5 ms·
Two issues I remember hearing - there's a much larger launch window for landing on the ocean barge and something regarding approval/ regulations being more stri
by cududa 10y ago
Two issues I remember hearing - there's a much larger launch window for landing on the ocean barge and something regarding approval/ regulations being more stringent for a land launch. Blue Origin's test flight didn't go too high so it didn't face the same issues.
I may be completely wrong here but I'm fairly certain that's what I remember reading.
- spacetourist 10y agoYeah you're wrong, it's to do with the speed they are travelling to get the launch trajectory, they lack the fuel required to make it back to land
- JshWright 10y agoIt has nothing to do with the height. Both rockets go 'up' a similar amount. The difference is how far sideways Falcon 9 has to go (since it is launching a payload to orbit). https://what-if.xkcd.com/58/ https://what-if.xkcd.com/58/
- pricechild 10y agoHave Blue Origin gone 'up' further than ~100km ?
- JshWright 10y agoThey're in that ballpark. I know the capsule exceeded 100km. I don't know if the first stage technically broke that or not, but it was closer if it didn't.
- pricechild 10y agoI think SpaceX are in a much higher ballpark?
- JshWright 10y agoNot really... A few dozen km altitude difference doesn't mean a whole lot. The _much_ more significant difference is that Falcon 9 is traveling sideways at several times the speed of sound. New Shepherd is "just" going sight up and coming back down.