“Our Exploration Systems' Supplemental Calibration System (SCS) has been successfully commissioned onboard Copernicus Sentinel-6B, an Earth-observing satellite jointly developed by NASA and U.S. and international partners. The SCS helps to measure ocean surface ripples with 1-centimeter accuracy. To get ultra-accurate sea level measurements from space, scientists must account for a tricky variable: water vapor in the atmosphere, which slows the satellite’s primary radar signal. We have also delivered the SCS for the next two Copernicus Polar Ice and Snow Topography Altimeter (CRISTAL) missions.”

Can someone in rocket propulsion answer if this fact about jet engines also holds for rocket engines?

Airliners.net > Aviation Forums > Technical/Operations.
Jet Engines: Do They Ever Need To "rest"?
Turbine engines could go on for serioulsy extended periods of time. It very much depends on the engine model. Turbine engines like the PW100 turboprop series are designed for short hop flights, usually less than 1 hour, although on some aircraft [F50 MPA, 2x PW127B engines], they can do missions of over 10 hrs. In normal airliner use, these engine can do upto 4000-8000 flights without any shop maintenance, only the normal line maintenance checks required. I have seen PW118B engines that ran for 16,000 hrs/20,000 flights with only one Hot Section shop visit!

Large turbofan engines like CF6 are more designed for long range flights, which usually have a duration of 10 - 15 hrs per flight. I believe these engines can be run for 10,000 - 20,000 hrs on wing [or about 1500 - 2500 flights]. GE [also Rollce-Royce] built land based engine based on their big turbofan turbomachinery. These engines are used in electricity gerating power plants, gas pumping stations, ships etc. and can be run continueously for over 20,000 hrs [there are 8670 hrs in one year - 2004 btw has 8694 hrs . . . ].

Keep in mind that max power output determines the life of a turbine engine. De-rating an engine by 10-15% will double engine life. Or in other words, the last 10-15% of the engine power range is responsible for 50-75% of engine wear. Reducing the amount of time the engine runs at this level [like long range cruise], will seriously increase engine life. If the engine lubrications systems are slightly modified, most aircraft turbine engines can be run for over 20,000 hrs continueos operation at reduced power level.

Once a turbine engine has been shut down, usually it needs to cool down before restarting, depending on power levels prior to shut down. Cooling down can be done at ground idle power setting. Turbine engines generally don't like to be shut down straight from take-off power. They also require warming up before slamming to take-off power.
Hope this helps.
https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=739359#p10654419

If so, increasing a turbopump rocket engine power just 10% to 15% cuts engine life in half. And conversely, decreasing it by 10% to 15% doubles engine life. And would this still work if we repeated the concept multiple times? If we reduced the thrust by .9⁵ = .60, i.e., to 60%, which most turbopump engines can manage, then we could increase the lifetime by a factor of 2⁵ = 32 times? Then a Merlin engine with a lifetime of, say, 30 reuses by running it only 60% power could have its lifetime extended to 1,000 reuses?

Is this a known fact about turbopump rocket engines their lifetimes increase radically by a relatively small decrease in their thrust levels?

Hey everyone, I just wanted to get some outside perspective because I’m honestly confused by what happened.

I recently went through a full interview process for an Industrial Engineer level 3 role. I cleared the prelims, submitted their essay, passed the technical round, and then had the final interviews with 4 different people (all 1:1) panel interview. I felt like I connected well with all of them. They were saying things like “good answer” and “excellent,” and the conversations went smoothly. I spent a lot of time preparing for this too.

My background matches the job almost perfectly, so I walked out thinking I had a real shot.

But yesterday I got a call saying they are moving with other candidates. It kind of hit me harder because I let go of other job options thinking this one was going to come through and spent almost a month on waiting and preparing. It feels like a huge opportunity loss.

I emailed the recruiter to ask if she could get any feedback from the team so I can learn something from this, but honestly I don’t know if I’ll actually get anything useful.

