6 ms·

Even Bezos and Branson stopped right now, they've still proven that it's possible for a company other than SpaceX to put a man in orbit and dumped billions of d

Even Bezos and Branson stopped right now, they've still proven that it's possible for a company other than SpaceX to put a man in orbit and dumped billions of dollars back into the economy. False. I hate to be "that guy" but neither Bezos or Branson made it to orbit. Those were sub-orbital flights with parabolic trajectories. To use your analogies: If Tesla were the Ferrari, then Virgin Galactic and friends would be the kit cars that look like a Ferrari but have a typical muscle car under the skin. That's not to say that neither is impressive. They are definitely impressive. But they're also just carnival rides for Billionaires, and that's what gets on peoples nerves.

superfrank 5y ago
You're correct, but that doesn't really change the point I was trying to make Since you've edited your post, I'll respond to the rest. > But they're also just carnival rides for Billionaires, and that's what gets on peoples nerves. If Bezos or Branson had sent someone else up in their place, does that really change anything? Sure, it's expensive and only the super wealthy can afford to go into space right now, but there are plenty of technologies in our past that only the wealthy could afford at first, but as time went on, they became more affordable.
- geocrasher 5y ago
  Sorry about that, I realized I had more to say after I had posted the reply. Your point about expensive technology becoming more affordable in the long run- that makes a lot of sense, and I totally get it. At first, basic air travel was such a thing, as was travel by rail. Or fancy carriage. So yes. That much is true. And I think if they'd sent up other billionaires instead, it would have made no difference. The truth is that a lot of people are hurting badly, and to watch others do extravagant things that don't make a difference for the bettering of humanity now just pours salt on the 'wound' of poverty. For many people, it's visible proof of the gaps getting wider and wider.
  - superfrank 5y ago
    > The truth is that a lot of people are hurting badly, and to watch others do extravagant things that don't make a difference for the bettering of humanity now just pours salt on the 'wound' of poverty. For many people, it's visible proof of the gaps getting wider and wider. I hear you there, but I don't understand why Musk gets a free pass then? He's just as rich as Bezos and just as out of touch with what the needs of average American.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - geocrasher 5y ago
      Because in a lot of people's eyes all Branson and Bezos have done is show up late to the game with inferior technology and thrown themselves a party for it.
      - ozzythecat 5y ago
        You seem to believe space flight and cost efficient rocketry are as simple as flipping hamburgers. Bezos grilled a cheeseburger and invited friends for beer after McDonalds already produced a billion Big Macs, and so obviously Bezos was just show boating. If you despise Bezos and Branson because of their wealth, you can just leave it at that. But trivializing the hard work and accomplishment that went into what happened two now this month is near sighted, short term thinking. IMO it actually explains why America’s Congress is basically at a stand still. People are better feeling outraged about something rather than celebrating something right in front of them.
    - shkkmo 5y ago
      SpaceX's ventures have generally served more utilitarian purposes. There are significant economic, scientific and military advantages to reducing the cost of getting things into orbit. I don't think any of the three are bad, but I do think there is a gradient in terms of ambitions/successes that puts Musk well ahead of Bezos (at least until New Glen launches) and Bezo ahead of Branson. While Bezos/Branson's priorities seems slightly backwards to me, it isn't wholey unreasonable to take that stance that making spaceflight available to more people will increase the level of interest in spaceflight (even if the timing seems a bit tone deaf for that goal.)
- maccam94 5y ago
  I think it's viewed as wasteful because it doesn't actually get people into orbit, AND it is expensive. Thus, it's only really appealing to rich people with cash to burn. These vehicles aren't even stepping stones to orbital rockets, and orbital launch prices are dropping. It's much more likely that SpaceX will offer tickets to orbit for $25k in the next 5-10 years than it will be for Virgin Galactic to do so. Blue Origin at least has an orbital rocket in development, but who knows if/when it'll even start being fabricated.
  - xorfish 5y ago
