Blue Origin first human flight(blueorigin.com)
blueorigin.com
Blue Origin first human flight
https://www.blueorigin.com/
503 comments
The thing that amuses me is that if SpaceX can make Starship and the Heavy booster work, they could actually come up with a tourism/joyride that would blow these piffling jumps by Branson and Bezos into irrelevance.
If you can send 50-100 people on an actual orbiting jaunt, perhaps a night in 'space rocket hotel', rich folk would gladly pay millions, which makes the business case a lot more compelling.
Then they'd just need to get environmentally-friendly methane production going and we can all be a bit happier.
If you can send 50-100 people on an actual orbiting jaunt, perhaps a night in 'space rocket hotel', rich folk would gladly pay millions, which makes the business case a lot more compelling.
Then they'd just need to get environmentally-friendly methane production going and we can all be a bit happier.
That's the dream; affordable space tourism for the masses.
If Starship manages to hit the price and performance targets Musk has set for it (~$2 million/launch[1], max of 1000 passengers[2]) you could get a ticket to orbit for around $2000. Throw in some extra for profit margin, a stay at an orbital space hotel, and a few additional expenses, and it might well be possible to take a vacation in space for less than $10k.
I really hope that happens within my lifetime; it'd be amazing to experience.
[1]: https://techcrunch.com/2019/11/06/elon-musk-says-spacexs-sta...
[2]: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1144004310503530496
If Starship manages to hit the price and performance targets Musk has set for it (~$2 million/launch[1], max of 1000 passengers[2]) you could get a ticket to orbit for around $2000. Throw in some extra for profit margin, a stay at an orbital space hotel, and a few additional expenses, and it might well be possible to take a vacation in space for less than $10k.
I really hope that happens within my lifetime; it'd be amazing to experience.
[1]: https://techcrunch.com/2019/11/06/elon-musk-says-spacexs-sta...
[2]: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1144004310503530496
1000 passengers, really? Just imagine the possible loss of life if something goes wrong. We are still counting 100 successful launches in a row as an unprecedented success - whereas in commercial airplane flights airlines with less than 1 incident per 5000000 flights are considered 'poor safety record'.
There aren't many rocket designs in use right now that have had more than 100 flights _total_. It's hard to properly evaluate the safety of a system when it only gets tested once a month.
As the cost of spaceflight comes down and launch frequency goes up, I suspect we'll start seeing reusable launch systems emerge that have had thousands of launches across dozens of rockets. Once that happens I think spaceflight's safety record will improve significantly.
As the cost of spaceflight comes down and launch frequency goes up, I suspect we'll start seeing reusable launch systems emerge that have had thousands of launches across dozens of rockets. Once that happens I think spaceflight's safety record will improve significantly.
I hope people have better dreams. That is my dream.
Oh man, struggling to channel dang here. How to respond constructively. Probably the best thing to do is flag and ignore, but I can't pass this up.
If people are interested in going somewhere, who are you to denigrate their ambitions? What is wrong with dreaming of orbiting the planet? How does that dream fall short? Is it a weak dream for a midwestern child, landlocked a thousand miles in every direction, to want to see the ocean? Is it a weak dream for a city child, blocked by light pollution, to want to see the stars?
What kind of comment is this? What does it even mean to have a "better" dream?
If people are interested in going somewhere, who are you to denigrate their ambitions? What is wrong with dreaming of orbiting the planet? How does that dream fall short? Is it a weak dream for a midwestern child, landlocked a thousand miles in every direction, to want to see the ocean? Is it a weak dream for a city child, blocked by light pollution, to want to see the stars?
What kind of comment is this? What does it even mean to have a "better" dream?
Everyone is required to fix the worlds problems before doing anything else. At least that is how the thinking goes, which is absurd in most cases. Though there is some nuance here considering Bezos' absolute detestable behavior climbing on the backs of abused workers to get to this point.
It's an old story, as expressed by Dr. Seuss in his story Yertle the Turtle:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yertle_the_Turtle_and_Other_St...
It's an old story, as expressed by Dr. Seuss in his story Yertle the Turtle:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yertle_the_Turtle_and_Other_St...
Maybe Jeffrey Bezos will return a changed man and give his warehouse staff proper piss bottles instead of used drinking water bottles.
Oxfam’s Deepak Xavier vented about the billionaire-hobbies issue early this week.
https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/billionaires-blast-s...
https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/billionaires-blast-s...
[deleted]
it's an entirely appropriate dream for a child. for a society with enormous intractable problems such as global warming, income inequality, and fascism, it's pretty lame.
It's lame to dream of space until utopia is achieved? Until life is perfect, NASA should be shut down? Do all 7.5b people on earth need to dream of solving the same problems? Is eliminating diversity of dreams constructive? If your teenage daughter told you she wanted to go to school to be an astronaut, would you tell her that was lame?
Well, I’d say that few things are likely to really drive home to people how insignificant the little power struggles we spend so much of our life obsessing about as going up into space and looking down on everything, and then looking out into the infinite void.
If it makes everyone who can afford to go more circumspect about that, I think it’ll have been completely worth it, even ignoring all the useful stuff that’ll come out of it.
Also, off topic, but thanks very much for all the things you make, they’re wonderful.
If it makes everyone who can afford to go more circumspect about that, I think it’ll have been completely worth it, even ignoring all the useful stuff that’ll come out of it.
Also, off topic, but thanks very much for all the things you make, they’re wonderful.
It is a quirk of evolution that this kind of thinking is around. This defeatist unwillingnes to do.
Imagine if man had never ventured from Africa, or from the trees to the savannah - I bet even back then there were those who chose to stay behind. Where are they now?
There is something so unimaginative about this kind of thinking it's really off putting.
As a society one should always strive to do better in all areas, not only in the areas you deem worthy.
There is something so unimaginative about this kind of thinking it's really off putting.
As a society one should always strive to do better in all areas, not only in the areas you deem worthy.
I actually think space tourism for the rich is very important.
We are entering an age of global techno oligarchy
I want my masters to see the earth from space. Get a feel for the stakes, see the delicate ribbon of air, the vastness of space.
See it as the rare jewel we spent a short time on, and the obligation to treat it well
We are entering an age of global techno oligarchy
I want my masters to see the earth from space. Get a feel for the stakes, see the delicate ribbon of air, the vastness of space.
See it as the rare jewel we spent a short time on, and the obligation to treat it well
I don't know why this is being downvoted since it makes total sense to me. It's not a good thing that the mega rich have an absurd amount of power over society, but it's a fact for the foreseeable future. There is precedent for people becoming much more conscientious about the planet after returning from space, so it's certainly possible that billionaires playing with rockets will have some positive second order effects.
It is indeed a phenomenon that others have experienced.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_effect
Most of the folks who've been up so far are military and science oriented folks; there's a bit of an existing tendency to think in that direction. I'm not sure the personality required to become a billionaire is necessarily going to result in the same feelings looking at Earth from orbit.
"It's small, I want to own the others" might be the Bezos response.
"It's small, I want to own the others" might be the Bezos response.
Perhaps, but I think that’s speculation based in cynicism. By the same reasoning, wouldn’t a military person look down and say, “I want to subjugate the others by force?”
I’m more inclined to believe that there is something intrinsically profound in seeing all the known life in the universe in one field of view. I also am inclined to believe that billionaires are just the world’s most wealth-atypical people, not the world’s most neuro-atypical people, and thus would respond in the typical way to the overview.
But maybe that’s an optimism bias on my part.
I’m more inclined to believe that there is something intrinsically profound in seeing all the known life in the universe in one field of view. I also am inclined to believe that billionaires are just the world’s most wealth-atypical people, not the world’s most neuro-atypical people, and thus would respond in the typical way to the overview.
But maybe that’s an optimism bias on my part.
There are indications psychopathy is substantially more common in CEOs than the general population. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy_in_the_workplace
I'm inclined to consider the Neil Armstrongs of the world more service-oriented than subjugation-oriented, as a general impression of their careers as astronauts.
I'm inclined to consider the Neil Armstrongs of the world more service-oriented than subjugation-oriented, as a general impression of their careers as astronauts.
On the contrary, it could also be a universal human emotion in the same way that people are awe-struck when they visit the Grand Canyon or Redwood Forest.
It could end up being a very therapeutic endeavor for the average person if space-tourism becomes more accessible, putting people's problems in perspective.
It could end up being a very therapeutic endeavor for the average person if space-tourism becomes more accessible, putting people's problems in perspective.
where's the steering committee for quality of dreams? I am still waiting on feedback for my dream of a loving family and no more nightmares.
i hope people quit being insufferable downers
For real, people straight up fetishize the experience of "going to space", but the reality is that you're crammed in stinky tin can for a while, and eat preserved food.
The real magic of human spaceflight for me is the science that is done up there. Sending a bunch of untrained rich people into space for the fun of it is not especially inspiring. The idea of getting crammed like sardines into a giant rocket so I can experience this with the masses is just not a great dream.
The real magic of human spaceflight for me is the science that is done up there. Sending a bunch of untrained rich people into space for the fun of it is not especially inspiring. The idea of getting crammed like sardines into a giant rocket so I can experience this with the masses is just not a great dream.
Space is inspiring to a lot of people because it represents both the the peak of human achievement, and humanity's future. Space is the final frontier; the next logical step in humankind's unending quest to explore the universe.
For me personally? I just want to mess around in 0G for a day or two. That seems like it'd be a rather unique experience; well worth a few thousand bucks and a couple hours packed shoulder to shoulder in a ship with a thousand other people.
For me personally? I just want to mess around in 0G for a day or two. That seems like it'd be a rather unique experience; well worth a few thousand bucks and a couple hours packed shoulder to shoulder in a ship with a thousand other people.
If you cant dream beyond what you eat and the distance you can go in each direction its totally fine but dont impose it to other people
Cheaper and safer to just drop some acid.
croes(1)
But for a $10k vacation, you get to sleep in a bed, order room service, go outside, go golfing, see a show, etc.
10k in space will get you what?
---
Random thought:
If they were able to get enough water into space such that one could swim through a sphere of water in a weightless environment, what would the sensation of being encapsulated in water while weightless feel like (clearly needing scuba or some other air connection..)
10k in space will get you what?
---
Random thought:
If they were able to get enough water into space such that one could swim through a sphere of water in a weightless environment, what would the sensation of being encapsulated in water while weightless feel like (clearly needing scuba or some other air connection..)
> But for a $10k vacation, you get to sleep in a bed, order room service, go outside, go golfing, see a show, etc.
And what if you’ve already done all that?
Private jets (well, fractional ownership) gets boring after a few years.
And what if you’ve already done all that?
Private jets (well, fractional ownership) gets boring after a few years.
Random reply:
Or you can stay here on earth, go scuba diving and experience the exact same weightlessness... :)
Or you can stay here on earth, go scuba diving and experience the exact same weightlessness... :)
It's not the same - that's buoyancy, not weightlessness. Gravity still exerts force on your body and internal organs, and you feel orientation, i.e. up and down. It's a very different feeling.
That's why I was asking!
What would the difference in sensation be for one who is submerged on earth, versus one who is encapsulated in a floating sphere of water...
What would the difference in sensation be for one who is submerged on earth, versus one who is encapsulated in a floating sphere of water...
>go golfing
lol you would have to pay me to go golfing
lol you would have to pay me to go golfing
Retarded response... you know what I meant. Go to the pub and wait for this to all blow over.
[deleted]
Out of all of these space-faring corporations, SpaceX has orders of magnitude more aerospace infrastructure and assets to work with. Their entire ethos since inception was getting humanity to Mars, not sending a handful of wealthy people into suborbital trajectories. Elon/SpaceX have certainly participated in a lot of PR throughout, but it always seemed to be along an engineering axis, not some feel-good emotional axis (although many were moved by witnessing double booster landings regardless).
The construction of a massive space port in one of the more desolate places in America is a pretty damn good starting point. Doesn't take a magician to round that out with an airport, hotels, convention centers, restaurants, etc. I believe there is already an uptick in real estate on South Padre Island and talks about some bridge to better connect the island.
The construction of a massive space port in one of the more desolate places in America is a pretty damn good starting point. Doesn't take a magician to round that out with an airport, hotels, convention centers, restaurants, etc. I believe there is already an uptick in real estate on South Padre Island and talks about some bridge to better connect the island.
BO has plenty of funding, and lofty ambitions far beyond New Shepard, but they just haven't made much progress toward achieving them.
I haven't done the math, but it seems like Starship is potentially an incredibly cheap heavy lift rocket even in total or partial expendable modes, e.g if SpaceX fails to realize their full reusability goals. At this point, I think BO and others are only falling further behind.
I haven't done the math, but it seems like Starship is potentially an incredibly cheap heavy lift rocket even in total or partial expendable modes, e.g if SpaceX fails to realize their full reusability goals. At this point, I think BO and others are only falling further behind.
It's worth noting that BO is much less open (pretty much the other end of the spectrum as SpaceX) about its progress.
We aren't really sure exactly how far along a lot of their projects are other than "not really close".
We aren't really sure exactly how far along a lot of their projects are other than "not really close".
Exactly this. SpaceX and Blue Origin take the opposite approaches when it comes to PR. You can see the results in this thread; people comparing BOs current tech with a hypothetically functional Starship.
A lot of people seem to make the mistake of identifying SpaceX with Starship alone, forgetting that they've also achieved effective dominance of the commercial orbital launch market with Falcon 9, broken into the heavy lift game with Falcon Heavy, and recently delivered the only operational manned orbital launch capability in the western hemisphere.
So, IMO, you don't need to invoke Starship to illustrate the width of the current gap between SpaceX and a company like BO that has never flown substantial hardware in orbit or beyond, on their own launch vehicle or otherwise. When they do start delivering spaceflight systems, we can re-evaluate the competitive landscape. New Glenn could absolutely put some real pressure on Falcon 9, if they can deliver it before Starship eats its lunch.
So, IMO, you don't need to invoke Starship to illustrate the width of the current gap between SpaceX and a company like BO that has never flown substantial hardware in orbit or beyond, on their own launch vehicle or otherwise. When they do start delivering spaceflight systems, we can re-evaluate the competitive landscape. New Glenn could absolutely put some real pressure on Falcon 9, if they can deliver it before Starship eats its lunch.
Not sure a tiny island that’s 6-7’ above sea level is such a genius investment these days.
The construction of most buildings along these coastal regions is expressly considering these kinds of concerns. Storm surge during a hurricane is an excellent facsimile for this scenario and encourages compensation on the engineering side. I haven't been down to South Padre Island in a long time to confirm, but I know for a fact that no beachfront property in Galveston has a meaningful first floor layout. Every one of these homes is constructed with the expectation that the first floor will flood, so everything important starts on the 2nd floor and up. Ground floor is typically just parking/storage/stairs/elevator.
I don't think any place on earth is a good spot to build when playing with geologic timescales.
I don't think any place on earth is a good spot to build when playing with geologic timescales.
By far small enough that you could easily protect it if need be.
Do you think the ocean is going to rise SEVEN FEET?
Maybe!
> A number of later studies have concluded that a global sea level rise of 200 to 270 cm (6.6 to 8.9 ft) this century is "physically plausible".[8][2][9]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise
> A number of later studies have concluded that a global sea level rise of 200 to 270 cm (6.6 to 8.9 ft) this century is "physically plausible".[8][2][9]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise
Yes. Much more, even by very conservative estimates.
Just probably not in our lifetimes. The maximum sea level rise will be hundreds, even thousands of years from now. In the absolute worst case scenario where all the ice melted, sea level would rise 230 feet. If we did nothing at all about climate change and kept burning fossil fuels until we ran out, that's actually a likely outcome. It has happened in the past when the earth was much warmer. It won't happen to us, because we're taking action. The final sea level rise would depend how we do with actively removing CO2 from the atmosphere, as it will keep rising long after we stop using fossil fuels.
7 feet by the end of this century is not impossible, but not in the conservative estimate. So far we've been tracking the aggressive estimates, not conservative ones.
Just probably not in our lifetimes. The maximum sea level rise will be hundreds, even thousands of years from now. In the absolute worst case scenario where all the ice melted, sea level would rise 230 feet. If we did nothing at all about climate change and kept burning fossil fuels until we ran out, that's actually a likely outcome. It has happened in the past when the earth was much warmer. It won't happen to us, because we're taking action. The final sea level rise would depend how we do with actively removing CO2 from the atmosphere, as it will keep rising long after we stop using fossil fuels.
7 feet by the end of this century is not impossible, but not in the conservative estimate. So far we've been tracking the aggressive estimates, not conservative ones.
Obligatory XKCD
https://xkcd.com/1732/
https://xkcd.com/1732/
You mean like https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaceport_America?
There is a SpaceX private Crew Dragon mission scheduled:
https://spacenews.com/inspiration4-announces-crew-for-privat...
"Launch is scheduled for no earlier than Sept. 15, slightly earlier than the original announcement of the fourth quarter of this year. The spacecraft will remain in orbit for three days, flying in an orbit at the same inclination as the International Space Station — 51.6 degrees — but in an orbit as high as 540 kilometers, more than 100 kilometers above the station."
"Launch is scheduled for no earlier than Sept. 15, slightly earlier than the original announcement of the fourth quarter of this year. The spacecraft will remain in orbit for three days, flying in an orbit at the same inclination as the International Space Station — 51.6 degrees — but in an orbit as high as 540 kilometers, more than 100 kilometers above the station."
Yeah, the sub-orbital is a harder sell. When you are the only one or one of a few, the benefit/cost is perceived to be higher. After a dozen or so of these flights much of the cachet will be gone. Can they (Bezos/Branson) bring the cost down fast enough to transition to a sustainable model?
In 2000, Dennis Tito paid $20M for 11,400 minutes in space or about $1750/minute ($2765 in 2021 dollars). The Branson and Bezos models 20 years later are much more expensive per minute and are so short there is no real time to absorb the experience.
In 2000, Dennis Tito paid $20M for 11,400 minutes in space or about $1750/minute ($2765 in 2021 dollars). The Branson and Bezos models 20 years later are much more expensive per minute and are so short there is no real time to absorb the experience.
I think a lot of people might be willing to pay for 4 days in orbit for $2M.
My version would have blackjack and hookers, obviously.
My version would have blackjack and hookers, obviously.
Honestly, I wish Branson and Bezos would have just put their dicks back in their pants and just fully got behind spaceX
I absolutely dont care about Bezos or Branson being able to do these stunts - SpaceX already docked with the IIS ffs.
It's like McClaren winning the Gran Prix, and then Toyota and Ford showing that their CEOs can finish a few laps in Monaco.
I absolutely dont care about Bezos or Branson being able to do these stunts - SpaceX already docked with the IIS ffs.
It's like McClaren winning the Gran Prix, and then Toyota and Ford showing that their CEOs can finish a few laps in Monaco.
Doesn't blindly ceding to the industry leaders ultimately result in stagnation?
The VG and BO launches were both underwhelming for me - but it's still exciting to see the different engineering approaches, it's like hedging a bet, and I am sure each of them will pay dividends - one way or another.
