10 ms·

Blue Origin: Images and Videos from Our First Flight

151 points by smackfu 11y ago

smackfu 11y ago
FYI, this particular cute little rocket is aimed at space tourism. Sub-orbital flights only, to just above the Kármán line.
- Gravityloss 11y ago
  Looks like a relatively straightforward system. Many of the original X-Prize contenders were pondering something like this more than ten years ago. What happened to the booster?
  - edlinfan 11y ago
    The booster couldn't make a soft landing due to a failure in the hydraulics system. > “Of course one of our goals is reusability, and unfortunately we didn’t get to recover the propulsion module because we lost pressure in our hydraulic system on descent,” Jeff Bezos wrote in a blog post. “Fortunately, we’ve already been in work for some time on an improved hydraulic system. Also, assembly of propulsion module serial numbers 2 and 3 is already underway – we’ll be ready to fly again soon.” From: http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2015/04/30/jeff-bezos-spaceship-takes-flight http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2015/04/30/jeff-bezos-... And here's the aforementioned blog post, from Blue Origin's own website. It presents a little more information about the flight: https://www.blueorigin.com/news/blog/first-developmental-test-flight-of-new-shepard https://www.blueorigin.com/news/blog/first-developmental-tes...
- jessaustin 11y ago
  Sub-orbital flights only, to just above the Kármán line. This seems to be ideal for transport as well? That is, if we're trying to get from Tokyo to NYC quickly, we never want to actually go into orbit, do we?
  - Already__Taken 11y ago
    You'll never make a great business model like that if you're landing with parachutes. Spacex might have the control side worked out some years but their capsule is full of fuel you can't expose people to. I would think the fuel costs even with 100% reusability would make rocket commute prohibitive.
    - ISL 11y ago
      Works okay for these guys, and they attach the parachute to the customer! http://www.uspa.org/BecomeaSkydiver/ChooseaSchool/tabid/437/Default.aspx http://www.uspa.org/BecomeaSkydiver/ChooseaSchool/tabid/437/... If BO can demonstrate that the risks of a flight into space are comparable to other hazards we encounter in life (car driving, bungee jumping, heli-skiing, surgery), they're going to have plenty of people (myself included) who want to go.
  - smackfu 11y ago
    True in general, although for tourism, you don't really want any horizontal velocity, because you want to land as close as possible to the take-off point.
  - DavidSJ 11y ago
    A suborbital trajectory is an ellipse that intersects the ground, and it will do so twice within less than half the world's circumference. If you can make it halfway around the world, you're orbital. New York to Tokyo is nearly half that circumference, so the energy required is nearly that of orbit.
    - jessaustin 11y ago
      A suborbital trajectory is an ellipse that intersects the ground, and it will do so twice within less than half the world's circumference. If you can make it halfway around the world, you're orbital. My experiments with Flappy Space Program contradict this. b^) It is perfectly possible to miss orbit even after a complete circumnavigation. Trajectories are shaped like parabolas, not ellipses. New York to Tokyo is nearly half that circumference, so the energy required is nearly that of orbit. Well it's more like a quarter, but even if it were half it would take significantly less energy than orbit.
ChuckMcM 11y ago
Ok, that 307,000' landing looked a bit painful (pretty big whumph at the end there) of course it hits the ground at 16mph if I did the conversion from 24 fps correctly. But the really really odd thing for me is listening to the callout in feet and feet per second rather than meters and meters per second. I've gotten quite used to velocity in particular being called out in m/s. I wish they were a bit more open with the progress they were making.
- JanSolo 11y ago
  Their website says that they employ solid landing rockets just before touchdown, similar to the Soyuz. The 'big whumph' is probably just dust kicked up by these rockets.
- ISL 11y ago
  On openness, give them time. I think Blue Origin's focus is on delivering a quality result in minimum time. Right now their customer is Bezos, and nobody else. I suspect you'll hear a lot more as they move toward flying paying customers. http://blueorigin.com/astronaut-experience http://blueorigin.com/astronaut-experience
- jessaustin 11y ago
