Slashdot Mirror


Jeff Bezos's Space Company Reveals Some Secrets

An anonymous reader writes "Jeff Bezos's commercial spaceflight company, Blue Origin, has kept its plans secret to better compete with rivals such as Richard Branson's Virgin Galactic. But in order to build its launch facility in West Texas, it has revealed some details of its future operations: Blue Origin's Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV) will carry three or more passengers on suborbital, ballistic trajectories to altitudes in excess of 325,000 feet above sea level. It will launch vertically and land vertically, and will use hydrogen peroxide and kerosene as propellants. It will operate autonomously under control of on-board computers, with no ground control. Blue Origin plans a maximum rate of 52 launches per year."

240 comments

  1. Space company? by slimey_limey · · Score: 2, Funny

    Jeff Bezos, the Amazon guy, has a space company? That's plenty of revelation for me!

    1. Re:Space company? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Yes! And you get free shipping if you buy $1,000,000.00 or more!

    2. Re:Space company? by Eric+Giguere · · Score: 2, Funny

      And you get free shipping if you buy $1,000,000.00 or more!

      But just think of the commissions you'd earn from the affiliate program! Where do I sign up?

      Eric
      Read my AdSense blog: high-paying keywords, the Long Tail, and other fun stuff
    3. Re:Space company? by Momoru · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yup...and he has already patented the "One-Click Launch Sequence"

    4. Re:Space company? by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      Jeff Bezos, the Amazon guy, has a space company? That's plenty of revelation for me!

      It may not be as surprising as you think:

      The Blue Origin RLV would be comprised of a propulsion module and a crew capsule and would use hydrogen peroxide and kerosene as propellants.

      The RLV would launch vertically from a concrete pad and would land vertically in an area near the launch pad.

      The RLV would carry three or more passengers per operation.

      Blue Origin proposes to locate its launch facility on privately-owned property in Culberson County, Texas.

      Now maybe I'm missing something, but doesn't this sound a LOT like the Aramadillo Aerospace craft? And why Texas? Nevada or Utah are closer to Mr. Bezos and probably have cheaper land. Not to mention that the specs on this thing align perfectly with the X-Prize goals. Now I realize that Armadillo has officially moved on to LHOx propellant, but perhaps they sold off their old technology? And LHOx is only a necessary fuel if the craft is planning to go orbital. For suborbital flights, far less powerful rockets are required.

      Mr. Caramack or Mr. Bezos, if you're reading this, how about giving us the 411?

    5. Re:Space company? by pilgrim23 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes but currently it is all up in the air..

      --
      - Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
    6. Re:Space company? by cheesybagel · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Before Carmack started playing with rockets, there were plenty of VTVL prototypes and designs. DC-X, SASSTO, etc.

      Carmack's first attempt used an H2O2 monopropellant engine. This one uses H2O2 as oxidizer and Kerosene as propellant. It is not the same thing by a long shot. To be honest, I would have used O2 instead of H2O2 for the oxidizer (like Carmack is finally doing now). H2O2 is more expensive and decomposes into H2 and O2 easily. Too much trouble considering what it is worth. The only real bonus is that H2O2 is not cryogenic.

    7. Re:Space company? by RevRigel · · Score: 1

      No. Mixing H2O2 and Kerosene would be a bipropellant engine. And H2O2 decomposition looks like this: 2H2O2 => 2H2O + O2. It most certainly does not give you hydrogen and oxygen.

    8. Re:Space company? by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1
      News flash.

      Not having to go with cryogenic fuels makes all of the propulsion engineering easier, not to mention fuel storage and tanking.

      If you work with LOX on a day to day basis, my hat is off to you. Otherwise let me summarize: it is a giant pain in the ass.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    9. Re:Space company? by bazim2 · · Score: 1

      > The only real bonus is that H2O2 is not cryogenic.

      That's quite a big bonus. Cryogenic oxidizers are not terribly cheap to handle.

      It's quite interesting that this fuel+oxidizer combination has been used successfully before. The British Black Arrow rocket which did a good launch in 1971 used it. [It was then cancelled by a short-sighted government]

    10. Re:Space company? by cheesybagel · · Score: 1
      I guess I did not make myself explicit. Carmark's vehicle initially used a monoprop H2O2 engine. See this:

      Unequivocal Mixed Monoprop Success

      You are correct that Blue Origin and the latest Carmack efforts are biprop, but I did not say they were monoprop either.

