at all a given), a lack of progress in using energy more efficiently (progress in that area will certainly continue) and — remarkably for a space technology company — a lack of progress in capturing and using the staggering amount of solar energy impacting the Earth every day.

And not just capturing it at the surface of the Earth; there have been serious studies (Including by NASA) of LEO solar power stations that would beam energy to ground receiving stations. Of course the technology required to do that does not currently exist and the engineering challenges are formidable. But they are clearly less formidable than mining asteroids on a massive scale and building enormous O’Neill cylinders in space! Which is what BO says it ultimately intends to do.

Such a project would clearly take many, many centuries and require massive resources. The only human engineering projects that have been sustained over a few centuries were building some of the Gothic cathedrals, and they also had their fits and starts and periods where the future of the project was in doubt, a project on Earth, built one stone and timber beam at a time.

The BO vision seems wildly optimistic to me. It will take so long that human civilization may succumb long before it even gets started, whether from nuclear war, pandemic, environmental degradation, or even out of control warring AI systems.

In contrast, it seems possible (though the odds are against it) that a self-sustaining human colony on Mars could be a reality within perhaps 200 years. The resources and effort required seem less than the BO plan so it seems more obtainable. But still super hard! Starship is the first step…
 
For those looking for a less biased evaluation, the BO vid is a good PR splash. Resonating message, relatable language, clear near term plan, big vision, etc. Certainly if it had a Spacex watermark folks here would be throwing a ticker tape parade.

TLDR:
  • Earth is by far the best place in the imaginable galaxy for humans to exist, core to Blue’s vision is long term preservation of earth
  • There are inevitable Big Picture problems with the continuing expansion of humanity on earth (energy, pollution, etc.)
  • Space provides abundant exploration, habitation, and industrialization opportunities to mitigate some of those problems and better enable preservation of earth
  • The first near term achievable step in humanity expanding into space is to radically reduce the cost to get to space
  • The second near term achievable step is a permanent settlement on the moon, for the purpose of learning how to harvest space resources
  • This is a generational process
 
For those looking for a less biased evaluation...

Certainly if it had a Spacex watermark folks here would be throwing a ticker tape parade.
Perhaps some folks, but by and large I find the folks here reasonably objective. Just because a person finds one approach generally preferable doesn't mean bias. It may simply mean they consider it technically superior, more substantive, efficient, etc...

It would be nice to have a discussion on the merits without the assumption/claim of bias constantly...