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

431–440 of 504 posts

Re: Blue Origin first human flight

#431

Post by peatmoss »

rurp wrote: post #424
AtlasBarfed wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I don't know why this is being downvoted since it makes total sense to me. It's not a good thing that the mega rich have an absurd amount of power over society, but it's a fact for the foreseeable future. There is precedent for people becoming much more conscientious about the planet after returning from space, so it's certainly possible that billionaires playing with rockets will have some positive second order effe…

It is indeed a phenomenon that others have experienced. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_effect

Re: Blue Origin first human flight

#432

Post by DocTomoe »

zackbloom wrote: post #353
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.

If you listen to the stream there's a moment when they ask each astronaut for a mock-serious 'status update'. At least one forgets to even respond. It feels like cosplay, like a tourist experience where you are pretending to be an astronaut despite having no responsibilities and little training. I would struggle to not feel embarrassment at pretending to be something I am not, and at the knowledge they are stroking m…

One point: that was no "mock status update call", it was control checking if people were back in and strapped to their seats again. The wording arguably was a bit too much fluff ("Astronaut Bezos", yeah, right)

Re: Blue Origin first human flight

#433

Post by rhdunn »

afavour wrote: post #338
throwaway0a5e wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is what "trickle down" technology looks like. We are watching space flight move a rung down the economic ladder. Nation states -> wealthy bigco -> billionare's pet project -> ????? -> normal people (some steps omitted for brevity)

But what’s the actual purpose? Space tourism I get. But beyond that I’m struggling to see the uses of normal people having access to space travel. By comparison people having access to air travel has clear benefits.

Our planet will only last so long until the Sun becomes a Red Giant. At that point we will need to venture to at least the outer planets, if not beyond the solar system if we want to continue as a species.

Even in smaller time frames, I read somewhere that one of Bezos' plans is to move manufacturing into space.

And if/when we do get colonies on other planets and moons, some people would want to live there.

Re: Blue Origin first human flight

#435

Post by Me1000 »

eco wrote: post #305
JshWright wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blue Origin actually predates SpaceX. They have been working in parallel on related ideas, so I don't think it's fair to say they "copied" SpaceX. SpaceX is definitely a lot further down the road, and what Blue Origin is doing currently is much easier. The energies involved in suborbital flights are much lower, and the fact that the rocket has a thrust-to-weight ratio low enough that it can hover makes the landing pr…

I still can't wrap my head around how little Blue Origin has accomplished in 21 years despite having an earlier start than SpaceX and with Bezos injecting a billion or so into it every year. SpaceX launches people and cargo to the ISS, just completed the first shell of a nearly worldwide satellite internet network using reused boosters many of which approaching 10 flights, and is a few months out from test launching…

I think it comes down to a few different reasons. Firstly, SpaceX had to find profitability relatively quickly or die. Blue doesn't have that problem, thanks to Bezos' personal war chest. SpaceX couldn't gamble on the idea that space tourism would be a significant cost offset. Putting payloads into orbit was a more viable business model.

Second, New Shepard is massively over engineered for what it is. The reason for that is that they plan on using it to learn how to make much bigger rockets. Though, I suppose you could reasonably argue that the delays of New Glenn means that wasn't a smart tradeoff.

Lastly, Blue doesn't have the same laser focus SpaceX does. I think this is most likely the biggest contributor. They've made all kinds of different engines, they designed their own lunar lander, then they designed another one with Northrop, Lockheed, and Draper for NASAs HLS project.

My understanding through people I've talked to with connections to Blue, is that Blue operated more as an R&D lab for the first several years of it's existence.

I, like a lot of people, suspect now that Bezos is more focused on Blue they will start making bigger waves in the industry. At least I hope so, because I'm really excited to see competition in the space!

Re: Blue Origin first human flight

#436

Post by DocTomoe »

sanderjd wrote: post #346
yreg wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I dunno, that's "news" to be sure; certainly space nerds should care a lot, but they played the entire flight on The Today Show (I watched it). They did not play the entirety of the first manned SpaceX flight, which was a much bigger deal because (I'm pretty sure?) it was the first private manned launch. I'm not saying this flight wasn't news, I'm saying it wasn't mainstream news, except that it happened to have Jeff…

Part of the reason for that is that Blue Origin's flight was about 12 minutes in total, while SpaceX's first manned mission was closer to six months.

Re: Blue Origin first human flight

#437

Post by Me1000 »

runawaybottle wrote: post #21

I’m more impressed that Bezos took the ideas that worked from Spacex and successfully copied it.

New Shepard landed after going to space nearly a full year before SpaceX's first landing.

Obviously an orbital class booster is a different challenge than a suborbital booster, but the idea that Blue is copying SpaceX is just wrong.

Re: Blue Origin first human flight

#438

Post by sanderjd »

DocTomoe wrote: post #436
sanderjd wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dunno, that's "news" to be sure; certainly space nerds should care a lot, but they played the entire flight on The Today Show (I watched it). They did not play the entirety of the first manned SpaceX flight, which was a much bigger deal because (I'm pretty sure?) it was the first private manned launch. I'm not saying this flight wasn't news, I'm saying it wasn't mainstream news, except that it happened to have Jeff…

Part of the reason for that is that Blue Origin's flight was about 12 minutes in total, while SpaceX's first manned mission was closer to six months.

Fair.

Re: Blue Origin first human flight

#440

Post by mesozoic »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #120
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…

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…

Cheaper and safer to just drop some acid.
Post reply on HN