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

201–210 of 504 posts

Re: Blue Origin first human flight

#201

Post by w0de0 »

mendigou wrote: post #128

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.

Your critical responses focus on parsing the meaning of "astronaut," or on the true utility of the job with respect to other non-human test pilots.

I leave all of that aside, and agree with you on egalitarian and emotional grounds. The term in America rightly has implications of public service - of deserving the fantastically unique opportunity of exploring space on behalf of all Americans by virtue of intelligence, diligence, and impeccable ethics. Topically, this might be compared to Olympians: though all extreme athletes perform extraordinary feats, Olympians carry an extra responsibility to represent us as a nation. So too with people called "astronauts."

Whether or not one agrees with this understanding, I believe it is the practical understanding underlying your (and my) insult at the use of this term.

Re: Blue Origin first human flight

#202

Post by bombela »

AmazonPacker wrote: post #132
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.

> enabled flight for all of us even though most people during that time could only dream about it My dream in life is to be able to urinate when I need to. If I ever achieve that dream, my next dream is that Bezos's joy ride to the lower atmosphere might trickle down and enable joy rides to the lower atmosphere for all.

Here; let me fullfil your dream with a single word: diapers.

Re: Blue Origin first human flight

#203

Post by liketochill »

mygoodaccount wrote: post #141

I feel the same way when software developers call themselves engineers.

Certainly some software is engineered! Maybe the software in space ships is a good example where it was written with an engineering process, tested, and then worked “first try”. Of course a lot of software these days is morally bankrupt and never finished.

Re: Blue Origin first human flight

#204

Post by postingawayonhn »

Clewza313 wrote: post #167
Ottolay wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The underwhelming part is that it took so long. The first private manned suborbital flight occurred in 2004 with SpaceShipOne. It is 17 years later at this point and only now do we have paying customers for sub-orbital flight.

And even then we still don't have "paying passengers" in the sense of being able to rock up and buy ticket. One seat being raffles at a charity auction doesn't quite count. I also suspect the pool of people willing to pony up $250k+ for a few minutes barely in space is going to be pretty shallow. I'd sign up in a heartbeat for a space hotel trip in that price range though, so here's hoping Axiom Space delivers (and g…

> One seat being raffles at a charity auction doesn't quite count.

The person who won that seat didn't actually end up going on the first flight (will go on a later one). Some 18 year old with a dad who runs a hedge fund went. How much he paid was not disclosed.

Re: Blue Origin first human flight

#205

Post by gist »

dorfsmay wrote: post #193
gist wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 t…

How many amateurs pay a lot of money to be able to say they went to the top of mount Everest, which is probably a lot more risky?

Good point but a bit different. People view climbing Everest as an achievement as opposed to going up in a rocket which even though you need to prepare seems less daunting and a different type of risk.

Not that it matters but I wonder which of these buys more social capital?

Re: Blue Origin first human flight

#206

Post by BitwiseFool »

eplanit wrote: post #199
baus wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems pedantic. Just because technology has lowered the requirements for becoming an astronaut, that doesn't change the definition.

So if I go on an ocean cruise I'm a Sailor?

The analogy is tough because as far as I know there isn't an official definition of what a sailor is. Nor is there an internationally recognized registry like the "Fédération Aéronautique Internationale" which keeps track of people it considers Astronauts/Cosmonauts/Taiknonauts, etc.

Re: Blue Origin first human flight

#207

Post by jszymborski »

AlexanderTheGr8 wrote: post #135
mendigou wrote: post #128

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.

"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…

Surely I'm not a sailor for having taken a cruise ship. I did, however, participate in the safety demonstration, and packed my bags.

I'm definitely on-board with calling Bezos a passenger.

Re: Blue Origin first human flight

#208

Post by Tossrock »

ja27 wrote: post #115
Clewza313 wrote: post #44

Earlier 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.

Blue Origin only "beat" SpaceX if you allow BO's test flight and disallow SpaceX's - SpaceX was landing their Grasshopper prototype as early as 2012.

Re: Blue Origin first human flight

#209

Post by ww520 »

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.

Getting rocket working correctly is never easy. Just like in IT when things work smoothly, it doesn't look amazing but it takes a tremendous amount of work to get things work correctly and seemingly smooth. A smooth operation is always amazing.

The booster landing looks pretty amazing. The capsule landing went without a problem. The deceleration when the braking chutes deployed looks a bit fast, from 205mph to 150mph in couple seconds. Must be hard on the body.

Edit: Ok, in the post-flight briefing, they mentioned that they didn't anticipate the 5G deceleration on descent and it was pretty hard. Must be when the braking chute was deployed.

Re: Blue Origin first human flight

#210

Post by BitwiseFool »

croes wrote: post #192
Ajedi32 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the dream; affordable space tourism for the masses. If Starship manages to hit the price and performance targets Musk has set for it (~$2 million/launch[1], max of 1000 passengers[2]) you could get a ticket to orbit for around $2000. Throw in some extra for profit margin, a stay at an orbital space hotel, and a few additional expenses, and it might well be possible to take a vacation in space for less than $10…

Good place to watch the decay of the human species because of climate change. Space tourism will accelerate it.

Or perhaps, the passengers will be galvanized by the experience and end up taking environmental issues more seriously: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_effect

The carbon emissions of Starship already pale in comparison to the reforms we need to pass, but lack the political will to do so.

Post reply on HN