    Safety won't be high enough for orbital flights for tourists. Sending rockets to space is still very prone to failures. Failure rates for unmanned rockets where lower 40 years ago than they are now if you look at the trailing 10 year failure rates. Around 1 in 20 unmanned mission fails. Failures for manned missions are less frequent, however noone can guarantee you, that the rate is lower than 1%. https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/8566/what-is-the-success-failure-ratio-of-space-bound-rockets https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/8566/what-is-the-s...
  - shkkmo 5y ago
    Blue Origin is building and firing the BE-4 engines that will be used by New Glen and I rather doubt that there isn't work being done to fabricate other systems given the work that has been completed on their Florida manufacturing facility. Do you have sources that indicate fabrication has not started?
    - maccam94 5y ago
      Aha I have found footage showing a New Glenn first stage in the factory earlier this year: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXOXKfarFhg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXOXKfarFhg I believe I was recalling another video tour, probably from last year, where they said "And this is where the assembled rockets will be stored" and the factory floor was empty. It's pretty cool that they've made so much progress since then!
- cwkoss 5y ago
  Neither Bezos or Branson achieved orbital velocities, which is the minimum bar for doing useful things related to space. It really is just a carnival ride - it's not about who's in it, its that they didn't actually achieve anything: what they built has no utility except as a dick-measuring contest. Orbit is a little bit of upwards velocity and a whole lot of sideways velocity. They only did the much simpler former. These sub orbital flights are just barely over the line into what can be called space travel, and do nothing useful except letting them brag that 'they went to space'
  - xyzzyz 5y ago
    > Neither Bezos or Branson achieved orbital velocities, which is the minimum bar for doing useful things related to space. Well, ICBMs are very useful, and only require sub-orbital velocities, though I don't necessarily want Bezos or Branson to get those.
    - cwkoss 5y ago
      Do ICBMs have any practical uses besides delivering explosives?
      - ckozlowski 5y ago
        If you can deliver a warhead, chances are you can deliver a satellite. Some of the space launchers today either started life as an ICBM turned dedicated launch vehicle (Proton) or are decommissioned ICBMs turned launch vehicles (Minotaur) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_(rocket_family) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_(rocket_family) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minotaur_(rocket_family) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minotaur_(rocket_family)
        cwkoss 5y ago
        Makes sense that former-ICBMs that can reach orbital velocity have utility. (Are they still ICBMs if the goal isn't to reach another continent?) I think the deltaV's needed to place a warhead on the surface are significantly less than those needed to put a satellite into low-earth orbit.
garmaine 5y ago
Frankly it would be more accurate to say they are go-karts dressed up like a sports car.
ozzythecat 5y ago
So the purpose of Blue Origin and Branson’s companies are just to be space rides for billionaires? And these guys are pumping billions of dollars into these companies just for fun, not because they might actually believe in space exploration? What exactly would they need to do to prove its not a carnival ride? Help me understand what your bar is. Before you can run, first you learn to walk. And before that, you learn to crawl. So in your view, Blue Origin is nothing more than a vanity/fun project. I’d really like to understand what objective take you have. For the record, I do know engineers at Blue Origins, and knowing how much they believe in the mission (their words), I’m struggling to understand what objective take you might have other than “I don’t like Bezos or billionaires and so I’m going to dismiss all the hard work that went into this as a carnival ride”
duchenne 5y ago
> neither Bezos or Branson made it to orbit. It is true that reaching orbit is much more difficult than reach space but Branson has another company called Virgin Orbit that did reach orbit. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Orbit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Orbit : > The first successful flight was on 17 January 2021, which delivered a payload of 10 CubeSats to low Earth orbit (LEO) It uses an unusual strategy. A boeing 747 carries the rocket under its left wing. So, it does not need a spaceport and can can be pre-aligned on any orbit. Bezos is also trying hard to reach orbit with the New Glenn space rocket. But this one had a lot of delays.