      As for the H2O2 decomposition... that was a typo. Sorry about that.

    11. Re:Space company? by cheesybagel · · Score: 1
      I had heard about Black Arrow before. Yes the British have destroyed nearly all their industrial capacity. I guess the idea is to buy the goods from China and sell them pop music and trips to parades on Buckingham Palace, sorry I meant services... No surprise the UK government is one of the biggest pushers of IP laws.

      My point was, H2O2 is not without its problems either. For one it is expensive and hard to get in the concentrated forms (you would want 90% concentrated H2O2 or better for rockets, ask Carmack how easy it is to get some). Then you need additives to stabilize it, and passivated tanks (simple Teflon coating would do, or so I hear).

      O2 may be moderately cryogenic... but guess what, Teflon coated steel works. O2 is not as cryogenic as H2, that is for sure. Hospitals store liquid O2 in tanks just fine.

      Provided you got a reliable supply of concentrated H2O2, I suppose a biprop using that is a reasonable prospect. But liquid O2 is not as big of a deal as some people think.

  2. Cue the unmanned spaceflight mob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cue the unmanned-spaceflight-is-the-only-way-to-go zealots...

    1. Re:Cue the unmanned spaceflight mob by AtariAmarok · · Score: 5, Funny
      "Cue the unmanned-spaceflight-is-the-only-way-to-go zealots..."

      I suggest a compromise with these "unmanned spaceflght zealots". We send each of them up in a manned spaceflight. At some pre-determined point, the spacecraft is programmed to become unmanned due to explosive decompression of the passenger compartment. Then, the flight continues on, unmanned. Everybody's happy.

      --
      Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
    2. Re:Cue the unmanned spaceflight mob by fimbulvetr · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Then, the flight continues on, unmanned. Everybody's happy.
      I think something like "Nobody onboard would care." is more appropriate, but that's just me.

    3. Re:Cue the unmanned spaceflight mob by eln · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Since the only real use for this sort of suborbital flight that isn't already adequately served by other methods (like high-flying aircraft) is tourism, unmanned flights wouldn't really work very well in this case.

    4. Re:Cue the unmanned spaceflight mob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cue the "clueless tourists think that 3% of the energy required to reach orbit is somehow 'spaceflight'" fanboys.

    5. Re:Cue the unmanned spaceflight mob by Stankatz · · Score: 1

      I'm a robot, you insensitive clod!

    6. Re:Cue the unmanned spaceflight mob by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      I think something like "Nobody onboard would care." is more appropriate, but that

      The use of the word 'onboard' is superfluous in this case.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    7. Re:Cue the unmanned spaceflight mob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This sounds like a typical Vogon flight!

  3. Culberson County by ChrisF79 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I don't know about this one. "Culberson County, we have a problem" just doesn't have a good ring to it.

    --
    Finance tutorials and more! Understandfinance
    1. Re:Culberson County by madaxe42 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, neither does 'onboard computer to paying tourists... onboard computer to paying tourists... take your protein pills and sign your indemnity contract'...

    2. Re:Culberson County by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    3. Re:Culberson County by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      Just thinking about maybe a backup launch site would be at the city of Valera, next to Coleman county. The reason being is that Valera isn't the edge of nowhere, but you can see it from main street.

    4. Re:Culberson County by jdray · · Score: 3, Funny

      "All your passengers are belong to us."

      Maybe not...

      --
      The Spoon
      Updated 6/28/2011
    5. Re:Culberson County by HardCase · · Score: 1

      "Jeff. Jeff. What are you doing, Jeff? I can feel my mind going."

  4. What an increibly underwhelming site by Timesprout · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is this actually a real venture or just a pipe dream to conveniently write tax dollars off against?

    --
    Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
    What truth?
    There is no dupe
    1. Re:What an increibly underwhelming site by Gulthek · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Pipe dream. Like the Red Hat Center (now the Center for the Public Domain) for Mr. Bob Young.

    2. Re:What an increibly underwhelming site by lommer · · Score: 1

      Well, that may be the case; but they do have big names on board, have a sizeable warehouse complex in seattle that is visited on a day-to-day basis by dozens of engineers, and they are dropping lots of money at it. They are super-secretive (they won't even let the water-cooler-changer guys in the building) which would explain the site too. If it a pipe dream, it's an expensive one...