  ...feet and feet per second rather than meters and meters per second. I've gotten quite used to velocity in particular being called out in m/s. Perhaps this is related to javert's flag comment?
javert 11y ago
Love seeing that American flag on the side of American spacecraft. This is truly a land of freedom, technological innovation, and unprecedented human happiness. A few people alive today have forgotten that, but most people alive today have never known it. edit: HN, I just typed a long response to a comment below but can't post it becuase I'm "submitting too fast." Cut the crap and tell me about that before I write a long comment.
- ISL 11y ago
  Most Americans take our assets and advantages for granted, as we've not known anything else. There are a number of good places to live in the world, and the United States is one of them.
  - javert 11y ago
    I wouldn't even say that. By "land of freedom," I really meant in the past and in essence, but not in practice today. The spirit is still there, that's all. Tell me a place in the world where I can live without being treated, in principle, like a sacrificial animal, and I'll tell you it's good to live there.
    - lotsofmangos 11y ago
      You're not talking of the past, you're confusing dream with memory.
  - kolev 11y ago
    You really think so? I personally think the US is going downhill recently with the violation of basic human rights (NSA, police brutality, arm-twisting to please minorities, etc.) Corporate interest (Monsanto, fracking, military complex, law firms, etc.) is above people's, conflicts are still stirred around the globe and military aggression is still ongoing. Innocent people are killed by drones abroad and others labeled as "terrorists" assassinated without trials. Saudi Arabia and Qatar are allies. UN is often ignored. Cold War 2.0 is being brewed as 1.0 was fun and profit. As a First World country with such bold claims, many basics need to be taken care of before this baseless patriotism. My hopes were in Ron Paul, but this great American will never be let make the much-needed changes to truly justify the "democracy" label!
JanSolo 11y ago
Finally something concrete from these guys! They've been working for over 10 years on this and shown almost nothing. The capsule looks nice; big curved windows and no RCS thrusters tell us that this is not an orbital capsule. The 1st Stage reuse concept is interesting; the ducting near the capsule connector is quite novel. There are 8 large spoilers that protrude into the airflow to help slow descent. I wonder if these can be modulated to give some kind of stability control? It's interesting to note that although the capsule landed successfully, they make no mention of what happened to the launcher. I presume that it failed to land, but I didn't see any smoking wreckage in the background of the capsule landing video, so maybe it made it down in 1 piece? I'm sure they would have told us if it had. Anyway, a good day for the US space industry; Blue Origin finally have something cool to show and have proved that they're not just purveyors of vaporware. I'm looking forward to seeing what else they can come up with.
- sqeaky 11y ago
  As as you mentioned RCS thrusters I thought, "but reaction wheels are cheaper and don't require fuel, for all but the largest vehicles they are not needed", then I realized this was real life and not Kerbal Space Program.
  - wl 11y ago
    RCS is essential for docking.
    - sqeaky 11y ago
      Helpful, not essential. If you are willing to use smaller engines or can be careful with the throttle (and throttle shutoff) on larger engines you can dock plenty of smaller ships. I wouldn't want to try it with something with a 180 degree turn time of 30+ seconds. I wonder if any of this is true in real life? Doesn't a spaghetti rocket just explode in real life?
      - mey 11y ago
        Rocket restart is harder in real life than in KSP. Typically a rocket is designed to be started a limited number of times, this is where RCS fills the gap.
slig 11y ago
Is there a ballpark of how much each flight will cost per person?
mrfusion 11y ago
How does the first stage reuse work?
- seanflyon 11y ago
  It didn't work this time, but it will land vertically under thrust. Here is a earlier vehicle from the same company: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NANePoo_p30 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NANePoo_p30
nsxwolf 11y ago
It looks like a penis. I'm not trolling. I have no judgement about that either way. But it is strikingly phallic.
- mgarfias 11y ago
  That was my first thought too.
- lotsofmangos 11y ago
  They tried basing it on other body parts, but none of them flew very well. The lung rocket in particular was a complete disaster.
