4 ms·

BO has been testing New Shepherd for four years with little visible progress, hoping for crewed flights this year is audacious. It’s unclear whether New Shepher

BO has been testing New Shepherd for four years with little visible progress, hoping for crewed flights this year is audacious. It’s unclear whether New Shepherd will even be continued based on all the other projects on their plate, and the likely limited demand for their minimal joyrides. And calling them sub-orbital is being generous. Mercury suborbital flights flew much higher and faster, and actually covered hundreds of miles in a parabolic arc. By comparison New Shepherd is a toy, a very expensive trampoline.

dwaltrip 6y ago
New Shepherd crosses the Karman line. It travels into space. I don’t know why you are insinuating otherwise. Obviously, it is quite far from orbiting but it is a legitimate, albeit brief, trip to space. That being said, I agree with you that their progress has been pretty damn slow. They do 1-2 test flights per year... As for demand, doesn’t Virgin Galactic, who will offer something very similar, have a customer list with hundreds of people who have prepaid? Demand might be much higher than you are suggesting.
- derekp7 6y ago
  To me, sub orbital is a "trip to space" in the same way as a non-stop flight from New York to LA is a "trip to Kansas" since you fly over it and other states in between. You aren't going "to" some place unless you can actually stay there for a period of time. But that is just my personal view. Another way of looking at it -- if the earth didn't have an atmosphere, would you be going "to space" by jumping on a trampoline? (ignoring the fact that we evolved to live in an atmosphere, of course).
  - dwaltrip 6y ago
    Well, space tourists are likely going more for the 100km view and the zero-g experience, which is present for a few minutes on a sub-orbital trip. Given that you can't get this experience anywhere else, a few minutes is better than nothing. The exiting of the atmosphere is part of the view [1], but it works in concert with the altitude. Trampolines, as far as I am aware, are incapable of propelling one to an altitude that provides such incredible views :) [1] https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_1529.html https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_1...
JumpCrisscross 6y ago
> with little visible progress They've been making a lot of progress. The BE-4 engine is under development. And their orbital rocket and lunar lander were announced within the last few years. It's a slow-and-steady approach, sure, but they're making tangible progress.
- whatshisface 6y ago
  I think the slow-and-steady branding is kind of funny when the competition appears to be fast-and-steady.
- valuearb 6y ago
  Press releases aren’t progress. Work on the New Glenn started in 2012. It was publicly announced in 2016. It’s still at least a year from flight. Work on the BE-4 started in 2011. It’s first public planned release date was 2017, it’s at least 4 years late.
  - mr_toad 6y ago
    Raptor engine development started in 2009. It took ten years for one to actually fly.
    - valuearb 6y ago
      The Raptor was a tiny project at SpaceX, behind the Merlin, Falcon 9, and Falcon Heavy in investment in its first years, and commercial crew in later years. BE-4 is the #1 project at BO, which is funding R&D at $1B a year.

dwaltrip 6y ago

New Shepherd crosses the Karman line. It travels into space. I don’t know why you are insinuating otherwise. Obviously, it is quite far from orbiting but it is a legitimate, albeit brief, trip to space. That being said, I agree with you that their progress has been pretty damn slow. They do 1-2 test flights per year... As for demand, doesn’t Virgin Galactic, who will offer something very similar, have a customer list with hundreds of people who have prepaid? Demand might be much higher than you are suggesting.

derekp7 6y ago
To me, sub orbital is a "trip to space" in the same way as a non-stop flight from New York to LA is a "trip to Kansas" since you fly over it and other states in between. You aren't going "to" some place unless you can actually stay there for a period of time. But that is just my personal view. Another way of looking at it -- if the earth didn't have an atmosphere, would you be going "to space" by jumping on a trampoline? (ignoring the fact that we evolved to live in an atmosphere, of course).
- dwaltrip 6y ago
  Well, space tourists are likely going more for the 100km view and the zero-g experience, which is present for a few minutes on a sub-orbital trip. Given that you can't get this experience anywhere else, a few minutes is better than nothing. The exiting of the atmosphere is part of the view [1], but it works in concert with the altitude. Trampolines, as far as I am aware, are incapable of propelling one to an altitude that provides such incredible views :) [1] https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_1529.html https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_1...

JumpCrisscross 6y ago

> with little visible progress They've been making a lot of progress. The BE-4 engine is under development. And their orbital rocket and lunar lander were announced within the last few years. It's a slow-and-steady approach, sure, but they're making tangible progress.

whatshisface 6y ago
I think the slow-and-steady branding is kind of funny when the competition appears to be fast-and-steady.
valuearb 6y ago
Press releases aren’t progress. Work on the New Glenn started in 2012. It was publicly announced in 2016. It’s still at least a year from flight. Work on the BE-4 started in 2011. It’s first public planned release date was 2017, it’s at least 4 years late.
- mr_toad 6y ago
  Raptor engine development started in 2009. It took ten years for one to actually fly.
  - valuearb 6y ago
    The Raptor was a tiny project at SpaceX, behind the Merlin, Falcon 9, and Falcon Heavy in investment in its first years, and commercial crew in later years. BE-4 is the #1 project at BO, which is funding R&D at $1B a year.