4 ms·

New Shepard is able to make several compromises that make landing _much_ easier. New Shepard doesn't have to get anywhere close to orbital velocity, so it can u

New Shepard is able to make several compromises that make landing _much_ easier. New Shepard doesn't have to get anywhere close to orbital velocity, so it can use a far less powerful engine. That means it can throttle down far enough to hover. That is a _huge_ advantage over Falcon 9, which must time the landing burn perfectly to hit 0 velocity at the exact moment it touches the ground. They're in the same club like a general aviation pilot landing his Piper Cub on a giant runway and a navy pilot landing his F-14 on a carrier are "in the same club". While it's technically true, pointing it out would be pretty tacky...

grkvlt 11y ago
But the F9 first stage doesn't get to orbital velocity, either, remember. The achievements are comparable, despite the fact it makes SpaceX come second. Blue Origin was first with a VTOL rocket stage, as part of a space system.
- JshWright 11y ago
  > But the F9 first stage doesn't get to orbital velocity, either, remember. It gets a whole lot closer (and is _much_ larger). I really can't emphasize enough how much of a difference the ability to hover makes for New Shepard. SpaceX has been doing "New Shepard" type flights for a long time now (they didn't bother going that high, but 'high' isn't really that interesting, it's 'fast' that matters). However, Grasshopper (like New Shepard) was able to throttle down to a TWR less than 1. That makes landing so much easier (the rocket can 'stop' and get settled before it proceeds to land).
  - darkmighty 11y ago
    To give people an idea, this is the difference of scale: http://i.imgur.com/RVOKED2.jpg http://i.imgur.com/RVOKED2.jpg Blue Origin's achievement is nice; just as older prototypes that achieved suborbital landing (Grasshopper, DC-X), but it's unclear yet what it meant for the industry (hope they keep going though, they're a good track). SpaceX's landing is a landmark for space travel, rapid reusability is now much closer. I'm much more confident now this will change the cost structure of the whole industry, seeing how launch is a dominant factor.
- cornholio 11y ago
  Sure, Bezos gets the "first rocket that went to 'space' and landed vertically" prize. It might even be cool sounding for the laypeople who really don't know what values 'space' can take. But it's not what matters, in fact it's irrelevant, was not a disputed trophy, and won't be mentioned 50 years from now.
- zardo 11y ago
  The huge difference is the Falcon 9 first stage is part of a system that puts a few thousand kilos in orbit, and it flys half a dozen times per year. Getting to space is just getting high off the ground, its not very useful unless you can achieve orbit.
- Tloewald 11y ago
  Actually, I'm sure NASA managed that first a long time ago. In fact, didn't they do it on the moon several times? At any rate, John Carmack's Armadillo Aerospace managed it long before Bezos did. But wait, he didn't get to space? Hair-splitting. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8eb_1318290493 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8eb_1318290493
- vectorjohn 11y ago
  They're barely comparable. If at all. The F9 isn't at orbital velocity (although, much faster and on an orbital trajectory that has to be cancelled out). Sure. But the F9 was actually taking a payload to orbit. The Blue Origin never will, it's just a mega rich tourist toy.
- TrevorJ 11y ago
  At the end of the day, you could do what Blue Origin did with a balloon. The practical aspect of actually being able to put something on orbit is what's special.
grkvlt 11y ago
I guess it's like Hilary and Tenzing being the first to climb Everest, and then someone else (can't remember who it was) coming along and doing it without supplementary oxygen. Just because that was harder doesn't detract from the fact that Hilary and Tenzing were first and anyone else is just joining the ever-growing club of Everest summiters. Now, if you want to invent an extra category of 'first VTOL landing for a first stage booster for an orbital rocket system that uses boost-back to change trajectory mid-course' or similar, they SpaceX are first with that, and of course it's an awesome achievement.
- JshWright 11y ago
  Ok, in that case, SpaceX was 'first' to land a VTOL rocket with Grasshopper... unless you want to invent an extra category of "first VTOL landing for a ground launched rocket that crossed an arbitrary altitude threshold before returning at terminal velocity".
  - lutorm 11y ago
    Actually, that prize goes back as far as DC-X (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-X https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-X), if not farther. Grasshopper and F9R-dev were evolutionary, in that they were larger than what had been done before, not revolutionary. Landing the F9 stage is not even the first "reusable part of an orbital launch system", the Space Shuttle was that. It just wasn't very effective in terms of lowering the cost, which is where F9's true claim of being a game changer is going to be. Let's hope that pans out.

grkvlt 11y ago

But the F9 first stage doesn't get to orbital velocity, either, remember. The achievements are comparable, despite the fact it makes SpaceX come second. Blue Origin was first with a VTOL rocket stage, as part of a space system.