- mikeash 11y ago
  Pretty much the entire field of rocketry is unbelievably phallic. I think you're supposed to just keep quiet about it.
  - nsxwolf 11y ago
    Rockets are phallic, but this one is exceptionally so. The proportions are very similar to a human penis. The payload on top flares out like the glans of the penis. I saw a video of it being lifted from a horizontal to a vertical position and it looked like a penis getting erect [1]. I think if a sex toy was made out of this design, it would be more agreeable to its users than one modeled after the Saturn V or a Falcon. [1] http://gfycat.com/GorgeousScentedChinchilla http://gfycat.com/GorgeousScentedChinchilla
- InclinedPlane 11y ago
  A lot of things look like penises. Get over it. Grow up.
  - nsxwolf 11y ago
    Grow up? I have no issue with its penile nature. I'm just commenting on it. It's so much more penis like than other things it's worth noting. Maybe you have issues with penises. By telling others to grow up, perhaps it is you who are uncomfortable with penises, since you'd prefer this be ignored?
iamcreasy 11y ago
So is this the first time they have release any footage of their rocket? This looks rather impressive. I remember Elon Musk ridiculing Jeff Bezos sometime back. The only thing I knew about Blue Origin by then was they are making a new engine for United Launch Alliance to replace their Russian RD-180 engine on Delta rockets.
- mikeash 11y ago
  Musk (or rather, SpaceX) has been putting stuff into orbit for paying customers for some years now, and has made five successful launches so far this year, which is a pretty much unprecedented launch pace. Blue Origin, on the other hand, having been around even longer than SpaceX, just had their first ever test launch, of a sub-orbital rocket. It's cool that they're doing this, but I wouldn't call it impressive (yet! maybe it could get there) and certainly doesn't seem to counter Musk's ridicule. Edit: just confirming your memory of ridicule: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2013/09/26/elon-musk-unicorns-will-dance-before.html?page=all http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2013/09/26/elon-musk... "If [Blue Origin] do somehow show up in the next five years with a vehicle qualified to NASA's human rating standards that can dock with the Space Station, which is what Pad 39A is meant to do, we will gladly accommodate their needs. Frankly, I think we are more likely to discover unicorns dancing in the flame duct."
  - iamcreasy 11y ago
    True. But, the one thing that looks impressive to me is that, the way they are handling the rocket with a single engine, which is similar to spacex's grasshopper.(also assuming they will make a vertical landing soon)
  - MCRed 11y ago
    You're right that Blue Origin is older than SpaceX, as it was founded in 2000 vs 2002 for SpaceX However, SpaceX is using off the shelf russian engine designs, if I recall correctly (possibly off the shelf engines in the early days?[1]) Blue Origin, on the other hand, seems to be developing its engines from scratch. SpaceX's strategy certainly should have gotten it to market faster, and has. Blue Origin's in theory should give it a technology lead (engines designed now rather than 50+ years ago.) It appears that in the 2020s we'll see when both companies (I believe) start launching heavy lift vehicles. SpaceX will have more launches under its belt then, but maybe Blue Origin will have caught up? [1] I remember reading a blog post that the Merlin engine was based on a russian design, but I can't seem to find evidence of that now. Maybe I'm mistaken.
mpweiher 11y ago
Is it just me or does that rocket just launch like a bat out of hell off the launchpad? Other launches seem much more...majestic. Wondering whether that may be a visual illusion, something to do with the flight profile (light vehicle, lower altitude) or just me.
- curtis 11y ago
  The Blue Origin rocket is unusually short as man-rated rockets go. The only figures I can find for the dimensions gives the height as 49 feet (15m) [1]. Now compare this to 224 feet (68m) for Falcon 9 [2]. So basically a rocket like the Falcon 9 will appear to be traveling much slower than a much shorter rocket like the New Shepard for the same reason a 747 on landing approach looks like it is traveling much slower than a 737 traveling at the same speed. [1] http://www.astronautix.com/craft/newepard.htm http://www.astronautix.com/craft/newepard.htm [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9#Comparison http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9#Comparison