The VG and BO launches were both underwhelming for me - but it's still exciting to see the different engineering approaches, it's like hedging a bet, and I am sure each of them will pay dividends - one way or another.
[deleted]
> rich folk would gladly pay millions, which makes the business case a lot more compelling.
I would say some would but keep in mind that a few other things have to come together.
a) Willing to take the risk (non trivial example I would not do this no chance)
b) Your family/spouse/girlfriend/boyfriend has to buy into the risk even if it's just you going into the orbit.
c) Potential negative publicity as in 'look how they are spending their money' since early adopters would most likely be publicized in some way.
d) Guilt maybe spending millions for a trivial short ride vs. other things you can spend money on.
Keep in mind with 'd' other things are considered more acceptable and have social proof. This seems (to me anyway) the ultimate extravagance and I am wondering if there is the classic difference between what people say they would do if given the chance and what they would actually do.
I would say some would but keep in mind that a few other things have to come together.
a) Willing to take the risk (non trivial example I would not do this no chance)
b) Your family/spouse/girlfriend/boyfriend has to buy into the risk even if it's just you going into the orbit.
c) Potential negative publicity as in 'look how they are spending their money' since early adopters would most likely be publicized in some way.
d) Guilt maybe spending millions for a trivial short ride vs. other things you can spend money on.
Keep in mind with 'd' other things are considered more acceptable and have social proof. This seems (to me anyway) the ultimate extravagance and I am wondering if there is the classic difference between what people say they would do if given the chance and what they would actually do.
The publicity aspect would deter some, but it would attract others. By the time even 20 people have gone up, it won't be newsworthy, and then it will just be like buying a yacht. There are about 1.5 million people in the US worth $10 million or more, which is about where you need to be to comfortably afford this type of thing now, and another 10 million or so single digit millionaires, many of whom would take a significant hit to net worth to go up. So I think the odds that you can get > 10K takers just in the USA are pretty much 100%. If you can put 10K people up with a solid safety record, then that number would probably go up to 100K to 1 million potential customers. The economy of scale at that level would probably drop the price to where most of the upper middle class is a potential customer. So I think this can work. Safety record is the key.
The economics are just silly. 4 passengers at $250k each is only $1M in revenue per flight. Between fuel costs, rocket costs (even assuming 10x reuses per rocket, you'd need to build the rocket for significantly under $10M to have a chance at profitability, could you imagine building a rocket for under 10M?), engineer and employee salaries and benefits, advertising, liability, etc.
Add in the fact that you have a very viable competitor in Virgin Galactic and SpaceX who could leapfrog both and provide even better experiences, and I don't see how Blue Origin will ever be viable without government funding
Add in the fact that you have a very viable competitor in Virgin Galactic and SpaceX who could leapfrog both and provide even better experiences, and I don't see how Blue Origin will ever be viable without government funding
I think BO's game plan has been to become something along the lines of a traditional aerospace contractor, and SpaceX has made that very hard.
I think the timing of the launch isn't coincidental - iirc, the investigation into the HLS decision is going to be done in early August, and it undoubtedly looks better for BO's case to have had a successful launch with humans onboard one of their rockets.
I think the timing of the launch isn't coincidental - iirc, the investigation into the HLS decision is going to be done in early August, and it undoubtedly looks better for BO's case to have had a successful launch with humans onboard one of their rockets.
I suspect their end goal is other funding whilst using the consumer space to launch their program and establish credibility.
I'm surprised we haven't heard of that scammer Blizarian trying to get on one of these flights yet...
How many amateurs pay a lot of money to be able to say they went to the top of mount Everest, which is probably a lot more risky?
Good point but a bit different. People view climbing Everest as an achievement as opposed to going up in a rocket which even though you need to prepare seems less daunting and a different type of risk.
Not that it matters but I wonder which of these buys more social capital?
Not that it matters but I wonder which of these buys more social capital?
Exactly. As a pilot, I find both of these rides uninspiring. Now if I could strap myself to the top of a Titan II in a Gemini capsule and do some piloting… now that would be an experience.
Keep in mind that the fortune of those millionaires might collapse if they die in the adventure. Or insurance cost might might make the trip much more expensive than just the ticket.
There will be an inevitable crash/failure resulting in a mass casualty event where many industries will lose their leaders (the only people that could afford a spaceflight for fun), and that's very bad for PR and could sink the whole company as a result.
>the only people that could afford a spaceflight for fun
i suspect the market will be less corporate leaders and more the family of corporate leaders (and saudi royals)
i suspect the market will be less corporate leaders and more the family of corporate leaders (and saudi royals)
You can also land on the other side of the planet within... I want to say an hour?
I must admit, that's the usage scenario for Starship that I don't particularly see much benefit in. I may well be short-sighted, but given how far away from cities the launch centres for these things would need to be, it strikes me that traditional travel infrastructure suffices.
Now, the US military, on the other hand? Starship as a somewhat-disposable space truck makes a lot of sense. Then it comes down to how cheaply SpaceX can manufacture the things.
Now, the US military, on the other hand? Starship as a somewhat-disposable space truck makes a lot of sense. Then it comes down to how cheaply SpaceX can manufacture the things.
If I'm paying for a space tourism joyride, I would definitely be extra thrilled if we took off from California and landed in Fiji within the hour.
Presumably, since I'm stinking rich to begin with, I'd have a fancy resort booked there for the next week.
I agree it's not a replacement for commercial jet flights.
Presumably, since I'm stinking rich to begin with, I'd have a fancy resort booked there for the next week.
I agree it's not a replacement for commercial jet flights.
Well, this raises the cost of capsule reuse because of transport back to the launch point.
Why not also have a launch facility at fiji? You could even book a return trip.
I imagine the geopolitical efforts involved in coordinating to allow passenger ICBM launches at major cities in the industrialized west is on the same order of the effort involved in designing and building starship itself.
You make the mistake of assuming the uber-rich want to get to Fiji as soon as possible, when in reality they would rather spend the 8 hrs in their private Gulfstream in a cocaine fueled orgy while the pilot does barrel rolls and loops. Flying is one of the few times that the Uber rich can really disconnect and be alone and relax, why would they want to get to Fiji in an hour in a super stressful flight?
Yeah I don't think it makes much sense, at least not for a long time. Odds of a plane crashing are on the order of 1 in 10^7. On the other hand, it was a major accomplishment that the Falcon 9 was able to perform 100 successful missions in a row. Rockets have to be safer by many orders of magnitude before they move from the realm of thrill seeking to commercial travel.
I am more concerned about nuclear war as a result of mistaken identity since it's the same technology used to launch ICBMs.
Not sure why you were downvoted - for sure, we have alert systems these days so that test ICBMs and rocket launches aren't misinterpreted by foreign actors, and we would in any future where there were tens, hundreds, thousands of launches a day - but as-equally, it would be a lot easier to mask nefarious intentions in such traffic.
Irrespective of nukes, I shudder to imagine what the impact of an out of control de-orbiting Starship would do at ballistic reentry over a populace... .
Irrespective of nukes, I shudder to imagine what the impact of an out of control de-orbiting Starship would do at ballistic reentry over a populace... .
Ballistic free path is 45 minutes. A single LEO is 90 minutes, no place on Earth is more than a half-orbit distant.
A ballistic point-to-point tragectory is an orbit which intersects the surface.
A ballistic point-to-point tragectory is an orbit which intersects the surface.
> they could actually come up with a tourism/joyride that would blow these piffling jumps by Branson and Bezos into irrelevance.
We've had tourism that blows all these attempts into irrelevance, for thousands of years.
Take 5 grams.
We've had tourism that blows all these attempts into irrelevance, for thousands of years.
Take 5 grams.
The best part is that while these two billionaires do their 'space hop', Elon is laughing the whole time and probably texted Jeff Bezos asking 'Hey have you seen my car? NVM, sorry, you probably were not close enough to see it.'
Edit: To be clear, I'm referring to the obvious feud with Jeff Bezos, I know he is friends with Richard.
Edit: To be clear, I'm referring to the obvious feud with Jeff Bezos, I know he is friends with Richard.
He was actually at the Virgin Galactic launch and is good friends with Richard Branson. He was having fun, but not for the reason you suggest.
I'm mostly referring to Jeff, who he has an extremely public feud with.
No he doesnt
I'm pretty sure Elon thinks Jeff's Blue Origin is impotent in delivering the technology needed to progress the return to the Moon https://twitter.com/kchangnyt/status/1386787651412451329?s=1...
> It really shouldn't count as space travel unless they go into orbit around Earth.
So, Alan Shepard would not be the first American in space? Gus Grissom's first flight wouldn't count, either? I'm all for making a distinction between space tourists and astronauts; but, I don't know if orbiting the Earth is the distinction. (Yes, I know Shepard and Grissom orbited the Earth on subsequent space flights; but,those first flights have to count for something.)
So, Alan Shepard would not be the first American in space? Gus Grissom's first flight wouldn't count, either? I'm all for making a distinction between space tourists and astronauts; but, I don't know if orbiting the Earth is the distinction. (Yes, I know Shepard and Grissom orbited the Earth on subsequent space flights; but,those first flights have to count for something.)
Maybe you were just told they counted as going into space because otherwise the first American to orbit earth only did so a full 10 months after Gagarin, which looks worse than saying “oh we launched an American into space less than a month after the Russians did”.
I always learned Gagarin was first into space first. Likewise, I learned Shepard was the first American and Glenn was the first American to orbit the Earth. (I always have to stop and think about Grissom, since the fire of Apollo 1 is the always first thing that comes to mind.)
Saying that someone has to orbit the Earth or do something while in space in order to be an astronaut seems like changing the definition. That would mean Shepard wouldn't become an astronaut for another 10 years. (Of course, then he would be in a very select group of astronauts, because he had walked on the moon.)
Saying that someone has to orbit the Earth or do something while in space in order to be an astronaut seems like changing the definition. That would mean Shepard wouldn't become an astronaut for another 10 years. (Of course, then he would be in a very select group of astronauts, because he had walked on the moon.)
[deleted]
Huh, I remember learning Yuri Gagarin as the first person to space. I don't think I even remember learning/reading about Alan Shepard.
Personally I think there's a difference when the thing is completely new like when the space race first launched and now when it's decades on and we have continuously occupied the ISS for just over two decades. I might take one of these suborbital hops for fun but mostly because I have doubts it'll be reasonable to do a full orbit in my lifetime.
These are both neat but the billionaire pissing contest nature of it really cheapens it. Blue Origin originally rushed out and crowed about 'beating' SpaceX in (I think) launch and land reusability and now Branson rushing out to beat Bezos to barely cross into space. I'd honestly thought the whole Virgin Galactic thing had been quietly canned years ago because nothing was happening till there was this little race.
These are both neat but the billionaire pissing contest nature of it really cheapens it. Blue Origin originally rushed out and crowed about 'beating' SpaceX in (I think) launch and land reusability and now Branson rushing out to beat Bezos to barely cross into space. I'd honestly thought the whole Virgin Galactic thing had been quietly canned years ago because nothing was happening till there was this little race.
Getting rocket working correctly is never easy. Just like in IT when things work smoothly, it doesn't look amazing but it takes a tremendous amount of work to get things work correctly and seemingly smooth. A smooth operation is always amazing.
The booster landing looks pretty amazing. The capsule landing went without a problem. The deceleration when the braking chutes deployed looks a bit fast, from 205mph to 150mph in couple seconds. Must be hard on the body.
Edit: Ok, in the post-flight briefing, they mentioned that they didn't anticipate the 5G deceleration on descent and it was pretty hard. Must be when the braking chute was deployed.
The booster landing looks pretty amazing. The capsule landing went without a problem. The deceleration when the braking chutes deployed looks a bit fast, from 205mph to 150mph in couple seconds. Must be hard on the body.
Edit: Ok, in the post-flight briefing, they mentioned that they didn't anticipate the 5G deceleration on descent and it was pretty hard. Must be when the braking chute was deployed.
It looked like they were going about 15-16mph when they hit the ground. That looked a bit rough as well. They seem to have done fine, but I can't imagine that it was comfortable.
Bezos mentioned there's a pocket of air that forms a cushion underneath just before it hits, slowing it to 1 mph at impact. The older woman said she didn't even feel it.
Interesting. As other said, there were retro-rockets that fired. I guess I was just assuming the retro-rockets would be more pronounced - like the gentle landing that the rocket motors perform. Good to know that this wasn't as jarring as it looked.
That's roughly the speed of a Soyuz landing, which has been described as a "low speed car crash".
Retrorockets fire immediately prior to impact to cushion the blow, but it's still a hard jolt.
Retrorockets fire immediately prior to impact to cushion the blow, but it's still a hard jolt.
I watch it and slowed the clip and it seems there's a rocket boost just before touchdown, if the seats have shock absorbers they probably felt little of the touch down.
They mentioned on the stream the capsule has cushions that deploy at around 6ft. I couldn't see them on the video feed but they might be underneath the capsule.
Agree re: being underwhelmed, but in fairness, your typical "vomit comet" parabola flight only gets you about 25 seconds of weightlessness at a time. Although you can repeat this several dozen times per flight pretty easily.
25-30 seconds, with https://www.gozerog.com/ offering 15 parabolas totalling 6.5-7.5 minutes for $7500+tax. Much better total zero-gee time at much cheaper rates. Of course, you don't get the view above the atmosphere...
I don’t think it’s the weightlessness as much as it is the view. That’s the part that i would like.
And that’s how you make a one take music video: https://youtu.be/LWGJA9i18Co
And you are ignoring the 1.8 g part after each parabola - the zero g don't come for free.
The acceleration on New Shepard is much lower and even the max acceleration experienced during landing should be in the same ballpark of <2 g but only once and for a very brief period of time only compared to the vomit comet.
This could be a factor for some people.
The acceleration on New Shepard is much lower and even the max acceleration experienced during landing should be in the same ballpark of <2 g but only once and for a very brief period of time only compared to the vomit comet.
This could be a factor for some people.
Agreed. This really felt like an amusement park ride for rich people. Like a throw towards the edge of orbit.
I'm sure there is some innovation coming out of this, but compared to the insane progress of SpaceX it's super underwhelming.
I'm sure there is some innovation coming out of this, but compared to the insane progress of SpaceX it's super underwhelming.
I agree that there's no scientific or engineering achievement here and that this ride is essentially joyriding.
I disagree that we should deride rich people for spending money the way they want. I splurge on things sometimes as well. Unlike a lot of modern social media, I don't think there's anything inherently immoral about being wealthy.
If someone has an argument about what these specific people did that was specifically immoral to achieve their wealth, then they should call that out specifically and suggest a systemic change.
I find the mindless rich-people-hate to be nothing more than juvenile hate.
I disagree that we should deride rich people for spending money the way they want. I splurge on things sometimes as well. Unlike a lot of modern social media, I don't think there's anything inherently immoral about being wealthy.
If someone has an argument about what these specific people did that was specifically immoral to achieve their wealth, then they should call that out specifically and suggest a systemic change.
I find the mindless rich-people-hate to be nothing more than juvenile hate.
It’s remarkable that such a mature, sane, and rational perspective has been downvoted at the time of this writing to the point of being dead. Like anyone I am alarmed by over-the-top displays of wealth but that’s not really all this was. There is a lot more going on here. Blue Origin needs a lot more test flights as they ramp up and increase their capabilities. They also need demonstration flights to hep increase confidence about their services. And it totally makes sense to allow some people with the resources to help subsidize the effort, while having some fun and enlarging their perspective. I think this experience was super meaningful for everyone involved, and we shouldn’t try to denigrate it. Sad to see HN not taking a more open minded view here, as evidenced by your post being hn-dead.
And I say all this even not being a fan of the way Bezos has sometimes falsely claimed credit for “firsts” that were not really firsts, like when they landed a rocket (propulsive landing) while pretending that SpaceX had not done so in a much more challenging way already.
And I say all this even not being a fan of the way Bezos has sometimes falsely claimed credit for “firsts” that were not really firsts, like when they landed a rocket (propulsive landing) while pretending that SpaceX had not done so in a much more challenging way already.
I don’t think the comment deserves downvoting, but I cannot agree that this characterization - dismissing those who disagree as mindless and juvenile - is mature.
> I find the mindless rich-people-hate to be nothing more than juvenile hate.
> I find the mindless rich-people-hate to be nothing more than juvenile hate.
> I find the mindless rich-people-hate to be nothing more than juvenile hate.
maybe it's the fact that a small school's population of people own 60% of all wealth on earth that gives these vanity shows of wealth a bad taste in their mouths.
maybe it's the fact that a small school's population of people own 60% of all wealth on earth that gives these vanity shows of wealth a bad taste in their mouths.
Sorry, I meant 'rich people' as a neutral term, I do not attach any value to it or intend to deride someone for their wealth. I think that in general people should do as they want, as long as they don't harm others.
To rephrase: I felt that the entire flight was a bit underwhelming, and that it felt more like an amusement park ride (with a very expensive ticket price) than an actual spaceflight with astronauts, even though it was communicated that way.
To rephrase: I felt that the entire flight was a bit underwhelming, and that it felt more like an amusement park ride (with a very expensive ticket price) than an actual spaceflight with astronauts, even though it was communicated that way.
mavhc(1)
Wearing out the bodies and dignity of Amazon floor workers.
> I disagree that we should deride rich people for spending money the way they want.
Why?
Is it ok if I deride people who molest their own kids? I mean, it's how they choose to spend their time, who am I to judge right?
The way society works is by deciding collectively what's ok, and that's decided based on people's tastes.
My tastes are that no small group of people should have power over large groups of people without their ongoing consent. Any system that isn't like that is garbage and anyone interested in power over other people is human garbage.
Today's society is wage slavery in developed countries, colonialism and barbarism everywhere else - it is garbage and anyone with a modicum of power doing anything but attempting to change the status quo is clueless or human garbage.
Why would wage slaves not resent their masters, or people colonized, not resent colonialists? Anything but deep resentment and derision is surprising, frankly.
Why?
Is it ok if I deride people who molest their own kids? I mean, it's how they choose to spend their time, who am I to judge right?
The way society works is by deciding collectively what's ok, and that's decided based on people's tastes.
My tastes are that no small group of people should have power over large groups of people without their ongoing consent. Any system that isn't like that is garbage and anyone interested in power over other people is human garbage.
Today's society is wage slavery in developed countries, colonialism and barbarism everywhere else - it is garbage and anyone with a modicum of power doing anything but attempting to change the status quo is clueless or human garbage.
Why would wage slaves not resent their masters, or people colonized, not resent colonialists? Anything but deep resentment and derision is surprising, frankly.
> Like a throw towards the edge of orbit.
It's nowhere near orbit. Orbit is about 10km of delta-v, then there's the reentry problem.
Reaching the Karman line is about 2km of delta-v.
It's nowhere near orbit. Orbit is about 10km of delta-v, then there's the reentry problem.
Reaching the Karman line is about 2km of delta-v.
Walk before you run.
I very much doubt Blue Origin intends to freeze rocket development after this launch.
