18 ms·
Blue Origin successfully lands both booster and crew capsule after test launch
- hackujin 8y agoStraight up... straight down. No orbit. Nothing to see other than "tourist" flights for people who want to see what space is like but without weightlessness.
- arrrg 8y agoIf there‘s any freefall involved there will be weightlessness, orbit or not.
- hackujin 8y ago> while the booster drops back down, kicking in the landing gear and rocket-powered breaking system to land on the ground, unscathed. The capsule, meanwhile, using a pair of parachutes to coast back to Earth Nope. No weightlessness at all.
- stouset 8y agoI’m sure there’s some period between booster cutoff and the parachutes. They’re not sending the chutes out while the capsule is still on the upward part of its parabolic arc.
- dandelany 8y agoThe capsule experiences ~3 mins of freefall/microgravity/“weightlessness” - in fact, they’ve already flown payloads that depend on this. https://www.blueorigin.com/news/news/first-commercial-payloads-onboard-new-shepard https://www.blueorigin.com/news/news/first-commercial-payloa...
- hackujin 8y agoI can experience that jumping out of a plane and for way longer than 3 minutes.
- rory096 8y agoNo, you can't. You'll feel the force of air resistance (drag) as soon as you exit the plane, increasing until you hit terminal velocity and 1g.
- losvedir 8y agoI think you misunderstand weightlessness. The Blue Origin capsule got to about 75 miles altitude and low earth orbit starts about 100 miles, while Earth's surface is about 4,000 miles from the center of gravity. In other words, the force due to gravity is essentially the same for all of these. Weightlessness is falling, that's it.
- sctb 8y agoIt's time to stop with the dismissals in this thread. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- melling 8y agoWill it be a profitable business? You could bootstrap the future of space flight simply by starting with a small profitable company.
- Jach 8y agoIt hasn't exactly worked out for XCOR or Virgin Galactic, what will Blue Origin's edge be?
- ISL 8y agoA huge reserve of capital and the long-term vision necessary to do every piece right.
- melling 8y agoXCOR filed for bankruptcy. That’s not profitable. Virgin Galactic isn’t a profitable company either. They could be, of course. My point was that you can start with a small company with a well-defined goal and product then continue to grow the vision, as long as you remain profitable.
- Jach 8y agoYeah I don't disagree here, my point was that Blue Origin's particular goal and product bootstrapping from space tourism has already been tried and more or less failed. Whereas Musk's/SpaceX's goal is to get a Mars colony going, they started with something different than space tourism and it seems to be working out.
- melling 8y agoVirgin Galactic hasn’t failed yet. Someone was killed so they’ve been extremely cautious. Bezos is a good business person. It’s quite possible he’ll run thin margins and grow the business.
- kanox 8y agoNo need for that, Jeff Bezos is funding Blue Origin with 1 billion each year by selling Amazon stock.
- WillPostForFood 8y agoYou could have said the same about the first couple Mercury flights. It is a progression leading to orbit.
- Gargoyle 8y agoThis comment is Hacker News in a nutshell.
- toss1 8y agoYup. Merely finding fault is the easiest, most trivial thing to do. edit: oops, I was shown to be wrong and I stand corrected. Downvoting without discussion is even easier . . .
- ISL 8y agoTo judge a suborbital launch for having not made orbit is to criticize a Ferrari for having not reached 30,000' above a test track. The goals are different, and the metrics are different. Blue Origin is moving through a planned series of test flights necessary to bring untrained astronauts into space on their own custom hardware with an improved margin of safety. Comparisons with SpaceX will again become reasonable when either a) One of the companies launches a person into space, as both aspire to do, or b) Blue Origin begins an orbital campaign. Congratulations, Blue Origin. You crushed it again today.
- hackujin 8y agoThey aren't going to space! The thing barely makes it to to edge of the atmosphere. How long are you gonna keep apologizing for them? There's literally no technical innovation here. No payload. No orbit. No value.
- samcat116 8y agoI'd say any sort of reusable booster is technical innovation. They had test payloads. And no one is apologizing for anyone.
- rich-and-poor 8y agoI'm sorry, it's not technical innovation. If someone invents a horse and carriage when the automobile is already in existence, the horse and carriage is not innovation. The poster who has been downvoted out of existence is correct.
