Nobody here is mentioning ISRO. ISRO might not have the most advanced technology, true, but their cost effectiveness compensates for that. They're also catching up very quickly.
This. Thank you for pointing this out.
The New Space Race
11–20 of 40 posts
Re: The New Space Race
#12Aren't the Ariane rockets produced commercially since the 80s?
Also what about Russian commercial launches?
Re: The New Space Race
#13This article has a bunch of problems and is fairly typical of mass-media reporting in this area. Suborbital vehicles such as SpaceShipTwo, New Shepard, and Lynx are lumped together with orbital launch systems. I do not think the distinction is made adequately clear in the text either; it would be very easy for a layperson to be seriously misled. Falcon 9 isn't described separately, just as a note on the Falcon Heavy.…
I wonder just how unbiased the Washington Post is now that Bezos owns it. The article does come off quite New-Shephard heavy.
Re: The New Space Race
#14I had no idea that Blue Origin vertically landed their rocket (New Shepard) on 2015-11-23, before SpaceX did on 2015-12-21. In addition, New Shepard rockets have already been reused. On the other hand, New Shepard is suborbital, even though it's reached the altitude of 100km.
Compared to an orbital launch, Blue Origin's flight so far are more like a tech demo. But they're one heck of a tech demo!
It's a smart strategy. Take the shortest, cheapest possible route to profitability by selling flights to space tourists, all the while building experience with operating and maintaining a reusable rocket. Then build on that expertise to develop a reusable orbital launch system. I think they're by far the most interesting of SpaceX's competitors.
Re: The New Space Race
#15Re: The New Space Race
#16Re: The New Space Race
#17I had no idea that Blue Origin vertically landed their rocket (New Shepard) on 2015-11-23, before SpaceX did on 2015-12-21. In addition, New Shepard rockets have already been reused. On the other hand, New Shepard is suborbital, even though it's reached the altitude of 100km.
Yeah... For some reason everyone who is interested in this stuff is SpaceX fanboy and when Blue Origin released their success after SpaceX's failure(s) everyone just seemed to be little them. Then SpaceX did theirs and everyone went nuts over it.
Re: The New Space Race
#18I had no idea that Blue Origin vertically landed their rocket (New Shepard) on 2015-11-23, before SpaceX did on 2015-12-21. In addition, New Shepard rockets have already been reused. On the other hand, New Shepard is suborbital, even though it's reached the altitude of 100km.
I mean, technically spacex vertically landed a rocket in 2014 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwwS4YOTbbw
If you're willing to count a 40 meter hop, then 2012: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4PEXLODw9c
Re: The New Space Race
#19I had no idea that Blue Origin vertically landed their rocket (New Shepard) on 2015-11-23, before SpaceX did on 2015-12-21. In addition, New Shepard rockets have already been reused. On the other hand, New Shepard is suborbital, even though it's reached the altitude of 100km.
Yeah... For some reason everyone who is interested in this stuff is SpaceX fanboy and when Blue Origin released their success after SpaceX's failure(s) everyone just seemed to be little them. Then SpaceX did theirs and everyone went nuts over it.
They're not comparable. Blue Origin's work is commendable, but landing a sub-orbital rocket, even re-using one, is not on the same scale as what SpaceX has done, the engineering is just on a different level. The X-15 program was landing sub-orbital vehicles, and re-using them, that had gone above 100km decades ago. The difference between Blue Origin's efforts and the X-15 is primarily the landing.