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

381–390 of 504 posts

Re: Blue Origin first human flight

#381

Post by nostromo »

noelsusman wrote: post #375
_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.

Gates is doing great work, no doubt.

But are they "hard" problems to solve? Most of the projects Gates takes on have already been solved in the developed world. He's primarily trying to distribute those successes to the developing world.

In any case, we can have both: rich people building the tech of tomorrow, and rich people trying to apply existing tech to the underserved. Both are good; both have utility.

Re: Blue Origin first human flight

#382

Post by mulmen »

rtkwe wrote: post #372
mulmen wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I guess I don’t get your point.

Is it that Branson should be moving faster? Taking more risks? Even after a test pilot was killed?

Why should they go faster? Because SpaceX does? Why should everyone copy SpaceX?

Should they do more frequent PR and show incremental developments/achievements? How is that any less of a PR stunt than shooting the CEO into space?

Why are we impressed by SpaceX PR (they don’t have to invest so much in coverage) but not by anything else?

Re: Blue Origin first human flight

#383

Post by caconym_ »

bob1029 wrote: post #176
detritus wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing that amuses me is that if SpaceX can make Starship and the Heavy booster work, they could actually come up with a tourism/joyride that would blow these piffling jumps by Branson and Bezos into irrelevance. If you can send 50-100 people on an actual orbiting jaunt, perhaps a night in 'space rocket hotel', rich folk would gladly pay millions, which makes the business case a lot more compelling. Then they'd ju…

Out of all of these space-faring corporations, SpaceX has orders of magnitude more aerospace infrastructure and assets to work with. Their entire ethos since inception was getting humanity to Mars, not sending a handful of wealthy people into suborbital trajectories. Elon/SpaceX have certainly participated in a lot of PR throughout, but it always seemed to be along an engineering axis, not some feel-good emotional ax…

BO has plenty of funding, and lofty ambitions far beyond New Shepard, but they just haven't made much progress toward achieving them.

I haven't done the math, but it seems like Starship is potentially an incredibly cheap heavy lift rocket even in total or partial expendable modes, e.g if SpaceX fails to realize their full reusability goals. At this point, I think BO and others are only falling further behind.

Re: Blue Origin first human flight

#384

Post by 8ytecoder »

loloquwowndueo wrote: post #122
5555624 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It really shouldn't count as space travel unless they go into orbit around Earth. So, Alan Shepard would not be the first American in space? Gus Grissom's first flight wouldn't count, either? I'm all for making a distinction between space tourists and astronauts; but, I don't know if orbiting the Earth is the distinction. (Yes, I know Shepard and Grissom orbited the Earth on subsequent space flights; but,those firs…

Maybe you were just told they counted as going into space because otherwise the first American to orbit earth only did so a full 10 months after Gagarin, which looks worse than saying “oh we launched an American into space less than a month after the Russians did”.

Huh, I remember learning Yuri Gagarin as the first person to space. I don't think I even remember learning/reading about Alan Shepard.

Re: Blue Origin first human flight

#385

Post by soperj »

jdavis703 wrote: post #66
rvz wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It really shouldn't count as space travel unless they go into orbit around Earth. Translation: 'Other private companies building their own rockets and going into space is 'not good enough' unless it is by SpaceX' and doesn't count. To SpaceX fanatics and downvoters: I'm sure you are deep fanatics of SpaceX but surely you have the funds and deep pockets to join Musk and friends on a space mission together right now?…

The Russian v. USA space race’s important milestones included putting satellites, animals and people into orbit. It wasn’t just merely launching them to the edge of spacs.

The USSR didn't even bother with suborbital flights. There's a reason that there's only 3 flights to suborbital ranges that are considered manned spaceflight.

Re: Blue Origin first human flight

#386

Post by pantalaimon »

dolmen wrote: post #325
BurningFrog wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why not also have a launch facility at fiji? You could even book a return trip.

Re: Blue Origin first human flight

#387

Post by robotresearcher »

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.

Yes, and the first suborbital crewed flight was in May 1961. A bit more than sixty years ago.

The gap between the Wright Brothers' first flight and Apollo 11 was about 66 years. (I realize aircraft and spacecraft are not very similar).

I think almost everyone interested in space flight back then would be pretty disappointed by the slow pace of development since Apollo, until things picked up recently.

Re: Blue Origin first human flight

#388

Post by rtkwe »

davidw wrote: post #348
rtkwe wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Iirc this is in Texas so local affectation probably?

He's spent time on ranches, so probably knows how they're supposed to fit; this one's practically resting on his ears. I'm curious if it's a hat that means something to him for some reason.

That sounds basically like what I'm saying: He owns a ranch and occasionally spends time there because part of the reason the rich often have these ranch properties is to cosplay part of the independent west/cowboy dream. He probably rarely wears one and basically only does so when he's on this ranch as part of the aesthetic.

Re: Blue Origin first human flight

#389

Post by bdjk68hsk »

samstave wrote: post #339
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…

But for a $10k vacation, you get to sleep in a bed, order room service, go outside, go golfing, see a show, etc. 10k in space will get you what? --- Random thought: If they were able to get enough water into space such that one could swim through a sphere of water in a weightless environment, what would the sensation of being encapsulated in water while weightless feel like (clearly needing scuba or some other air co…

> But for a $10k vacation, you get to sleep in a bed, order room service, go outside, go golfing, see a show, etc.

And what if you’ve already done all that?

Private jets (well, fractional ownership) gets boring after a few years.

Re: Blue Origin first human flight

#390

Post by bitL »

detritus wrote: post #112
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 thing that amuses me is that if SpaceX can make Starship and the Heavy booster work, they could actually come up with a tourism/joyride that would blow these piffling jumps by Branson and Bezos into irrelevance. If you can send 50-100 people on an actual orbiting jaunt, perhaps a night in 'space rocket hotel', rich folk would gladly pay millions, which makes the business case a lot more compelling. Then they'd ju…

There will be an inevitable crash/failure resulting in a mass casualty event where many industries will lose their leaders (the only people that could afford a spaceflight for fun), and that's very bad for PR and could sink the whole company as a result.
Post reply on HN