151 points by smackfu 11y ago

FYI, this particular cute little rocket is aimed at space tourism. Sub-orbital flights only, to just above the Kármán line.

Gravityloss 11y ago
Looks like a relatively straightforward system. Many of the original X-Prize contenders were pondering something like this more than ten years ago. What happened to the booster?
- edlinfan 11y ago
  The booster couldn't make a soft landing due to a failure in the hydraulics system. > “Of course one of our goals is reusability, and unfortunately we didn’t get to recover the propulsion module because we lost pressure in our hydraulic system on descent,” Jeff Bezos wrote in a blog post. “Fortunately, we’ve already been in work for some time on an improved hydraulic system. Also, assembly of propulsion module serial numbers 2 and 3 is already underway – we’ll be ready to fly again soon.” From: http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2015/04/30/jeff-bezos-spaceship-takes-flight http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2015/04/30/jeff-bezos-... And here's the aforementioned blog post, from Blue Origin's own website. It presents a little more information about the flight: https://www.blueorigin.com/news/blog/first-developmental-test-flight-of-new-shepard https://www.blueorigin.com/news/blog/first-developmental-tes...
jessaustin 11y ago
Sub-orbital flights only, to just above the Kármán line. This seems to be ideal for transport as well? That is, if we're trying to get from Tokyo to NYC quickly, we never want to actually go into orbit, do we?
- Already__Taken 11y ago
  You'll never make a great business model like that if you're landing with parachutes. Spacex might have the control side worked out some years but their capsule is full of fuel you can't expose people to. I would think the fuel costs even with 100% reusability would make rocket commute prohibitive.
  - ISL 11y ago
    Works okay for these guys, and they attach the parachute to the customer! http://www.uspa.org/BecomeaSkydiver/ChooseaSchool/tabid/437/Default.aspx http://www.uspa.org/BecomeaSkydiver/ChooseaSchool/tabid/437/... If BO can demonstrate that the risks of a flight into space are comparable to other hazards we encounter in life (car driving, bungee jumping, heli-skiing, surgery), they're going to have plenty of people (myself included) who want to go.
- smackfu 11y ago
  True in general, although for tourism, you don't really want any horizontal velocity, because you want to land as close as possible to the take-off point.
- DavidSJ 11y ago
  A suborbital trajectory is an ellipse that intersects the ground, and it will do so twice within less than half the world's circumference. If you can make it halfway around the world, you're orbital. New York to Tokyo is nearly half that circumference, so the energy required is nearly that of orbit.
  - jessaustin 11y ago
    A suborbital trajectory is an ellipse that intersects the ground, and it will do so twice within less than half the world's circumference. If you can make it halfway around the world, you're orbital. My experiments with Flappy Space Program contradict this. b^) It is perfectly possible to miss orbit even after a complete circumnavigation. Trajectories are shaped like parabolas, not ellipses. New York to Tokyo is nearly half that circumference, so the energy required is nearly that of orbit. Well it's more like a quarter, but even if it were half it would take significantly less energy than orbit.

ChuckMcM 11y ago

Ok, that 307,000' landing looked a bit painful (pretty big whumph at the end there) of course it hits the ground at 16mph if I did the conversion from 24 fps correctly. But the really really odd thing for me is listening to the callout in feet and feet per second rather than meters and meters per second. I've gotten quite used to velocity in particular being called out in m/s. I wish they were a bit more open with the progress they were making.