- legitster 8y agoSpaceX has been a phenomenal force in space flight, but their whole philosophy has been to move fast and break things. And consumers have gotten to watch crash after crash and explosion after explosion. Bezos is making the bet that the average person is to trust their luggage but not their life on SpaceX. If they take their time and get it right, there are huge second mover advantages here.
- ninkendo 8y agoDo you have a citation that shows that SpaceX has more incidents per launch than other craft?
- kadenshep 8y agohttps://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2018/01/15/doubts-about-spacex-reliability-persist-as-astronaut-missions-approach/#2aa33ff63305 https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2018/01/15/doubts... I googled it for you. >"Zuma" satellite is the third payload sitting on a Falcon 9 that has been lost in four years. By way of comparison, United Launch Alliance, SpaceX's sole competitor in the military launch business, hasn't lost a single payload in 12 years and 124 missions. >two recent government reports raise questions bearing upon the reliability of SpaceX products and processes. The first is an evaluation of quality controls among launch-vehicle suppliers to the military space program. That report, prepared by the defense department's Inspector General and dated December 20, found 181 deviations from quality standards at contractor sites. Over a third were "major nonconformities," meaning deviations that might contribute to a failure in quality controls.
- rory096 8y agoZuma was not a SpaceX failure. This article is FUD by the COO of a think tank linked to the defense industry. https://twitter.com/lthompsonlex https://twitter.com/lthompsonlex http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/boeing-meant-america-centennial-assessment/ http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/boeing-meant-america-cente...
- wlesieutre 8y agoThe article glosses over what kind of rocket this is, so it's worth pointing out that New Shepherd is a suborbital booster. You can't launch satellites with it, only go up and fall back down. Still cool though! ADDENDUM - if you want to keep an eye on other projects, their reusable orbital booster is New Glenn. IIRC it's higher capacity than Falcon 9, maybe more toward Falcon Heavy. Last I heard they're shooting for a first test launch in 2020. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Glenn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Glenn
- rory096 8y agoNote that New Glenn, like Falcon 9, is only partially reusable — the booster is recovered but the second stage is expended. Both companies have aspirations to reuse the second stage, but few tangible plans so far. New Shepard is in some ways a technology pathfinder for New Glenn's second stage, which will (as of January[0]) use a vacuum-optimized version of New Shepard's BE-3 booster engine. New Glenn's payload is somewhat greater than reusable Falcon Heavy.[1] Falcon Heavy's is likely greater with a center core expendable or fully expendable mission, which Blue Origin says it will never opt to do. [0] https://spacenews.com/blue-origin-switches-engines-for-new-glenn-second-stage/ https://spacenews.com/blue-origin-switches-engines-for-new-g... [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/BlueOrigin/comments/5ygtaa/new_glenn_payload_mass_to_leo_is_18_38_greater/ https://www.reddit.com/r/BlueOrigin/comments/5ygtaa/new_glen...
- CydeWeys 8y agoSpaceX's BFR is full reusable, and is currently the main engineering focus of the company.
- the-pigeon 8y agoSpaceX's BFR is planned but there's never been a BFR launch. I don't think plans count.
- JshWright 8y ago
- cspags 8y agoInteresting that they stated a passenger would have experienced a peak of 10 Gs, that seems excessively high for tourism. The space shuttle launches were around 3 Gs and Soyuz rockets around 4 Gs. https://space.stackexchange.com/a/7857 https://space.stackexchange.com/a/7857
- nabla9 8y ago10 G is not sustained. 10 G max is not enough for airbag deployment in cars. For a short time is nothing to talk about during emergency when it comes from the back (eyballs in) and you are protected from the whiplash. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Human_linear_acceleration_tolerance.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Human_linear_acceleration...
- CaptainDecisive 8y agoAgreed, I've read you get about 4g peak deceleration going down stairs. But people seem to survive that process on a regular basis. So a temporary 10g is not a problem, and the effects of gravity loads on the human body are well studied and understood by military and aerospace organizations.
- welikespace 8y agoThis test fired the emergency abort motor. Normally, the rocket peaks at around 3Gs: https://www.blueorigin.com/new-shepard https://www.blueorigin.com/new-shepard > Accelerating at more than 3 Gs to faster than Mach 3...
- bunderbunder 8y agoThis is testing an abort procedure, not something that's meant to be a part of your everyday ride into space.
- agildehaus 8y agoThis was a test of an emergency abort. You wouldn't experience that on a nominal flight.
