Slashdot Mirror


Bezos's Blue Origin Prepares Launch Facility

mhteas writes "Jeff Bezos's very quiet and private spaceship company Blue Origin is preparing to set up a launch facility in west Texas on 165,000 acres Bezos bought. There's a little more information about Blue Origin's plans too."

127 comments

  1. So very quietly... by Hammerikaner · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yes, so quietly that we've been hearing about this for the better part of a week!

    1. Re:So very quietly... by Lindsay+Lohan · · Score: 4, Interesting
      we've been hearing about this
      Yes, and I'm sure some /.'ers will be interested in hearing about this job listing at Blue Origin. If you have an engineering degree and experience in Java, SQL, Python, Perl, C, and C++, you might find this a pretty amazing opportunity. They are rapidly expanding their staff here in Seattle.
    2. Re:So very quietly... by another_henry · · Score: 1
      The candidate will also have strong software design and programming skills, including Java, SQL, Python, Perl, C, C++, and FORTRAN.

      FORTRAN???

      --
      "Studies have shown that people who eat peanuts live longer than those who do not eat."
    3. Re:So very quietly... by jdray · · Score: 2, Informative

      Fortran is big in the mathematic field. There's lots of math in rocketry.

      --
      The Spoon
      Updated 6/28/2011
  2. repeat by Jodka · · Score: 4, Informative

    A similar story was reported previously on Slashdot here.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une signature.
  3. It's about time that more people get into it... by UID1000000 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Blue Origin's Web site says the company doesn't intend to stop with a suborbital vehicle. The ultimate goal is to establish an "enduring human presence in space," and Bezos told Reuters in November that his company hopes to progress to orbital vehicles.

    Sounds like he might be trying to obtain the Bigelow space race for a space station. 50 million dollars is a nice prize.




    On a side note Google buys enough dark fibre to make a space elevator thus obtaining total control of the globe with the only cheap way to get to orbit.

    --
    UID 1000000 is just around the corner.

    1. Re:It's about time that more people get into it... by mOoZik · · Score: 1

      More power to Jeff! Maybe he can attract the most talented engineers from the best schools and agencies to turn this into a reality. Whether or not he wins the Bigelow Prize is besides the point, but the advancement of private technology, the spirit of adventure, and the general attentiveness of the public to the issue will still be a victory. I am an optimist, as the present was not created by pessimists - nor will the future.

    2. Re:It's about time that more people get into it... by l4mbch0ps · · Score: 1

      Uhmmm... dark fibre for a space elevator?

      Somehow i doubt that unused fibre-optic cable http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_fibre is going to be useful for construction of a space elevator.

      Maybe you are thinking of carbon nano-tubes? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_nanotubes

      I dunno, could be me, but i don't think fibre-op cable is especially strong.

    3. Re:It's about time that more people get into it... by UID1000000 · · Score: 1

      I would recommend carbon nano-tubes but the joke was referring to the fact that this is a space article, the Google offered a job on the Googleplex on the Moon and that no one really knowns what Google is going to do with it. It's kind of a ha ha thing.

      Especially with the way that people bitch about the article selection. If the editors weren't busy with the newspapers they run they'd be fine. (Well I don't know if they run papers but it seems like a few of them read www.msnbc.com, wwww.nytimes.com, and www.washingtonpost.com

      --
      UID 1000000 is just around the corner.

  4. For CmdrTaco by phidipides · · Score: 5, Funny

    You can read more about this here.

    1. Re:For CmdrTaco by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is (nearly) always CT who does this....

  5. Future Email by vmcto · · Score: 5, Funny
    Other customers that purchased a Moon Light Ride also liked the following adventures:

    Mars Explorer Getaway

    Mercury Asbestos Slide

    Venus "Green with Envy" Tour

  6. Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I hate to say this, but the problem with human space travel is that there is just nowhere to go. There are no alien civilizations (or even alien plant life) within reach. There are no habitable planets within reach (unless you count Mars or Venus, but as wastelands go, Antartica is paradise in comparison with either of those in terms of human habitation). It sucks, but it's true.

    1. Re:Problem by Johnboi+Waltune · · Score: 1

      We know the Moon is abundant with helium-3, which is rare on Earth and may someday serve as fuel for fusion reactors. We haven't nearly explored enough of Mars or Venus to determine if there is some pragmatic reason to go there.

      --
      "The advanced societies of the future will be driven by competing systems of psychopathology." -JG Ballard
    2. Re:Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Two words: Asteroid belt.

      Three more words: Unlimited mineral resources.

    3. Re:Problem by MoonBuggy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If I can in any way at all afford it I'll be on a trip into space at some point in my life for no other reason than it's a dream of mine and always has been to do it. I think there are enough people like me to provide a fair amount of return on any development costs, and that's going up there essentially just for the experience of it. This should provide incentive to develop further and maybe go on to some useful mining operations and the like, as previous posters have said.

      The other nice thing about this 'private space race' is that it's stimulating competition between some of the world's best business and engineering minds. This is exactly how capitalism is supposed to work - competition for the ultimate share of the profits leads to better products and developments from everyone. Looking at the level of people involved I'm willing to be there's going to be some cool tech made in this race. There isn't a viable replacement for Concorde yet for a start...

    4. Re:Problem by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Mars has an atmosphere, and water. The reason to go there is to live there.

      The Moon will never be anything more than a base: There's no way to get a self-sustaining colony on that rock.

      That's why Mars is interesting, and the Moon is not.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    5. Re:Problem by jdray · · Score: 1

      While I understand what you're saying about the moon lacking natural resources, it's not necessarily true that there's no way to get a self-sustaining colony there. It just means that we have to do a lot of the "heavy lifting" of the construction ourselves, including creation of an atmosphere trap (bubble or can or whatever), gardens, etc. The moon itself is essentially a large platform of unrefined resources (Silicon, Oxygen, Iron, Aluminum, etc.) with a huge import of solar energy (around 1300 W/sq.m). With raw resources, energy, and a hell of a lot of engineering talent, you can build about anything you want. The only other ingredient you need is willpower.

