4 ms·

Blue Origin already landed their rocket last year just not on a barge.

BloodOfSokar 11y ago
Blue Origin flew straight up then straight back down and landed, which SpaceX had already done a bunch of times before them.
- dghughes 11y ago
  Are you sure? Anything I can see shows it's after the Nov 2015 Blue Origin successful landing. Not that it matters I'm just curious.
  - extrapickles 11y ago
    SpaceX had a rocket called grasshopper that went up and back down Blue Origin style (it didn't goto space though). Grasshopper was much closer in complexity to what Blue Origin did vs what SpaceX just did.
moultano 11y ago
They didn't go to orbit. Not in the same league.
- dghughes 11y ago
  But Blue Origin has sent rockets 100km up i.e. the Kármán line which is considered outer space, and landed. I think they've done a great deal just as SpaceX has I don't understand the dismissal of what they do why can't people be excited for both?
  - moultano 11y ago
    https://what-if.xkcd.com/58/ https://what-if.xkcd.com/58/ That does a good job of explaining it. Space isn't very far away. The difference between getting to space and getting to orbit is the difference between something you can build in your garage and NASA.
  - CydeWeys 11y ago
    This xkcd is pretty illuminating on the subject: https://what-if.xkcd.com/58/ https://what-if.xkcd.com/58/ Reaching 100 km straight up is not that hard. You can do half that just with a balloon, and you can easily exceed it with a simple sounding rocket. The point is that the vast majority of the energy required to actually get into orbit comes from horizontal velocity. Going straight up is way, way easier going fast enough sideways so that you never hit the Earth on the way back "down". So ... > I think they've done a great deal just as SpaceX Simply isn't true. Blue Origin is doing cool stuff, I won't begrudge them that, but it's not within an order of magnitude of the same kind of accomplishment. The take-off mass of New Origin is 75 Mg. The take-off mass of a Falcon 9 is 541 Mg, and keep in mind it is designed to be capable of using the Falcon Heavy configuration, which is almost triple that in total take-off mass. The SpaceX rockets, owing to their much larger size, are capable of things that the Blue Origin rockets simply are not.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    I can't be excited for both because what BO is doing isn't very interesting. Just going to space isn't very useful nor very hard. BO's main market for this appears to be tourism. There might be a bit of a market for very short term microgravity experiments, but that's about it. And getting stuff to space is something hobbyists have done for fun, it's not a huge challenge anymore. Going to orbit, on the other hand, is both vastly more difficult and vastly more useful. Lots of companies will pay tens or hundreds of millions of dollars to put their stuff into orbit. All you have to do to understand the difference in excitement is to look at the implications. SpaceX's landing is likely to lead to a near-term reduction in the cost of launches by 50-75%, and a long-term reduction by a couple of orders of magnitude. That's huge. That's the difference between a one-off Apollo-style Mars mission that only a government can afford, and privately-funded colonization. BO's landing means that you'll soon be able to pay a few hundred thousand dollars for five minutes in space. That's cool, but it's basically a better amusement park ride.
    - stcredzero 11y ago
      I can't be excited for both because what BO is doing isn't very interesting. I suspect BO is working bottom-up for where SpaceX is right now. But they are going to start with reusability from the get-go.
    - greglindahl 11y ago
      BO is midway through building a new 1st stage engine for ULA's next-generation rocket, and the "tourist rocket" is intended to be the upper stage of BO's future orbital launch system using that 1st stage engine. Sure, BO has a long way to go, but it's not that they're only doing the tourist rocket. Hey, I like SpaceX a lot, but that doesn't mean I'm going to judge BO only by what they have flying today.
      - mikeash 11y ago
        I just don't get excited about such far off future stuff. It's neat, but until it's actually here, or at least imminent, it's nothing more than neat. I feel the same way about SpaceX's BFR and MCT. I'm not judging BO, I'm sure they know what they're doing and their future plans look pretty good from what I know. But given the large difference in current achievements, I'd hope it wouldn't be too big of a surprise why someone would get excited about what SpaceX is doing but not BO.

