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

371–380 of 504 posts

Re: Blue Origin first human flight

#371

Post by pope_meat »

unclebucknasty wrote: post #319
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.

The idea that we have a system that mints billionaires with outsized power, who we then must shoot into space in order to help them gain sufficient perspective to not want to see the planet destroyed makes me think of Rube Goldberg.

We're in the part of the Rude Goldberg machine where every single domino that falls is triggering a new biblical plague.

Re: Blue Origin first human flight

#372

Post by rtkwe »

mulmen wrote: post #352
rtkwe wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So it is your belief that Virgin Galactic did nothing for a decade and then made a working spacecraft in the course of a few months but you don’t find this amazing?

They didn't, I know they weren't actually doing nothing that whole time but it's been almost 3 years since SpaceShipTwo's first 'space'flight and there was very little happening. SS2 first flew way back in 2010, it's all just moving very slowly until there's a chance for a PR opportunity and I'm not so convinced it won't immediately go back to doing 1-2 test flights a year for a while again after this.

Re: Blue Origin first human flight

#373

Post by nickik »

afavour wrote: post #344
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.

I want to be excited but I keep coming back to confusion over what the actual purpose of this will be. Flight has very clear benefits: getting you from A to B way faster than was ever possible before. With space flight there is no B to go to. You go up, you come down. If these companies were making breakthroughs in making space long term habitable I’d be excited. But I’m yet to see that.

> With space flight there is no B to go to.

That not the case. Suborbital space flight of the model BO or Virgin do is, but that simply not generally true.

Re: Blue Origin first human flight

#374

Post by jimbilly22 »

BitwiseFool wrote: post #210
croes wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

this argument is used to justify literally every climate hypocrisy, from pro skiers to billionaires on down

"i do X high-carbon thing to bring awareness to the plebs"

Re: Blue Origin first human flight

#375

Post by noelsusman »

_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…

Bill Gates is chasing harder and harder problems, not these guys.

Re: Blue Origin first human flight

#376

Post by [deleted] »

samstave wrote: post #345
dev_tty01 wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, the sub-orbital is a harder sell. When you are the only one or one of a few, the benefit/cost is perceived to be higher. After a dozen or so of these flights much of the cachet will be gone. Can they (Bezos/Branson) bring the cost down fast enough to transition to a sustainable model? In 2000, Dennis Tito paid $20M for 11,400 minutes in space or about $1750/minute ($2765 in 2021 dollars). The Branson and Bezos…

Honestly, I wish Branson and Bezos would have just put their dicks back in their pants and just fully got behind spaceX I absolutely dont care about Bezos or Branson being able to do these stunts - SpaceX already docked with the IIS ffs. It's like McClaren winning the Gran Prix, and then Toyota and Ford showing that their CEOs can finish a few laps in Monaco.

[deleted]

Re: Blue Origin first human flight

#377

Post by nickik »

sschueller wrote: post #32

What I found interesting is that the vehicle that drove them to the launchpad was a Rivian SUV. The direct competitor to the Tesla Model X.

NASA uses Model X to transport astronauts to the launch tower. And Amazon invested in Rivian so Bezos wants to feature that.

Re: Blue Origin first human flight

#378

Post by teraflop »

crb wrote: post #361

Both Virgin Galactic and Blue Origin offer you ~4 minutes of weightlessness. Can this sub-orbital model scale in such a way to have, say, 60 minutes of weightlessness? Or is the "straight up, straight down" model such that sub-orbital flight has a cap at 4?

A "suborbital" trajectory is just an orbit that intersects Earth's surface, and in theory you can make it whatever size and duration you want. I suppose the limit would be when your apogee becomes high enough to be near or beyond Earth's gravitational sphere of influence, which would happen for orbital periods on the order of months.

Practically speaking, if you have enough thrust and delta-v to achieve a suborbital flight of more than a few tens of minutes, you also have the ability to reach orbit, so why bother?

Re: Blue Origin first human flight

#379

Post by nickik »

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.

Its the same with pilots. Early on only pilots flew at all. Currently anybody who crosses a certain line is considered an astronaut.

There will be some shakeup in the is there clearly is a different between the type of astronaut that is trained to do experiments in space and repair a space station, and somebody who just sits in his seat and lets the space-craft fly.

Re: Blue Origin first human flight

#380

Post by AtlasBarfed »

quijoteuniv wrote: post #292
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…

I hope people have better dreams. That is my dream.

I actually think space tourism for the rich is very important.

We are entering an age of global techno oligarchy

I want my masters to see the earth from space. Get a feel for the stakes, see the delicate ribbon of air, the vastness of space.

See it as the rare jewel we spent a short time on, and the obligation to treat it well

Post reply on HN