Blue Origin now has a successful manned flight under their belt, and a revenue stream.
While it might surprise some here, Amazon started by selling just books...
It feels like similar attitude comments on that would have been "They'll never compete with Walmart. Real retail stores sell all kinds of things."
I very much doubt Blue Origin intends to freeze rocket development after this launch.
Blue Origin now has a successful manned flight under their belt, and a revenue stream.
While it might surprise some here, Amazon started by selling just books...
It feels like similar attitude comments on that would have been "They'll never compete with Walmart. Real retail stores sell all kinds of things."
Blue Origin don't need a revenue stream. They need Jeff Bezo to light fire under their ass.
As a company that started a year before SpaceX and funded by the richest man in the world, the company should have no problem with being aggressive.
Yes, walk before you run. SpaceX did this too, but their leadership has a sense of urgency. Blue Origin don't.
As a company that started a year before SpaceX and funded by the richest man in the world, the company should have no problem with being aggressive.
Yes, walk before you run. SpaceX did this too, but their leadership has a sense of urgency. Blue Origin don't.
20 yeas from founding to a suborbital demo flight, 15 years of development for the rocket itself. New Shephard will never make orbit, it's a dead end.
New Glenn would be great if it existed. As it stands it's likely to be eclipsed by Starship. B.O. are going to have to change into a whole new gear if they want to compete. I have far more confidence in rocketlab scaling upwards from electron than in Blue Origin scaling anywhere.
New Glenn would be great if it existed. As it stands it's likely to be eclipsed by Starship. B.O. are going to have to change into a whole new gear if they want to compete. I have far more confidence in rocketlab scaling upwards from electron than in Blue Origin scaling anywhere.
I mostly agree but BO does at least plan a variant of the New Shephard engine for New Glenn's upper stage.
> Walk before you run.
Walking is a precursor to running, though.
Blue Origin and Virgin Galactic's current spacecraft are dead-ends. They can't ever go to orbit. New Glenn can, but it's vaporware thus far; if it sees a development schedule like New Shepard's there'll be a SpaceX Mars base before it manages its first hop.
Walking is a precursor to running, though.
Blue Origin and Virgin Galactic's current spacecraft are dead-ends. They can't ever go to orbit. New Glenn can, but it's vaporware thus far; if it sees a development schedule like New Shepard's there'll be a SpaceX Mars base before it manages its first hop.
Well to be fair, they don't compete with Walmart. Walmart almost doubled Amazon's revenue last year, and that was during the height of a pandemic, which naturally steered people towards more online orders, something you think would tip the scales in Amazon's favor.
> Walmart almost doubled Amazon's revenue last year,
Eh... that's not really true, it's about 1.45x the revenue, not 2x. And that's not the whole picture.
Revenue for 2020:
Eh... that's not really true, it's about 1.45x the revenue, not 2x. And that's not the whole picture.
Revenue for 2020:
Walmart: $559 billion
Amazon: $386 billion
Walmart: $20.6 billion
Amazon: $22.9 billion
Walmart: $15.2/14.9 billion
Amazon: $22.1/21.3 billionWhich one seems more likely to you:
a. Amazon solves brick and mortar b. Walmart solves online sales.
Given the way things are going with Amazon essentially throwing in the towel with counterfeit reviews and products, I would put my money on Walmart eating Amazon's lunch this decade.
Don't forget political influence as well. Walmart has a large fraction of congress on bankroll.
a. Amazon solves brick and mortar b. Walmart solves online sales.
Given the way things are going with Amazon essentially throwing in the towel with counterfeit reviews and products, I would put my money on Walmart eating Amazon's lunch this decade.
Don't forget political influence as well. Walmart has a large fraction of congress on bankroll.
You started out by claiming "they don't compete with Walmart" because "Walmart almost doubled Amazon's revenue last year". But since that's not true you've moved the goal post and now you're claiming "Walmart eating Amazon's lunch this decade" is the most likely scenario because Amazon has a counterfeit product problem and Walmart has political connections.
I don't think you understand just how insignificant the counterfeit issue is. Amazon reports it as 0.01% of sales, but even they're off by a factor of 100 that's just 1%. And 1% of their .com revenue is still less than 0.5% of their overall revenue because most of Amazon's profits come from AWS.
> Amazon solves brick and mortar
What is there to solve? Amazon has a logistics infrastructure that Walmart can't touch. If they decided to open a big box store do you really thing the counterfeit issues in their affiliate program would harm them? It's not like they'd put affiliate merchandise on the floor. I feel like they could figure out how to unload trucks to retail shelves and do in person payment processing at least as well as Walmart.
> Walmart solves online sales.
Walmart has been competing with Amazon in online sales for a decade, how's that going? Walmart has nothing to compete with Amazon's Audible, Echo, Ring, Blink, or Prime offerings. Sure they have free shipping with Walmart+ and an affiliate program but is that enough? They've tried countless times to compete against Amazon and failed, most recently they sold Vudo off. At the same time Amazon has launched countless brands and new products with great success.
Amazon.com's tone deaf Billionaire founder and their treatment of their workers are a far greater risk to them than Walmart. But bad reputation and consumer dislike aren't going to kill Amazon anymore than they've done so with Walmart who has infamy for destroying both small town America and America's manufacturing infrastructure.
Honestly I'm not sure why you'd want either of these companies to succeed.
I don't think you understand just how insignificant the counterfeit issue is. Amazon reports it as 0.01% of sales, but even they're off by a factor of 100 that's just 1%. And 1% of their .com revenue is still less than 0.5% of their overall revenue because most of Amazon's profits come from AWS.
> Amazon solves brick and mortar
What is there to solve? Amazon has a logistics infrastructure that Walmart can't touch. If they decided to open a big box store do you really thing the counterfeit issues in their affiliate program would harm them? It's not like they'd put affiliate merchandise on the floor. I feel like they could figure out how to unload trucks to retail shelves and do in person payment processing at least as well as Walmart.
> Walmart solves online sales.
Walmart has been competing with Amazon in online sales for a decade, how's that going? Walmart has nothing to compete with Amazon's Audible, Echo, Ring, Blink, or Prime offerings. Sure they have free shipping with Walmart+ and an affiliate program but is that enough? They've tried countless times to compete against Amazon and failed, most recently they sold Vudo off. At the same time Amazon has launched countless brands and new products with great success.
Amazon.com's tone deaf Billionaire founder and their treatment of their workers are a far greater risk to them than Walmart. But bad reputation and consumer dislike aren't going to kill Amazon anymore than they've done so with Walmart who has infamy for destroying both small town America and America's manufacturing infrastructure.
Honestly I'm not sure why you'd want either of these companies to succeed.
> But since that's not true you've moved the goal post
I said "about" 2x. Ok, about doing some heavy lifting, so it's closer to about 1.5 for 2020, during a pandemic. What's a typical year? Ah but you are so focused on technically correct, you missed the forest for the trees. My point still remains. The gulf between what Amazon sells and Walmart sells is so wide, it's hardly seen as "competing". Amazon themselves have admitted to this fact (and have used this fact to shield themselves from anti-competitive legislation. One of their favorite moves is to point at Walmart and say "they are the big guys, not us") So these are just established facts, not moving any sort of goal posts. I am not here to defend a thesis or dissertation, we are having a casual conversation on the internet.
I guess you must be one of those guys who demands zero margin of error in their conversations? If so, you must be fun at parties.
> Honestly I'm not sure why you'd want either of these companies to succeed.
Speaking of fallacies, never did I say I want them to succeed, so here's your straw man back. I am observing the reality of what is, and what is likely to happen.
I said "about" 2x. Ok, about doing some heavy lifting, so it's closer to about 1.5 for 2020, during a pandemic. What's a typical year? Ah but you are so focused on technically correct, you missed the forest for the trees. My point still remains. The gulf between what Amazon sells and Walmart sells is so wide, it's hardly seen as "competing". Amazon themselves have admitted to this fact (and have used this fact to shield themselves from anti-competitive legislation. One of their favorite moves is to point at Walmart and say "they are the big guys, not us") So these are just established facts, not moving any sort of goal posts. I am not here to defend a thesis or dissertation, we are having a casual conversation on the internet.
I guess you must be one of those guys who demands zero margin of error in their conversations? If so, you must be fun at parties.
> Honestly I'm not sure why you'd want either of these companies to succeed.
Speaking of fallacies, never did I say I want them to succeed, so here's your straw man back. I am observing the reality of what is, and what is likely to happen.
> I am observing the reality of what is, and what is likely to happen.
Your supporting arguments include counterfeiting and soon to be dead politicians as reasons why Amazon will fail but are reality based observations about what's likely to happen?
Also if you don't think Amazon/Bezos has any political sway then you're not paying attention to what's been happening with Pentagon or NASA contracts.
Your supporting arguments include counterfeiting and soon to be dead politicians as reasons why Amazon will fail but are reality based observations about what's likely to happen?
Also if you don't think Amazon/Bezos has any political sway then you're not paying attention to what's been happening with Pentagon or NASA contracts.
have you _seen_ walmart.com? their online store rivals amazon easily.
Walmart.com is an extension of their retail services. There's some overlap with Amazon.com but both offer services and features the others don't and neither fully supplant one another.
Walmart's affiliate program allows them to cater to the long tail market that Amazon has long dominated but that alone isn't going to convince people to switch to Walmart.com. Why not go to Ebay or Newegg instead?
Walmart+ costs 2/3 of Amazon Prime but doesn't offer any of the digital services available like Audiobooks, ebooks, Videos, Music, Gaming, and photo storage/backup. For many those services are more valuable than free shipping or pharmacy discounts.
What does Walmart.com offer that's going to convince people to shop their over Amazon, Newegg, Ebay or other online retailers?
Walmart's affiliate program allows them to cater to the long tail market that Amazon has long dominated but that alone isn't going to convince people to switch to Walmart.com. Why not go to Ebay or Newegg instead?
Walmart+ costs 2/3 of Amazon Prime but doesn't offer any of the digital services available like Audiobooks, ebooks, Videos, Music, Gaming, and photo storage/backup. For many those services are more valuable than free shipping or pharmacy discounts.
What does Walmart.com offer that's going to convince people to shop their over Amazon, Newegg, Ebay or other online retailers?
Walmart.com ships only in the US. Not in Europe, Asia.
While Amazon has stores for all regions of the world that count.
While Amazon has stores for all regions of the world that count.
What are the delta V's for a ballistic trajectory taking off in Texas an landing off the coast of Morocco? France? Western Australia? Hawaii?
You don't need to go all the way around to have a story. Low earth orbit is apparently around 84 minutes per revolution. There's a lot of space in the middle for ballistic orbits of 5-15 minutes, right?
We got in a rocket in Texas and had a light dinner on a yacht off Morocco 90 minutes later.
You don't need to go all the way around to have a story. Low earth orbit is apparently around 84 minutes per revolution. There's a lot of space in the middle for ballistic orbits of 5-15 minutes, right?
We got in a rocket in Texas and had a light dinner on a yacht off Morocco 90 minutes later.
If that's your goal than Virgin Galactic, which can take off from far more places in more weather conditions, is more attractive. Or you could use a Dragon capsule on an F9 which can do the job reliably today.
For a 2,400km downrange though you'd need 4.2k of delta-v (a Thor IRBM). You'll be reaching a 450km apogee too. Forget Hawaii and Morocco, you won't even make Seattle from Dallas.
You'll need 5.6k to get to places like Hong Kong and Israel, with an apogee of 1500km. That's 3 times the New Shepard.
(delta-v calc from https://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/ABM/DeltaV_BMs.htm)
For a 2,400km downrange though you'd need 4.2k of delta-v (a Thor IRBM). You'll be reaching a 450km apogee too. Forget Hawaii and Morocco, you won't even make Seattle from Dallas.
You'll need 5.6k to get to places like Hong Kong and Israel, with an apogee of 1500km. That's 3 times the New Shepard.
(delta-v calc from https://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/ABM/DeltaV_BMs.htm)
The underwhelming part is that it took so long.
The first private manned suborbital flight occurred in 2004 with SpaceShipOne. It is 17 years later at this point and only now do we have paying customers for sub-orbital flight.
The first private manned suborbital flight occurred in 2004 with SpaceShipOne. It is 17 years later at this point and only now do we have paying customers for sub-orbital flight.
Yes, and the first suborbital crewed flight was in May 1961. A bit more than sixty years ago.
The gap between the Wright Brothers' first flight and Apollo 11 was about 66 years. (I realize aircraft and spacecraft are not very similar).
I think almost everyone interested in space flight back then would be pretty disappointed by the slow pace of development since Apollo, until things picked up recently.
The gap between the Wright Brothers' first flight and Apollo 11 was about 66 years. (I realize aircraft and spacecraft are not very similar).
I think almost everyone interested in space flight back then would be pretty disappointed by the slow pace of development since Apollo, until things picked up recently.
And even then we still don't have "paying passengers" in the sense of being able to rock up and buy ticket. One seat being raffles at a charity auction doesn't quite count.
I also suspect the pool of people willing to pony up $250k+ for a few minutes barely in space is going to be pretty shallow. I'd sign up in a heartbeat for a space hotel trip in that price range though, so here's hoping Axiom Space delivers (and gets the price range below the current projection of tens of millions).
I also suspect the pool of people willing to pony up $250k+ for a few minutes barely in space is going to be pretty shallow. I'd sign up in a heartbeat for a space hotel trip in that price range though, so here's hoping Axiom Space delivers (and gets the price range below the current projection of tens of millions).
> One seat being raffles at a charity auction doesn't quite count.
The person who won that seat didn't actually end up going on the first flight (will go on a later one). Some 18 year old with a dad who runs a hedge fund went. How much he paid was not disclosed.
The person who won that seat didn't actually end up going on the first flight (will go on a later one). Some 18 year old with a dad who runs a hedge fund went. How much he paid was not disclosed.
Note that SpaceX hadn't even launched its first rocket in 2004. They didn't reach orbit until 2008 and yet sent crew to the space station over a year ago already.
> I've seen SpaceX doing much more complicated missions or it's just not that big of a deal.
Also, SpaceX knows how to put on a show. In comparison this felt like an amateur video. (not to diminish the mission itself, just how it was filmed).
Also, SpaceX knows how to put on a show. In comparison this felt like an amateur video. (not to diminish the mission itself, just how it was filmed).
To be fair SpaceX also has had practice, go back and watch some earlier launches and they have the same amateur vibe.
[deleted]
I was kinda disappointed that the whole thing was just one shaky camera shot, no in-vehicle cameras on Bezos' face getting squished from G-forces or anything =(
I think it's pretty underwhelming and then is further diminished because it feels so much like Bezos and Branson just spending their obscene amounts of money to notch a win in this billionaire one upmanship game. First there was Bezos's Blue Origin crowing about their early launch and land success vs SpaceX like they were in a similar league of difficulty. Then with this you have Virgin Galactic coming out of seeming corporate catatonia so Brandon could rush out this first ahead of Bezos. I hadn't heard anything about SpaceShip One for what feels like years before this stunt.
Also yeah they do also just barely make it to what the US had somewhat arbitrarily defined as space in the case of Branson's company.
Also yeah they do also just barely make it to what the US had somewhat arbitrarily defined as space in the case of Branson's company.
come on, our billionaires are spending money advancing space tech. what a grand improvement over billionaires bribing governments and having people slaughtered instead, as happens through much of the world and history. applaud this.
I can't even fathom blowing the money on stunts like this before all my people's basic needs were met. Like, you know... even the janitors.
To me it was pretty exciting after watching what Virgin Galactic did the other day.
Virgin Galactic is at least taking a novel approach with the spaceplane though. Sticking a capsule on top of a rocket and bringing it down with parachutes has been done since the 1960s, and SpaceX beat them to landing the launcher as well.
SpaceX only "beat" them to a landing if you're disregarding suborbital flights.
Blue Origin landed their booster 23 Nov 2015. SpaceX landed their first booster 21 Dec 2015.
It really is apples and oranges until BO or VG gets to orbit. Rocket Lab is likely much closer to orbital booster re-use than BO or VG are.
Blue Origin landed their booster 23 Nov 2015. SpaceX landed their first booster 21 Dec 2015.
It really is apples and oranges until BO or VG gets to orbit. Rocket Lab is likely much closer to orbital booster re-use than BO or VG are.
Blue Origin only "beat" SpaceX if you allow BO's test flight and disallow SpaceX's - SpaceX was landing their Grasshopper prototype as early as 2012.
Precisely. Landing a booster is difficult but creating or orbital class rocket is an order of magnitude more difficult. SpaceX just did the hard part first.
> Virgin Galactic is at least taking a novel approach with the spaceplane though.
Sticking rocket-propelled spaceplane under big aircraft and landing horizontally was also done in 1960s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_X-15
Sticking rocket-propelled spaceplane under big aircraft and landing horizontally was also done in 1960s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_X-15
i feel pretty guilty for being so underwhelmed because I sure as hell couldn't build an engine and airframe to do that but I am. I think the duration and lack of events is what did it. I'm use to the multiple phases of a falcon9 launch and the landing.
However, i'm glad BlueOrigin did this and had a successful launch/landing. It certainly helps inspire others and is good for the industry as a whole.
However, i'm glad BlueOrigin did this and had a successful launch/landing. It certainly helps inspire others and is good for the industry as a whole.
> i feel pretty guilty for being so underwhelmed because I sure as hell couldn't build an engine and airframe to do that but I am.
Given Bezo's bank account, you don't think you could put together a team to get a rocket into space?
Let's be realistic, no one person built this or any other rocket. Apart from Money, and perhaps short/bald man complex, Bezo contributed little overall. Yet all of the media has been about Bezos going into space.
When Richard Branson came along to steal his thunder with the SpaceShipTwo launch just before him, Bezo showed his colors by dismissing the achievement as not "real space". I have doubt Bezos is still salty about it and planning to get back at him.
IMO, none of these billionaires should be celebrated for these achievements. We should be celebrating the people who put them there but those individuals receive almost no mention.
Given Bezo's bank account, you don't think you could put together a team to get a rocket into space?
Let's be realistic, no one person built this or any other rocket. Apart from Money, and perhaps short/bald man complex, Bezo contributed little overall. Yet all of the media has been about Bezos going into space.
When Richard Branson came along to steal his thunder with the SpaceShipTwo launch just before him, Bezo showed his colors by dismissing the achievement as not "real space". I have doubt Bezos is still salty about it and planning to get back at him.
IMO, none of these billionaires should be celebrated for these achievements. We should be celebrating the people who put them there but those individuals receive almost no mention.
Yes, but 'Blue Origin successfully avoids achieving orbit' sounds so much less like an achievement than 'first human flight'.
If you listen to the stream there's a moment when they ask each astronaut for a mock-serious 'status update'. At least one forgets to even respond. It feels like cosplay, like a tourist experience where you are pretending to be an astronaut despite having no responsibilities and little training. I would struggle to not feel embarrassment at pretending to be something I am not, and at the knowledge they are stroking my ego purely for my ego's benefit on the back of the very well earned reputation of real astronauts.