Blue Origin flew straight up then straight back down and landed, which SpaceX had already done a bunch of times before them.

dghughes 11y ago
Are you sure? Anything I can see shows it's after the Nov 2015 Blue Origin successful landing. Not that it matters I'm just curious.
- extrapickles 11y ago
  SpaceX had a rocket called grasshopper that went up and back down Blue Origin style (it didn't goto space though). Grasshopper was much closer in complexity to what Blue Origin did vs what SpaceX just did.

moultano 11y ago

They didn't go to orbit. Not in the same league.

dghughes 11y ago
But Blue Origin has sent rockets 100km up i.e. the Kármán line which is considered outer space, and landed. I think they've done a great deal just as SpaceX has I don't understand the dismissal of what they do why can't people be excited for both?
- moultano 11y ago
  https://what-if.xkcd.com/58/ https://what-if.xkcd.com/58/ That does a good job of explaining it. Space isn't very far away. The difference between getting to space and getting to orbit is the difference between something you can build in your garage and NASA.
- CydeWeys 11y ago
  This xkcd is pretty illuminating on the subject: https://what-if.xkcd.com/58/ https://what-if.xkcd.com/58/ Reaching 100 km straight up is not that hard. You can do half that just with a balloon, and you can easily exceed it with a simple sounding rocket. The point is that the vast majority of the energy required to actually get into orbit comes from horizontal velocity. Going straight up is way, way easier going fast enough sideways so that you never hit the Earth on the way back "down". So ... > I think they've done a great deal just as SpaceX Simply isn't true. Blue Origin is doing cool stuff, I won't begrudge them that, but it's not within an order of magnitude of the same kind of accomplishment. The take-off mass of New Origin is 75 Mg. The take-off mass of a Falcon 9 is 541 Mg, and keep in mind it is designed to be capable of using the Falcon Heavy configuration, which is almost triple that in total take-off mass. The SpaceX rockets, owing to their much larger size, are capable of things that the Blue Origin rockets simply are not.
- mikeash 11y ago
  I can't be excited for both because what BO is doing isn't very interesting. Just going to space isn't very useful nor very hard. BO's main market for this appears to be tourism. There might be a bit of a market for very short term microgravity experiments, but that's about it. And getting stuff to space is something hobbyists have done for fun, it's not a huge challenge anymore. Going to orbit, on the other hand, is both vastly more difficult and vastly more useful. Lots of companies will pay tens or hundreds of millions of dollars to put their stuff into orbit. All you have to do to understand the difference in excitement is to look at the implications. SpaceX's landing is likely to lead to a near-term reduction in the cost of launches by 50-75%, and a long-term reduction by a couple of orders of magnitude. That's huge. That's the difference between a one-off Apollo-style Mars mission that only a government can afford, and privately-funded colonization. BO's landing means that you'll soon be able to pay a few hundred thousand dollars for five minutes in space. That's cool, but it's basically a better amusement park ride.
  - stcredzero 11y ago
    I can't be excited for both because what BO is doing isn't very interesting. I suspect BO is working bottom-up for where SpaceX is right now. But they are going to start with reusability from the get-go.
  - greglindahl 11y ago
    BO is midway through building a new 1st stage engine for ULA's next-generation rocket, and the "tourist rocket" is intended to be the upper stage of BO's future orbital launch system using that 1st stage engine. Sure, BO has a long way to go, but it's not that they're only doing the tourist rocket. Hey, I like SpaceX a lot, but that doesn't mean I'm going to judge BO only by what they have flying today.
    - mikeash 11y ago
      I just don't get excited about such far off future stuff. It's neat, but until it's actually here, or at least imminent, it's nothing more than neat. I feel the same way about SpaceX's BFR and MCT. I'm not judging BO, I'm sure they know what they're doing and their future plans look pretty good from what I know. But given the large difference in current achievements, I'd hope it wouldn't be too big of a surprise why someone would get excited about what SpaceX is doing but not BO.