      --
      The Spoon
      Updated 6/28/2011
    6. Re:Problem by Moofie · · Score: 1

      What are you going to do for water and nitrogen? Sure, you can recycle a lot, but you're still going to need water and nitrogen to sustain a colony.

      That stuff is on Mars. Not on Luna.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    7. Re:Problem by jdray · · Score: 1

      The same thing you're going to do for people, machinery, and vegetation: import it. Nitrogen is one of those things that we don't lose a lot of with our use of it (growing plants, breathing), as it's essentially a buffer gas where we humans are concerned. Plants think otherwise about it, but I think they just utilize it rather than modify it (not completely clear on this point). And, if you import a couple metric tons of hydrogen, you can use the oxygen on dear Luna to create water.

      I didn't say that there were all the components necessary on the moon to create a self-sustaining environment, just that we could do it. And, for the record, there's not a lot of nitrogen on Mars, either.

      Note that I'm not so much arguing against your basic concept, just the extremity of your original statement.

      --
      The Spoon
      Updated 6/28/2011
    8. Re:Problem by Moofie · · Score: 1

      "While I understand what you're saying about the moon lacking natural resources, it's not necessarily true that there's no way to get a self-sustaining colony there."

      Those were your words, bud. That was what I was disagreeing with.

      There is nitrogen on Mars, we know that. The only question is how much, and that will take further study.

      Seems to me like we ought to figure out how to build a fusion reactor before we worry too much about where we're going to get HE3.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    9. Re:Problem by Ironsides · · Score: 1

      For water and nitrogen we go out and get us a water-ice comet. That is how we can get the water at least. I see no reason why we "need" the nitrogen other than for plants. So we don't need that much of it.

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    10. Re:Problem by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Er, people like to eat plants. That's why nitrogen is important.

      Grabbing comets is a much more ambitious project than setting up a sustainable Mars mission.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    11. Re:Problem by Ironsides · · Score: 1

      My point was we won't need as much nitrogen if we don't use it in an atmosphere. Plants can use a solid form of nitrogen that is easier to keep in near 100% recylcing. For anything we need (such as O2, we can grab a commet. Being able to grab a commet or ice asteroid would pretty much garuntee a sustainable mission anywhere in the solar system.

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
  7. It's too noisy here... by k4_pacific · · Score: 1

    Let's go someplace private and quiet. Like a spaceship.

    --
    Unknown host pong.
    1. Re:It's too noisy here... by dubdays · · Score: 1

      Let's go someplace private and quiet. Like a spaceship.

      Yeah, nothing like joining the 62-mile-high club! Woo-hoo!

    2. Re:It's too noisy here... by bladernr · · Score: 1
      Yeah, nothing like joining the 62-mile-high club! Woo-hoo!

      <quagmire>
      90 seconds of weightlessness to join... thanks about 60 more than I need.... aaalllll riiiigghhhhttt....
      </quagmire>

      --
      Sarcasm and hyperbole are the final refuges for weak minds
  8. Will they be using ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    the patented one click launch button?

    1. Re:Will they be using ... by Doctor+Crumb · · Score: 1

      I think they will be calling it SpaceShipOne-Click. Let the space-patent battle begin!

  9. Yet Again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Re-Post - yet again. Way to go SD editors.

  10. Sci fi movies ? by sla291 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Am I the only one to believe that this kind of projects will soon be featured in not-so-future sci fi movies ??

    1. Re:Sci fi movies ? by mOoZik · · Score: 1

      I thought they *were* in Sci-Fi movies of the 50s? Ya know, some guy and his team build a space ship and fly to Jupiter or something. No?

    2. Re:Sci fi movies ? by myukew · · Score: 1

      imagine how lame they'd be... a new star trek series set 2030: Star Trek, Origins. Well, we have no Warp yet, neither any aliens but... it's a NGSA (NonGovernmentSpaceAgency) funded...

    3. Re:Sci fi movies ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.tvtome.com/tvtome/servlet/ShowMainServl et/showid-3650/Salvage_1/

  11. Guess by computerme · · Score: 2, Funny

    Guess what item I will be adding to my "Amazon Wish List"

    ??????

    1. Re:Guess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Profit?

    2. Re:Guess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      El Oh El

  12. If only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    If only our community supports bezos as much as they support (steve) jobs, we'd actually be getting somewhere.

    1. Re:If only by dabigpaybackski · · Score: 1

      Particularly if you're using this to get there. From my admittedly layman-oriented perspective, skyramp technology is an economical alternative to conventioal vertical-launch behemouths from the aerospace companies, which is why it needs a private, non-subsidized backer like Bezos in order to be built.

      --
      "OH SHIT, THERE'S A HORSE IN THE HOSPITAL!"
    2. Re:If only by The+Datamangler · · Score: 1

      Robert Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. Moon base lords it over earth using their maglev launcher.

      --
      sig wig dig jig rig big mig fig gig higg rig pig tig zig
    3. Re:If only by dabigpaybackski · · Score: 1

      Yeah, my hope was that humankind would adopt this hidden-in-plain-sight technology before the Moon people did. The idea actually belongs to Werner Von Braun, who advocated doing space launches with ramps to save energy, but the military wanted their vertical-launch ICBMs so that they could volley-fire nukes at the Russians. Heinlein, to be sure, is a visionary of a different kind.

      --
      "OH SHIT, THERE'S A HORSE IN THE HOSPITAL!"
  13. In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apple is launching the Mac mini.