It reminds me of what might happen on a tourist experience in Bali, where they have you hold a big spear and take a photo for Instagram as if you were a tribal hunter. I would take the Blue Origin flight if it was free, but I would wish they would treat me honestly: as a random schlub who knows how to sit in a seat and smile.
It reminds me of what might happen on a tourist experience in Bali, where they have you hold a big spear and take a photo for Instagram as if you were a tribal hunter. I would take the Blue Origin flight if it was free, but I would wish they would treat me honestly: as a random schlub who knows how to sit in a seat and smile.
One point: that was no "mock status update call", it was control checking if people were back in and strapped to their seats again. The wording arguably was a bit too much fluff ("Astronaut Bezos", yeah, right)
It's frustrating, because I'd like to get excited, but relative to even the regular things going on in aerospace this isn't interesting. Interesting enough, I guess. Guy went up and down. There are six people going around and around right now on the ISS and a second station is coming into orbit. He never left Earth? CNSA has a rover on the moon, and NASA has several rovers, some satellites, a helicopter, and a Will.i.am single on Mars.
Max altitude of about 100km? Alan Eustance managed half that with a balloon, and then he jumped out of his capsule like Master Chief and fell back to Earth.
They're planning to build a moon rover in Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh. Three rivers, some department stores, a couple abandoned steel mills, more bridges than they can afford to maintain, and a mission control center.
I'm generally in favor of more people being involved in space technology and space travel; I still consider it a long-term existential need. But about this, it's just, kinda... Step it up or step out, Bezos.
It is nice to live in an era where this accomplishment feels mundane, though.
Max altitude of about 100km? Alan Eustance managed half that with a balloon, and then he jumped out of his capsule like Master Chief and fell back to Earth.
They're planning to build a moon rover in Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh. Three rivers, some department stores, a couple abandoned steel mills, more bridges than they can afford to maintain, and a mission control center.
I'm generally in favor of more people being involved in space technology and space travel; I still consider it a long-term existential need. But about this, it's just, kinda... Step it up or step out, Bezos.
It is nice to live in an era where this accomplishment feels mundane, though.
> Step it up or step out, Bezos.
So much negativity in this whole topic, IMO due to Bezos's involvement.
Space is hard technically, politically, financially, so the more entrants in the space race the better. Every space program, government or private, has started off small and built on what they learn.
So much negativity in this whole topic, IMO due to Bezos's involvement.
Space is hard technically, politically, financially, so the more entrants in the space race the better. Every space program, government or private, has started off small and built on what they learn.
Absolutely true.
... but since we live in the era where multiple agencies have already done that, it's possible Bezos's dollars would be better spent on combined efforts with one of the front-runners to do something more ambitious than yet another capsule to high-altitude ballistic flight.
... but since we live in the era where multiple agencies have already done that, it's possible Bezos's dollars would be better spent on combined efforts with one of the front-runners to do something more ambitious than yet another capsule to high-altitude ballistic flight.
[deleted]
> I don't know if it's because I've seen SpaceX doing much more complicated missions
You know that NASA and other countries have been flying rockets and sending people and things to space before SpaceX, yes?
You know that NASA and other countries have been flying rockets and sending people and things to space before SpaceX, yes?
Let's look at it from the Hollywood angle: SpaceX clearly wins in explosions per minute, but on the other hand BlueO has Vin Diesel (I might have squinted too hard)
Well in one sense you're right, however...if they decided that they wanted to go for orbit without first doing an up-into-space-then-down trip, that wouldn't be a very wise thing to do. Test at each step. It makes perfect sense to do up-into-space-then-right-back-down first, before you try for orbiting the Earth, for many of the same reasons that NASA did it that way.
Yeah I expected an orbit too. But it was their first manned mission, so I think it makes sense that it was a simpler thing. But it shouldn't have been such big news. It only was because there was a billionaire on board, and that's really dumb.
It was news because it was the first manned flight of a private launch provider. That doesn't happen often and it is an important milestone.
I dunno, that's "news" to be sure; certainly space nerds should care a lot, but they played the entire flight on The Today Show (I watched it). They did not play the entirety of the first manned SpaceX flight, which was a much bigger deal because (I'm pretty sure?) it was the first private manned launch. I'm not saying this flight wasn't news, I'm saying it wasn't mainstream news, except that it happened to have Jeff Bezos on it, and he's a celebrity because he's a billionaire. And that's a lame reason for it to be mainstream news, in my view. I don't love the celebrity billionaire stuff.
He went up and then down again.
it was a sales pitch
Yet this is what, with all their power, billionaries can achieve today. While private innovation is welcome, space exploration needs even deeper pockets so it is government territory.
wasn't it just a few years ago considered as being ahead of everybody in space industry?
> It really shouldn't count as space travel unless they go into orbit around Earth.
Translation: 'Other private companies building their own rockets and going into space is 'not good enough' unless it is by SpaceX' and doesn't count.
To SpaceX fanatics and downvoters: I'm sure you are deep fanatics of SpaceX but surely you have the funds and deep pockets to join Musk and friends on a space mission together right now? If not, just continue to watch livestreams of others going into space then.
It should not be just down to ONE company. Commercial space flight is going to get allot cheaper with the existence of more competitors and that should be welcomed. Even SpaceX welcomes this and so should you.
Translation: 'Other private companies building their own rockets and going into space is 'not good enough' unless it is by SpaceX' and doesn't count.
To SpaceX fanatics and downvoters: I'm sure you are deep fanatics of SpaceX but surely you have the funds and deep pockets to join Musk and friends on a space mission together right now? If not, just continue to watch livestreams of others going into space then.
It should not be just down to ONE company. Commercial space flight is going to get allot cheaper with the existence of more competitors and that should be welcomed. Even SpaceX welcomes this and so should you.
Please don't take HN threads into tedious flamewar.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I think its more like that the parent comment ultimately 'invited' (and started) this so-called flamewar you are accusing me of.
Dismissing the achievements of a certain project to only bring up somebody else's one and promote this clear bias is how flamewars start.
I'm only just putting out the fires and celebrating the achievements of every other company competing and launching their rockets into 'space'.
Dismissing the achievements of a certain project to only bring up somebody else's one and promote this clear bias is how flamewars start.
I'm only just putting out the fires and celebrating the achievements of every other company competing and launching their rockets into 'space'.
Whatever the objection you have to the GP comment, you took a huge step (several huge steps) further into flamewar with your reply. Not cool; please don't.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Edit: we've had to ask you repeatedly about this in the past. Would you please do a better job of sticking to the site guidelines? I don't want to ban you but some of these cases are pretty clear-cut.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Edit: we've had to ask you repeatedly about this in the past. Would you please do a better job of sticking to the site guidelines? I don't want to ban you but some of these cases are pretty clear-cut.
> we've had to ask you repeatedly about this in the past. Would you please do a better job of sticking to the site guidelines?
Sure OK, I will do better at sticking to the site guidelines.
But what is also clear in the comments of the post and especially the top comment that most users were replying to, after reading the site guidelines they have completely violated this guideline in [0]:
> In comments:
> Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.
You may disagree with this, but I see that as a known repeated symptom of creating 'flamewars' for other posts. I will be part of the 'good critical comment' club and do better at following the guidelines, rather than being the one posting shallow dismissals and flamebait at other people's work because they are a fan of someone else.
And as always, making my comment substantive. Not less.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Sure OK, I will do better at sticking to the site guidelines.
But what is also clear in the comments of the post and especially the top comment that most users were replying to, after reading the site guidelines they have completely violated this guideline in [0]:
> In comments:
> Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.
You may disagree with this, but I see that as a known repeated symptom of creating 'flamewars' for other posts. I will be part of the 'good critical comment' club and do better at following the guidelines, rather than being the one posting shallow dismissals and flamebait at other people's work because they are a fan of someone else.
And as always, making my comment substantive. Not less.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
It’s kinda funny to see even the SpaceX fans miss a broader point. SpaceX could probably sell orbital trips on Falcon on the regular but they are out of reach of most nearly everyone except the US government whom needs manned flight for staffing the space station (thank goodness or we’d never get space progress)
The excitement and noise over suborbital flight is good, but in terms of achievement, Blue origin has yet to deliver on their major promises. I have confidence they will get there, but credit where credit is due, Spacex is getting it done.
The excitement and noise over suborbital flight is good, but in terms of achievement, Blue origin has yet to deliver on their major promises. I have confidence they will get there, but credit where credit is due, Spacex is getting it done.
SpaceX actually IS selling flights to tourists. First and second flights are scheduled for later this year IIRC.
The Russian v. USA space race’s important milestones included putting satellites, animals and people into orbit. It wasn’t just merely launching them to the edge of spacs.
The USSR didn't even bother with suborbital flights.
There's a reason that there's only 3 flights to suborbital ranges that are considered manned spaceflight.
Seems that between Musk, Bezos and Branson, we have in essence restarted a space race but this time it's billionaires in the private sector versus governments. Some will surely say that they have better things to spend their money on (Bezos for sure) but I gave to say it's still mindblowing. I would imagine if you're one of those guys, you've basically have enough money to solve any problem, so these guys it seems are chasing harder and harder problems, space exploration seems to be top of mind among these problems.
Mentioning Virgin Galactic and Blue Origin in the same breath as SpaceX seems disingenuous. It's like comparing an horse+cart with a modern car.
Maybe Electron and Virgin Orbit are in the race, but these hop 100km (or 80!) up and about 5 miles downrange are nowhere near the same league.
Maybe Electron and Virgin Orbit are in the race, but these hop 100km (or 80!) up and about 5 miles downrange are nowhere near the same league.
Understanding the difference between orbital and suborbital space flight need not cause one to be cynical and negative about things.
Especially since blue origin has a design that can scale up quickly, as SpaceX did with falcon 1 to 9
Especially since blue origin has a design that can scale up quickly, as SpaceX did with falcon 1 to 9
Falcon 1 put a payload into orbit though, so it's really not the same. Falcon 9's first flight was less than 2 years after Falcon 1 made it to orbit.
For myriad reasons Blue can't just "scale up quickly" in any meaningful way from NS to New Glenn, hence why it's going to take them 8+ years between the first NS and first NG launches. Being realistic about this is not cynical and negative.
For myriad reasons Blue can't just "scale up quickly" in any meaningful way from NS to New Glenn, hence why it's going to take them 8+ years between the first NS and first NG launches. Being realistic about this is not cynical and negative.
that's a good point, i think orbit was the minimum planned for Falcon1. I don't believe SpaceX every just went to the karman line and back. I think all of their flights have been either crashes or fully orbital.
> Think all of their flights have been either crashes or fully orbital.
Certainly applies to the operational launches of all their rocket vehicles, however they've also done suborbital test flights with with Grasshopper, F9R, Starhopper, Starship (and maybe Super Heavy soon as well depending on if they do a sub-orbital with that first).
The important difference is that SpaceX has never considered the Karman line as a target in its own right (somewhat rightly, its only value is for "whelming" space tourism).
Certainly applies to the operational launches of all their rocket vehicles, however they've also done suborbital test flights with with Grasshopper, F9R, Starhopper, Starship (and maybe Super Heavy soon as well depending on if they do a sub-orbital with that first).
The important difference is that SpaceX has never considered the Karman line as a target in its own right (somewhat rightly, its only value is for "whelming" space tourism).
“Scale up”, a software term that has almost zero value when translated to aerospace engineering.
Will see how Elon's 100 of Starships per year will affect costs of transport to space.
I suspect that as they scale up their costs will increase due to logistics and maintenance costs not necessarily scaling linearly with launches. Furthermore, I suspect that the failure rate will also increase as the launch frequency goes up and hence costs associated with launch failures also increase.
> I suspect that the failure rate will also increase as the launch frequency goes up
So you're saying that after say the initial 100 launches
Launch 100-199 would have 5 failures
Launch 200-299 would have 7 failures
Launch 300-399 would have 10 failures
Why?
Generally doing more of something reduces the cost per something. Why do you think the inverse will hold with spacex?
So you're saying that after say the initial 100 launches
Launch 100-199 would have 5 failures
Launch 200-299 would have 7 failures
Launch 300-399 would have 10 failures
Why?
Generally doing more of something reduces the cost per something. Why do you think the inverse will hold with spacex?
"Scale up" is fine once you have a working design and can just pup out copies of that design by the dozen with mass production - what SpaceX is doing with Raptors (and did with Merlins) for example.
You need the demand to make that worthwhile though.
You need the demand to make that worthwhile though.
[deleted]
The US was behind the USSR at the beginning of the last space race. Jeff Bezos is an extremely smart and talented guy, and is now focusing a lot more of his time on Blue Origin. I wouldn't count them out.
Blue Origin technically started before SpaceX and has an increasing delta in accomplishments... They're easily a decade plus behind and SpaceX doesn't seem to be slowing down.
Bezos is smart and talented... but it's hard to overcome a lead like that.
Bezos is smart and talented... but it's hard to overcome a lead like that.
And the US was behind Russia at the end of the last space race, as Americans had to take Russian rockets to even get to orbit
Bezos is a businessman, rockets require engineering.
Sure, he studied electrical engineering in the 80s, but I don't think that's going to help Blue Origin catch up with it's main competitor.
Sure, he studied electrical engineering in the 80s, but I don't think that's going to help Blue Origin catch up with it's main competitor.
Bezos can hire engineers to work for him. Amazon requires lots of engineers and that works fine.
Bezos’s big contributions will be leadership, creating efficient processes, etc. He’s good at those things. You don’t need to be able to build the product to run a company.
Bezos’s big contributions will be leadership, creating efficient processes, etc. He’s good at those things. You don’t need to be able to build the product to run a company.
[deleted]
This tweet summed it up well:
https://twitter.com/Charly923407591/status/14162863209561210...
https://twitter.com/Charly923407591/status/14162863209561210...
This is what "trickle down" technology looks like. We are watching space flight move a rung down the economic ladder.
Nation states -> wealthy bigco -> billionare's pet project -> ????? -> normal people
(some steps omitted for brevity)
Nation states -> wealthy bigco -> billionare's pet project -> ????? -> normal people
(some steps omitted for brevity)
But what’s the actual purpose? Space tourism I get. But beyond that I’m struggling to see the uses of normal people having access to space travel. By comparison people having access to air travel has clear benefits.
Our planet will only last so long until the Sun becomes a Red Giant. At that point we will need to venture to at least the outer planets, if not beyond the solar system if we want to continue as a species.
Even in smaller time frames, I read somewhere that one of Bezos' plans is to move manufacturing into space.
And if/when we do get colonies on other planets and moons, some people would want to live there.
Even in smaller time frames, I read somewhere that one of Bezos' plans is to move manufacturing into space.
And if/when we do get colonies on other planets and moons, some people would want to live there.
> Our planet will only last so long until the Sun becomes a Red Giant.
In, what, five billion years? I’m not sure we need Bezos to be focusing all his money on that timeframe.
In, what, five billion years? I’m not sure we need Bezos to be focusing all his money on that timeframe.
We have no time to waste on climate change and corona virus.
Engineering and industry. Even small companies will be able to do innovation using microgravity, no gravity.
I am also sure that you could do cool sports events on the moon or a big space station.
I am also sure that you could do cool sports events on the moon or a big space station.
Not sure if you're being facetious. If so, I'll point out that it didn't take long to get from the Wright Brothers to regular civilian jet passenger flights, and it won't take long to get from Musk and Bezos to regular civilian space flights.
The wealthy early adopters provide the capital to refine and scale up the industry to make it practical and affordable for less wealthy late adopters.
The wealthy early adopters provide the capital to refine and scale up the industry to make it practical and affordable for less wealthy late adopters.
Nation states -> wealthy bigco -> billionare's pet project -> hobbyist (e.g. Copenhagen Suborbitals) -> normal people.
Nation state R&D -> billionare's pet-project PoC -> wealthy bigco Commercialisation effort -> Commercial service (for wealthy/business) -> Commercial service (for normal public) -> hobbyists & higher education
when Copenhagen Suborbitals does this i'll cheer (and theiy're getting close). Bezos and his resources should be able to do better.
I don't see a race. I see one company that does space travel and two dilettantes, who may or may not one day actually do something useful.
There is a race, but the competitors are China and SpaceX.
You're seeing the very first steps of a long race.
That's right. Up until we have 100,000 people living in space we are just winging it.
Winner of the race will be the dominant company in said community of 100,000 or the most socially influential person.
Bezos, Musk and Branson won't be alive to see that, so they are shooting for George Washington type influence, the one reserved for the founder, the guy who was at the beginning of it all and gets remembered .
Winner of the race will be the dominant company in said community of 100,000 or the most socially influential person.
Bezos, Musk and Branson won't be alive to see that, so they are shooting for George Washington type influence, the one reserved for the founder, the guy who was at the beginning of it all and gets remembered .
Blue Origin is the closest to actually developing useful orbital and beyond-orbital capabilities. They have their own new engine design that's not quite as impressive as Raptor but not bad and their own super-heavy lift booster in development. The thing you just saw fly is similar to "Starhopper."
Virgin Galactic is an expensive carnival ride and has nothing close to orbital capability.
For those that don't know: getting to orbit (let alone beyond) requires way more delta-V (energy) than getting past the Karman line. The German V-2 is (I think) the first vehicle to do that, but it was nowhere even near orbit capable. The first photo from space was done by the USA with a captured and modified V-2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-2_No._13
Virgin Galactic is an expensive carnival ride and has nothing close to orbital capability.
For those that don't know: getting to orbit (let alone beyond) requires way more delta-V (energy) than getting past the Karman line. The German V-2 is (I think) the first vehicle to do that, but it was nowhere even near orbit capable. The first photo from space was done by the USA with a captured and modified V-2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-2_No._13
> The thing you just saw fly is similar to "Starhopper."
I think you mean "Grasshopper" (the Falcon 9 VTOL test mule from a few years back). New Shepard is less than half the size of Starhopper, and the BE-3 engine has ~25% of the thrust of the Raptor engine.
I think you mean "Grasshopper" (the Falcon 9 VTOL test mule from a few years back). New Shepard is less than half the size of Starhopper, and the BE-3 engine has ~25% of the thrust of the Raptor engine.
Virgin galactic does go to orbit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Orbit
They launched satellites earlier this year.
The space tourism thing is just a part of what the company does.
They launched satellites earlier this year.
The space tourism thing is just a part of what the company does.
Virgin Galactic doesn't go to orbit, Virgin Orbit does.
Wow... I didn't even know about that. I stand corrected.
SpaceX is still way ahead though.
SpaceX is still way ahead though.
"Ahead" implies the same end goal... Neither Virgin Galactic (the suborbital space tourism company) or Virgin Orbit (the orbital small-sat launch company) have the same end goal as SpaceX.
That's like saying Lockheed Martin (maker of the F-35) is "way ahead" of Textron (maker of the Cessna). They have different goals entirely.
That's like saying Lockheed Martin (maker of the F-35) is "way ahead" of Textron (maker of the Cessna). They have different goals entirely.
The question every time space exploration comes up is whether the money and effort is better spent in space or on more terrestrial problems.
