I watched Jeff bezos’s tour of blue origin facility with everyday astronaut.<p>He gave the reasoning for why New Glen has more than three legs (I think 6)<p>He said that the more legs you have, the smaller each leg has to reach out to give the same probability of tipping over. So there’s a formula to pick the best number of legs given their weight etc.<p>Interestingly he said they picked their number not just for that but also because it went well with the engine distribution.
This is the second recent glitch in a SpaceX mission. The other, more serious, was the failure of a Starlink Falcon 9 to quite reach a viable orbit because of an oxygen leak on an engine.<p>These minor blips only stand out in the context of SpaceX’s unprecedented consistency, which surpasses anyone else. But, if they have another snafu soon, maybe it could hint at a slight decline in their normal technical excellence?<p>Edit : OTOH, this was launch 23 of that booster, as mentioned by @gregoriol, so I for one might see that as a successful test discovery of the reuse limits of the structure. And also, the F9 that didn’t reach orbit probably wouldn’t have threatened the lives of a human crew, although it would have scrubbed their mission.
As much as I think the FAA response might be a bit unfair, I think the issue here is what is promised vs delivered<p>Even with a disposable booster you want it to follow a certain flight path and be discarded at a given area.<p>If you promised that it will land and it doesn't, even if it is inconsequential to the rest of the mission, well...