  14. Horsey Rides! by Humorously_Inept · · Score: 1

    In the mean time, there's 165,000 acres of land wasting away. Free stay at the guest ranch with each space ticket purchase.

    --

    ~Someday, I hope to be an aspiring author.
    1. Re:Horsey Rides! by Fnkmaster · · Score: 1

      Hah, you can go on eBay and buy 500 to 1000 acres of West Texan land for a couple grand. So 165,000 acres may not be free, and that is a lot of land, but the stuff is practically free out there.

    2. Re:Horsey Rides! by Fnkmaster · · Score: 1

      Err that last sentence didn't quite make sense (need to learn to preview before submit, I know).

      I meant "So 165,000 acres may not be free, and that is a lot of land, but the stuff is really cheap out there."

  15. Spaceship by kaedemichi255 · · Score: 1

    Bezos has probably been listening to Kanye West's song Spaceship a little too much:

    "I've been workin' this graveshift and I ain't made shit
    I wish I could buy me a spaceship and fly past the sky"

    1. Re:Spaceship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For starters, you screwed up the lyrics. Secondly, I don't think Bezos has had to work any mall store night shifts lately.

  16. eight more words- by Thud457 · · Score: 2, Funny

    "buffalo as far as the eye can see"!

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  17. The *real* reason behind Amazon's patent by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Blasting off into space is now as easy as 1-click!

  18. Obligatory Apple Frothing by Nastard · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Unless it runs on MacOS or will be available in a smaller form factor of varying stylish colors, I fail to see how this is postworthy on Slashdot.

    1. Re:Obligatory Apple Frothing by fimbulvetr · · Score: 0

      LOL

      style_point++ for nastard!

  19. The latest un-story by fuzzy12345 · · Score: 1
    "Blue Origin operation, headquartered in a warehouse on East Marginal Way in Seattle"

    Haw Haw.

    Man dreams of space, begins pouring concrete for launch pad. Big deal. Does he have a ship? A design? Anything?

    --

    Everybody's a libertarian 'till their neighbour's becomes a crack house.
    1. Re:The latest un-story by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 1
      Man dreams of space, begins pouring concrete for launch pad. Big deal. Does he have a ship? A design? Anything?

      Um, there are plenty of available designs (SpaceShip One comes to mind). Whichever one he uses, he will have to buy it from the company that engineered it and can manufacture it, as I doubt he can put one together in his garage. So long as he has the money, he can make it work.

      "Blue Origin operation, headquartered in a warehouse on East Marginal Way in Seattle"

      Haw Haw.

      Haw Haw??? Jiminey Cricket, man, are you the assistant writer for Jack Chick?

    2. Re:The latest un-story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of my good friends is on the Blue Origin team. He is, without a doubt, a genius. He tells me that he sometimes feels stupid around some of the other people he is now working with.

      My buddy was one of the top engineers on Boeing's Sea Launch program so he has some real credentials in this industry. If he's on board with this thing, I gotta think it has a great chance for success.

  20. Three more words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Really shitty analogy.

    We're talking about another PLANET'S worth of metals and ores. We haven't done much more than scratch the surface of our own...

    Asteroids don't decompose when you 'kill' them, either. They'll still be there even if you just take half of one.

    1. Re:Three more words by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      We wouldn't need to travel to space to mine if it weren't for those damn hippies complaining about killing off the wildlife.

  21. Oooh! by ZiZ · · Score: 3, Funny

    So if I sign up for Amazon Space Services, can I use my referral ID to generate revinue whenever someone goes to space after clicking on one of my links?

    --
    This flies in the face of science.
    1. Re:Oooh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ROTFLOLOL YOU ARE SO TEH FUNNEY!!?!
      Amazon "space" referral revenue LOL

      So funney!!

  22. We could visit... by nsasch · · Score: 1

    We could visit the black monoliths on Titan.

    --
    Make your computer faster: rm -rf /mnt/windows/
  23. with patented by acomj · · Score: 0, Redundant

    One click Ticketing!
    One click launch!

    The only space center one with the one click difference!

  24. A financial setback?.... by TGM-Death · · Score: 2, Funny

    Perhaps Bezos may have to delay this venture a bit, after his prodigy (Amazon) cash's out my $10 billion credit on file? Either that, or it's time to audit the accounting system... Excerpt below from my latest Amazon order confirmation (today, 1/17/05)...LOL "...Shipping Method: Standard Shipping Shipping Preference: Group my items into as few shipments as possible Subtotal of Items: $39.94 Shipping & Handling: $12.45 ------ Total before tax: $52.39 Estimated Tax: $3.61 ------ Total: $56.00 Gift Certificates: - $9,999,999,999.00 ------ Total for this Order: $-9,999,999,943.00 Shipping estimate for these items: January 20, 2005 - January 20, 2005..." Who Hoo, now I can afford a ticket on his future space liner!

  25. waiting on tidal wave of /. environmental feedback by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Funny how /. accepts space travel as an acceptable way to use/abuse land.

    /. would scream 'ecological destruction' sky is falling if someone was about to build an oil well in Alaska.

  26. upon first glance I thought... by KungFuPenguine · · Score: 1

    it said Blue Virgin

    1. Re:upon first glance I thought... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought it said Blue Organ.

      What's up with Armadillo, these guys, and Virgin Galactic?

      Are they just batshit crazy rich guys, or does anyone actually think they're going to get to space?

    2. Re:upon first glance I thought... by proverbialcow · · Score: 1

      upon first glance I thought it said Blue Virgin

      I'd never ride in one of those. It would keep on getting shot down.

