Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Blue Origin first human flight

blueorigin.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 504 posts

Re: Blue Origin first human flight

#101

Post by chasd00 »

themgt wrote: post #85
gameswithgo wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Understanding the difference between orbital and suborbital space flight need not cause one to be cynical and negative about things. Especially since blue origin has a design that can scale up quickly, as SpaceX did with falcon 1 to 9

Falcon 1 put a payload into orbit though, so it's really not the same. Falcon 9's first flight was less than 2 years after Falcon 1 made it to orbit. For myriad reasons Blue can't just "scale up quickly" in any meaningful way from NS to New Glenn, hence why it's going to take them 8+ years between the first NS and first NG launches. Being realistic about this is not cynical and negative.

that's a good point, i think orbit was the minimum planned for Falcon1. I don't believe SpaceX every just went to the karman line and back. I think all of their flights have been either crashes or fully orbital.

Re: Blue Origin first human flight

#102

Post by [deleted] »

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #60
_fat_santa wrote: post #22

Seems 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…

[deleted]

Re: Blue Origin first human flight

#103

Post by FredFS456 »

Clewza313 wrote: post #36
marshallbananas wrote: post #8

This 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.

Agree re: being underwhelmed, but in fairness, your typical "vomit comet" parabola flight only gets you about 25 seconds of weightlessness at a time. Although you can repeat this several dozen times per flight pretty easily.

25-30 seconds, with https://www.gozerog.com/ offering 15 parabolas totalling 6.5-7.5 minutes for $7500+tax. Much better total zero-gee time at much cheaper rates. Of course, you don't get the view above the atmosphere...

Re: Blue Origin first human flight

#104

Post by JshWright »

acover wrote: post #71
mns wrote: post #54

Can't wait for short haul flights to be banned and to travel 14 hours in a train so we reduce carbon emissions. But I'm happy that rich guys can have fun and advance "space exploration".

SpaceX's starship uses methane which can be synthesized from CO2 and water - allowing it to be carbon neutral for a cost.

It will be a while before synthesizing CH4 is "carbon neutral". Sure, you could set up a massive solar farm and pump it out, but that solar farm would be way more effective offsetting other power production methods on the grid at large.

Re: Blue Origin first human flight

#105

Post by Chris2048 »

ethanbond wrote: post #83
eevilspock wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's their money to spend Not everyone agrees.

Sure. I myself am not entirely bought into this position, but it is in fact the position of "our society." Figure we have to start by not calling these people explorers before making our way to questioning whether such extreme accumulation of wealth is optimal in the first place.

> questioning whether such extreme accumulation of wealth is optimal in the first place

But why is it anyone's choice? People are already taxed disproportionately, why can't Musk spend his money, or the money people invest in him?

The US is free to outlaw large accumulations of wealth, it would just lose a lot of people in the process (assuming emigration wasn't also outlawed).

People in the US are, equally, free to move to places with fairer tax laws.

Re: Blue Origin first human flight

#106

Post by adventured »

sega_sai wrote: post #77

Obviously everybody (Branson/Bezos) is entitled to spend their cash in whatever way they want. But, if they are making a spectacle of it, publicise it and promote it like some big achievement, then those people should be prepared to take some criticism. And in my opinion, I see the last two launches as indeed amusement rides for billionaires and a strong argument for better taxation policies. In contrary, what Musk d…

> And in my opinion, I see the last two launches as indeed amusement rides for billionaires and a strong argument for better taxation policies.

How would different taxation policies prevent Bezos from spending a very modest share of his wealth on what he wants to do? He has $204 billion. What he has done with Blue Origin can be replicated for 1-3% of that.

Is the plan to take 99% of the Bezos fortune through government confiscation and forced sales of Amazon stock? I ask because only a small number of nations have ever behaved with that level of brutality toward private wealth, all were - without exception - totalitarian genocide machines with zero human rights. How about we not keep repeating the mistakes of the past.

Even Scandinavia - the region that arguably created the highest standard of living in world history - would never dare to behave that way toward private wealth (Scandinavia is overflowing with billionaires and adores private wealth). Nor would Germany or France.

What's the premise then, no fun if you're rich? Which board of comrades is going to be responsible for dictating who gets to do what? Are we abolishing the bourgeois, 20th century style? I think I've read this story before. There's only one way to prevent someone like Bezos from doing Blue Origin, only one approach politically that can be utilized to accomplish that (skeptics will argue there are utopian approaches to mass property confiscation that are humane; there aren't, once you uncork that genie, extreme violence and genocide always follow).

So if you've got $N wealth, you're not allowed to own a boat. If you've got over $1 million you're not allowed to fly in a plane for fun or convenience, nor may you experiment with creating new types of planes.

Perhaps if you've got over $250,000 you may not experiment with new types of technology period. That includes software and hardware. No fun for you. I say so. I have decided to draw the line there and my Socialist board of comrades will enforce it. I have no interest in only restricting the fun Bezos is allowed to have, it should be taken to its logical conclusion, so everybody gets to enjoy how the system will really work in the end.

Re: Blue Origin first human flight

#107

Post by q1w2 »

admissionsguy wrote: post #12

Mixed feelings. I suppose it's important to have competition/alternatives to SpaceX, but does it have to be done in such a sluggish manner by one the most unlikable people in the world?

I don't see this sort of joy-riding as a material competition to what SpaceX is doing.

It's not even clear to me that that is their objective.

These sub-orbital flights are not interesting - scientifically nor engineeringly.

Re: Blue Origin first human flight

#108

Post by FredFS456 »

arriu wrote: post #40

Comments in this thread complaining that the rich get to do whatever they want are forgetting that the wright brothers (and others) enabled flight for all of us even though most people during that time could only dream about it. It might not happen for you and I, but let's think about the bigger picture.

Wright brothers were certainly not dirt poor, but they weren't barons either. They were only able to build their planes because of their experience building other mechanical things.

Re: Blue Origin first human flight

#109

Post by ethbr0 »

iso1631 wrote: post #56
jstsch wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Like a throw towards the edge of orbit. It's nowhere near orbit. Orbit is about 10km of delta-v, then there's the reentry problem. Reaching the Karman line is about 2km of delta-v.

Walk before you run.

I very much doubt Blue Origin intends to freeze rocket development after this launch.

Blue Origin now has a successful manned flight under their belt, and a revenue stream.

While it might surprise some here, Amazon started by selling just books...

It feels like similar attitude comments on that would have been "They'll never compete with Walmart. Real retail stores sell all kinds of things."

Re: Blue Origin first human flight

#110

Post by tokai »

docdeek wrote: post #74
tokai wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Incredible achievement Is it though? I don't see how.

When I was growing up the only people who had a chance to go where these four people went were trained for years by a nation-state. It was incredibly dangerous and it was only those who the government approved who might make the trip. I just saw four pretty regular people - including one I believe subbed in at the last minute - take a trip and it cost a fraction of what it used to. The high price tag means it’s still…

But there has been space tourism since the 00's. For the right amount of money anyone could ride a Soyuz rocket.
Post reply on HN