JanSolo 11y ago
Their website says that they employ solid landing rockets just before touchdown, similar to the Soyuz. The 'big whumph' is probably just dust kicked up by these rockets.
ISL 11y ago
On openness, give them time. I think Blue Origin's focus is on delivering a quality result in minimum time. Right now their customer is Bezos, and nobody else. I suspect you'll hear a lot more as they move toward flying paying customers. http://blueorigin.com/astronaut-experience http://blueorigin.com/astronaut-experience
jessaustin 11y ago
...feet and feet per second rather than meters and meters per second. I've gotten quite used to velocity in particular being called out in m/s. Perhaps this is related to javert's flag comment?

javert 11y ago

Love seeing that American flag on the side of American spacecraft. This is truly a land of freedom, technological innovation, and unprecedented human happiness. A few people alive today have forgotten that, but most people alive today have never known it. edit: HN, I just typed a long response to a comment below but can't post it becuase I'm "submitting too fast." Cut the crap and tell me about that before I write a long comment.

ISL 11y ago
Most Americans take our assets and advantages for granted, as we've not known anything else. There are a number of good places to live in the world, and the United States is one of them.
- javert 11y ago
  I wouldn't even say that. By "land of freedom," I really meant in the past and in essence, but not in practice today. The spirit is still there, that's all. Tell me a place in the world where I can live without being treated, in principle, like a sacrificial animal, and I'll tell you it's good to live there.
  - lotsofmangos 11y ago
    You're not talking of the past, you're confusing dream with memory.
- kolev 11y ago
  You really think so? I personally think the US is going downhill recently with the violation of basic human rights (NSA, police brutality, arm-twisting to please minorities, etc.) Corporate interest (Monsanto, fracking, military complex, law firms, etc.) is above people's, conflicts are still stirred around the globe and military aggression is still ongoing. Innocent people are killed by drones abroad and others labeled as "terrorists" assassinated without trials. Saudi Arabia and Qatar are allies. UN is often ignored. Cold War 2.0 is being brewed as 1.0 was fun and profit. As a First World country with such bold claims, many basics need to be taken care of before this baseless patriotism. My hopes were in Ron Paul, but this great American will never be let make the much-needed changes to truly justify the "democracy" label!

JanSolo 11y ago

Finally something concrete from these guys! They've been working for over 10 years on this and shown almost nothing. The capsule looks nice; big curved windows and no RCS thrusters tell us that this is not an orbital capsule. The 1st Stage reuse concept is interesting; the ducting near the capsule connector is quite novel. There are 8 large spoilers that protrude into the airflow to help slow descent. I wonder if these can be modulated to give some kind of stability control? It's interesting to note that although the capsule landed successfully, they make no mention of what happened to the launcher. I presume that it failed to land, but I didn't see any smoking wreckage in the background of the capsule landing video, so maybe it made it down in 1 piece? I'm sure they would have told us if it had. Anyway, a good day for the US space industry; Blue Origin finally have something cool to show and have proved that they're not just purveyors of vaporware. I'm looking forward to seeing what else they can come up with.

sqeaky 11y ago
As as you mentioned RCS thrusters I thought, "but reaction wheels are cheaper and don't require fuel, for all but the largest vehicles they are not needed", then I realized this was real life and not Kerbal Space Program.
- wl 11y ago
  RCS is essential for docking.
  - sqeaky 11y ago
    Helpful, not essential. If you are willing to use smaller engines or can be careful with the throttle (and throttle shutoff) on larger engines you can dock plenty of smaller ships. I wouldn't want to try it with something with a 180 degree turn time of 30+ seconds. I wonder if any of this is true in real life? Doesn't a spaghetti rocket just explode in real life?
    - mey 11y ago
      Rocket restart is harder in real life than in KSP. Typically a rocket is designed to be started a limited number of times, this is where RCS fills the gap.

slig 11y ago

Is there a ballpark of how much each flight will cost per person?

mrfusion 11y ago

How does the first stage reuse work?

seanflyon 11y ago
It didn't work this time, but it will land vertically under thrust. Here is a earlier vehicle from the same company: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NANePoo_p30 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NANePoo_p30

nsxwolf 11y ago

It looks like a penis. I'm not trolling. I have no judgement about that either way. But it is strikingly phallic.