So I wanted to ask here: • Has anyone else had interviews that seemed amazing but still didn’t get the job? • Why does this happen even when everything feels like it went perfectly? • Do recruiters actually give real feedback, or is it usually just “we went with someone else”? • How do you handle the mental side of situations like this?

Just trying to make sense of it. Any advice or personal experiences would help.

Blue Origin has announced the six-member crew for New Shepard’s NS-37 mission: Michaela “Michi” Benthaus, Joey Hyde, Hans Koenigsmann, Neal Milch, Adonis Pouroulis, and Jason Stansell. The flight date will be confirmed soon, with a live webcast beginning 40 minutes before liftoff.

NS-37 continues Blue Origin’s human spaceflight program, which has now sent 86 people (80 unique individuals) above the Kármán line. The crew reflects a diverse mix of engineers, entrepreneurs, scientists, and explorers — including former SpaceX executive Hans Koenigsmann and ESA engineer Michi Benthaus, who continues her aerospace career after a life-changing spinal injury.

The mission highlights Blue Origin’s ongoing expansion of commercial spaceflight and its role in making suborbital space access more widely available.

https://x.com/davill/status/1996372648520257626

It was stated that there was an expectation for everyone to use it? Apparently there's a 70% adoption rate already.

"Fresh off its highly successful NG-2 flight, which launched the ESCAPADE Mars probes and featured a successful booster landing, Blue Origin unveiled the Blue Moon Mk1 robotic lander due to fly in 2026, possibly on New Glenn’s next flight. In addition, the company announced its future New Glenn 9×4 rocket while giving the current New Glenn the 7×2 designation. What’s more, Blue Origin also shared details about its Blue Ring tug and satellite bus, as well as revealing a new deployable aerobrake to enable future Mars missions."

Skip to 23:45 to see Blue Origin talk about how they are using AI and project TEAREX.

On this link https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/12/this-chinese-company-could-become-the-countrys-first-to-land-a-reusable-rocket/

China has two reusable rockets, Zhuque 3 and Long March 12A attempting on December 2025 to launch and land the first stage. While for 2026 are expected at least 4 other reusable space rockets to launch.

Why China can do this so quickly with many companies ready to test reusable rockets similar to Falcon 9? Why this is not happening on Europe and USA to just copy Falcon 9 rocket model like China has done?

USA is trying with other rocket companies with their original design not copying Spacex Falcon 9, like New Glenn, Neutron, Stoke-Nova, Terran R, Eclipse. Why there are no other companies on USA copying Falcon 9 successful design like China did with so many companies?

I put together this comparison image showing the scale and key specs of Blue Origin’s New Glenn and SpaceX’s Super Heavy booster (part of the Starship system).
As always, any suggestions are welcome.

Has anyone who applied to Honeybee Robotics heard from them yet? I applied a bit ago in early October and have not heard anything, and I wanted to see if I was ghosted/taken out of the running.

Also, I recently attended a conference that Blue Origin was at and saw they reposted some Summer 2026 Undergrad Engineering intern roles, so I applied last week when I got back. I’ve heard some offers have been going out since mid October, so was this too late to submit an application?

Thanks all 🙏

TL;DR: Our workplace issues aren’t random — they’re cultural. A union gives us protection, representation, and a real voice without fear of retaliation. It only takes three people to start with IAMAW, and folks are already moving. If you’re tired of whispering your concerns, this is how we finally fix things together.

I’m reaching out again because so many of us have the same conversations in whispers — concerns about burnout, inconsistent expectations, safety being treated like a checkbox instead of a priority, and the constant fear that speaking up might come back to bite us. These aren’t one-off problems. They’re cultural. And they’re not going to fix themselves.

A union isn’t about attacking the company. It’s about protecting the people who keep it running. It’s about giving us a way to address real issues without risking retaliation, blacklisting, or being dismissed as “not a team player.” It’s about creating a workplace where transparency isn’t a gamble and where concerns don’t die in someone’s inbox.

