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

121–130 of 504 posts

Re: Blue Origin first human flight

#121

Post by enraged_camel »

selykg wrote: post #50
basisword wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate to break it to you but Musk is just as unlikeable. Why does it matter who does it though? It’s a great achievement and could lead to great things. I’d much rather people like Bezos were spending money on this than mansions, supercars, and other crap that doesn’t benefit anyone.

> I hate to break it to you but Musk is just as unlikeable. Right? I don't get the guy's appeal. Yes, SpaceX and Tesla are doing neat things and I love that. But Musk is literally the last person I want to hear from, or about. Despite all the cool stuff Tesla is doing, he really makes me not want to buy anything from Tesla ever just because he's associated with it. Perhaps a bit dramatic, but I really can't stand the…

>> I hate to break it to you but Musk is just as unlikeable.

I had long suspected that he's on the spectrum, and earlier this year he came out and openly talked about his Asperger's diagnosis.

That's not to say that excuses his terrible treatment of other people, but it sure explains it.

Re: Blue Origin first human flight

#122

Post by loloquwowndueo »

5555624 wrote: post #81
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.

> It really shouldn't count as space travel unless they go into orbit around Earth. So, Alan Shepard would not be the first American in space? Gus Grissom's first flight wouldn't count, either? I'm all for making a distinction between space tourists and astronauts; but, I don't know if orbiting the Earth is the distinction. (Yes, I know Shepard and Grissom orbited the Earth on subsequent space flights; but,those firs…

Maybe you were just told they counted as going into space because otherwise the first American to orbit earth only did so a full 10 months after Gagarin, which looks worse than saying “oh we launched an American into space less than a month after the Russians did”.

Re: Blue Origin first human flight

#123

Post by renewiltord »

drcongo wrote: post #65
_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…

It takes a special kind of awful person to think that this is the hard problem they should solve with their billions.

Well, a million of us have more money than each of them and instead of exploring space or feeding the poor, I (a member of the million) am going to choose to buy a MacBook Pro. Our collective $2 billion is going to go to consumer devices.

Re: Blue Origin first human flight

#124

Post by detritus »

BurningFrog wrote: post #118
detritus wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing that amuses me is that if SpaceX can make Starship and the Heavy booster work, they could actually come up with a tourism/joyride that would blow these piffling jumps by Branson and Bezos into irrelevance. If you can send 50-100 people on an actual orbiting jaunt, perhaps a night in 'space rocket hotel', rich folk would gladly pay millions, which makes the business case a lot more compelling. Then they'd ju…

You can also land on the other side of the planet within... I want to say an hour?

I must admit, that's the usage scenario for Starship that I don't particularly see much benefit in. I may well be short-sighted, but given how far away from cities the launch centres for these things would need to be, it strikes me that traditional travel infrastructure suffices.

Now, the US military, on the other hand? Starship as a somewhat-disposable space truck makes a lot of sense. Then it comes down to how cheaply SpaceX can manufacture the things.

Re: Blue Origin first human flight

#125

Post by renewiltord »

tokai wrote: post #110
docdeek wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Made by a Space Race government. Now it’s in the reach of individuals. I’m a space universalist. I’m cheering for all the teams here.

Re: Blue Origin first human flight

#126

Post by gist »

detritus wrote: post #112
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.

The thing that amuses me is that if SpaceX can make Starship and the Heavy booster work, they could actually come up with a tourism/joyride that would blow these piffling jumps by Branson and Bezos into irrelevance. If you can send 50-100 people on an actual orbiting jaunt, perhaps a night in 'space rocket hotel', rich folk would gladly pay millions, which makes the business case a lot more compelling. Then they'd ju…

> rich folk would gladly pay millions, which makes the business case a lot more compelling.

I would say some would but keep in mind that a few other things have to come together.

a) Willing to take the risk (non trivial example I would not do this no chance)

b) Your family/spouse/girlfriend/boyfriend has to buy into the risk even if it's just you going into the orbit.

c) Potential negative publicity as in 'look how they are spending their money' since early adopters would most likely be publicized in some way.

d) Guilt maybe spending millions for a trivial short ride vs. other things you can spend money on.

Keep in mind with 'd' other things are considered more acceptable and have social proof. This seems (to me anyway) the ultimate extravagance and I am wondering if there is the classic difference between what people say they would do if given the chance and what they would actually do.

Re: Blue Origin first human flight

#127

Post by double0jimb0 »

gameswithgo wrote: post #57
iso1631 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mentioning Virgin Galactic and Blue Origin in the same breath as SpaceX seems disingenuous. It's like comparing an horse+cart with a modern car. Maybe Electron and Virgin Orbit are in the race, but these hop 100km (or 80!) up and about 5 miles downrange are nowhere near the same league.

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

“Scale up”, a software term that has almost zero value when translated to aerospace engineering.

Re: Blue Origin first human flight

#128

Post by mendigou »

I found it annoying, even a bit insulting, that they kept referring to the people in the capsule as "astronauts".

I could understand if they did it for Wally Funk, as she actually did the training back in the day, but the rest?

When rich people were allowed in the ISS they were called "tourists", which is befitting.

Re: Blue Origin first human flight

#129

Post by BurningFrog »

jacquesm wrote: post #30
_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…

I don't see a race. I see one company that does space travel and two dilettantes, who may or may not one day actually do something useful.

You're seeing the very first steps of a long race.

Re: Blue Origin first human flight

#130

Post by boringg »

_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 Space Race is still happening, but it's happening on other planets and with government money (see: Mars and further afield exploration). All these initiatives have been possible by the heavy lifting of NASA and other international government agencies over the last 6 decades.

Theses newcomers have drawn in attention and effort and are trying to reframe space as a business being funded by revenue - which has trade offs but in general is a positive development. The really challenging work without the glamor is still being down by the scientists and research agencies with the government. I do tip my hats to the accomplishments of all three of the new comer organizations. I just dispute that the narrative that they are driving the future. I think they are complementary.

To be clear - they don't have enough money to "solve" space exploration - it takes deeper capital than they have - though they are bringing a new business model to potentially stretch their capital deployments.

Post reply on HN