With government-sponsored exploration, you at least ended up with public research and development that resulted in spinoffs that are useful on land. With a private space race, technologies like these seem more likely to remain a trade secret.
Also, when it comes to 'hard problems', physics is pretty predictable. Humanity has all kinds of social problems, which I'd argue are harder than these tech problems. For example, we'd have the capacity to eliminate hunger if it wasn't for the pesky problem of inequality, and billionaires aren't exactly lining up to help out with that.
With government-sponsored exploration, you at least ended up with public research and development that resulted in spinoffs that are useful on land. With a private space race, technologies like these seem more likely to remain a trade secret.
Also, when it comes to 'hard problems', physics is pretty predictable. Humanity has all kinds of social problems, which I'd argue are harder than these tech problems. For example, we'd have the capacity to eliminate hunger if it wasn't for the pesky problem of inequality, and billionaires aren't exactly lining up to help out with that.
>For example, we'd have the capacity to eliminate hunger if it wasn't for the pesky problem of inequality, and billionaires aren't exactly lining up to help out with that.
Hunger is basically a non-issue in all developed nations. See all the gray and purple nations on this map. In the US, for example, deaths from malnutrition are ~,1% of all deaths annually. Any money the billionaires might put into it would be better spent on traffic safety, reducing cardiovascular diseases, or researching cancer, and those are all by several orders of magnitude. https://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/malnutrit...
Also, aid sent to the countries that do have hunger problems (like much of sub-Saharan Africa) has simply crashed their agricultural economy, making the issue even worse. Local farmers can't really compete with free, after all.
Hunger is basically a non-issue in all developed nations. See all the gray and purple nations on this map. In the US, for example, deaths from malnutrition are ~,1% of all deaths annually. Any money the billionaires might put into it would be better spent on traffic safety, reducing cardiovascular diseases, or researching cancer, and those are all by several orders of magnitude. https://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/malnutrit...
Also, aid sent to the countries that do have hunger problems (like much of sub-Saharan Africa) has simply crashed their agricultural economy, making the issue even worse. Local farmers can't really compete with free, after all.
So to paraphrase: doesn’t matter for developed nations, we don’t have an answer for undeveloped ones.
…doesn’t that suggest it would be worth a billionaire trying to find an answer for the latter? A way to help local farmers feed their population? It seems like an interesting problem space to me. Certainly more interesting than replicating space flights NASA already did decades ago.
…doesn’t that suggest it would be worth a billionaire trying to find an answer for the latter? A way to help local farmers feed their population? It seems like an interesting problem space to me. Certainly more interesting than replicating space flights NASA already did decades ago.
SpaceX at least is not just replicating NASA feats.
> With government-sponsored exploration, you at least ended up with public research
And you (the public) pay for it. With the Musk's of the world paying, the gov has more money for social causes.
If the public can't consistently support these kind of projects without constantly threatening their budgets, maybe they are better in the hands of private benefactors that value them.
> it wasn't for the pesky problem of inequality, and billionaires aren't exactly lining up to help out with that
How can they help? There's enough money to eliminate hunger and keep billionaires. Hunger isn't just about who has money, it's about who could have money and maintain it.
And you (the public) pay for it. With the Musk's of the world paying, the gov has more money for social causes.
If the public can't consistently support these kind of projects without constantly threatening their budgets, maybe they are better in the hands of private benefactors that value them.
> it wasn't for the pesky problem of inequality, and billionaires aren't exactly lining up to help out with that
How can they help? There's enough money to eliminate hunger and keep billionaires. Hunger isn't just about who has money, it's about who could have money and maintain it.
[deleted]
>>With a private space race, technologies like these seem more likely to remain a trade secret.
Much of what is developed is in the public domain. Patents and trade secrets only go so far. You can't patent or keep secret the concepts that these trials prove out.
The satellite of industries that develops to support space flight is also not affected by whether the fights they're supporting are private vs government, and neither are the skills developed by the engineers working these projects.
Private also has one distinct advantage: it can be self-sustaining, in being managed by an owner with a strong stake in the venture as a business unit.
Much of what is developed is in the public domain. Patents and trade secrets only go so far. You can't patent or keep secret the concepts that these trials prove out.
The satellite of industries that develops to support space flight is also not affected by whether the fights they're supporting are private vs government, and neither are the skills developed by the engineers working these projects.
Private also has one distinct advantage: it can be self-sustaining, in being managed by an owner with a strong stake in the venture as a business unit.
> Patents and trade secrets only go so far. You can't patent or keep secret the concepts that these trials prove out.
I'd argue this is, if we're talking about practicality, is just crumbs though.
For example, scratch-resistant lenses were developed at NASA. Proving that it could be done wasn't the important factor that brought it to everyone's homes. What brought it to everyone's homes was the fact that NASA licensed
As another example, single-crystal silicon solar cells were first developed after NASA sponsored a 28-member coalition to develop an unmanned, high altitude aircraft. Private companies don't create coalitions like this and are much less likely to license or waive patents.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spinoff_technologies#Scra...
I'd argue this is, if we're talking about practicality, is just crumbs though.
For example, scratch-resistant lenses were developed at NASA. Proving that it could be done wasn't the important factor that brought it to everyone's homes. What brought it to everyone's homes was the fact that NASA licensed
As another example, single-crystal silicon solar cells were first developed after NASA sponsored a 28-member coalition to develop an unmanned, high altitude aircraft. Private companies don't create coalitions like this and are much less likely to license or waive patents.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spinoff_technologies#Scra...
Proving it can be done is important in its own right: it invites competition.
And proving it can be done is aside from proving how it can be done. Once the general principle is proven out, competitors find ways to apply it that avoid infringing on the patent. The process of discovering the how involves expensive trial and error, that a large private sector can greatly accelerate.
I agree that publicly funded technology initiatives have their own strengths, but private technology provide far more than crumbs. Much of an industry's development is in the form of mundane, that is too unremarkable to be patented or held in secret, and for that, it makes no difference what the source of the funding is.
And proving it can be done is aside from proving how it can be done. Once the general principle is proven out, competitors find ways to apply it that avoid infringing on the patent. The process of discovering the how involves expensive trial and error, that a large private sector can greatly accelerate.
I agree that publicly funded technology initiatives have their own strengths, but private technology provide far more than crumbs. Much of an industry's development is in the form of mundane, that is too unremarkable to be patented or held in secret, and for that, it makes no difference what the source of the funding is.
I don't think Blue Origin is currently in the same league as SpaceX. One is making money putting payloads in orbit, actively disrupting the industry and developing new hardware. They other has a sub orbital rocket that is only good for joy rides and otherwise is a lot of talk and little results. Rocket Lab is a more substantial player in the space industry right now than Blue Origin is. Maybe some day they will get off their ass and actually do something noteworthy.
Space tourism will be noteworthy insofar as it will normalize more and more of the public to space travel, which in turn normalize the acceptance of the expenditure required.
Consider if "space tourism" ends up having no product market fit. There is no data currently that it is a viable business. Sure, there are a bunch of pre-orders, and owners of companies now making maiden voyages, but that's it.
A couple vaporized high profile customers will have a massive chilling effect on the industry.
I think Musk's "we are going to Mars, people will die" is the most sober/realistic take. This messaging will do a much better job eliciting a customer base that understands the product and that will lead to sustainable industry someday.
A couple vaporized high profile customers will have a massive chilling effect on the industry.
I think Musk's "we are going to Mars, people will die" is the most sober/realistic take. This messaging will do a much better job eliciting a customer base that understands the product and that will lead to sustainable industry someday.
I hear those complaints, but aside from a snarky "then spend your own money on <whatever> then", they fail mention:
- anyone can spend money on things, if enough sub-billionaires spend money on something the same amount can be raised - there's no reason a billionaire needs to do it. On the other hand, large focused projects like this are arguably harder to crowdfund from a management perspective.
- The governments is richer than Musk. Taxation brings in more money, and is a much fairer way to contribute to these problems.
- the government is more empowered to deal with social issues. There are some things a private corp/citizen cannot do, at least without government approval anyway. The issues being tackled here are mainly engineering, that is "free" to solve. The items that they would "better" to fix are highly political, with a heavy side of "damned if you do, damned if you don't".
- throwing money at something can make it worse. A pipedream has no metrics that could prove this, so they can always be optimistic. When a "clothe the poor" drive kills local tailoring businesses, for example.
- Billionaires pay taxes, usually more than most (generally, though they have more leverage to bargain for lower taxes. unfair? sure, but that's global free trade gets you). What remains is income - why should they fix the problems government could, but won't?
- A major component of this is envy/belittling effort (Musk looks too happy in PR pics, so he's "playing around") or belittling the goal (spaceflight is useless) - i.e. grievance from the ignorant. There are a bajillion "useless" pastimes and occupations relative to some rando's pet social cause, yet billionaires are easy individual targets when everyone is equally to blame - at least Musk probably works hard.
- anyone can spend money on things, if enough sub-billionaires spend money on something the same amount can be raised - there's no reason a billionaire needs to do it. On the other hand, large focused projects like this are arguably harder to crowdfund from a management perspective.
- The governments is richer than Musk. Taxation brings in more money, and is a much fairer way to contribute to these problems.
- the government is more empowered to deal with social issues. There are some things a private corp/citizen cannot do, at least without government approval anyway. The issues being tackled here are mainly engineering, that is "free" to solve. The items that they would "better" to fix are highly political, with a heavy side of "damned if you do, damned if you don't".
- throwing money at something can make it worse. A pipedream has no metrics that could prove this, so they can always be optimistic. When a "clothe the poor" drive kills local tailoring businesses, for example.
- Billionaires pay taxes, usually more than most (generally, though they have more leverage to bargain for lower taxes. unfair? sure, but that's global free trade gets you). What remains is income - why should they fix the problems government could, but won't?
- A major component of this is envy/belittling effort (Musk looks too happy in PR pics, so he's "playing around") or belittling the goal (spaceflight is useless) - i.e. grievance from the ignorant. There are a bajillion "useless" pastimes and occupations relative to some rando's pet social cause, yet billionaires are easy individual targets when everyone is equally to blame - at least Musk probably works hard.
It's not really about the individual billionaires, that's missing the forest for the trees. That individuals can afford glamor rides to the edge of space in personal rockets is merely a symptom of gross inequality that has many more downsides than upsides.
Life expectancy is dropping, climate change is accelerating and while we can't solely blame any individual billionaire, they have as a group profited astronomically [:)] from the collapse of our institutions and middle classes, and from the wholesale destruction of livelihoods during the pandemic.
The government is more corrupt, more attuned to the needs of the rich than ever, so you don't need to wonder why the government has failed to attend to the needs of the majority. The same class of people currently culminating in rockets launches toward space have been directing the flows of tax dollars for decades.
Life expectancy is dropping, climate change is accelerating and while we can't solely blame any individual billionaire, they have as a group profited astronomically [:)] from the collapse of our institutions and middle classes, and from the wholesale destruction of livelihoods during the pandemic.
The government is more corrupt, more attuned to the needs of the rich than ever, so you don't need to wonder why the government has failed to attend to the needs of the majority. The same class of people currently culminating in rockets launches toward space have been directing the flows of tax dollars for decades.
> from the collapse of our institutions and middle classes, and from the wholesale destruction of livelihoods during the pandemic
How are billionaires on the hook for these things?
How are billionaires on the hook for these things?
I believe Bezos has been obsessed with space since before he even started Amazon. Apparently he even talked about this dream during his high school graduation.
I always thought that Amazon was just the way to make his space dream possible.
I always thought that Amazon was just the way to make his space dream possible.
Bill Gates is chasing harder and harder problems, not these guys.
Gates is doing great work, no doubt.
But are they "hard" problems to solve? Most of the projects Gates takes on have already been solved in the developed world. He's primarily trying to distribute those successes to the developing world.
In any case, we can have both: rich people building the tech of tomorrow, and rich people trying to apply existing tech to the underserved. Both are good; both have utility.
But are they "hard" problems to solve? Most of the projects Gates takes on have already been solved in the developed world. He's primarily trying to distribute those successes to the developing world.
In any case, we can have both: rich people building the tech of tomorrow, and rich people trying to apply existing tech to the underserved. Both are good; both have utility.
I'd say climate change would be the real hard problem, considering we've already been to the moon.
Jeff Bezos' company has contributed significantly to the problem, I get his plan is to manufacture things in space, but who is that really designed to benefit.
The real hard thing to do would be to invest his personal billions into the issue, today.
Jeff Bezos' company has contributed significantly to the problem, I get his plan is to manufacture things in space, but who is that really designed to benefit.
The real hard thing to do would be to invest his personal billions into the issue, today.
[deleted]
The Space Race is still happening, but it's happening on other planets and with government money (see: Mars and further afield exploration). All these initiatives have been possible by the heavy lifting of NASA and other international government agencies over the last 6 decades.
Theses newcomers have drawn in attention and effort and are trying to reframe space as a business being funded by revenue - which has trade offs but in general is a positive development. The really challenging work without the glamor is still being down by the scientists and research agencies with the government. I do tip my hats to the accomplishments of all three of the new comer organizations. I just dispute that the narrative that they are driving the future. I think they are complementary.
To be clear - they don't have enough money to "solve" space exploration - it takes deeper capital than they have - though they are bringing a new business model to potentially stretch their capital deployments.
Theses newcomers have drawn in attention and effort and are trying to reframe space as a business being funded by revenue - which has trade offs but in general is a positive development. The really challenging work without the glamor is still being down by the scientists and research agencies with the government. I do tip my hats to the accomplishments of all three of the new comer organizations. I just dispute that the narrative that they are driving the future. I think they are complementary.
To be clear - they don't have enough money to "solve" space exploration - it takes deeper capital than they have - though they are bringing a new business model to potentially stretch their capital deployments.
In my opinion, they are still doing incredible work. SpaceX and Blue Origin can both bring their rockets down - no government space agency can do this today (and govt space agencies had a 60 year lead)
Privatization helps because NASA cannot afford failures today, but private companies can. And since space is a new and risky frontier, failures will happen. That's why I believe that privatization is a good thing overall
Privatization helps because NASA cannot afford failures today, but private companies can. And since space is a new and risky frontier, failures will happen. That's why I believe that privatization is a good thing overall
NASA could have done this long ago. And had test project that proved as much. Suborbital human flight is just not very interesting for anything other then tourism.
I agree privatization is a benefit - i believe that was my final statement in that they are complementary. I think that the bulk work is still done by public agencies, however the privatization part capitalizes from a revenue perspective on the work done by the public agencies.
It's not dissimilar to how most energy technology makes its way to the private companies. DOE research labs do most of the work with college collaboration and then it gets released through private equity into the public domain.
It's not dissimilar to how most energy technology makes its way to the private companies. DOE research labs do most of the work with college collaboration and then it gets released through private equity into the public domain.
> Some will surely say that they have better things to spend their money on
Hasn't Branson essentially cashed out of Virgin Galactic for a huge payday? Even his flight was just a stunt to sell 500 million in stock.
Hasn't Branson essentially cashed out of Virgin Galactic for a huge payday? Even his flight was just a stunt to sell 500 million in stock.
I can't help but thinking we've entered another Gilded Age.
drcongo(2)
"Space exploration" is lending way, way too much credence to this.
These two flights were ~60mi altitude. The ISS, for reference, is at 250mi. We've launched people there more than a hundred times, never mind having to put it there in the first place. The moon, which we landed and recovered people from in 1969, is 240,000mi away.
This is a hobby project, which is totally fine in that it's their money to spend, and it's kind of neat that we can generate enough wealth that private individuals could even imagine doing this, but let's not dress it up as more than that.
Edit: Musk/SpaceX is definitely in a different category. That actually seems to be shooting for space exploration, which is pretty neat, though I still think there are earthly priorities that we'd see much higher ROI from.
These two flights were ~60mi altitude. The ISS, for reference, is at 250mi. We've launched people there more than a hundred times, never mind having to put it there in the first place. The moon, which we landed and recovered people from in 1969, is 240,000mi away.
This is a hobby project, which is totally fine in that it's their money to spend, and it's kind of neat that we can generate enough wealth that private individuals could even imagine doing this, but let's not dress it up as more than that.
Edit: Musk/SpaceX is definitely in a different category. That actually seems to be shooting for space exploration, which is pretty neat, though I still think there are earthly priorities that we'd see much higher ROI from.
> it's their money to spend
Not everyone agrees.
Not everyone agrees.
Sure. I myself am not entirely bought into this position, but it is in fact the position of "our society." Figure we have to start by not calling these people explorers before making our way to questioning whether such extreme accumulation of wealth is optimal in the first place.
> questioning whether such extreme accumulation of wealth is optimal in the first place
But why is it anyone's choice? People are already taxed disproportionately, why can't Musk spend his money, or the money people invest in him?
The US is free to outlaw large accumulations of wealth, it would just lose a lot of people in the process (assuming emigration wasn't also outlawed).
People in the US are, equally, free to move to places with fairer tax laws.
But why is it anyone's choice? People are already taxed disproportionately, why can't Musk spend his money, or the money people invest in him?
The US is free to outlaw large accumulations of wealth, it would just lose a lot of people in the process (assuming emigration wasn't also outlawed).
People in the US are, equally, free to move to places with fairer tax laws.
Can you expand on this? I've never looked into who is financing this project. I've always assumed it was just Bezos' own money he was using.
Bezos sells ~$1B of his Amazon stock per year to finance it.
Not everyone agrees the earth is round but we don't take their opinions seriously
Link to the direct feed: https://youtu.be/watch?v=tMHhXzpwupU
(Posted by many others, but this is what made the front page)
Update 1: Successful booster touchdown (admittedly, they probably had a lot larger fuel budget than orbital launches)
Update 2: Successful touchdown of capsule
Congrats to Blue Origin for success in tossing people through space!
(Posted by many others, but this is what made the front page)
Update 1: Successful booster touchdown (admittedly, they probably had a lot larger fuel budget than orbital launches)
Update 2: Successful touchdown of capsule
Congrats to Blue Origin for success in tossing people through space!
Not directly relevant: what's annoying are the fake live streams. Then there are blatant crypto scams on top lol ugh.
Youtube's homepage reminds me of the television broadcasts in Idiocracy. Just another fulfilled prophecy.
You know what's annoying is they barely show you content that you subscribe to. I find the "recently uploaded" filter is more helpful in terms of finding something interesting to watch.
That's not what they want the front page to be, it's the stuff you might like page. They have an actual page for your subscriptions if that's what you want to see.. I was always confuse in the beginning about all the creators and viewers saying they weren't seeing uploads till I realized people just weren't using the subscription tab.
Oh... TIL wow man I've been on YT for years
Sometimes it feels like there may have been something missing from the Subscriptions page too but I'm never sure if I just didn't see it because I'm subscribed a lot of places, but during the height of videos about "YouTube hiding my videos from you my subscribers" I wasn't missing any (that I noticed at least I suppose).
I would have expected an ambulance to be at the landing/crash site just in case, for the moment I can only see pickup trucks.
