7 ms·

OK, explain how the landing of the SpaceX first stage was many times more difficult? They used different mechanisms, yes (suicide burn vs. hover-capable) and t

by grkvlt 11y ago

OK, explain how the landing of the SpaceX first stage was many times more difficult? They used different mechanisms, yes (suicide burn vs. hover-capable) and the purpose of the overall system was different, but they are both VTOL rockets. Blue Origin was first, and Bezos can quite rightly welcome SpaceX to 'the club' as the second company to achieve this, without being accused of being classless, surely?

jacquesm 11y ago
Because the Falcon 9 traveled at several thousand miles per hour horizontally when it did its flip and then the first retro burn. By contrast, the Blue Origin rocket went straight up, and straight back down. It never moved away from the launchpad in any appreciable amount and it never had to change orientation. From a space applications perspective it is not much more useful than a blimp. Today, history was made. Blue Origin: not so much. Nice but nowhere near in the same league (or the same club, to stick with Bezos).
- gozo 11y ago
  History is being made wheter you like it or not.
- stcredzero 11y ago
  By contrast, the Blue Origin rocket went straight up, and straight back down...From a space applications perspective it is not much more useful than a blimp. Actually, the "pop-up" 1st stage trajectory is interesting from a space applications perspective. You can think of it this way: a SSTO spaceplane is just beyond the cusp of possible for technology made out of normal matter and fueled by chemical rockets. But what if you could somehow cheat and launch an SSTO at very high altitude? Then it's just below the cusp of possible. So you wind up with a completely reusable TSTO craft. So how is that more interesting than a high altitude blimp? You get the craft back faster, directly to the facility. Recovery is more straightforward. The equipment and technology is the same sort of equipment and technology as in the orbiter craft. Also, if you're able to get up to a "mere" 600 mph or so downrange velocity, due to the mathematics of the rocket equation, you're still saving a sizable chunk of vehicle weight in fuel.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    Even for that application Falcon would be a lot more usable due to the increased payload compared to BO's offering.
    - stcredzero 11y ago
      True. But I'm not defending BO's craft. I'm just pointing out that the "pop up" first stage trajectory is indeed interesting. You wind up with a godawful huge 1st stage and a rather tiny orbiter, but lots of things are simplified, especially with 1st stage logistics.
TeMPOraL 11y ago
If we downplay the difference between the landing modes and vehicle's missions, then SpaceX has beaten Blue Origin anyway - they had Grasshoppers doing VTOL years ago. After all, what's the difference between 700m and 100km, especially if in the latter case you're falling at terminal velocity for most of the way? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grasshopper_%28rocket%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grasshopper_%28rocket%29
mikeash 11y ago
How is BO's achievement different from what SpaceX did with their Grasshopper test vehicle years ago? If you want to say it's about VTOL rockets, SpaceX was first by a long way. If you want to say it's about reusing an orbital launcher, BO is nowhere close. You have to torture the categories into uselessness to say BO did anything first.
sillysaurus3 11y ago
Why is this downvoted? There is some serious tribalism going on in this thread. You all need to chill out and start thinking again. Who cares whether BO or SpaceX was first, or whether China or America was first? We should be happy that humanity is closer to Mars.
- CamperBob2 11y ago
  It probably wouldn't have come up if Bezos hadn't thumped his chest in Musk's direction, or if Musk hadn't taken the bait. Competitive people are competitive. Film (and Twitter fight) at 11...
- justinsingh 11y ago
  I for one think that giving credit where credit is due is an important thing.
  - sillysaurus3 11y ago
    Getting off this rock is probably the only thing that matters. Credit is irrelevant when Earth is no longer habitable and we never left.
    - CamperBob2 11y ago
      That, and I want to see an Epic Rap Battle of History between Musk and Bezos some day. It will take a lot of competition and a lot of progress before they have enough dirt to throw at each other.
      - sillysaurus3 11y ago
        Hahaha... Thanks, that cheered me up. Someone should totally do rap battles while pretending to be some famous figure. The possibilities are endless. Faux Bill Gates vs Faux Steve Jobs.
        pnt12 11y ago
sixQuarks 11y ago
Didn't SpaceX go around the entire earth before landing? I don't think Bezos'did
- ctdonath 11y ago
  Could someone clarify the stage one path? Where did it launch, and where did it land, and where did it go horizontally in the meantime?
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    It flew 100's of kms away from the launch site, flipped around, flew back and landed a mile or so from the launchpad. http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/12/by-making-a-historic-landing-spacex-launches-new-age-of-spaceflight/ http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/12/by-making-a-historic-...
    - vermontdevil 11y ago
      Actually 9KM from the launchpad I believe.
- robotresearcher 11y ago
  No.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- zardo 11y ago
  No, but it lifted a second stage that continued on to orbit, delivering 11 satellites. https://i.imgur.com/D9BdO86.png https://i.imgur.com/D9BdO86.png http://www.flightclub.io/results.php?id=eb627cc3-ffab-43a3-9a63-0009a366acb2&code=OG22 http://www.flightclub.io/results.php?id=eb627cc3-ffab-43a3-9...
demallien 11y ago
Because Falcon9 is a big launcher taking a serious payload into orbit. This means that the first stage has to have very large engines - so large that they can't be throttled down to hover, they have to kill velocity at the point of touchdown. It's the difference between slowing your car down gently to stop at a red light, and having your car going at max speed and slamming on the brakes as hard as you can at exactly the right moment so that you will eventually stop at the lights. One is easy to do, the other will most likely get you killed.

