How’s the petition coming along for Bezos to not return to earth?
Blue Origin first human flight
91–100 of 504 posts
Re: Blue Origin first human flight
#92Link to the direct feed: https://youtu.be/watch?v=tMHhXzpwupU (Posted by many others, but this is what made the front page) Update 1: Successful booster touchdown (admittedly, they probably had a lot larger fuel budget than orbital launches) Update 2: Successful touchdown of capsule Congrats to Blue Origin for success in tossing people through space!
I would have expected an ambulance to be at the landing/crash site just in case, for the moment I can only see pickup trucks.
There are certainly rescue vehicles staged nearby. The potential landing area is actually pretty large (since it's coming down under parachutes and will be pushed by the wind), so it wouldn't be possible to preposition them exactly where the capsule is going to land. The rescue vehicles would have been rolled if they were needed.
Re: Blue Origin first human flight
#93Memo to Bezos/Brandon/Musk: Great , but now can you guys do something about reducing human suffering due to climate change? Like potentially developing technologies for sucking off CO2 and other harmful gases off our atmosphere? Or how about cancer cure or anti aging or something that helps humanity?
Maybe a $100MM X-Prize for carbon removal?
Re: Blue Origin first human flight
#94Am I the only one annoyed that it's spelled "Shepard"
Probably...
It's named after Alan Shepard, the first US astronaut to fly in space.
Re: Blue Origin first human flight
#95Seems that between Musk, Bezos and Branson, we have in essence restarted a space race but this time it's billionaires in the private sector versus governments. Some will surely say that they have better things to spend their money on (Bezos for sure) but I gave to say it's still mindblowing. I would imagine if you're one of those guys, you've basically have enough money to solve any problem, so these guys it seems ar…
The question every time space exploration comes up is whether the money and effort is better spent in space or on more terrestrial problems. With government-sponsored exploration, you at least ended up with public research and development that resulted in spinoffs that are useful on land. With a private space race, technologies like these seem more likely to remain a trade secret. Also, when it comes to 'hard problem…
>>With a private space race, technologies like these seem more likely to remain a trade secret.
Much of what is developed is in the public domain. Patents and trade secrets only go so far. You can't patent or keep secret the concepts that these trials prove out.
The satellite of industries that develops to support space flight is also not affected by whether the fights they're supporting are private vs government, and neither are the skills developed by the engineers working these projects.
Private also has one distinct advantage: it can be self-sustaining, in being managed by an owner with a strong stake in the venture as a business unit.
Re: Blue Origin first human flight
#96[flagged]
Unsurprisingly.
They only want to see SpaceX and ONLY SpaceX blasting Dogecoin onto the moon next year. That's why and without any other competitor existing.
Also I assume you watched Blue Origin's flight today. Given that it was not a SpaceX flight, perhaps you found this one beyond woeful regardless of engineering effort and what usually happens in tech news or HN? [0]
Re: Blue Origin first human flight
#97Seems that between Musk, Bezos and Branson, we have in essence restarted a space race but this time it's billionaires in the private sector versus governments. Some will surely say that they have better things to spend their money on (Bezos for sure) but I gave to say it's still mindblowing. I would imagine if you're one of those guys, you've basically have enough money to solve any problem, so these guys it seems ar…
The question every time space exploration comes up is whether the money and effort is better spent in space or on more terrestrial problems. With government-sponsored exploration, you at least ended up with public research and development that resulted in spinoffs that are useful on land. With a private space race, technologies like these seem more likely to remain a trade secret. Also, when it comes to 'hard problem…
> With government-sponsored exploration, you at least ended up with public research
And you (the public) pay for it. With the Musk's of the world paying, the gov has more money for social causes.
If the public can't consistently support these kind of projects without constantly threatening their budgets, maybe they are better in the hands of private benefactors that value them.
> it wasn't for the pesky problem of inequality, and billionaires aren't exactly lining up to help out with that
How can they help? There's enough money to eliminate hunger and keep billionaires. Hunger isn't just about who has money, it's about who could have money and maintain it.
Re: Blue Origin first human flight
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It really shouldn't count as space travel unless they go into orbit around Earth. Translation: 'Other private companies building their own rockets and going into space is 'not good enough' unless it is by SpaceX' and doesn't count. To SpaceX fanatics and downvoters: I'm sure you are deep fanatics of SpaceX but surely you have the funds and deep pockets to join Musk and friends on a space mission together right now?…
It’s kinda funny to see even the SpaceX fans miss a broader point. SpaceX could probably sell orbital trips on Falcon on the regular but they are out of reach of most nearly everyone except the US government whom needs manned flight for staffing the space station (thank goodness or we’d never get space progress) The excitement and noise over suborbital flight is good, but in terms of achievement, Blue origin has yet…
SpaceX actually IS selling flights to tourists. First and second flights are scheduled for later this year IIRC.
Re: Blue Origin first human flight
#99This felt so underwhelming. I don't know if it's because I've seen SpaceX doing much more complicated missions or it's just not that big of a deal. They got about two minutes of zero G and came down immediately. You can experience that for much longer with a regular plane, for much less money. It really shouldn't count as space travel unless they go into orbit around Earth.
Agreed. This really felt like an amusement park ride for rich people. Like a throw towards the edge of orbit. I'm sure there is some innovation coming out of this, but compared to the insane progress of SpaceX it's super underwhelming.
I agree that there's no scientific or engineering achievement here and that this ride is essentially joyriding.
I disagree that we should deride rich people for spending money the way they want. I splurge on things sometimes as well. Unlike a lot of modern social media, I don't think there's anything inherently immoral about being wealthy.
If someone has an argument about what these specific people did that was specifically immoral to achieve their wealth, then they should call that out specifically and suggest a systemic change.
I find the mindless rich-people-hate to be nothing more than juvenile hate.
Re: Blue Origin first human flight
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is what "trickle down" technology looks like. We are watching space flight move a rung down the economic ladder. Nation states -> wealthy bigco -> billionare's pet project -> ????? -> normal people (some steps omitted for brevity)
Nation states -> wealthy bigco -> billionare's pet project -> hobbyist (e.g. Copenhagen Suborbitals) -> normal people.
Nation state R&D -> billionare's pet-project PoC -> wealthy bigco Commercialisation effort -> Commercial service (for wealthy/business) -> Commercial service (for normal public) -> hobbyists & higher education