superfrank 5y ago

You're correct, but that doesn't really change the point I was trying to make Since you've edited your post, I'll respond to the rest. > But they're also just carnival rides for Billionaires, and that's what gets on peoples nerves. If Bezos or Branson had sent someone else up in their place, does that really change anything? Sure, it's expensive and only the super wealthy can afford to go into space right now, but there are plenty of technologies in our past that only the wealthy could afford at first, but as time went on, they became more affordable.

geocrasher 5y ago
Sorry about that, I realized I had more to say after I had posted the reply. Your point about expensive technology becoming more affordable in the long run- that makes a lot of sense, and I totally get it. At first, basic air travel was such a thing, as was travel by rail. Or fancy carriage. So yes. That much is true. And I think if they'd sent up other billionaires instead, it would have made no difference. The truth is that a lot of people are hurting badly, and to watch others do extravagant things that don't make a difference for the bettering of humanity now just pours salt on the 'wound' of poverty. For many people, it's visible proof of the gaps getting wider and wider.
- superfrank 5y ago
  > The truth is that a lot of people are hurting badly, and to watch others do extravagant things that don't make a difference for the bettering of humanity now just pours salt on the 'wound' of poverty. For many people, it's visible proof of the gaps getting wider and wider. I hear you there, but I don't understand why Musk gets a free pass then? He's just as rich as Bezos and just as out of touch with what the needs of average American.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - geocrasher 5y ago
    Because in a lot of people's eyes all Branson and Bezos have done is show up late to the game with inferior technology and thrown themselves a party for it.
    - ozzythecat 5y ago
      You seem to believe space flight and cost efficient rocketry are as simple as flipping hamburgers. Bezos grilled a cheeseburger and invited friends for beer after McDonalds already produced a billion Big Macs, and so obviously Bezos was just show boating. If you despise Bezos and Branson because of their wealth, you can just leave it at that. But trivializing the hard work and accomplishment that went into what happened two now this month is near sighted, short term thinking. IMO it actually explains why America’s Congress is basically at a stand still. People are better feeling outraged about something rather than celebrating something right in front of them.
  - shkkmo 5y ago
    SpaceX's ventures have generally served more utilitarian purposes. There are significant economic, scientific and military advantages to reducing the cost of getting things into orbit. I don't think any of the three are bad, but I do think there is a gradient in terms of ambitions/successes that puts Musk well ahead of Bezos (at least until New Glen launches) and Bezo ahead of Branson. While Bezos/Branson's priorities seems slightly backwards to me, it isn't wholey unreasonable to take that stance that making spaceflight available to more people will increase the level of interest in spaceflight (even if the timing seems a bit tone deaf for that goal.)
maccam94 5y ago
I think it's viewed as wasteful because it doesn't actually get people into orbit, AND it is expensive. Thus, it's only really appealing to rich people with cash to burn. These vehicles aren't even stepping stones to orbital rockets, and orbital launch prices are dropping. It's much more likely that SpaceX will offer tickets to orbit for $25k in the next 5-10 years than it will be for Virgin Galactic to do so. Blue Origin at least has an orbital rocket in development, but who knows if/when it'll even start being fabricated.
- xorfish 5y ago
  Safety won't be high enough for orbital flights for tourists. Sending rockets to space is still very prone to failures. Failure rates for unmanned rockets where lower 40 years ago than they are now if you look at the trailing 10 year failure rates. Around 1 in 20 unmanned mission fails. Failures for manned missions are less frequent, however noone can guarantee you, that the rate is lower than 1%. https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/8566/what-is-the-success-failure-ratio-of-space-bound-rockets https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/8566/what-is-the-s...
- shkkmo 5y ago
  Blue Origin is building and firing the BE-4 engines that will be used by New Glen and I rather doubt that there isn't work being done to fabricate other systems given the work that has been completed on their Florida manufacturing facility. Do you have sources that indicate fabrication has not started?
  - maccam94 5y ago
    Aha I have found footage showing a New Glenn first stage in the factory earlier this year: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXOXKfarFhg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXOXKfarFhg I believe I was recalling another video tour, probably from last year, where they said "And this is where the assembled rockets will be stored" and the factory floor was empty. It's pretty cool that they've made so much progress since then!
cwkoss 5y ago
Neither Bezos or Branson achieved orbital velocities, which is the minimum bar for doing useful things related to space. It really is just a carnival ride - it's not about who's in it, its that they didn't actually achieve anything: what they built has no utility except as a dick-measuring contest. Orbit is a little bit of upwards velocity and a whole lot of sideways velocity. They only did the much simpler former. These sub orbital flights are just barely over the line into what can be called space travel, and do nothing useful except letting them brag that 'they went to space'
- xyzzyz 5y ago
  > Neither Bezos or Branson achieved orbital velocities, which is the minimum bar for doing useful things related to space. Well, ICBMs are very useful, and only require sub-orbital velocities, though I don't necessarily want Bezos or Branson to get those.
  - cwkoss 5y ago
    Do ICBMs have any practical uses besides delivering explosives?
    - ckozlowski 5y ago
      If you can deliver a warhead, chances are you can deliver a satellite. Some of the space launchers today either started life as an ICBM turned dedicated launch vehicle (Proton) or are decommissioned ICBMs turned launch vehicles (Minotaur) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_(rocket_family) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_(rocket_family) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minotaur_(rocket_family) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minotaur_(rocket_family)
      - cwkoss 5y ago
        Makes sense that former-ICBMs that can reach orbital velocity have utility. (Are they still ICBMs if the goal isn't to reach another continent?) I think the deltaV's needed to place a warhead on the surface are significantly less than those needed to put a satellite into low-earth orbit.

garmaine 5y ago

Frankly it would be more accurate to say they are go-karts dressed up like a sports car.

ozzythecat 5y ago

So the purpose of Blue Origin and Branson’s companies are just to be space rides for billionaires? And these guys are pumping billions of dollars into these companies just for fun, not because they might actually believe in space exploration? What exactly would they need to do to prove its not a carnival ride? Help me understand what your bar is. Before you can run, first you learn to walk. And before that, you learn to crawl. So in your view, Blue Origin is nothing more than a vanity/fun project. I’d really like to understand what objective take you have. For the record, I do know engineers at Blue Origins, and knowing how much they believe in the mission (their words), I’m struggling to understand what objective take you might have other than “I don’t like Bezos or billionaires and so I’m going to dismiss all the hard work that went into this as a carnival ride”

duchenne 5y ago

> neither Bezos or Branson made it to orbit. It is true that reaching orbit is much more difficult than reach space but Branson has another company called Virgin Orbit that did reach orbit. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Orbit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Orbit : > The first successful flight was on 17 January 2021, which delivered a payload of 10 CubeSats to low Earth orbit (LEO) It uses an unusual strategy. A boeing 747 carries the rocket under its left wing. So, it does not need a spaceport and can can be pre-aligned on any orbit. Bezos is also trying hard to reach orbit with the New Glenn space rocket. But this one had a lot of delays.