      --
      The only surefire protection against Microsoft infections is abstinence. - The Onion
    3. Re:upon first glance I thought... by The+Datamangler · · Score: 1

      Bert Rutan proved crazy rich guys can get it done. This reminds me of the early flight days before war got the planes big enough to be really commercial. Sure it would be easy to shoot this statement down, but there ARE parallels. Once someone proves it can be done, the next steps make it easier and cheaper. If no money guys like us (speaking for myself)really want to go into space, and would sacrifice a half year or so of pay to go there, what can 500 million dollars do without government waste? I see it happening. I just hope they get to it in the next 20 years so I can still go (65 in 2024)!

      --
      sig wig dig jig rig big mig fig gig higg rig pig tig zig
  27. From the article by SageMadHatter · · Score: 3, Funny

    The craft will launch vertically, like the classic rocket ship of science-fiction movies, and will land vertically as well.

    So do non-fiction rockets. Something tells me the author of the article may not realize this.

    1. Re:From the article by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Just because it can be done, doesn't mean it's a good idea.

      Carmack apparently chose the vertical-landing scenario because their launch range wouldn't let them use a parachute.

      When you've got an atmosphere that's really good at slowing stuff down, using rocket fuel to slow you down is a really terrible idea.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    2. Re:From the article by Ironsides · · Score: 1

      Using a parachute may make it easier, but it reduces re-usability and turn around time. Using a VTOL (vertical take of and landing) you can, in theory, land anywhere that is flat enough without a runway and if you have enough fuel, launch again. Space ship one using a parachute greatly increases it's turnaround time since you have to repack the chute. Or pack a new chute. The plane that lifts it up also increases turn around time.

      One other thing about VTOLs. Thinking long term, they are the only kind that can land on the Moon right now. So it's probably also developing the technology needed for that. No Atmosphere = No Parachute. It also allows for more control on where you land.

      Space Ship One may be a sub-orbital for getting from one point on earth to another, but it won't get us to another planet or the Moon. And among other things, The moon is what these guys are shooting for.

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    3. Re:From the article by Moofie · · Score: 1

      If you look at the fuel consumption math for rocketry, you'll immediately understand why reducing thrown weight is THE design driver for orbital launches. Carrying around extra fuel just for landing vastly increases your launch vehicle weight, and that's Bad (and Expensive).

      They've got a long way (engineering-wise) before they're ready to go to the moon. If they believe they're going to take off in a single-stage to orbit vehicle, fly it to the moon, land, take off again, and fly it back to Earth...well, it's a pretty vision, but pass the pixie dust. Not gonna happen. If they prove me wrong, I am going to be giddy as a six-year-old schoolgirl with a new dress, and I will be DELIGHTED to eat my words.

      Rockets have stages for a reason. Look at the size of the Apollo command module vs. the size of the Saturn V stack. Meditate on the fact that it's designed that way for a reason.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    4. Re:From the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The craft will launch vertically, like the classic rocket ship of science-fiction movies, and will land vertically as well.

      So do non-fiction rockets. Something tells me the author of the article may not realize this.

      Err, non-fiction rockets certainly don't land vertically (intentionally, anyway, and in one piece), and not all non-fiction rockets launch vertically, either (Pegasus, Space Ship One).
    5. Re:From the article by cheesybagel · · Score: 1
      Look at some SASSTO and BETA information. It was probably possible to make a SSTO vehicle in the 60s. It is even more possible now. The DC-X people tried, but couldn't get funding for DC-Y. Now that NMD is getting billions pumped into it once more, perhaps someone will get Brilliant Pebbles out of the drawer again.

      The fact is, wings and the structure reinforcement to allow wings costs weight. Weight which could as well be fuel.

      There are some articles on SSTOs here and here.

    6. Re:From the article by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Do you really think wings weigh more than your Flash Gordon rocket landing fuel?

      DC-X was a technology demonstrator. It was not an efficient way of moving payloads to orbit. VentureStar had some serious possibilities, but since it's not Shuttle or ISS, NASA's not interested.

      Do the math. Carrying your landing-on-earth fuel to the Moon means that you have to lift it out of Earth's gravity well, land it on the moon, lift it off the moon, and slow it down for landing. Guess what all those things take? LOTS of fuel.

      If you're really interested, I'll give you the equations and outline some simplifying assumptions you can make. You can feed the numbers into a simple spreadsheet that you can design (I already have my degree: You do the homework.) You'll immediately understand why staged rocketry is the best solution for heavy-lift launches.

      A SSTO orbital vehicle is a very different thing from an SSTO to Moon to Earth vehicle. The second one will be at least an order of magnitude bigger.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    7. Re:From the article by cheesybagel · · Score: 1
      Do you really think wings weigh more than your Flash Gordon rocket landing fuel?

      I'm not saying it weights more, but some people have made calculations, including for SASSTO, which showed that an equivalent winged TSTO would have 3.6x the dry mass of SASSTO on touchdown. Not to mention that winged vehicles need more complex heatshields, because they spend more time on reentry. While Bono's original concept didn't even need a heatshield : the engine plume on descent was the heatshield. The wings are nothing more than dead weight for most of the trip, they are only useful on reentry.

      DC-X was a technology demonstrator. It was not an efficient way of moving payloads to orbit. VentureStar had some serious possibilities, but since it's not Shuttle or ISS, NASA's not interested.

      DC-X was a concept demonstrator vehicle by McDonnell-Douglas. Some people did not believe you could make VTVL reliable enough with automated computer control (IIRC they even used modified F-15 avionics). Others did not believe you could execute the weird flip-over on descent (to meet the military requirement of landing back at the same launch pad). DC-X proved these were possible, with a rocket engine using cryogenic liquid fuels. DC-Y aka Delta Clipper was supposed to be the orbital capable follow on vehicle, using mostly off-the shelf technology.