- olex 8y ago
- rory096 8y agoNote that this flight tested an in-space abort, firing the crew capsule's solid motor to simulate an emergency escape from the booster. Because the abort took place after MECO, the capsule reached an apogee of 118.8km. This will likely stand as New Shepard's altitude record. Blue Origin previously tested a transonic abort and (unexpectedly) recovered the booster. Recovery did not appear to be in question this time.
- hackujin 8y agoMore like "in high altitude, low air pressure environment abort". This thing will never go to space. It's not designed for that.
- mulmen 8y agoMy understanding is that the New Shepherd is designed for space tourism. With that in mind it is designed specifically to reach space.
- rory096 8y agoThis is false. Space begins at 100km, the Karman line. New Shepard's typical apogee is about 107km, while this flight reached nearly 119km. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kármán_line https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kármán_line
- regnerba 8y agoThe karman line, the generally agreed upon edge of space, is at 100km. This capsule apparently reached 118km. It definitely didn't reach orbit and it isn't designed to be in space for long, but I wouldn't say it won't ever go to space.
- mooktakim 8y agoJust wanted to say: https://youtu.be/GiWQZhUmmRw https://youtu.be/GiWQZhUmmRw
- sctb 8y agoNot here, please. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- Sir_Cmpwn 8y agoThe difference between suborbital spaceflight and orbital spaceflight is like the difference between reading a book about Antarctica and going to Antarctica.
- m3kw9 8y agoThe temperature difference.
- SamUK96 8y agoThis was probably the most pragmatic transaction i've seen all week.
- nabla9 8y agoDifference in delta-v is roughly 8 times higher for low orbital flight. Difference in aerodynamic heating is more than that. I think Blue origin is still supersonic/high supersonic, re-entry from orbit is hypersonic and requires different materials.
- Scarbutt 8y agoIs it me or the capsule didn't land where it supposed to be? from the video looks like there was a spot for it. Also, landing at 16mph seems a little rough? I guess the capsule is not reused?
- welikespace 8y agoThe rocket & capsule are designed to be fully reusable. Retro rockets fire just before landing. This is the main cause of the dust cloud that kicks up around the capsule. Various sources on the web put the touchdown speed at 1-3 mph. Edit: the 3mph comes from a test where they disabled 1/3 of the parachutes [1]: Similar flights had been done with the same craft three times before, but this time around, one of the capsule’s parachutes was disabled. Bezos said the two parachutes slowed the descent to 23 mph, as opposed to the usual 16 mph with three parachutes. Just before the touchdown, the capsule’s retro rocket system fired. Bezos said that brought the speed at impact down to 3 mph. The capsule was equipped with a ring of crushable bumpers on its bottom to absorb that remaining force. [1] https://www.geekwire.com/2016/jeff-bezos-blue-origin-test-chute/ https://www.geekwire.com/2016/jeff-bezos-blue-origin-test-ch...
- alex_young 8y agoThanks. Looks like no retro rockets on the capsule this time around to me. Wonder what the underside looks like now.
- greglindahl 8y agoLooks the same as previous landings -- a big puff of dust. Normally everyone's showing up to claim that it looked like a hard landing, but the dust is kicked up by the retrorockets that make the landing soft.
- walrus01 8y agoOn this thing's trajectory and apogee, re-entry heating will be minimal if any. I wonder if they've looked at putting a crushable/deformable honeycomb type single use structure bolted onto the bottom side, that can be replaced after every flight.
- ChuckMcM 8y agoI really appreciate Blue Origin's methodical approach to building this system. I note that they are closer to being operational than Virgin Galactic who I consider their primary competitor. The challenge I have with the 'suborbital tourist' economy is that while some folks will pay $200K per ride for less than 3 minutes of zero gravity, one has to compare that to the Zero Gravity Corp which gives you over 6 minutes of weightlessness (in 20 - 30 second increments) for $5K[1] Sure there is the 'Concorde' effect where the very wealthy will all do it once so that they won't feel left out at cocktail parties but that does not seem sustainable. My hope is that Blue Origin's plans to move into orbital flights is successful. Spending $200K to spend nearly 90 minutes (1 orbit) weightless has much more appeal. [1] https://www.gozerog.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=reservations.welcome https://www.gozerog.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=reservations.we...
- tango24 8y agoAgreed. Let’s say if I earned $200K/yr, and was close to “retirement”. I’d consider working an extra year to take a 90 min orbit in space. I would not make that same decision for a 3 min joy ride.