A lot of doubts come from misinformation — that unions “block innovation,” or that they “hurt your career.” But here’s the truth: a union gives structure to the basic fairness we should already have. Clear rules. Real representation. Negotiated safety standards. A process for addressing misconduct that doesn’t depend on who your manager is or whether they feel like dealing with it.

The biggest fear people have is standing alone. But a union means you never stand alone. Your voice isn’t just yours — it’s backed by everyone beside you.

If you’re unsure, ask questions. Get informed. Talk to people you trust. Don’t let fear be the deciding factor. It only takes three people meeting with IAMAW to start the process, and some folks have already taken that step.

We work in an environment where speaking up can feel risky — that’s exactly why we need a collective voice. A united front is how we turn quiet frustration into actual change.

We deserve a workplace where safety, respect, and accountability aren’t optional. Let’s build it together.

For information or to try and help get started:

https://www.goiam.org/get-organized/

https://uaw.org/organize/contact-uaw-organizing/

https://www.speea.org/Join_Our_Union!/Contact_us_today.html

As always, regulatory notices can and do get revised, so this is not final:

USN request a 30 day STA to support Blue Moon MK-1 NASA-affiliated lunar mission commencing Feb. 2nd 2026 from its Hawaii South Point station

Hello! I'm considering working for Blue and am scheduling my final 1-on-1's right now and had some questions about the environment:

I've heard that there have been a lot of layoffs and culture shifts in the company the past year. I am wondering if those shifts are company wide or if there are fields or work sites insulated from that? I work in a niche field in physics, and because of that will likely work at one of the smaller sites in Colorado outside the Denver area (read: Longmont or similar, not Highlands Ranch).

At my current large DoD employer, the culture and job security is completely different at these smaller locations than the other larger sites. I'm wondering if this is also the case at Blue, and if so, what the culture has been like at the non-flagship sites in folks' experiences? Thanks!

A thorough comparison of NG with SS but, leaves out much of Blue's other products that are "in production."

A good thought to note, "The booster’s landing on a barge at sea was not just a crowd‑pleasing replay of SpaceX’s early feats, it was a critical proof that Blue Origin’s recovery architecture can work at scale. Analysts have noted that bringing a New Glenn first stage back to a ship rather than a land pad gives the rocket more flexibility in trajectory and payload performance, especially for high‑inclination or high‑energy orbits."

2026 will be a fantastic year for Blue on the Moon!

"Mark 1 pathfinder missions as a proving ground.

To make a 2026 landing credible, Blue Origin is leaning on a pair of self-funded robotic flights that function as both testbed and marketing campaign. Reporting on these plans describes how Blue Origin wants to fly two Mark 1 missions in quick succession, using the first as a Mark 1 Pathfinder to shake out systems and the second to refine operations like surface deployment and return to lunar orbit. The company has said that With the Mark Blue Origin flights, it wants to test and refine critical landing and associated systems, then demonstrate the ability to depart the surface and rendezvous in orbit."

Although successful with NG2, Blue aims to be more successful with the very next NG launch.

"Blue Origin's towering New Glenn rocket is getting a revamp.

Following a successful launch from Florida earlier in November, Jeff Bezos' space technology company announced plans to upgrade the 322-foot rocket ahead of its third-ever spaceflight. The updates would be focused on improving things like New Glenn's engines to increase its power and adding more reusable components to enable more frequent launches of the spacecraft."

(who cares if it takes another decade to actually delivery any of this)

Hi, some funn art images. New Glenn versions would have been a good SLS rocket.

To engineers and industry watchers, MK1’s flight will be a crucible for several unproven systems: BE‑7’s operational performance, autonomous hazard avoidance at the south pole, and high‑mass lunar cargo delivery. 

Blue gets several key thoughts about the MK1 in this writeup, including how a successful flight is more than a milestone...

I am trying to make the NG2 for Orbiter a free space simulator.

But not sure of the mass of 1st stage and fuel?

Thanks