JshWright 11y ago
> But the F9 first stage doesn't get to orbital velocity, either, remember. It gets a whole lot closer (and is _much_ larger). I really can't emphasize enough how much of a difference the ability to hover makes for New Shepard. SpaceX has been doing "New Shepard" type flights for a long time now (they didn't bother going that high, but 'high' isn't really that interesting, it's 'fast' that matters). However, Grasshopper (like New Shepard) was able to throttle down to a TWR less than 1. That makes landing so much easier (the rocket can 'stop' and get settled before it proceeds to land).
- darkmighty 11y ago
  To give people an idea, this is the difference of scale: http://i.imgur.com/RVOKED2.jpg http://i.imgur.com/RVOKED2.jpg Blue Origin's achievement is nice; just as older prototypes that achieved suborbital landing (Grasshopper, DC-X), but it's unclear yet what it meant for the industry (hope they keep going though, they're a good track). SpaceX's landing is a landmark for space travel, rapid reusability is now much closer. I'm much more confident now this will change the cost structure of the whole industry, seeing how launch is a dominant factor.
cornholio 11y ago
Sure, Bezos gets the "first rocket that went to 'space' and landed vertically" prize. It might even be cool sounding for the laypeople who really don't know what values 'space' can take. But it's not what matters, in fact it's irrelevant, was not a disputed trophy, and won't be mentioned 50 years from now.
zardo 11y ago
The huge difference is the Falcon 9 first stage is part of a system that puts a few thousand kilos in orbit, and it flys half a dozen times per year. Getting to space is just getting high off the ground, its not very useful unless you can achieve orbit.
Tloewald 11y ago
Actually, I'm sure NASA managed that first a long time ago. In fact, didn't they do it on the moon several times? At any rate, John Carmack's Armadillo Aerospace managed it long before Bezos did. But wait, he didn't get to space? Hair-splitting. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8eb_1318290493 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8eb_1318290493
vectorjohn 11y ago
They're barely comparable. If at all. The F9 isn't at orbital velocity (although, much faster and on an orbital trajectory that has to be cancelled out). Sure. But the F9 was actually taking a payload to orbit. The Blue Origin never will, it's just a mega rich tourist toy.
TrevorJ 11y ago
At the end of the day, you could do what Blue Origin did with a balloon. The practical aspect of actually being able to put something on orbit is what's special.

grkvlt 11y ago

I guess it's like Hilary and Tenzing being the first to climb Everest, and then someone else (can't remember who it was) coming along and doing it without supplementary oxygen. Just because that was harder doesn't detract from the fact that Hilary and Tenzing were first and anyone else is just joining the ever-growing club of Everest summiters. Now, if you want to invent an extra category of 'first VTOL landing for a first stage booster for an orbital rocket system that uses boost-back to change trajectory mid-course' or similar, they SpaceX are first with that, and of course it's an awesome achievement.

JshWright 11y ago
Ok, in that case, SpaceX was 'first' to land a VTOL rocket with Grasshopper... unless you want to invent an extra category of "first VTOL landing for a ground launched rocket that crossed an arbitrary altitude threshold before returning at terminal velocity".
- lutorm 11y ago
  Actually, that prize goes back as far as DC-X (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-X https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-X), if not farther. Grasshopper and F9R-dev were evolutionary, in that they were larger than what had been done before, not revolutionary. Landing the F9 stage is not even the first "reusable part of an orbital launch system", the Space Shuttle was that. It just wasn't very effective in terms of lowering the cost, which is where F9's true claim of being a game changer is going to be. Let's hope that pans out.