- tlos 8y agoYou cannot save 100% of your pre-tax salary. That said, you make an interesting point
- sk_hazratali 8y agoI really appreciate Blue Origin's methodical approach to building this system. I note that they are closer to being operational than Virgin Galactic who I consider their primary competitor. The challenge I have with the 'suborbital tourist' economy is that while some folks will pay $200K per ride for less than 3 minutes of zero gravity, one has to compare that to the Zero Gravity Corp which gives you over 6 minutes of weightlessness (in 20 - 30 second increments) for $5K[1] Sure there is the 'Concorde' effect where the very wealthy will all do it once so that they won't feel left out at cocktail parties but that does not seem sustainable. My hope is that Blue Origin's plans to move into orbital flights is successful. Spending $200K to spend nearly 90 minutes (1 orbit) weightless has much more appeal. https://www.sherekhudahazratali.com/2018/07/main-madine-chala-main-madine-chala.html https://www.sherekhudahazratali.com/2018/07/main-madine-chal...
- preparedzebra 8y agoSeems like SpaceX is a light year beyond these guys. Do they just get coverage because they're a private space corp?
- FactolSarin 8y agoThat and it's run by Jeff Bezos, who has the money to do this for the long haul.
- azernik 8y agoBlue Origin is more of a wild card than SpaceX - because they have Bezos backing them with his endless bank account, they don't have to release products day-to-day like SpaceX does to fund their more ambitious plans. This also means that the public doesn't get much in the way of feedback on how well BO's development efforts are going. For the press, that means that it's really hard to judge whether BO's vehicles are vaporware or not, which fuels endless speculation. I personally happen to think that SpaceX's "ship something today" situation is good for their development process, but that may just be my software experience showing.
- swsieber 8y agoReleasing often does make the release process more polished...
- blhack 8y agoSpaceX is light years beyond what they are doing right now. --but-- Jeff Bezos has said he plans on spending $1 Billion/year on blue origin. Unlike SpaceX, they don't need to actually worry about money. To put in perspective how much money Jeff Bezos has (and he is somebody who really want to do space travel): he could privately fund a manned mission to mars and still remain the richest man in the world. It's just incomprehensible the resources that they have there. Blue O will almost definitely catch SpaceX.
- lstodd 8y agoHe might as well spend $10B a year, results will be the same. Time is money, but money isn't time.
- tonyponydong 8y agolet's talk about the dong shape. I'm straight but I like it.
- cududa 8y agoYou believe this to be an appropriate comment?
- tonyponydong 8y agoDing dong space censorship!
- 725686 8y agoCompletely irrelevant, but boy are those blue origin rockets ugly.
- sidcool 8y agoI read it somewhere that Elon Musk was since the beginning very demanding of aesthetics, in his rockets as well as cars. This has resulted in some beautiful looking rockets and cars. Having said that I believe it's primary for rockets to be safe and efficient rather than beautiful.
- drawnwren 8y agoThat's turned out well for his rockets, but man are most (except the S) of his cars ugly.
- zuck9 8y agoRoadster too?
- drawnwren 8y agoIn my opinion, especially the roadster. Easily the ugliest sports car since the fox body mustang. Right up there with the MR-S. Edit: The 1st Gen roadster. I'll reserve judgement on the second gen until it's released, but it looks a lot like the new NSX in photos. And the new NSX looked great until we saw them in real life and they turned out to be possibly the worst supercar of the 21st century.
- jacquesm 8y ago1st gen roadster isn't really a Tesla design, that's just a Lotus Elise body.
- drawnwren 8y agoI mean, it is a Tesla design in-as-much as I really like the Lotus Elise and really dislike the Tesla. They specifically restyled the Elise horribly. Probably at the request of Lotus, but it's certainly a design failure imo. You're right though, they did start from a Lotus Elise.
- rich-and-poor 8y agoI like the part where they got into orbit! Oh wait, they didn't, why is anyone paying attention to this company?
- JackFr 8y agoIt's been said before, but it bears repeating: Bezos and Musk are literal Bond-villains -- freaky looking billionaires building ICBMs under our very noses -- and no one is doing anything about it. Where is the gadget-laden, womanizing secret agent who will save us?
- testaccount6 8y agoIt does sort of feel like Jeff Bezos is taking over the world, doesn’t it?
- usermac 8y agoI stopped listening when they said "curve of the Earth"
- 619vipersadi 8y agoRedeem code Google play store