      Instead of funding DC-Y, when NASA took over the project from SDIO, they basically canned it and funded a new more expensive project, using bleeding edge technology from LockMart (X-33, the prototype for VentureStar). Guess what, the bleeding edge technology failed (composite fuel tank cracks) and development costs kept increasing.

      Do the math. Carrying your landing-on-earth fuel to the Moon means that you have to lift it out of Earth's gravity well, land it on the moon, lift it off the moon, and slow it down for landing. Guess what all those things take? LOTS of fuel.

      Bono's original proposals for a trip to the Moon involved in-orbit refueling. Once you have cheap, regular access to orbit, this is easily doable. I do not know why you are interested in going to the Moon though, I mean, the Shuttle definitively cannot land in the Moon either. The wings certainly do not help it. The Apollo Command Module didn't have wings either.

    8. Re:From the article by Ironsides · · Score: 1

      To add to what you two guys are talking about, I was thinking that there would be 3 ships for the most part. Earth to Earth Orbit, Earth Orbit to Lunar orbit, Lunar Oribt to Lunar Surface. No matter how you do the last, you need a VTOL. For the middle, you something with an engine and it can look like a flying pig for all we care. (nice having no atmosphere, and can be built in orbit).

      One thing though about an having a rocket landing, as opposed to a plane landing is that you can bring down a heavier load. I am not worrying about fuel requirements in this case, its just that you have a limit to what a run way and tires can take. The space shtutle tire are replaced after every mission and cost 4K each. That is a high expense.

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    9. Re:From the article by Moofie · · Score: 1

      "One thing though about an having a rocket landing, as opposed to a plane landing is that you can bring down a heavier load. I am not worrying about fuel requirements in this case, its just that you have a limit to what a run way and tires can take. The space shtutle tire are replaced after every mission and cost 4K each. That is a high expense."

      4K each? You think that's a significant cost? Boy, you really really don't know a lot about how spaceships work.

      The State of the Art design for going to the Moon is the Saturn V. Not because it's magical, but because a design like that is dictated by the physical realities of space travel. Whether you have a winged reentry vehicle, or a capsule, is largely irrelevant to the launch system.

      It's a question of mass fraction. For every pound of stuff you want to get to the Moon and back, you need LOTS of pounds of fuel. I'll let you do the math on your own time. Consider the size of the Apollo capsule versus the size of the launch system. Now, with modern technology and a similarly sized launch vehicle, I would be an engineering jedi badass if I could get a return mass twice the size of the Apollo capsule.

      If you're worried about ground pressure, use more wheels or build a stronger runway. Either of those options is trivial in dollar cost relative to building a rocket big enough to carry its landing fuel with it.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    10. Re:From the article by Moofie · · Score: 1

      OK, first, you seem to think I'm advocating space ships with wings. Not so. I think Shuttle is a stupid idea, driven by military design requirements that had nothing to do with cheap access to orbit.

      VentureStar had possibilities.

      A winged ship has 3.6x the dry mass of SASSTO? I find that extremely hard to believe. Considering the state of modern composite fabrication, I think it's ridiculous.

      Now, if you presuppose that you can refuel in space, the math changes radically. (Of course, we no longer have a single-stage vehicle, but that's a semantic point) Although now we have to have a massive infrastructure on orbit. You know how much trouble we've had with ISS? Multiply by ten.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    11. Re:From the article by cheesybagel · · Score: 1
      VentureStar had possibilities.

      VentureStar was VTHL. Not VTVL. It was dangerously close to the realm of the impossible, because it required quite complex fuel tanks and heat shielding vs a simple VTVL with spherical tanks, and it ended up being impossible given the current tech of the day.

      A winged ship has 3.6x the dry mass of SASSTO? I find that extremely hard to believe. Considering the state of modern composite fabrication, I think it's ridiculous.

      If you apply composites to lower the dry mass of a winged vehicle, what makes you think you cannot use them to lower the dry mass of a wingless vehicle? The ratio may end up being similar. Smarter people than me have bandied numbers, from Bono to Truax, etc. Truax made some calculations based on Shuttle component weight and came to some scary numbers of his own.

      Although now we have to have a massive infrastructure on orbit.

      Not really. You can just launch two or more vehicles, some will be tankers and one will be moon bound. The tankers refuel the moon vehicle and just reenter back to Earth.

    12. Re:From the article by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Yes, VentureStar was VTHL, which is way way way better for orbital vehicles than vertical landings for the reasons I've already explained.

      I haven't read your Bono and Truax cites, but I will require a great deal of convincing to tell me that a parachute or gliding approach are disadvantageous wrt Flash Gordon.

      You still haven't addressed my basic concern: Why carry fuel to do what you can get air to do with no weight penalty?

      Sure, you can have tanker ships. Michael Flynn supposed the same thing for his dumb Flash Gordon ballistic transports.

      Why is burning fuel better than using air?

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    13. Re:From the article by cheesybagel · · Score: 1
      Yes, VentureStar was VTHL, which is way way way better for orbital vehicles than vertical landings for the reasons I've already explained.

      I see no advantage from horizontal landing. You need larger, more expensive runways, reentry is a long roast instead of a short burn, etc. In fact, one of the reasons X-33 (VentureStar precursor) failed was the complex shape tanks, required to fit the floating body shape volume better. Apollo and Soyuz do not use horizontal landing either.

      Wings are good when your vehicle is meant to cruise on the atmosphere most of the time. This is not the case here. You want to spend as little time in the atmosphere as possible.

      You still haven't addressed my basic concern: Why carry fuel to do what you can get air to do with no weight penalty?

      That is a bogus argument. You cannot just use air without special design changes, which will increase vehicle weight. The winged design will be the one using more vehicle weight for the air surfaces, floating body uses less weight, but you still need more complex multi-lobed tanks. Not to mention a more robust inner structure.