by grkvlt 11y ago

jacquesm 11y ago

Because the Falcon 9 traveled at several thousand miles per hour horizontally when it did its flip and then the first retro burn. By contrast, the Blue Origin rocket went straight up, and straight back down. It never moved away from the launchpad in any appreciable amount and it never had to change orientation. From a space applications perspective it is not much more useful than a blimp. Today, history was made. Blue Origin: not so much. Nice but nowhere near in the same league (or the same club, to stick with Bezos).

gozo 11y ago
History is being made wheter you like it or not.
stcredzero 11y ago
By contrast, the Blue Origin rocket went straight up, and straight back down...From a space applications perspective it is not much more useful than a blimp. Actually, the "pop-up" 1st stage trajectory is interesting from a space applications perspective. You can think of it this way: a SSTO spaceplane is just beyond the cusp of possible for technology made out of normal matter and fueled by chemical rockets. But what if you could somehow cheat and launch an SSTO at very high altitude? Then it's just below the cusp of possible. So you wind up with a completely reusable TSTO craft. So how is that more interesting than a high altitude blimp? You get the craft back faster, directly to the facility. Recovery is more straightforward. The equipment and technology is the same sort of equipment and technology as in the orbiter craft. Also, if you're able to get up to a "mere" 600 mph or so downrange velocity, due to the mathematics of the rocket equation, you're still saving a sizable chunk of vehicle weight in fuel.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  Even for that application Falcon would be a lot more usable due to the increased payload compared to BO's offering.
  - stcredzero 11y ago
    True. But I'm not defending BO's craft. I'm just pointing out that the "pop up" first stage trajectory is indeed interesting. You wind up with a godawful huge 1st stage and a rather tiny orbiter, but lots of things are simplified, especially with 1st stage logistics.

TeMPOraL 11y ago

If we downplay the difference between the landing modes and vehicle's missions, then SpaceX has beaten Blue Origin anyway - they had Grasshoppers doing VTOL years ago. After all, what's the difference between 700m and 100km, especially if in the latter case you're falling at terminal velocity for most of the way? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grasshopper_%28rocket%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grasshopper_%28rocket%29

mikeash 11y ago

How is BO's achievement different from what SpaceX did with their Grasshopper test vehicle years ago? If you want to say it's about VTOL rockets, SpaceX was first by a long way. If you want to say it's about reusing an orbital launcher, BO is nowhere close. You have to torture the categories into uselessness to say BO did anything first.

sillysaurus3 11y ago

Why is this downvoted? There is some serious tribalism going on in this thread. You all need to chill out and start thinking again. Who cares whether BO or SpaceX was first, or whether China or America was first? We should be happy that humanity is closer to Mars.

CamperBob2 11y ago
It probably wouldn't have come up if Bezos hadn't thumped his chest in Musk's direction, or if Musk hadn't taken the bait. Competitive people are competitive. Film (and Twitter fight) at 11...
justinsingh 11y ago
I for one think that giving credit where credit is due is an important thing.
- sillysaurus3 11y ago
  Getting off this rock is probably the only thing that matters. Credit is irrelevant when Earth is no longer habitable and we never left.
  - CamperBob2 11y ago
    That, and I want to see an Epic Rap Battle of History between Musk and Bezos some day. It will take a lot of competition and a lot of progress before they have enough dirt to throw at each other.
    - sillysaurus3 11y ago
      Hahaha... Thanks, that cheered me up. Someone should totally do rap battles while pretending to be some famous figure. The possibilities are endless. Faux Bill Gates vs Faux Steve Jobs.
      - pnt12 11y ago

sixQuarks 11y ago

Didn't SpaceX go around the entire earth before landing? I don't think Bezos'did

ctdonath 11y ago
Could someone clarify the stage one path? Where did it launch, and where did it land, and where did it go horizontally in the meantime?
- jacquesm 11y ago
  It flew 100's of kms away from the launch site, flipped around, flew back and landed a mile or so from the launchpad. http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/12/by-making-a-historic-landing-spacex-launches-new-age-of-spaceflight/ http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/12/by-making-a-historic-...
  - vermontdevil 11y ago
    Actually 9KM from the launchpad I believe.
robotresearcher 11y ago
No.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
zardo 11y ago
No, but it lifted a second stage that continued on to orbit, delivering 11 satellites. https://i.imgur.com/D9BdO86.png https://i.imgur.com/D9BdO86.png http://www.flightclub.io/results.php?id=eb627cc3-ffab-43a3-9a63-0009a366acb2&code=OG22 http://www.flightclub.io/results.php?id=eb627cc3-ffab-43a3-9...

demallien 11y ago

Because Falcon9 is a big launcher taking a serious payload into orbit. This means that the first stage has to have very large engines - so large that they can't be throttled down to hover, they have to kill velocity at the point of touchdown. It's the difference between slowing your car down gently to stop at a red light, and having your car going at max speed and slamming on the brakes as hard as you can at exactly the right moment so that you will eventually stop at the lights. One is easy to do, the other will most likely get you killed.