There are certainly rescue vehicles staged nearby. The potential landing area is actually pretty large (since it's coming down under parachutes and will be pushed by the wind), so it wouldn't be possible to preposition them exactly where the capsule is going to land. The rescue vehicles would have been rolled if they were needed.
Obviously everybody (Branson/Bezos) is entitled to spend their cash in whatever way they want. But, if they are making a spectacle of it, publicise it and promote it like some big achievement, then those people should be prepared to take some criticism. And in my opinion, I see the last two launches as indeed amusement rides for billionaires and a strong argument for better taxation policies. In contrary, what Musk does with SpaceX ( and I'm not a fan of Musk as a person), can be classified as technological development as he actually sends satellites, deliveries to ISS.
> I see the last two launches as indeed amusement rides for billionaires
I see this take a lot, and I strongly disagree.
These launches are marketing events for their space tourism businesses! The billionaire CEOs go up to prove they personally trust the tech is safe. If they won't go, who else would?
Now they can start selling trips to paying customers, and hopefully build genuinely sustainable space tourism businesses. The fairly minimal experience of these short jumps will be improved gradually, and that future is impossible to predict, as it is completely novel territory.
I see this take a lot, and I strongly disagree.
These launches are marketing events for their space tourism businesses! The billionaire CEOs go up to prove they personally trust the tech is safe. If they won't go, who else would?
Now they can start selling trips to paying customers, and hopefully build genuinely sustainable space tourism businesses. The fairly minimal experience of these short jumps will be improved gradually, and that future is impossible to predict, as it is completely novel territory.
> These launches are marketing events for their space tourism businesses!
Okay, so these launches aren't amusement rides for billionaires, they are marketing stunts to advertise amusement rides for other billionaires? Hard to see the difference tbh
Okay, so these launches aren't amusement rides for billionaires, they are marketing stunts to advertise amusement rides for other billionaires? Hard to see the difference tbh
These rides are being sold for a few hundred thousand dollars. Before New Shepard and SpaceShipTwo, the only private tourists to space paid tens of millions. That is a huge decrease in price! Now any millionaire can afford it, and it is just within reach of an upper middle class person willing to save for a significant part of their life. Some people couldn't care less about this, but others have dreamed of flying into space ever since Yuri Gagarin, and it is finally a reality.
And like all things, the price will go down. Not as fast as I'd like for these specific crafts, but they seemed like a good target at the time their development began.
And like all things, the price will go down. Not as fast as I'd like for these specific crafts, but they seemed like a good target at the time their development began.
s/billionaires/millionaires isn't a very compelling argument in my opinion. It's still a huge waste all so some rich people can float in zero-g for a few minutes so making it accessable to a few million people instead of a few thousand doesn't seem like a win to me.
Is there anything billionaires can spend money on that doesn't seem like waste from your perspective?
Easy, paying their workers more
No need to be snide. Prices will drop hundreds of thousands of dollars in just a few years, well within the means of many millionaires.
Democratization of space FTW!
Democratization of space FTW!
Poe's law is strong in this one
Most billionaires build mansions and buy islands and offshore their money. Bezos and Branson are doing R&D. Bill Gates does philanthropy. There's a spectrum of wastefulness, and I wholeheartedly applaud billionaires doing R&D that our governments seem to have lost interest in.
> Obviously everybody (Branson/Bezos) is entitled to spend their cash in whatever way they want.
straight up, no. they're using your tax dollars because they aren't taxed
straight up, no. they're using your tax dollars because they aren't taxed
> And in my opinion, I see the last two launches as indeed amusement rides for billionaires and a strong argument for better taxation policies.
How would different taxation policies prevent Bezos from spending a very modest share of his wealth on what he wants to do? He has $204 billion. What he has done with Blue Origin can be replicated for 1-3% of that.
Is the plan to take 99% of the Bezos fortune through government confiscation and forced sales of Amazon stock? I ask because only a small number of nations have ever behaved with that level of brutality toward private wealth, all were - without exception - totalitarian genocide machines with zero human rights. How about we not keep repeating the mistakes of the past.
Even Scandinavia - the region that arguably created the highest standard of living in world history - would never dare to behave that way toward private wealth (Scandinavia is overflowing with billionaires and adores private wealth). Nor would Germany or France.
What's the premise then, no fun if you're rich? Which board of comrades is going to be responsible for dictating who gets to do what? Are we abolishing the bourgeois, 20th century style? I think I've read this story before. There's only one way to prevent someone like Bezos from doing Blue Origin, only one approach politically that can be utilized to accomplish that (skeptics will argue there are utopian approaches to mass property confiscation that are humane; there aren't, once you uncork that genie, extreme violence and genocide always follow).
So if you've got $N wealth, you're not allowed to own a boat. If you've got over $1 million you're not allowed to fly in a plane for fun or convenience, nor may you experiment with creating new types of planes.
Perhaps if you've got over $250,000 you may not experiment with new types of technology period. That includes software and hardware. No fun for you. I say so. I have decided to draw the line there and my Socialist board of comrades will enforce it. I have no interest in only restricting the fun Bezos is allowed to have, it should be taken to its logical conclusion, so everybody gets to enjoy how the system will really work in the end.
How would different taxation policies prevent Bezos from spending a very modest share of his wealth on what he wants to do? He has $204 billion. What he has done with Blue Origin can be replicated for 1-3% of that.
Is the plan to take 99% of the Bezos fortune through government confiscation and forced sales of Amazon stock? I ask because only a small number of nations have ever behaved with that level of brutality toward private wealth, all were - without exception - totalitarian genocide machines with zero human rights. How about we not keep repeating the mistakes of the past.
Even Scandinavia - the region that arguably created the highest standard of living in world history - would never dare to behave that way toward private wealth (Scandinavia is overflowing with billionaires and adores private wealth). Nor would Germany or France.
What's the premise then, no fun if you're rich? Which board of comrades is going to be responsible for dictating who gets to do what? Are we abolishing the bourgeois, 20th century style? I think I've read this story before. There's only one way to prevent someone like Bezos from doing Blue Origin, only one approach politically that can be utilized to accomplish that (skeptics will argue there are utopian approaches to mass property confiscation that are humane; there aren't, once you uncork that genie, extreme violence and genocide always follow).
So if you've got $N wealth, you're not allowed to own a boat. If you've got over $1 million you're not allowed to fly in a plane for fun or convenience, nor may you experiment with creating new types of planes.
Perhaps if you've got over $250,000 you may not experiment with new types of technology period. That includes software and hardware. No fun for you. I say so. I have decided to draw the line there and my Socialist board of comrades will enforce it. I have no interest in only restricting the fun Bezos is allowed to have, it should be taken to its logical conclusion, so everybody gets to enjoy how the system will really work in the end.
It's really funny how you translated "better taxation" into literally "totalitarian genocide machine" and then typed up a thoroughly straw-manned paragraph about hypothetical questions that no one is promoting or suggesting. It's completely disingenuous that you bring up all these arbitrary lines in the sand about wealth when no one is suggesting that obviously ridiculous approach.
We can tax billionaires so that they pay their fair share for the public resources they use without it going full gulag.
We can tax billionaires so that they pay their fair share for the public resources they use without it going full gulag.
Incredible achievement.
I had to catch myself as, at first, I was thinking “10 minutes? That’s it? And in space for a lot less than that?”. Quickly reminded myself that in the history of the world hardly anyone has gone where they have gone - 10 minutes isn’t much, but if I could I would.
I had to catch myself as, at first, I was thinking “10 minutes? That’s it? And in space for a lot less than that?”. Quickly reminded myself that in the history of the world hardly anyone has gone where they have gone - 10 minutes isn’t much, but if I could I would.
I agree - it's incredible. First flight of Wright Brothers lasted about 8 seconds. For initial flights, I would not consider time spent in space as the most important metric.
>Incredible achievement
Is it though? I don't see how.
Is it though? I don't see how.
When I was growing up the only people who had a chance to go where these four people went were trained for years by a nation-state. It was incredibly dangerous and it was only those who the government approved who might make the trip.
I just saw four pretty regular people - including one I believe subbed in at the last minute - take a trip and it cost a fraction of what it used to. The high price tag means it’s still nowhere near accessible to most people as flying in a plane or taking a train, but it’s a lot more accessible than it was when I was a kid, and by the time my kids are adults it is likely to be more than just a pipe dream.
I still remember what it was like to catch a plane for the first time and how I would count the number of trips I would take on a plane because it was just so outside my normal experience. Maybe one of my kids will have a chance to feel the same way about flying to space.
I just saw four pretty regular people - including one I believe subbed in at the last minute - take a trip and it cost a fraction of what it used to. The high price tag means it’s still nowhere near accessible to most people as flying in a plane or taking a train, but it’s a lot more accessible than it was when I was a kid, and by the time my kids are adults it is likely to be more than just a pipe dream.
I still remember what it was like to catch a plane for the first time and how I would count the number of trips I would take on a plane because it was just so outside my normal experience. Maybe one of my kids will have a chance to feel the same way about flying to space.
But there has been space tourism since the 00's. For the right amount of money anyone could ride a Soyuz rocket.
Made by a Space Race government. Now it’s in the reach of individuals. I’m a space universalist. I’m cheering for all the teams here.
Those trips cost tens of millons of dollars. These cost hundreds of thousands. That makes it available to many more people that could afford it before, and hints at the potential for continuing price decreases in the future.
Comments in this thread complaining that the rich get to do whatever they want are forgetting that the wright brothers (and others) enabled flight for all of us even though most people during that time could only dream about it. It might not happen for you and I, but let's think about the bigger picture.
I want to be excited but I keep coming back to confusion over what the actual purpose of this will be. Flight has very clear benefits: getting you from A to B way faster than was ever possible before. With space flight there is no B to go to. You go up, you come down.
If these companies were making breakthroughs in making space long term habitable I’d be excited. But I’m yet to see that.
If these companies were making breakthroughs in making space long term habitable I’d be excited. But I’m yet to see that.
I see these launches as early stepping stones to really profitable space industries. Asteroid mining, space manufacturing (like Varda: https://varda.com/), space hotels. You have to walk before you can run.
Actually, point to point travel on earth is something virgin galactic is targeting. If you can go to the edge of space you can travel at ludicrous speeds.
> With space flight there is no B to go to.
That not the case. Suborbital space flight of the model BO or Virgin do is, but that simply not generally true.
That not the case. Suborbital space flight of the model BO or Virgin do is, but that simply not generally true.
Firstly, I'm against corporate welfare and I don't care how people spend their money. But, damn... the people who ushered powered flight into the realm of possibility? That is a ridiculous analogy.
SpaceX, Blue Origin, and Virgin Galactic are incorporating scientific advancements and modern engineering into an industry that has been making orbital flights for over 50 years. We are not going from horses to cars... We are going from a 1920 Cadillac to a 2021 Toyota. Maybe it's a childhood dream and they have lofty goals to guide humanity into space... or it's a lucrative long-term investment... or a little of both. But, the technology has been there, we've had an active presence in space, and the modern space race will not provide us a huge leap in technology like we saw from the cold war. [1]
Space tourism isn't going to move society forward. The "big picture" benefit of space tourism is reducing the cost of payloads which will continue to drop for NASA and telecommunication demand anyway. Space tourism will not substantially improve the quality of life for humanity, it will not provide breakthrough technology (outside of things like human life support systems), and it will not significantly enrich our collective culture. The median quality of life will not benefit from space activities until they bring us some cheap platinum and other precious materials.
Sorry to be a Debbie Downer... I just hate the romanization of this whole thing.
[1] https://d2pn8kiwq2w21t.cloudfront.net/original_images/infogr...
SpaceX, Blue Origin, and Virgin Galactic are incorporating scientific advancements and modern engineering into an industry that has been making orbital flights for over 50 years. We are not going from horses to cars... We are going from a 1920 Cadillac to a 2021 Toyota. Maybe it's a childhood dream and they have lofty goals to guide humanity into space... or it's a lucrative long-term investment... or a little of both. But, the technology has been there, we've had an active presence in space, and the modern space race will not provide us a huge leap in technology like we saw from the cold war. [1]
Space tourism isn't going to move society forward. The "big picture" benefit of space tourism is reducing the cost of payloads which will continue to drop for NASA and telecommunication demand anyway. Space tourism will not substantially improve the quality of life for humanity, it will not provide breakthrough technology (outside of things like human life support systems), and it will not significantly enrich our collective culture. The median quality of life will not benefit from space activities until they bring us some cheap platinum and other precious materials.
Sorry to be a Debbie Downer... I just hate the romanization of this whole thing.
[1] https://d2pn8kiwq2w21t.cloudfront.net/original_images/infogr...
Wright brothers were certainly not dirt poor, but they weren't barons either. They were only able to build their planes because of their experience building other mechanical things.
Let me clarify, my point is neither about their wealth or expertise. I'm simply pointing out that this could be a similar point in time for future commercial travel; focusing on their wealth is beside the point. Or it could fizzle out...
IDK Virgin Galactic seemed to be virtually dead for a decade or so until there was a chance to one up Bezos I wouldn't be surprised to see these continue to barely operate after this big push.
So it is your belief that Virgin Galactic did nothing for a decade and then made a working spacecraft in the course of a few months but you don’t find this amazing?
They didn't, I know they weren't actually doing nothing that whole time but it's been almost 3 years since SpaceShipTwo's first 'space'flight and there was very little happening. SS2 first flew way back in 2010, it's all just moving very slowly until there's a chance for a PR opportunity and I'm not so convinced it won't immediately go back to doing 1-2 test flights a year for a while again after this.
I guess I don’t get your point.
Is it that Branson should be moving faster? Taking more risks? Even after a test pilot was killed?
Why should they go faster? Because SpaceX does? Why should everyone copy SpaceX?
Should they do more frequent PR and show incremental developments/achievements? How is that any less of a PR stunt than shooting the CEO into space?
Why are we impressed by SpaceX PR (they don’t have to invest so much in coverage) but not by anything else?
Is it that Branson should be moving faster? Taking more risks? Even after a test pilot was killed?
Why should they go faster? Because SpaceX does? Why should everyone copy SpaceX?
Should they do more frequent PR and show incremental developments/achievements? How is that any less of a PR stunt than shooting the CEO into space?
Why are we impressed by SpaceX PR (they don’t have to invest so much in coverage) but not by anything else?
AmazonPacker(1)
As the owner of several western hats, I'm curious about Jeff Bezos' hat. What's the story behind it? It does not fit him well. He obviously has the money to have whatever kind of crafted, perfectly styled hat he wants. Maybe something from his family?
Having spent time supporting these sorts of live / PR events, there's a non-zero chance that this was brought in last minute by an underling.
Iirc this is in Texas so local affectation probably?
He's spent time on ranches, so probably knows how they're supposed to fit; this one's practically resting on his ears.
I'm curious if it's a hat that means something to him for some reason.
I'm curious if it's a hat that means something to him for some reason.
That sounds basically like what I'm saying: He owns a ranch and occasionally spends time there because part of the reason the rich often have these ranch properties is to cosplay part of the independent west/cowboy dream. He probably rarely wears one and basically only does so when he's on this ranch as part of the aesthetic.
What I found interesting is that the vehicle that drove them to the launchpad was a Rivian SUV. The direct competitor to the Tesla Model X.
Yup. There are layers upon layers of messaging here. This is a handful of very rich people throwing shade at each other. In the past they used paintings and architecture to send coded insults. Now they use thier toy rockets.
Amazon/Jeff Bezos are investors in Rivian. They're developing electric delivery vehicles for Amazon.
NASA uses Model X to transport astronauts to the launch tower. And Amazon invested in Rivian so Bezos wants to feature that.
They should have driven there with four Rimac Nevera, one car per astronaut. Now THAT would have sent a message.
I found it annoying, even a bit insulting, that they kept referring to the people in the capsule as "astronauts".
I could understand if they did it for Wally Funk, as she actually did the training back in the day, but the rest?
When rich people were allowed in the ISS they were called "tourists", which is befitting.
I could understand if they did it for Wally Funk, as she actually did the training back in the day, but the rest?
When rich people were allowed in the ISS they were called "tourists", which is befitting.
I find strange that line of thinking. That NASA and other space agencies use highly trained personnel like military pilots for space missions seems largely a historical accident.
In "The Right Stuff", there is discussion on this topic, initially trapeeze artists were thought to be the ideal personnel for the space program due to the high dynamic forces they routinely experience. Another opinion being considered was to use death row prisoners. Finally it was decided to use military pilots from mostly a PR point of view.
In "The Right Stuff", there is discussion on this topic, initially trapeeze artists were thought to be the ideal personnel for the space program due to the high dynamic forces they routinely experience. Another opinion being considered was to use death row prisoners. Finally it was decided to use military pilots from mostly a PR point of view.
>"Finally it was decided to use military pilots from mostly a PR point of view."
I suspect that decision making process was dramatized in The Right Stuff. Test pilots make sense for several reasons: they already understand aeronautical concepts, are used to g-forces, have experience with state of the art machines, have a high risk tolerance, and are already familiar with following orders.
I suspect that decision making process was dramatized in The Right Stuff. Test pilots make sense for several reasons: they already understand aeronautical concepts, are used to g-forces, have experience with state of the art machines, have a high risk tolerance, and are already familiar with following orders.
I'm sure it was over-dramatized in the film (which I haven't seen, I'm just assuming they prioritized compelling storytelling based on the fact that it wasn't a public television documentary), but supposedly something like that decisionmaking process actually happened. For example, see Wikipedia's synopsis of the book, which was presumably at least somewhat more factual (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Right_Stuff_(book)#Book):
The storyline also involves the political reasons for putting people into space, asserting that the Mercury astronauts were actually a burden to the program and were only sent up for promotional reasons. Reasons for including living beings in spacecraft are barely touched upon, but the first option considered was to use a chimpanzee (and, indeed, chimpanzees were sent up first).
Another option considered was using athletes already accustomed to physical stress, such as circus trapeze artists. Wolfe states that President Dwight D. Eisenhower, however, insisted on pilots, even though the first crew members would not actually fly the spacecraft.
The storyline also involves the political reasons for putting people into space, asserting that the Mercury astronauts were actually a burden to the program and were only sent up for promotional reasons. Reasons for including living beings in spacecraft are barely touched upon, but the first option considered was to use a chimpanzee (and, indeed, chimpanzees were sent up first).
Another option considered was using athletes already accustomed to physical stress, such as circus trapeze artists. Wolfe states that President Dwight D. Eisenhower, however, insisted on pilots, even though the first crew members would not actually fly the spacecraft.
> are already familiar with following orders.
Probably more than this, following protocols but having an ability to think for themselves on their feet (as opposed to a grunt following minutia orders).
Probably more than this, following protocols but having an ability to think for themselves on their feet (as opposed to a grunt following minutia orders).
Do you really think the pilots are nothing more than dead weight whose only purpose is to be a passenger? The astronauts were some of the best of the best because it was an experimental flight program. Do you really think the best pilots would sign up and give their lives just to be a test subject with no control like the chimpanzee the Russians put into space?