      Why is burning fuel better than using air?

      The fuel is cheap. If you are a rocket scientist, you know that. LOX costs the same as milk and Kerosene, Methane or even LH2 are pretty cheap. Not to mention you will use a 6:1 LOX to LH2 mass ratio or similar. You are reusing the heavy engine you need for ascent in descent. Using air requires more expensive and heavy parts.

      Most of the cost in reusable space launch today is not fuel, but design and maintenance costs. A single stage vehicle is appealing because it would reduce both. A VTVL is appealing because it reduces the number of parts, which reduces design and maintenance costs, as any Japanese auto manufacturer will be glad to tell you.

      If you feel a SSTO VTVL is too risky and think you need an extra stage, then add drop tanks or even make it TSTO VTVL. Although this will increase costs and may increase failure modes on separation and second stage ignition, as for any TSTO vehicle (which is one reason why the Shuttle ignites the second stage engines on the pad).

      Personally, I would go for a single vehicle. If it cannot be made orbital, make it quasi-orbital and add a powerful, expendable kick stage using an RL-10 or something to inject the payload into orbit.

    14. Re:From the article by Moofie · · Score: 1

      "Apollo and Soyuz do not use horizontal landing either."

      Yeah, but they use parachutes. Remember those? The other thing I mentioned that are a better idea than Flash Gordon?

      "The fuel is cheap."

      Weight is not. The fuel you propose to use for landing is fuel you have to accelerate to orbital insertion speed, and then decelerate on your retro-burn back into the atmosphere.

      "Most of the cost in reusable space launch today is not fuel, but design and maintenance costs"

      Yup. It's a rule of thumb in the industry that heavy craft are more expensive to design and maintain than light craft. Ask any aeronautical engineer. Like me.

      Runways and landing gear are trivial. Parachutes work great. Vertical rocket-borne landing is good for stunts, and for landing on places with no atmosphere. Anywhere else, it is not optimal.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    15. Re:From the article by cheesybagel · · Score: 1
      Yup. It's a rule of thumb in the industry that heavy craft are more expensive to design and maintain than light craft. Ask any aeronautical engineer. Like me.

      Your rule of thumb is a broken fallacy. Both the auto industry and the software industry use matrixes which depend on both complexity (usually number of parts) and size. Size being the least significant of both.

      Don't take my word for it, see the costs of Shuttle maintenance. Things like RCS (which use toxic hydrazine fuel) and SSME (which is hard to inspect and has many small parts) are right on top.

      Yeah, but they use parachutes. Remember those? The other thing I mentioned that are a better idea than Flash Gordon?

      Sort of. Soyuz also uses retro-rockets on landing. Just the parachute is not enough to ensure a soft landing (although you will survive just fine, perhaps minus some broken teeth). VTVL vehicles would also de-delerate a bit from friction, besides engine de-celeration.

      Runways and landing gear are trivial. Parachutes work great. Vertical rocket-borne landing is good for stunts, and for landing on places with no atmosphere. Anywhere else, it is not optimal.

      Yes, I guess that is why helicopters are so useless.

  28. Big Ego project will go nowhere by Ars-Fartsica · · Score: 1

    It seems every Richie Rich is trying to go to Mars these days. My prediction is after $100 million and no results, Bezos will get tired of it and close up.

  29. But will it improve life like his last investment? by ScentCone · · Score: 2, Informative

    Hmm. I'm ALL for stuff like this, but I'm feeling a little gun shy after the last quiet thing into which he pumped a lot of money.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  30. Shhh! Be vewy quiet! Corporate Propaganda! by Cryofan · · Score: 0

    This bezos sure is a pro at getting the media to eat out of his hand. He sure has balls! Runs a fucking full blown PR campaign all the while telling the media how hush-hush it all is.

    Maybe he just PAYS THE MEDIA MONEY to write whatever he wants? Didja ever think of that?

    Anyway, my bet is that this is just a PR stunt to boost brand name value of Amazon....

    --
    eat shiat and bark at the moon
    1. Re:Shhh! Be vewy quiet! Corporate Propaganda! by nounderscores · · Score: 1

      Well, one important goal of any space program is prestige for the organisation that funds it. Why not get some prestige now and build the rocket later? After all, he's shot his mouth off now so he has to build the rocket eventually, or he'll look like an idiot.

  31. "Haw Haw"? Old John Wayne movie? by Cryofan · · Score: 1

    I know! Who tha fuck says Haw Haw anymore, outside of old JOhn Wayne movies?!

    --
    eat shiat and bark at the moon
  32. Re:waiting on tidal wave of /. environmental feedb by espek · · Score: 2, Funny

    Have you been to West Texas? Come on. I think if it (somehow) managed to fall into the Gulf of Mexico nobody would miss it for a month.

  33. Re:waiting on tidal wave of /. environmental feedb by MrP-(at+work) · · Score: 1

    Well, at least with space travel.. Once we screw the world up enough, we can just move to another planet (which we will screw up.. And simply hop to another one)

    But if we just pump oil, we'll ruin the environment then run out of oil and be stuck on this planet as we all die from economic collapse and cancer

    I say we build space ports EVERYWHERE and kill as many endangered species as we can.. Because I'm sure Mars has a lot cooler animals than we'll ever have anyway!

    --
    [an error occurred while processing this directive]
  34. Re:waiting on tidal wave of /. environmental feedb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    its the question of scale.

  35. Attention mods: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The above post is the funniest thing I've read here in a week.

    1. Re:Attention mods: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, cause somebody used that joke last week

  36. Meanwhile ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  37. Neal Stephenson works there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OTOH, I don't know if having a science fiction writer in the payroll helps its credibility or just the opposite.

  38. More info (again) by FleaPlus · · Score: 4, Funny

    Again, here's my rejected submission from the last time this story was run. The info in it is somewhat better, IMHO.

