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

221–230 of 504 posts

Re: Blue Origin first human flight

#221

Post by mumblemumble »

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.

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

This is all about poking at Virgin Galactic. Virgin Galactic cleared 80km, which is the height that earns you astronaut wings in the USA. Blue Origin clears the Kármán line (100km), which is the internationally recognized standard for human spaceflight. So they're digging in hard on, "Jeff Bezos has been to space, Richard Branson hasn't," in an effort to imply that Virgin Galactic's flight from earlier this month doesn't count, theirs is the real first.

Re: Blue Origin first human flight

#222

Post by goshx »

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.

as·tro·naut /ˈastrəˌnôt/

noun a person who is trained to travel in a spacecraft.

They were trained, and they traveled in a spacecraft.

This is such a historical moment and this is what people are focusing on?

What difference does it really make to you or to anyone? Who the hell really cares?

And this is the top comment here. Come on people. Enjoy things for a change.

Re: Blue Origin first human flight

#223

Post by KuiN »

nautilius wrote: post #170
mdorazio wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I take it you're not a big fan of Gagarin, the first human in space, then. What was his importance beyond 'being there'?

Vostok 1 is a tricky exception because there was no gurantee Gagarin would be conscious or even alive when he got to space. That mission had to be automated.

But he had a role other than just being a passenger. He was there to make observations on the performance of the rocket and the spacecraft, as well as himself throughout the mission. There's a clear scientific role here that the Blue Origin tourists do not have. And while the controls were locked, Gagarin had the code to unlock them and was to take over the spacecraft in the event of automation failure or another manually recoverable emergency.

Re: Blue Origin first human flight

#224

Post by BurningFrog »

detritus wrote: post #124
BurningFrog wrote: post #118

Earlier 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…

If I'm paying for a space tourism joyride, I would definitely be extra thrilled if we took off from California and landed in Fiji within the hour.

Presumably, since I'm stinking rich to begin with, I'd have a fancy resort booked there for the next week.

I agree it's not a replacement for commercial jet flights.

Re: Blue Origin first human flight

#225

Post by beamatronic »

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?

It seems like you can clearly delineate, by whether you are being paid to be there, or you are paying to be there.

Re: Blue Origin first human flight

#226

Post by aardvarkr »

publicola1990 wrote: post #172
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.

I find strange that line of thinking. That NASA and other space agencies use highly trained personnel like military pilots for space missions seems largely a historical accident. In "The Right Stuff", there is discussion on this topic, initially trapeeze artists were thought to be the ideal personnel for the space program due to the high dynamic forces they routinely experience. Another opinion being considered was t…

Do you really think the pilots are nothing more than dead weight whose only purpose is to be a passenger? The astronauts were some of the best of the best because it was an experimental flight program. Do you really think the best pilots would sign up and give their lives just to be a test subject with no control like the chimpanzee the Russians put into space?

Re: Blue Origin first human flight

#227

Post by cptskippy »

chasd00 wrote: post #62
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.

i feel pretty guilty for being so underwhelmed because I sure as hell couldn't build an engine and airframe to do that but I am. I think the duration and lack of events is what did it. I'm use to the multiple phases of a falcon9 launch and the landing. However, i'm glad BlueOrigin did this and had a successful launch/landing. It certainly helps inspire others and is good for the industry as a whole.

> i feel pretty guilty for being so underwhelmed because I sure as hell couldn't build an engine and airframe to do that but I am.

Given Bezo's bank account, you don't think you could put together a team to get a rocket into space?

Let's be realistic, no one person built this or any other rocket. Apart from Money, and perhaps short/bald man complex, Bezo contributed little overall. Yet all of the media has been about Bezos going into space.

When Richard Branson came along to steal his thunder with the SpaceShipTwo launch just before him, Bezo showed his colors by dismissing the achievement as not "real space". I have doubt Bezos is still salty about it and planning to get back at him.

IMO, none of these billionaires should be celebrated for these achievements. We should be celebrating the people who put them there but those individuals receive almost no mention.

Re: Blue Origin first human flight

#228

Post by cecilpl2 »

Ottolay wrote: post #157
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 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.

Note that SpaceX hadn't even launched its first rocket in 2004. They didn't reach orbit until 2008 and yet sent crew to the space station over a year ago already.

Re: Blue Origin first human flight

#229

Post by someperson »

Axsuul wrote: post #159

Really clean launch! I think this was the first time a reusable rocket was landed with humans onboard? It must’ve fell 100k feet at the end in less than a minute which must’ve been nuts.

No, Dragon and the Falcon 9 launch crew to the ISS and both are "land" (well, splashdown for Dragon).

Though as far as I know, the Crew Dragon vehicle has been new every launch, with re-used Dragons being used for future missions. I don't know if this was the first flight of that particular New Shepard Crew Capsule though.

Post reply on HN