Basically yes, that’s what they signed up for in project mercury. The initial plan had nothing for the human to pilot. Mercury only got manual controls and a window because the astronauts fought for them.
The point is that they don’t have to, the level of discipline is unnecessary, viable commercial space travel means it is supposed to become even more unnecessary
So the gatekeeping can go away
So the gatekeeping can go away
Exactly. Literal monkeys and dogs did the job, before Gagarin or Shepard.
If you're interested about that, the "The Calculating Stars" book talks a bit about it. It's really nice to read !
"An astronaut (from the Greek "astron" (ἄστρον), meaning "star", and "nautes" (ναύτης), meaning "sailor") is a person trained, equipped, and deployed by a human spaceflight program to serve as a commander or crew member aboard a spacecraft."
They were trained (not as well trained as NASA astronauts, but still trained well enough for such a short mission)
They were equipped with whatever equipments they needed for this flight.
They were deployed by a human spaceflight program.
So by definition, shouldn't they classify as "astronauts"?
They were trained (not as well trained as NASA astronauts, but still trained well enough for such a short mission)
They were equipped with whatever equipments they needed for this flight.
They were deployed by a human spaceflight program.
So by definition, shouldn't they classify as "astronauts"?
Crew members have defined roles and responsibilities, and are important to the success of a mission beyond having paid to be there. The alternative is more apt here, I think: passengers.
I take it you're not a big fan of Gagarin, the first human in space, then. What was his importance beyond 'being there'?
Vostok 1 is a tricky exception because there was no gurantee Gagarin would be conscious or even alive when he got to space. That mission had to be automated.
But he had a role other than just being a passenger. He was there to make observations on the performance of the rocket and the spacecraft, as well as himself throughout the mission. There's a clear scientific role here that the Blue Origin tourists do not have. And while the controls were locked, Gagarin had the code to unlock them and was to take over the spacecraft in the event of automation failure or another manually recoverable emergency.
But he had a role other than just being a passenger. He was there to make observations on the performance of the rocket and the spacecraft, as well as himself throughout the mission. There's a clear scientific role here that the Blue Origin tourists do not have. And while the controls were locked, Gagarin had the code to unlock them and was to take over the spacecraft in the event of automation failure or another manually recoverable emergency.
As I wrote someplace else before: his job was done by dogs and monkeys before, so it's hardly mission critical for him to even be conscious. In fact, the mission would have been considered a great success even if he had been unconscious the whole flight, as long as he survived. His presence was the key point.
Throughout Mercury, the astronauts had to fight for control elements to even be included in the spacecraft because automation was considered the safer option.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan and these steps were incredible milestones, and I certainly wouldn't have wanted to switch seats with anyone.
Here, I am sure Bezos can/would argue that "someone had to make observations on the performance of the rocket and the spacecraft, as well as himself throughout the mission". Sure, the goal here is commercial, but it's hard to argue that Gagarin's flight was made to gain pure scientific knowledge to finally answer the pressing question of how humans react to spaceflight, rather than political/technological.
Throughout Mercury, the astronauts had to fight for control elements to even be included in the spacecraft because automation was considered the safer option.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan and these steps were incredible milestones, and I certainly wouldn't have wanted to switch seats with anyone.
Here, I am sure Bezos can/would argue that "someone had to make observations on the performance of the rocket and the spacecraft, as well as himself throughout the mission". Sure, the goal here is commercial, but it's hard to argue that Gagarin's flight was made to gain pure scientific knowledge to finally answer the pressing question of how humans react to spaceflight, rather than political/technological.
That why they called him an cosmonaut instead of astronaut.
SCNR
You may be right.
But still for the sake of discussion, I would argue that their mission required only 1 responsibility - that you be there. Even if they orbit around the Earth, modern spacecrafts are designed in such a way that crew member input is almost unnecessary. I wonder how much crew input is needed to dock on ISS in modern crafts...
But still for the sake of discussion, I would argue that their mission required only 1 responsibility - that you be there. Even if they orbit around the Earth, modern spacecrafts are designed in such a way that crew member input is almost unnecessary. I wonder how much crew input is needed to dock on ISS in modern crafts...
Astronaut pro tempore may apply
Surely I'm not a sailor for having taken a cruise ship. I did, however, participate in the safety demonstration, and packed my bags.
I'm definitely on-board with calling Bezos a passenger.
I'm definitely on-board with calling Bezos a passenger.
To finish you wiki quote:
"Although generally reserved for professional space travelers, the terms are sometimes applied to anyone who travels into space, including scientists, politicians, journalists and tourists."
"Although generally reserved for professional space travelers, the terms are sometimes applied to anyone who travels into space, including scientists, politicians, journalists and tourists."
When I'm out rowing a boat I don't think anyone would consider me a captain. Or when I'm sitting on a ship, I don't think anyone would consider me a sailor.
When I'm on a flight I'm called a passenger, for example. They were passengers.
When I'm on a flight I'm called a passenger, for example. They were passengers.
What about the "serve as commander or crew member" part?
are the members of the crew of Blue Origin 3 not 'crew members'?
If I drive onto the ferry am I part of the crew? I’ve been told (trained) on what to do and I’m equipped (my car), so am I a crew member? No, I’m just a passenger following the crew’s direction.
Is a passenger on a commercial flight a crew member? Would you call every passenger an “airman”?
I’d ask their name and call them that.
I’m under no obligation to recognize anyone as anything but an average human without proof they’re actually skilled as they claim.
Titles are political euphemism. I want to know someone’s profile to know who I am dealing with. You’re a doctor? Of ants. Not helpful when I need someone that studied human anatomy.
None of these titles explain the training involved. The honestly gained skill set based on direct learning.
Bezos isn’t a genius; he’s a politically elevated person due to financial success. Humans will never live among the stars as the meat bags we are; far more likely we etch a simulated human consciousness into a new medium than adapt this biology. We’re just watching one guy get his jollies off at our political expense.
Titillate the masses to keep them politically disorganized. Humans used to wage holy wars, invade other nations to do that. Now it’s engineering and economic spectacle.
What a trivial and boring people I live among. Collectively setting themselves aside to ogle this stuff.
I’m under no obligation to recognize anyone as anything but an average human without proof they’re actually skilled as they claim.
Titles are political euphemism. I want to know someone’s profile to know who I am dealing with. You’re a doctor? Of ants. Not helpful when I need someone that studied human anatomy.
None of these titles explain the training involved. The honestly gained skill set based on direct learning.
Bezos isn’t a genius; he’s a politically elevated person due to financial success. Humans will never live among the stars as the meat bags we are; far more likely we etch a simulated human consciousness into a new medium than adapt this biology. We’re just watching one guy get his jollies off at our political expense.
Titillate the masses to keep them politically disorganized. Humans used to wage holy wars, invade other nations to do that. Now it’s engineering and economic spectacle.
What a trivial and boring people I live among. Collectively setting themselves aside to ogle this stuff.
Is the passenger sitting in 23E on a flight from Newark to LA a "crew member"?
That seems pedantic. Just because technology has lowered the requirements for becoming an astronaut, that doesn't change the definition.
So if I go on an ocean cruise I'm a Sailor?
It seems like you can clearly delineate, by whether you are being paid to be there, or you are paying to be there.
The analogy is tough because as far as I know there isn't an official definition of what a sailor is. Nor is there an internationally recognized registry like the "Fédération Aéronautique Internationale" which keeps track of people it considers Astronauts/Cosmonauts/Taiknonauts, etc.
There is an official definition of what a seaman/sailor is. Admiralty law is a thing [1][2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seaman_status_in_United_States...
[2] https://www.maritimeinjuryguide.org/maritime-lawsuit/qualifi...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seaman_status_in_United_States...
[2] https://www.maritimeinjuryguide.org/maritime-lawsuit/qualifi...
Huh, I was wrong. Thank you for sharing.
Honestly these days even the “real” astronauts are basically passengers. The systems are so heavily automated, including anomaly response, and the parts that aren’t are mostly done by ground operators. Crew Dragon doesn’t even have a stick. It’s not the ‘60s anymore, which in many ways is good. But glamorous it ain’t. Let’s not forgot that the end result of all this will be to make spaceflight as pedestrian as air travel, an activity that hasn’t had a shred of its initial sparkle for decades.
I think w0de0 got to the heart of the matter (elsewhere in this thread) with their comment about astronauts being associated with public service. That rings true for me as to the source of the insult.
I think w0de0 got to the heart of the matter (elsewhere in this thread) with their comment about astronauts being associated with public service. That rings true for me as to the source of the insult.
> I found it annoying, even a bit insulting, that they kept referring to the people in the capsule as "astronauts".
This is all about poking at Virgin Galactic. Virgin Galactic cleared 80km, which is the height that earns you astronaut wings in the USA. Blue Origin clears the Kármán line (100km), which is the internationally recognized standard for human spaceflight. So they're digging in hard on, "Jeff Bezos has been to space, Richard Branson hasn't," in an effort to imply that Virgin Galactic's flight from earlier this month doesn't count, theirs is the real first.
This is all about poking at Virgin Galactic. Virgin Galactic cleared 80km, which is the height that earns you astronaut wings in the USA. Blue Origin clears the Kármán line (100km), which is the internationally recognized standard for human spaceflight. So they're digging in hard on, "Jeff Bezos has been to space, Richard Branson hasn't," in an effort to imply that Virgin Galactic's flight from earlier this month doesn't count, theirs is the real first.
And how about Christa McAuliffe? She was a career school teacher who had the opportunity to fly on the Challenger. But she was also titled an astronaut.
Christa was trained and fully qualified for her role.
All on board today were trained and fully qualified for their roles.
In which their role was 'sit there, when sign says you can unbuckle, dso that, then get clicked back in when it's time.
Christa was legit trained how to spacewalk.
Christa was legit trained how to spacewalk.
Exactly. Which is more than what Gagarin or Shepard did.
Sure, McAuliffe trained to do so much more, but all of them fulfill the criterion you gave of what an astronaut is.
Sure, McAuliffe trained to do so much more, but all of them fulfill the criterion you gave of what an astronaut is.
She trained for that mission for a year, and planned to conduct experiments and teach lessons from space. I don’t make the rules, but it seems to me she did a fair bit more than touristing.
as·tro·naut
/ˈastrəˌnôt/
noun a person who is trained to travel in a spacecraft.
They were trained, and they traveled in a spacecraft.
This is such a historical moment and this is what people are focusing on?
What difference does it really make to you or to anyone? Who the hell really cares?
And this is the top comment here. Come on people. Enjoy things for a change.
noun a person who is trained to travel in a spacecraft.
They were trained, and they traveled in a spacecraft.
This is such a historical moment and this is what people are focusing on?
What difference does it really make to you or to anyone? Who the hell really cares?
And this is the top comment here. Come on people. Enjoy things for a change.
Your critical responses focus on parsing the meaning of "astronaut," or on the true utility of the job with respect to other non-human test pilots.
I leave all of that aside, and agree with you on egalitarian and emotional grounds. The term in America rightly has implications of public service - of deserving the fantastically unique opportunity of exploring space on behalf of all Americans by virtue of intelligence, diligence, and impeccable ethics. Topically, this might be compared to Olympians: though all extreme athletes perform extraordinary feats, Olympians carry an extra responsibility to represent us as a nation. So too with people called "astronauts."
Whether or not one agrees with this understanding, I believe it is the practical understanding underlying your (and my) insult at the use of this term.
I leave all of that aside, and agree with you on egalitarian and emotional grounds. The term in America rightly has implications of public service - of deserving the fantastically unique opportunity of exploring space on behalf of all Americans by virtue of intelligence, diligence, and impeccable ethics. Topically, this might be compared to Olympians: though all extreme athletes perform extraordinary feats, Olympians carry an extra responsibility to represent us as a nation. So too with people called "astronauts."
Whether or not one agrees with this understanding, I believe it is the practical understanding underlying your (and my) insult at the use of this term.
Looking up the definition of astronaut, I'm inclined to agree with you. They weren't crew, the flight was autonomous. It's unclear what if anything they could do should there have been a problem.
Shuttleworth and Tito underwent a year of training, including 7 months at Star City. They also conducted scientific experiments while on the station. They are formally considered Spaceflight Participants by Roscosmos, the FAA and NASA. They weren't considered Cosmonauts or Astronauts, but that seems to be solely due to their non-professional status rather than their training or operational duties.
> I found it annoying, even a bit insulting, that they kept referring to the people in the capsule as "astronauts".
When you reach a certain threshold of wealth, you get access to an unbelievably efficient PR machine and you can become basically whatever the hell you want and rewrite reality to suit your imagination. Hell, you'll even get people to believe it and ruthlessly defend your reality.
When you reach a certain threshold of wealth, you get access to an unbelievably efficient PR machine and you can become basically whatever the hell you want and rewrite reality to suit your imagination. Hell, you'll even get people to believe it and ruthlessly defend your reality.
Its the same with pilots. Early on only pilots flew at all. Currently anybody who crosses a certain line is considered an astronaut.
There will be some shakeup in the is there clearly is a different between the type of astronaut that is trained to do experiments in space and repair a space station, and somebody who just sits in his seat and lets the space-craft fly.
There will be some shakeup in the is there clearly is a different between the type of astronaut that is trained to do experiments in space and repair a space station, and somebody who just sits in his seat and lets the space-craft fly.
Would you feel the same way if this were, say, a collection of college students that achieved the same thing?
I'm not interested in the semantics of outer space or the competition to see who can meet the terms of one of those arbitrary definitions first. More than one corporate/government entity making progress in rocketry and space-faring technology is a good thing for humanity.
I'm thinking that there should be plenty of incentive here for billionaires: it's conceivable that whoever gets there (where? I don't know) first will be running the show in 50 or 100 or 500 years. There are worse bets for establishing your legacy.
I'm thinking that there should be plenty of incentive here for billionaires: it's conceivable that whoever gets there (where? I don't know) first will be running the show in 50 or 100 or 500 years. There are worse bets for establishing your legacy.
Incredible, congrats to the crew and team who have worked on this!
Mixed feelings. I suppose it's important to have competition/alternatives to SpaceX, but does it have to be done in such a sluggish manner by one the most unlikable people in the world?
I hate to break it to you but Musk is just as unlikeable.
Why does it matter who does it though? It’s a great achievement and could lead to great things. I’d much rather people like Bezos were spending money on this than mansions, supercars, and other crap that doesn’t benefit anyone.
Why does it matter who does it though? It’s a great achievement and could lead to great things. I’d much rather people like Bezos were spending money on this than mansions, supercars, and other crap that doesn’t benefit anyone.
> I hate to break it to you but Musk is just as unlikeable.
Right? I don't get the guy's appeal. Yes, SpaceX and Tesla are doing neat things and I love that. But Musk is literally the last person I want to hear from, or about. Despite all the cool stuff Tesla is doing, he really makes me not want to buy anything from Tesla ever just because he's associated with it. Perhaps a bit dramatic, but I really can't stand the guy.
Right? I don't get the guy's appeal. Yes, SpaceX and Tesla are doing neat things and I love that. But Musk is literally the last person I want to hear from, or about. Despite all the cool stuff Tesla is doing, he really makes me not want to buy anything from Tesla ever just because he's associated with it. Perhaps a bit dramatic, but I really can't stand the guy.
> I don't get the guy's appeal.
You could be talking about some politicians and I'd feel similarly. I think it says much more about society that these are the folks we hold up on a pedestal than it says about the people themselves.
You could be talking about some politicians and I'd feel similarly. I think it says much more about society that these are the folks we hold up on a pedestal than it says about the people themselves.
> I don't get the guy's appeal.
I suspect there's a level of vicariousness for some fans, some shade of "He's a nerd like me - it could have been me if I caught a lucky break. Hell, I can still be something like him if I found/get RSUs in a rocketship SaaS startup and have multiple recurring successes after that". Elon seems to have settled into that "friendly, relatable neighborhood billionaire who memes-and-does-crypto just like you" persona
I suspect there's a level of vicariousness for some fans, some shade of "He's a nerd like me - it could have been me if I caught a lucky break. Hell, I can still be something like him if I found/get RSUs in a rocketship SaaS startup and have multiple recurring successes after that". Elon seems to have settled into that "friendly, relatable neighborhood billionaire who memes-and-does-crypto just like you" persona
>> I hate to break it to you but Musk is just as unlikeable.
I had long suspected that he's on the spectrum, and earlier this year he came out and openly talked about his Asperger's diagnosis.
That's not to say that excuses his terrible treatment of other people, but it sure explains it.
I had long suspected that he's on the spectrum, and earlier this year he came out and openly talked about his Asperger's diagnosis.
That's not to say that excuses his terrible treatment of other people, but it sure explains it.
I had long suspected that he's on the spectrum, and earlier this year he came out and openly talked about his Asperger's diagnosis.
I don't think that confirms he has Asperger's. He said it on SNL as a joke.
I don't think that confirms he has Asperger's. He said it on SNL as a joke.
I can't find the exact timestamp but at the beginning of this podcast[0] Jason Calacanis talks about his experience joining Musk backstage at SNL, as well as how that Asperger's joke came to be. If I recall correctly, I think its confirmed, or at least strongly implied, Musk does have Asperger's
EDIT: they start talking about it at the 7:00 mark
[0] https://youtu.be/GE0iWGNXKXw?t=420
EDIT: they start talking about it at the 7:00 mark
[0] https://youtu.be/GE0iWGNXKXw?t=420
I don't believe it was a joke? I watched the bit and it certainly didn't come across as one.
>He said it on SNL as a joke
Source?
Source?
[deleted]
Well, that makes some amount of sense. Certainly doesn't excuse it. Perhaps he needs to rethink how he communicates with people, maybe putting someone between himself and how he communicates with the public. "No, Elon, think about what this could possibly do if you said this" type of person.
Either way. He's super polarizing. Some people love him. Some people totally despise him. It's probably clear which side I'm on lol
Either way. He's super polarizing. Some people love him. Some people totally despise him. It's probably clear which side I'm on lol
Bezos is so rich that he has plenty left to spend on mansions and supercars.
> such a sluggish manner
Can you elaborate? I'm not sure "sluggish" is an adverb I would use to describe space launches.
Can you elaborate? I'm not sure "sluggish" is an adverb I would use to describe space launches.
Blue Origin is funded by Bezos with much more resources/year than SpaceX, yet has achieved far less over a longer time since founding. "Sluggish" is the adverb I would use to describe its engineering progress.
[deleted]
jbverschoor(1)
Really clean launch! I think this was the first time a reusable rocket was landed with humans onboard? It must’ve fell 100k feet at the end in less than a minute which must’ve been nuts.
The capsule with the humans separated from the rocket a little bit before they hit the 100km attitude mark. Then it landed with parachutes.
[deleted]
No it's basically the same as the SpaceX CrewDragon flights where the capsule parachutes down and the booster lands separately except the capsule doesn't go to orbit.
No, Dragon and the Falcon 9 launch crew to the ISS and both are "land" (well, splashdown for Dragon).