mgarfias 11y ago
That was my first thought too.
lotsofmangos 11y ago
They tried basing it on other body parts, but none of them flew very well. The lung rocket in particular was a complete disaster.
mikeash 11y ago
Pretty much the entire field of rocketry is unbelievably phallic. I think you're supposed to just keep quiet about it.
- nsxwolf 11y ago
  Rockets are phallic, but this one is exceptionally so. The proportions are very similar to a human penis. The payload on top flares out like the glans of the penis. I saw a video of it being lifted from a horizontal to a vertical position and it looked like a penis getting erect [1]. I think if a sex toy was made out of this design, it would be more agreeable to its users than one modeled after the Saturn V or a Falcon. [1] http://gfycat.com/GorgeousScentedChinchilla http://gfycat.com/GorgeousScentedChinchilla
InclinedPlane 11y ago
A lot of things look like penises. Get over it. Grow up.
- nsxwolf 11y ago
  Grow up? I have no issue with its penile nature. I'm just commenting on it. It's so much more penis like than other things it's worth noting. Maybe you have issues with penises. By telling others to grow up, perhaps it is you who are uncomfortable with penises, since you'd prefer this be ignored?

iamcreasy 11y ago

So is this the first time they have release any footage of their rocket? This looks rather impressive. I remember Elon Musk ridiculing Jeff Bezos sometime back. The only thing I knew about Blue Origin by then was they are making a new engine for United Launch Alliance to replace their Russian RD-180 engine on Delta rockets.

mikeash 11y ago
Musk (or rather, SpaceX) has been putting stuff into orbit for paying customers for some years now, and has made five successful launches so far this year, which is a pretty much unprecedented launch pace. Blue Origin, on the other hand, having been around even longer than SpaceX, just had their first ever test launch, of a sub-orbital rocket. It's cool that they're doing this, but I wouldn't call it impressive (yet! maybe it could get there) and certainly doesn't seem to counter Musk's ridicule. Edit: just confirming your memory of ridicule: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2013/09/26/elon-musk-unicorns-will-dance-before.html?page=all http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2013/09/26/elon-musk... "If [Blue Origin] do somehow show up in the next five years with a vehicle qualified to NASA's human rating standards that can dock with the Space Station, which is what Pad 39A is meant to do, we will gladly accommodate their needs. Frankly, I think we are more likely to discover unicorns dancing in the flame duct."
- iamcreasy 11y ago
  True. But, the one thing that looks impressive to me is that, the way they are handling the rocket with a single engine, which is similar to spacex's grasshopper.(also assuming they will make a vertical landing soon)
- MCRed 11y ago
  You're right that Blue Origin is older than SpaceX, as it was founded in 2000 vs 2002 for SpaceX However, SpaceX is using off the shelf russian engine designs, if I recall correctly (possibly off the shelf engines in the early days?[1]) Blue Origin, on the other hand, seems to be developing its engines from scratch. SpaceX's strategy certainly should have gotten it to market faster, and has. Blue Origin's in theory should give it a technology lead (engines designed now rather than 50+ years ago.) It appears that in the 2020s we'll see when both companies (I believe) start launching heavy lift vehicles. SpaceX will have more launches under its belt then, but maybe Blue Origin will have caught up? [1] I remember reading a blog post that the Merlin engine was based on a russian design, but I can't seem to find evidence of that now. Maybe I'm mistaken.

mpweiher 11y ago

Is it just me or does that rocket just launch like a bat out of hell off the launchpad? Other launches seem much more...majestic. Wondering whether that may be a visual illusion, something to do with the flight profile (light vehicle, lower altitude) or just me.

curtis 11y ago
The Blue Origin rocket is unusually short as man-rated rockets go. The only figures I can find for the dimensions gives the height as 49 feet (15m) [1]. Now compare this to 224 feet (68m) for Falcon 9 [2]. So basically a rocket like the Falcon 9 will appear to be traveling much slower than a much shorter rocket like the New Shepard for the same reason a 747 on landing approach looks like it is traveling much slower than a 737 traveling at the same speed. [1] http://www.astronautix.com/craft/newepard.htm http://www.astronautix.com/craft/newepard.htm [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9#Comparison http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9#Comparison