    After years of secrecy and much speculation, Blue Origin has finally announced its plans to build and operate a privately-funded aerospace testing and operations center in West Texas. The company, run by Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos, is "currently developing a sub-orbital space vehicle that will take off and land vertically to take three or more astronauts to the edge of space." Flight operations could begin as soon as six years from now. Hopefully this will be a significant step towards Bezos's dream of enabling "an enduring human presence in space."

    I'd also like to remind the reader that Neal Stephenson (author of Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver, and many pieces of quality sci-fi literature) works for Blue Origin. Here's what he said when asked about it in a slashdot interview from last year:

    Like Spock on the deck of the Enterprise, I sit in the corner and await opportunities to jump out and yammer about Science. Unlike Spock, I don't have anyone reporting to me and I never get to sit in the captain's chair and aim the phasers. This is probably good.

    Though the X-Prize is cool and good, Blue Origin never intended to compete for it. Consequently, it has had no effect, other than destroying productivity whenever a SpaceShipOne flight is being broadcast.

    As for my visions of future private space flight: here I have to remind you of something, which is that, up to this point in the interview, I have been wearing my novelist hat, meaning that I talk freely about whatever I please. But private space flight is an area where I wear a different hat (or helmet). I do not freely disseminate my thoughts on this one topic because I have agreed to sell those thoughts to Blue Origin. Admittedly, this feels a little strange to a novelist who is accustomed to running his mouth whenever he feels like it. But it is a small price to pay for the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to become a minor character in a Robert Heinlein novel.

    1. Re:More info (again) by jdray · · Score: 1
      Thanks. I like yours better.

      Does it strike anyone that, given Carmack's open blogging about his trial-and-error development of a vertical takeoff/vertical landing rocket, as well as software (at the bottom) for some of his control functions, that Bezos may be throwing some high-grade engineering talent at a proven concept? If I had a pot of money and a big plot of land, I might do the same thing. For that matter, he could be padding a nest for Carmack and crew to incubate their eggs in.

      --
      The Spoon
      Updated 6/28/2011
    2. Re:More info (again) by Corpus_Callosum · · Score: 1

      For that matter, he could be padding a nest for Carmack and crew to incubate their eggs in.

      Nice thought, but this is a war of egos. Carmack has a name that resonates with a generation of gamers. His name has more power than Bezos' already. Do you think Bezos would let himself be overshadowed by the genius of Carmack?

      Much more likely that Bezos thinks he can just throw money at the problem until it is solved, contrasted to Carmack's approach of throwing his own proven genius at that same problem.

      Personally, my money is on Carmack.

      But Stephenson does spin a nice tale, huh? Claiming to be a minor character in a heinlein novel is akin to suggesting that Bezos has a breakthrough in propulsion that will cause a paradigm shift in space technology.... If he wasn't a novelist (and therefore a sensationalist by nature), I might take that claim more seriously (after all, who doesn't like Stephenson?)...

      --
      The reason that it can be true that 1+1 > 2 is that very peculiar nonzero value of the + operator
  39. Boeing: Forgot how to build airplanes! by fuzzy12345 · · Score: 1
    Oh, you mean the company that forgot how to build airplanes in 1997?* The one that's losing their shirts to Airbus in the high stakes poker game that is large aircraft product development?

    I felt better before I knew there were Boeing people involved. That company seems to think that, with enough lobbying muscle in Washington, they can paper over all sorts of engineering and management problems. Maybe they're right, but I'd rather fly with a product that got the engineering right in the first place.

    * - http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/02_20 /b3783001.htm

    --

    Everybody's a libertarian 'till their neighbour's becomes a crack house.
    1. Re:Boeing: Forgot how to build airplanes! by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Your link, she doesn't work so good.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    2. Re:Boeing: Forgot how to build airplanes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. That's the one. Why? Is there a problem with the Sea Launch project? Seems to me it's performing just fine. Or are you talking about the commercial airliner division? Apples & Oranges, my friend.

      What do you mean by "Boeing people" anyway? Seems to me that you're using a rather broad brush to paint with. You do realize the sheer scope of the Boeing Company, right? I once got the nickel tour of their Everett facility. The engineer that showed me around drove me around in his pickup truck on the streets inside the freakin' building!! Stop signs. Crosswalks. The whole bit. It's really pretty incredible.

      Does your mindset allow for the possibility that there may be at least two or three good people in an organization of that size?

    3. Re:Boeing: Forgot how to build airplanes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It sounds to me (aside from the "forgot how to build airplanes" comment that was proven to be incorrect below) that your complaint against Boeing is more with their upper-management, rather than their engineers.

    4. Re:Boeing: Forgot how to build airplanes! by cheesybagel · · Score: 1
      I felt better before I knew there were Boeing people involved. That company seems to think that, with enough lobbying muscle in Washington, they can paper over all sorts of engineering and management problems. Maybe they're right, but I'd rather fly with a product that got the engineering right in the first place.

      Do not assume too much. That same article said Boeing swallowed McDonnell Douglas. Well, that same corporation was responsible for DC-X. I suspect this is what they are talking about.

      DC-X fullfilled all its objectives, but DC-Y, the real vehicle, never got funded because once the Democrats got in power they dropped the Brilliant Pebbles NMD project.

  40. well by ctime · · Score: 1

    This is one of the most important things that we, as the human race, need to be exploring at this point. The obvious (and not so obvious to some) realities we're facing will be here to haunt us at some point. We can't stay here forever.

    The only problem I'm seeing is that Jeff isn't allowing people from the 'outside' to join or help at all (AFAIK). I'd give my left testicle to join.