Though as far as I know, the Crew Dragon vehicle has been new every launch, with re-used Dragons being used for future missions. I don't know if this was the first flight of that particular New Shepard Crew Capsule though.
Though as far as I know, the Crew Dragon vehicle has been new every launch, with re-used Dragons being used for future missions. I don't know if this was the first flight of that particular New Shepard Crew Capsule though.
The capsule and booster seperated and the capsule landed with parachutes
a privately developed powerful reliable human rated rocket engine and a vertical booster landing - that were big deal just 10 years ago. Today - nah. That's called real progress, and i think we should be happy that it is happening.
Private people, even if billionaires for now, starting to pop into space as a routine occurrence looks to me like very early days of aviation, and we all know the explosive development after that.
Private people, even if billionaires for now, starting to pop into space as a routine occurrence looks to me like very early days of aviation, and we all know the explosive development after that.
How long before people record it and post it on social media?
Cool experience for the first few people, but once everyone has been there, it is just a vomit comet to nowhere for the price of a car -- sort of like the world's most uncomfortable cruise ship.
As an FYI: the Concorde wasn't actually all that nice inside -- food was excellent, but unless you really needed the extra 3-4 hours, first class conventional was a much nicer trip.
Cool experience for the first few people, but once everyone has been there, it is just a vomit comet to nowhere for the price of a car -- sort of like the world's most uncomfortable cruise ship.
As an FYI: the Concorde wasn't actually all that nice inside -- food was excellent, but unless you really needed the extra 3-4 hours, first class conventional was a much nicer trip.
Gongrats to Blue Origin, this was great but when compared to SpaceX its like seeing a bicycle ride compared to a Model S Plaid track on Nuremberg.
The latest of the rich man roller coasters. Biggest windows in space... Cool. I cannot wait to see the first Champaign cork opened in zero gravity. At least spaceX's efforts have some none-entertainment uses. This rocket is nothing more than a pleasure craft.
Blue Origin has already flown New Shepard with various science experiments onboard. They've flown it with new guidance systems which they were testing for their moon landing bid which they submitted with Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Draper.
New Shepard can kind of be thought of as a prototype of the second stage to their new (bigger) rocket, New Glenn.
Blue Origin is a serious company and New Shepard is greatly overly engineered for joyrides. That's because the goal of Blue Origin and New Shepard is bigger than just space tourism.
New Shepard can kind of be thought of as a prototype of the second stage to their new (bigger) rocket, New Glenn.
Blue Origin is a serious company and New Shepard is greatly overly engineered for joyrides. That's because the goal of Blue Origin and New Shepard is bigger than just space tourism.
holoduke(1)
Both Virgin Galactic and Blue Origin offer you ~4 minutes of weightlessness.
Can this sub-orbital model scale in such a way to have, say, 60 minutes of weightlessness? Or is the "straight up, straight down" model such that sub-orbital flight has a cap at 4?
Can this sub-orbital model scale in such a way to have, say, 60 minutes of weightlessness? Or is the "straight up, straight down" model such that sub-orbital flight has a cap at 4?
low-earth orbit is around 90 minutes per orbit, so 60 minutes may be possible but I think it would require odd re-entry or a distant recovery that wouldn't be economical, probably at that length they'd just go into orbit.
A "suborbital" trajectory is just an orbit that intersects Earth's surface, and in theory you can make it whatever size and duration you want. I suppose the limit would be when your apogee becomes high enough to be near or beyond Earth's gravitational sphere of influence, which would happen for orbital periods on the order of months.
Practically speaking, if you have enough thrust and delta-v to achieve a suborbital flight of more than a few tens of minutes, you also have the ability to reach orbit, so why bother?
Practically speaking, if you have enough thrust and delta-v to achieve a suborbital flight of more than a few tens of minutes, you also have the ability to reach orbit, so why bother?
Did anyone get the feeling that this was a "MVP" style launch? It looked more engineering oriented with its very firmly functional-only everything. Or maybe, Virgin Galactic pushed so far towards the other end that this pales in comparison.
The video of them weightless showed them all crammed into a very small space. Surprised somebody never got a foot in the head from another. Feels like a lawsuit is waiting so who would have jurisdiction here?
It's great to have more companies operating in space but, as noted by others, it felt fairly routine given what SpaceX have been achieving (BN3 static fire yesterday and proper orbital flight in a few weeks)
Did I miss it or was there no in capsule cameras for this one? I thought the Branson space flight had a little more drama to it because of the scenes from the cockpit and passenger area.
I don't think they showed any. There's a chance it just doesn't have the extra mass available for a strong HD downlink. The Virgin Galactic flight had them but the feed was lost so it was all recorded and shown later. I imagine there was some camera rolling in there.
I'll tell ya...whenever I look at that spaceship...
Just to make it official, they should have two circular blast deflectors, on opposite sides of the gantry.
Just to make it official, they should have two circular blast deflectors, on opposite sides of the gantry.
I was amazed at how routine it felt. Definitely a rich person’s rollercoaster. I could see hotels in space as a thing.
These suborbitals flights to space require 20% of the velocity and 2-3% of the energy of an orbital flight.
Bezos in that spacesuit and cowboy hat ...completely made my morning LOL.
I didn't see Bezos sitting inside, except after the landing.
What was Jeff Bezos' carbon footprint today?
Doesn't T-10 usually indicate seconds not minutes?
[deleted]
What a mind blowing achievement. Wow!
dude goes to space but can't show me a webpage without executing js
[deleted]
nodesocket(1)
I feel the same way when software developers call themselves engineers.
"Eschew flamebait. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents."
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27894728.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27894728.
In certain industries, the titles often have little to do with the work. In banking, it seems, everyone is a vice president (I had a moment of panic when I had a job offer from a bank as a programmer and the offer said that I would be hired as a vice president). In publishing, everyone is an editor. The title managing editor generally has no editorial duties—it's largely dealing with the administrative/business duties of the publication(s). But since it's mostly English majors working in publishing, it makes them feel better to have editor in their job title.
So I have no qualms about having "engineer" in my job title, even if I still view myself as a programmer (I'm still not accustomed to having "senior" in my job title even though I've been a programmer longer than some of the readers of this comment have been alive).
So I have no qualms about having "engineer" in my job title, even if I still view myself as a programmer (I'm still not accustomed to having "senior" in my job title even though I've been a programmer longer than some of the readers of this comment have been alive).
Interestingly, in banking one gets promoted from Vice President to Director which is the exact opposite as anywhere else...
If your software can kill people you'd better be an engineer
What if we have engineering degrees? That change anything?
Edit: That being said, depending on who I am talking to it ranges from "I do computers" to "I am a computer programmer", and very rarely use "engineer" unless I am referring to my actual degree (BSCpE).
Edit: That being said, depending on who I am talking to it ranges from "I do computers" to "I am a computer programmer", and very rarely use "engineer" unless I am referring to my actual degree (BSCpE).
In Germany, and presumably many other countries, "engineer" is a job title that requires a certain degree. As in, you need to have such and such degree if you want to advertise yourself as an engineer.
The B.Sc. and M.Sc. in computer science are actually amongst those degrees that allow you to call yourself an engineer. If I remember correctly, my diploma specifically says "This diploma permits you to use the job title 'engineer'." (loosely translated).
Of course, the legal definitions are unrelated to whether or not it's sensible to use that title. Honestly, I think it depends on the kind of programming you're doing. If you're designing new systems, for example, it seems to fit.
The B.Sc. and M.Sc. in computer science are actually amongst those degrees that allow you to call yourself an engineer. If I remember correctly, my diploma specifically says "This diploma permits you to use the job title 'engineer'." (loosely translated).
Of course, the legal definitions are unrelated to whether or not it's sensible to use that title. Honestly, I think it depends on the kind of programming you're doing. If you're designing new systems, for example, it seems to fit.
Yeah that one I struggle with too. I don't have a degree/can't call myself an engineer but my contract/pay is for Sr. SWE which I also don't consider myself a Sr. so idk... Generally go with SWD.
Granted in my job it's so strict/refined... tech designs, unit/visual regression testing/QA/TA that sort of thing... it's not like I can just write code on the fly/release it out there without it going through the tests and several people.
I'm definitely not the caliber of a developer that thinks of tasks in Log N or something. Least path algos and what not I'm a typical dev and I'm alright with that ultimately I am a tinkerer and end goal is FIRE.
Granted in my job it's so strict/refined... tech designs, unit/visual regression testing/QA/TA that sort of thing... it's not like I can just write code on the fly/release it out there without it going through the tests and several people.
I'm definitely not the caliber of a developer that thinks of tasks in Log N or something. Least path algos and what not I'm a typical dev and I'm alright with that ultimately I am a tinkerer and end goal is FIRE.
If you had a biology degree and were a mailman, would you call your profession 'biologist'? No. That's absurd, as is calling people who write JavaScript, most of whom don't even have computer science degrees, engineers. It's nothing but grandiosity and ignorance of what engineering is.
I generally agree with you, but we don't have a better term, and it's not completely wrong. I think you have to consider it as something of a homonym. The people who drive trains are also called "engineers", after all, though their job has nothing to do with engineering in either the software-engineering sense or the civil/mechanical/electrical engineering sense.
Certainly some software is engineered! Maybe the software in space ships is a good example where it was written with an engineering process, tested, and then worked “first try”.
Of course a lot of software these days is morally bankrupt and never finished.
Does your work involve research, measurement, planning, architecture, review, and instrumentation?
Are you using math to plan capacities and growth rates?
Do you push your services to 1000k+ QPS of sustained traffic to see how it handles or falls over?
Are you developing DR scenarios and training people and performing live exercises? Designing systems to fail open or closed appropriately, to gracefully handle missing dependencies, not cause a thundering herd upon restart, etc.?
Are you performing security analysis, STRIDE, etc.?
Is your data model active-active, have redundantly striped caching, and use vector clock consolidation, consensus?
This skill set is software engineering. It's not configuring a Drupal or Wordpress install.
Don't downplay it.
Are you using math to plan capacities and growth rates?
Do you push your services to 1000k+ QPS of sustained traffic to see how it handles or falls over?
Are you developing DR scenarios and training people and performing live exercises? Designing systems to fail open or closed appropriately, to gracefully handle missing dependencies, not cause a thundering herd upon restart, etc.?
Are you performing security analysis, STRIDE, etc.?
Is your data model active-active, have redundantly striped caching, and use vector clock consolidation, consensus?
This skill set is software engineering. It's not configuring a Drupal or Wordpress install.
Don't downplay it.
Can't wait for short haul flights to be banned and to travel 14 hours in a train so we reduce carbon emissions. But I'm happy that rich guys can have fun and advance "space exploration".
SpaceX's starship uses methane which can be synthesized from CO2 and water - allowing it to be carbon neutral for a cost.
It will be a while before synthesizing CH4 is "carbon neutral". Sure, you could set up a massive solar farm and pump it out, but that solar farm would be way more effective offsetting other power production methods on the grid at large.
New Shepard burns liquid hydrogen and oxygen, the byproduct of which is just water vapor.
Memo to Bezos/Brandon/Musk:
Great , but now can you guys do something about reducing human suffering due to climate change? Like potentially developing technologies for sucking off CO2 and other harmful gases off our atmosphere? Or how about cancer cure or anti aging or something that helps humanity?
Great , but now can you guys do something about reducing human suffering due to climate change? Like potentially developing technologies for sucking off CO2 and other harmful gases off our atmosphere? Or how about cancer cure or anti aging or something that helps humanity?
Maybe a $100MM X-Prize for carbon removal?
https://www.xprize.org/prizes/elonmusk
https://www.xprize.org/prizes/elonmusk
I wouldn't lump Musk in here. Musk is divisive as hell but his companies are hardly wasteful. Tesla is leading the car industry towards an oil-free future and also has a healthy solar panel division. SpaceX is opening up space exploration. Even things like the Boring Company and Hyperloop are aiming to make human life better.
Why don't you work on these as well?
Obscene in every sense of the word.
my gf has given me more space than this and she's pretty clingy. jk
I think the end game for Bezos and Branson is space hotels, which benefits no one except themselves and their investors.
Whitey on the moon [1].
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otwkXZ0SmTs
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otwkXZ0SmTs
I’m more impressed that Bezos took the ideas that worked from Spacex and successfully copied it.
Blue Origin actually predates SpaceX. They have been working in parallel on related ideas, so I don't think it's fair to say they "copied" SpaceX.
SpaceX is definitely a lot further down the road, and what Blue Origin is doing currently is much easier. The energies involved in suborbital flights are much lower, and the fact that the rocket has a thrust-to-weight ratio low enough that it can hover makes the landing process a lot simpler.
SpaceX is definitely a lot further down the road, and what Blue Origin is doing currently is much easier. The energies involved in suborbital flights are much lower, and the fact that the rocket has a thrust-to-weight ratio low enough that it can hover makes the landing process a lot simpler.
I still can't wrap my head around how little Blue Origin has accomplished in 21 years despite having an earlier start than SpaceX and with Bezos injecting a billion or so into it every year.
SpaceX launches people and cargo to the ISS, just completed the first shell of a nearly worldwide satellite internet network using reused boosters many of which approaching 10 flights, and is a few months out from test launching a fully reusable rocket with twice the thrust of the Saturn V using a novel-full flow staged combustion rocket engine of their own design.
And now Blue Origin is seemingly dragging down ULA with them because of the constantly delays of the BE-4 engine ULA selected for Vulcan.
I just don't understand how Bezos can find this progress acceptable. I want Blue Origin to succeed. Having SpaceX as the only US launch provider is not the future we want.
SpaceX launches people and cargo to the ISS, just completed the first shell of a nearly worldwide satellite internet network using reused boosters many of which approaching 10 flights, and is a few months out from test launching a fully reusable rocket with twice the thrust of the Saturn V using a novel-full flow staged combustion rocket engine of their own design.
And now Blue Origin is seemingly dragging down ULA with them because of the constantly delays of the BE-4 engine ULA selected for Vulcan.
I just don't understand how Bezos can find this progress acceptable. I want Blue Origin to succeed. Having SpaceX as the only US launch provider is not the future we want.
I think it comes down to a few different reasons. Firstly, SpaceX had to find profitability relatively quickly or die. Blue doesn't have that problem, thanks to Bezos' personal war chest. SpaceX couldn't gamble on the idea that space tourism would be a significant cost offset. Putting payloads into orbit was a more viable business model.
Second, New Shepard is massively over engineered for what it is. The reason for that is that they plan on using it to learn how to make much bigger rockets. Though, I suppose you could reasonably argue that the delays of New Glenn means that wasn't a smart tradeoff.
Lastly, Blue doesn't have the same laser focus SpaceX does. I think this is most likely the biggest contributor. They've made all kinds of different engines, they designed their own lunar lander, then they designed another one with Northrop, Lockheed, and Draper for NASAs HLS project.
My understanding through people I've talked to with connections to Blue, is that Blue operated more as an R&D lab for the first several years of it's existence.
I, like a lot of people, suspect now that Bezos is more focused on Blue they will start making bigger waves in the industry. At least I hope so, because I'm really excited to see competition in the space!
Second, New Shepard is massively over engineered for what it is. The reason for that is that they plan on using it to learn how to make much bigger rockets. Though, I suppose you could reasonably argue that the delays of New Glenn means that wasn't a smart tradeoff.
Lastly, Blue doesn't have the same laser focus SpaceX does. I think this is most likely the biggest contributor. They've made all kinds of different engines, they designed their own lunar lander, then they designed another one with Northrop, Lockheed, and Draper for NASAs HLS project.
My understanding through people I've talked to with connections to Blue, is that Blue operated more as an R&D lab for the first several years of it's existence.
I, like a lot of people, suspect now that Bezos is more focused on Blue they will start making bigger waves in the industry. At least I hope so, because I'm really excited to see competition in the space!
Bezos doesn’t know the science as well as Elon. Not to say Elon is a rocket scientist, but knows enough to impact something (direction, velocity).
Bezos is showing where he does know things. He knows what works (spacex design and vertical landing), so copy that. Amazon didn’t invent books, they just sold it cheaply and on the internet.
It’s interesting, I think Musk and Bezos would make a good team, especially on something like Tesla.
Bezos is showing where he does know things. He knows what works (spacex design and vertical landing), so copy that. Amazon didn’t invent books, they just sold it cheaply and on the internet.
It’s interesting, I think Musk and Bezos would make a good team, especially on something like Tesla.
New Shepard landed after going to space nearly a full year before SpaceX's first landing.
Obviously an orbital class booster is a different challenge than a suborbital booster, but the idea that Blue is copying SpaceX is just wrong.
Obviously an orbital class booster is a different challenge than a suborbital booster, but the idea that Blue is copying SpaceX is just wrong.
I get a laugh imagining that Bezos took that boy/bidder up as insurance he would be allowed back onto the planet
I'd like to have gone for the ride, but it was rather underwhelming, and slightly absurd, from the spectator POV.
Four dingbats going for a 10min joyride in a mobile lounge strapped onto a dick-shaped rocket.
Still, I'm all for billionaires pursuing daft dreams like this rather than just buying big yachts like Larry Ellison, or not much of anything like Bill Gates. At least Bezos is putting on a mildly entertaining show for us to watch.
Four dingbats going for a 10min joyride in a mobile lounge strapped onto a dick-shaped rocket.
Still, I'm all for billionaires pursuing daft dreams like this rather than just buying big yachts like Larry Ellison, or not much of anything like Bill Gates. At least Bezos is putting on a mildly entertaining show for us to watch.
> not much of anything like Bill Gates
you kidding?
I meant non-philanthropic stuff. What billionaires choose to splurge their money on.
Lot of people in this thread are arguing that wealthy people can spend money on what ever they want. I think it’s important to distinguish whether the money they spend on personal joy rides has been taxed as private income or written off as business expense. Does anyone have information on whether Bezos‘ investments into Blue Origin has been taxed previously as personal income when he presumably liquidated Amazon stock?
>I think it’s important to distinguish whether the money they spend on personal joy rides has been taxed as private income or written off as business expense.
So if the mafia did it, it'd be fine because government didn't pay for it? I'm not saying that Bezos is a mafioso, but this is a false dichotomy. There are also good reasons to think that all "legal" businesses aren't legit and with litttle political oversight, maybe the profit of giant companies like Amazon shouldn't be deemed 100% deserved.
This comment is related: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27893518
So if the mafia did it, it'd be fine because government didn't pay for it? I'm not saying that Bezos is a mafioso, but this is a false dichotomy. There are also good reasons to think that all "legal" businesses aren't legit and with litttle political oversight, maybe the profit of giant companies like Amazon shouldn't be deemed 100% deserved.
This comment is related: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27893518
I think you misinterpreted my comment (probably my bad, Im not an English native). What I meant is: It is important to make sure that the profits of stocks sold need to be taxed properly, and only the after tax amount that’s left over can be spend on, some may say frivolous, space adventures. Especially when it is often reported that billionaires dont pay hardly any taxes, since their wealth grew „only in equity“. But then suddenly they find themselves on a pretty expensive space vacation.
It really shouldn't count as space travel unless they go into orbit around Earth.