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

321–330 of 504 posts

Re: Blue Origin first human flight

#321

Post by pie420 »

BurningFrog wrote: post #224
detritus wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You make the mistake of assuming the uber-rich want to get to Fiji as soon as possible, when in reality they would rather spend the 8 hrs in their private Gulfstream in a cocaine fueled orgy while the pilot does barrel rolls and loops. Flying is one of the few times that the Uber rich can really disconnect and be alone and relax, why would they want to get to Fiji in an hour in a super stressful flight?

Re: Blue Origin first human flight

#322

Post by rtkwe »

arriu wrote: post #111
FredFS456 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Let me clarify, my point is neither about their wealth or expertise. I'm simply pointing out that this could be a similar point in time for future commercial travel; focusing on their wealth is beside the point. Or it could fizzle out...

IDK Virgin Galactic seemed to be virtually dead for a decade or so until there was a chance to one up Bezos I wouldn't be surprised to see these continue to barely operate after this big push.

Re: Blue Origin first human flight

#323

Post by bronco21016 »

gist wrote: post #205
dorfsmay wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Exactly. As a pilot, I find both of these rides uninspiring. Now if I could strap myself to the top of a Titan II in a Gemini capsule and do some piloting… now that would be an experience.

Re: Blue Origin first human flight

#324

Post by rtkwe »

davidw wrote: post #211

As the owner of several western hats, I'm curious about Jeff Bezos' hat. What's the story behind it? It does not fit him well. He obviously has the money to have whatever kind of crafted, perfectly styled hat he wants. Maybe something from his family?

Iirc this is in Texas so local affectation probably?

Re: Blue Origin first human flight

#325

Post by dolmen »

BurningFrog wrote: post #224
detritus wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, this raises the cost of capsule reuse because of transport back to the launch point.

Re: Blue Origin first human flight

#326

Post by jedberg »

croes wrote: post #274
BitwiseFool wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

At the moment there are only infrequent rocket launches, if the numbers go up because of space tourism the damage becomes greater, especially if space tourism reaches the price level parent was talking about.

Airplanes are pretty common and don't account for much of the overall pollution. According to the EPA, transport accounts for 29% of total emissions, and of that, only 10% are airplanes. On the other hand 75% comes from cars and trucks.

If rockets became commonplace, they would most like replace leisure travel on airplanes and would eliminate car traffic once you arrive at your destination. The CO2 emission of the current SpaceX rockets is about the same as one full plane across the Atlantic. So if you could take 300 people in one launch, you'd probably take those 300 people away from an airplane flight and it would actually be better for the planet.

Re: Blue Origin first human flight

#327

Post by theshrike79 »

ekianjo wrote: post #136
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'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).

I was kinda disappointed that the whole thing was just one shaky camera shot, no in-vehicle cameras on Bezos' face getting squished from G-forces or anything =(

Re: Blue Origin first human flight

#328

Post by sanderjd »

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.

Yeah I expected an orbit too. But it was their first manned mission, so I think it makes sense that it was a simpler thing. But it shouldn't have been such big news. It only was because there was a billionaire on board, and that's really dumb.

Re: Blue Origin first human flight

#329

Post by martyvis »

pie420 wrote: post #295
agloeregrets wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm mostly referring to Jeff, who he has an extremely public feud with.

No he doesnt

I'm pretty sure Elon thinks Jeff's Blue Origin is impotent in delivering the technology needed to progress the return to the Moon https://twitter.com/kchangnyt/status/1386787651412451329?s=1...

Re: Blue Origin first human flight

#330

Post by yreg »

sanderjd wrote: post #328
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.

Yeah I expected an orbit too. But it was their first manned mission, so I think it makes sense that it was a simpler thing. But it shouldn't have been such big news. It only was because there was a billionaire on board, and that's really dumb.

It was news because it was the first manned flight of a private launch provider. That doesn't happen often and it is an important milestone.
Post reply on HN