I feel the same way when software developers call themselves engineers.
Blue Origin first human flight
141–150 of 504 posts
Re: Blue Origin first human flight
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
"An astronaut (from the Greek "astron" (ἄστρον), meaning "star", and "nautes" (ναύτης), meaning "sailor") is a person trained, equipped, and deployed by a human spaceflight program to serve as a commander or crew member aboard a spacecraft." They were trained (not as well trained as NASA astronauts, but still trained well enough for such a short mission) They were equipped with whatever equipments they needed for thi…
What about the "serve as commander or crew member" part?
are the members of the crew of Blue Origin 3 not 'crew members'?
Re: Blue Origin first human flight
#143I 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.
"An astronaut (from the Greek "astron" (ἄστρον), meaning "star", and "nautes" (ναύτης), meaning "sailor") is a person trained, equipped, and deployed by a human spaceflight program to serve as a commander or crew member aboard a spacecraft." They were trained (not as well trained as NASA astronauts, but still trained well enough for such a short mission) They were equipped with whatever equipments they needed for thi…
Crew members have defined roles and responsibilities, and are important to the success of a mission beyond having paid to be there. The alternative is more apt here, I think: passengers.
Re: Blue Origin first human flight
#144This 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.
> I've seen SpaceX doing much more complicated missions or it's just not that big of a deal. Also, SpaceX knows how to put on a show. In comparison this felt like an amateur video. (not to diminish the mission itself, just how it was filmed).
To be fair SpaceX also has had practice, go back and watch some earlier launches and they have the same amateur vibe.
Re: Blue Origin first human flight
#145Obviously 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 governme…
It's really funny how you translated "better taxation" into literally "totalitarian genocide machine" and then typed up a thoroughly straw-manned paragraph about hypothetical questions that no one is promoting or suggesting. It's completely disingenuous that you bring up all these arbitrary lines in the sand about wealth when no one is suggesting that obviously ridiculous approach.
We can tax billionaires so that they pay their fair share for the public resources they use without it going full gulag.
Re: Blue Origin first human flight
#146Seems 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…
In my opinion, they are still doing incredible work. SpaceX and Blue Origin can both bring their rockets down - no government space agency can do this today (and govt space agencies had a 60 year lead)
Privatization helps because NASA cannot afford failures today, but private companies can. And since space is a new and risky frontier, failures will happen. That's why I believe that privatization is a good thing overall
Re: Blue Origin first human flight
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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."
Blue Origin don't need a revenue stream. They need Jeff Bezo to light fire under their ass.
As a company that started a year before SpaceX and funded by the richest man in the world, the company should have no problem with being aggressive.
Yes, walk before you run. SpaceX did this too, but their leadership has a sense of urgency. Blue Origin don't.
Re: Blue Origin first human flight
#148Re: Blue Origin first human flight
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 chea…
I am more concerned about nuclear war as a result of mistaken identity since it's the same technology used to launch ICBMs.
Re: Blue Origin first human flight
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
Virgin Galactic is at least taking a novel approach with the spaceplane though. Sticking a capsule on top of a rocket and bringing it down with parachutes has been done since the 1960s, and SpaceX beat them to landing the launcher as well.
SpaceX only "beat" them to a landing if you're disregarding suborbital flights. Blue Origin landed their booster 23 Nov 2015. SpaceX landed their first booster 21 Dec 2015. It really is apples and oranges until BO or VG gets to orbit. Rocket Lab is likely much closer to orbital booster re-use than BO or VG are.
Precisely. Landing a booster is difficult but creating or orbital class rocket is an order of magnitude more difficult. SpaceX just did the hard part first.