    1. Re:well by Ironsides · · Score: 1

      Just your left? Hell, I'd give up both along with both my legs and arms and a kidney and lung. I'd love to be able to get off this rock.

      The Earth is the cradle of the mind, but one cannot stay in the cradle forever. -- Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, The Father of Rocketry, Datalinks

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
  41. I've figured out what this is all about =P by SilveRo_kun · · Score: 1

    Imagine that a big asteroid is going to hit the Earth in a few years.
    Now, imagine the only way to survive is to leave the Earth.
    Now, imagine who can afford to do such a thing...
    Now, imagine that to avoid global panic governments decide not to disclose the issue.

    I guess this is too far fetched, but something tells me that because of the software they'll be running, once they take off they won't be going too far... especially after everybody discovers what they're up to =P

    1. Re:I've figured out what this is all about =P by The+Datamangler · · Score: 1

      This is GREAT! If you could get a little more conspiratorial, it will really sell!! I'm Serious! really! no sarcasm ; ) I wish I had posted this : (

      --
      sig wig dig jig rig big mig fig gig higg rig pig tig zig
    2. Re:I've figured out what this is all about =P by pentalive · · Score: 1

      Hmm..

      How long would they have to stay "gone" in the event of a "life-ending" event?

      I guess those vacationing on the moon could stay there till earth gets "back to normal". How long could that take? 10s of years? 100s?

  42. I think his goal is... by Eccles · · Score: 1

    ...Amazon Women on the Moom.

    Thank you, I'll be here all week.

    --
    Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
    1. Re:I think his goal is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you mean "Moon".

    2. Re:I think his goal is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you would stop having freudian lesbo or lesbian freudo fantasies about your mom you wouldn't have that accident.

  43. The rumor I hear is that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they will just take your order, barcode your forehead and send you to your galactic destination via FedEx.

  44. They are hiring by digitalgimpus · · Score: 0, Troll

    For any geek who thinks this would be the ultimate job:

    Apparantly they want YOU..

    Personally, I can't even understand all of the job descriptions... so I don't think it's for me.

  45. Evil Mastermind plot? by jeffmeden · · Score: 2, Funny

    Has anyone considered that this might all be a ploy to create a space-borne vessel capable of taking over the world? Yeah, I figured I was the only one. Just wait and see...

  46. Oops, "Boeing forgets planebuilding" link by fuzzy12345 · · Score: 1
    --

    Everybody's a libertarian 'till their neighbour's becomes a crack house.
    1. Re:Oops, "Boeing forgets planebuilding" link by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Wow. That sure doesn't say they forgot how to build airplanes. Did you actually read the article?

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  47. Re:Problem ? by shpoffo · · Score: 1

    Problem? When people go into space, and stay in their hotel rooms, what do you think they'll do? HAVE SEX!! Only the foolish will not consider this when designing their space industry at this point in history. I predict that psace tourism won't be too popular unless peopel have access to zero-gravity sex.

    .
    -shpoffo

  48. Moon First by Ironsides · · Score: 1

    We would need to vixit the one on the moon first.

    --
    Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
  49. Good hope for Armadillo Aerospace by budn3kkid · · Score: 3, Informative

    I read they were having some issues finding an appropriate launch site, and Mojave is too far for them to travel all the way from Mesquite, TX.

    This looks like a good chance for Carmack & Co. to secure a decent launch site, if Bezos decides to rent out space (no pun intended) to third-parties to launch from their base.

  50. Rework the math by cosmic_0x526179 · · Score: 2, Informative
    "They've got themselves 15 square miles down in Texas,"

    No, thats 15 miles square. 15 square miles would be 9,600 acres. 16 miles square is 256 square miles, or 163,840 acres (close enough for this article).

    --
    This msg is brought to you by the letter 'W'.. for Worthless Wuss
  51. The irony is . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But Larry D. Simpson respected the billionaire's privacy. "I have not been real pushy, like maybe a big-city newspaper guy would be," he said. He thinks that's why Bezos decided to give him the story . . . Kind of hypocritical that the owner of Amazon.com would give the story to someone who respects someones privacy. Shouldn't he have sold the highest bidder? Or better yet thousands of low bidders?

  52. Cost factors?! by adeydas · · Score: 1

    I am sure everybody here remembers that the first space visitor was Dennis Tito, a millionaire. If Blue Origin does produce a commercial space flight, won't it be too costly for the common people?!

    1. Re:Cost factors?! by sadomikeyism · · Score: 1
      Tito paid $20 million for what was figured a $10 million cost flight (the Russians needed the extra cash to keep the rest of their program afloat, including their committment to the ISS). That was a government airline ticket.

      The Libertarians among us will argue that private enterprise can do it more affordably. This might be born out. SpaceShipOne's achievement is essentially a replication of the capability of the German V-2 rocket.

      While development of that rocket took quite a bit of money, once they got production facilities going, they were pumping missiles out for the then-dollar cost of $14,000.00, which would be worth somewhere around $300,000-400,000 today, accounting for inflation. This amount wasn't accounting for labor costs, because the laborers were all jewish concentration-camp slave workers, so double that figure for a more real amount. This also doesn't count the cost of fuel, deployment, and launching.

      Virgin Galactic is going to be offering rides (2 passenger seats per ship) for just under $200,000.00 a seat, or $400,000.00 per flight total revinue, which is at least 50% cheaper than the cost of a V-2.

      --
      "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves
  53. enduring human presence in space? by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    Consider the following:

    Using a 40 foot cargo container willed with someones bottle water, Blue-0 demonstrates the following:

    1. Said Container is loaded at the Blue-0 launch site.

    2. Blue-0 then launches with said container.

    3. Blue-0 then lands in some manner to some place like Sri Lanka.

    4. Blue-0 then returns home in the same manner.

    Why water? Because everyone knows long haul truckers get thirsty.