4 ms·

Well, idk about literally, Blue Origin and Virgin Galactic both did it in 2021 right? Could they not do it again? NASA has plans to do it next year. In any cas

Well, idk about literally, Blue Origin and Virgin Galactic both did it in 2021 right? Could they not do it again? NASA has plans to do it next year. In any case, were there ever more than now? I’m curious if we were regressing, or just not progressing for a couple decades.

orls 3y ago
Parent post said putting people into orbit. Those companies do short suborbital flights.
- mattmaroon 3y ago
  You’re right I missed that.
autoexecbat 3y ago
BO and VG didn't go orbital, which is the real test of capability. Being able to shoot straight up and fall back down isn't anywhere near as useful or hard as orbit.
- jandrese 3y ago
  This is why everybody who talks about space should spend a few hours with Kerbal Space Program just to get a sense of the difference in scale between a suborbital hop and actually putting something into orbit.
- sangnoir 3y ago
  > Being able to shoot straight up and fall back down isn't anywhere near as useful or hard as orbit. Being able to reach space at all is the hard part: so many pieces have to be developed and work well together. Achieving orbit is more evolutionary than from going from 0 to 1. Orbit seems like a such an arbitrary line, amd I suspect once BO achieves it, the bar is going to be arbitrarily raised to "Heavy-lift rockets are the hard part, and only 2 organizations on Earth can achieve it"
  - tekla 3y ago
    > Being able to reach space at all is the hard part No its not. Teenagers can get to space with model rockets and simple fuels. You can reach space simply by throwing something really really hard, but it will come right back down. https://www.wired.com/story/a-rocket-built-by-students-reached-space-for-the-first-time/ https://www.wired.com/story/a-rocket-built-by-students-reach... > Orbit seems like a such an arbitrary line It's not. If your super expensive rocket can't reach orbit, why would anyone bother? Can't deploy sats, can't go to the ISS, nothing.
    - sangnoir 3y ago
      > You can reach space simply by throwing something really really hard, but it will come right back down. Is there anything special about boosters, second or third stages or vacuum motors that's tough to crack for an organization that has already managed to reach space under its own steam? Bigger tanks, more engines and/or higher specific-impulse-fuels are tractable problems to organizations that have already reached space - they know how to do R&D, integration and operations. Getting to space ab initio is harder, and is where most - if not all - failed launch companies have failed.
      - two_handfuls 3y ago
        You ask whether there is something special about orbit vs reaching space. This is a good question. To be in orbit, a rocket must move extremely fast. The source below says that the energy needed to go to space is only 3% of the energy needed to go to orbit. That means orbit is about 30 times harder than space. And it gets worse than that because of the rocket equation: to get twice as much kinetic energy requires more than twice the amount of fuel, because you are not just accelerating your capsule, but also the fuel it will need along the way. So yes, there is a huge difference between being able to reach space and being able to reach orbital velocity. Source: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/life-unbounded/basic-rocket-science-sub-orbital-versus-orbital/#:~:text=For%20a%20100%20kilometer%20jaunt%20that%20change%20in,a%20factor%20of%2032%20increase%20in%20energy%20budget https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/life-unbounded/basic-ro....
      - 3y ago

orls 3y ago

Parent post said putting people into orbit. Those companies do short suborbital flights.

mattmaroon 3y ago
You’re right I missed that.

autoexecbat 3y ago

BO and VG didn't go orbital, which is the real test of capability. Being able to shoot straight up and fall back down isn't anywhere near as useful or hard as orbit.

jandrese 3y ago
This is why everybody who talks about space should spend a few hours with Kerbal Space Program just to get a sense of the difference in scale between a suborbital hop and actually putting something into orbit.
sangnoir 3y ago
> Being able to shoot straight up and fall back down isn't anywhere near as useful or hard as orbit. Being able to reach space at all is the hard part: so many pieces have to be developed and work well together. Achieving orbit is more evolutionary than from going from 0 to 1. Orbit seems like a such an arbitrary line, amd I suspect once BO achieves it, the bar is going to be arbitrarily raised to "Heavy-lift rockets are the hard part, and only 2 organizations on Earth can achieve it"
- tekla 3y ago
  > Being able to reach space at all is the hard part No its not. Teenagers can get to space with model rockets and simple fuels. You can reach space simply by throwing something really really hard, but it will come right back down. https://www.wired.com/story/a-rocket-built-by-students-reached-space-for-the-first-time/ https://www.wired.com/story/a-rocket-built-by-students-reach... > Orbit seems like a such an arbitrary line It's not. If your super expensive rocket can't reach orbit, why would anyone bother? Can't deploy sats, can't go to the ISS, nothing.
  - sangnoir 3y ago
    > You can reach space simply by throwing something really really hard, but it will come right back down. Is there anything special about boosters, second or third stages or vacuum motors that's tough to crack for an organization that has already managed to reach space under its own steam? Bigger tanks, more engines and/or higher specific-impulse-fuels are tractable problems to organizations that have already reached space - they know how to do R&D, integration and operations. Getting to space ab initio is harder, and is where most - if not all - failed launch companies have failed.
    - two_handfuls 3y ago
      You ask whether there is something special about orbit vs reaching space. This is a good question. To be in orbit, a rocket must move extremely fast. The source below says that the energy needed to go to space is only 3% of the energy needed to go to orbit. That means orbit is about 30 times harder than space. And it gets worse than that because of the rocket equation: to get twice as much kinetic energy requires more than twice the amount of fuel, because you are not just accelerating your capsule, but also the fuel it will need along the way. So yes, there is a huge difference between being able to reach space and being able to reach orbital velocity. Source: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/life-unbounded/basic-rocket-science-sub-orbital-versus-orbital/#:~:text=For%20a%20100%20kilometer%20jaunt%20that%20change%20in,a%20factor%20of%2032%20increase%20in%20energy%20budget https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/life-unbounded/basic-ro....
    - 3y ago