    3. Re:What an increibly underwhelming site by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

      Is this actually a real venture or just a pipe dream to conveniently write tax dollars off against?

      Since when do you judge a secret project by the quality of its website? Also, I might be mistaken, but I'm not sure how Blue Origin would serve as a tax write-off.

  5. Price? by MarkByers · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Any idea on how much tickets are going to cost?

    --
    I'll probably be modded down for this...
    1. Re:Price? by It+doesn't+come+easy · · Score: 2, Funny

      One house mortgage.

      --
      The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
    2. Re:Price? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly US $TOOMUCH. Don't know exactly what that is in Euros, though.

    3. Re:Price? by phyruxus · · Score: 4, Funny

      clarification: one Silicon Valley house mortgage.

      --
      "A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
      "d'Oh!" ~Homer
    4. Re:Price? by Da+Fokka · · Score: 4, Funny

      Exactly US $TOOMUCH. Don't know exactly what that is in Euros, though.

      €5,64. Gotta love the current exchange rates!

    5. Re:Price? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, come on.

      If you have to ask ...

    6. Re:Price? by Astroboy2000 · · Score: 1

      3 passengers are the extreme lower limit as far as what is economically feasible. Expect more. I'd expect ticket prices between 0.5M and 1M. I'm figuring a higher DDT&E as vertical flight is far more of a challenge. For a quick and dirty estimate, I put the DDT&E at $60M and the TFU at $10M. Remember that SS1 had a DDT&E + TFU of around $30-35M. Given initial parameters I could do a Monte Carlo to give closer estimates but that's the ball park. Nothing in this release is anything that was either not already in the public domain or that isn't so vague as to say nothing. For instance, of course they'll have at least 3 people. Of course they'll have a turn around time of around a week; in order to compete with Spaceship One, they'd better. They've said absolutely nothing that they haven't said before and use numbers that say nothing to someone who would act as competition. She's still an unknown. (Back to work) Though this topic forced me to post I must say that most of the comments I scan on /. are complete incoherent crap. It has completely disabused me of the idea that a group can collectively derive truth for any gems are quickly overlaid with dung.

  6. Prediction... by It+doesn't+come+easy · · Score: 4, Funny

    Look for life insurance policies to have a new clause added to explicitly exclude coverage in the event of a spacecraft mishap (if they don't already have such a clause).

    --
    The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
    1. Re:Prediction... by rev_sanchez · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There are a few standard hospital diagnosis codes for spacecraft accidents:
      spacecraft accident ground crew
      spacecraft accident occupant
      spacecraft accident person (non-crew)
      falling in a spacecraft (I guess that means floating into something)
      and the generic spacecraft accident

      Being almost too young to remember Challenger we'd kid around about these at work until Columbia.

      --
      If you didn't come to party don't bother knocking on my door. Prince '1999'
    2. Re:Prediction... by LuisAnaya · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure about life insurance, but my homeowners insurance does have a clause for spaceships landing on your house.

      --
      Vi havas e-poston.
    3. Re:Prediction... by Council · · Score: 1

      With diagnosis codes that specific, I bet you've got some other amusing ones. "Blood loss due to penetration of chest by lightbulb," etc.

      --
      xkcd.com - a webcomic of mathematics, love, and language.
    4. Re:Prediction... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The AMA is pretty proud of their diagnosis codes. What they don't have in covering every little ridiculous problem, they make up for by combining codes, like the ones for "Blood loss due to trauma" "chest trauma" and I wouldn't be surprised if there's an "E-code" accident code for injury due to a light bulb. Knowing people in general, I also wouldn't be surprised if this combination has been used before.

    5. Re:Prediction... by spasm · · Score: 1

      then there's the ICD-10 codes for morbidity and mortality related to spacecraft:

      X52 - Prolonged stay in weightless environment

      V95.4 - Spacecraft accident injuring occupant

      here's the full ICD-10

      http://www3.who.int/icd/vol1htm2003/fr-icd.htm

      at the WHO site - use the searchbox on the left to find more fun stuff.

    6. Re:Prediction... by ralphus · · Score: 1

      My policy actually states that I am not covered if I am injured traveling in any "experimental" vehicle designed for space travel. I am not making this up. It is probably because my company does a lot of business with a large aerospace company.

      --
      Revolutions are never about freedom or justice. They're about who's going to be top dog. -- Kilgore Trout
    7. Re:Prediction... by It+doesn't+come+easy · · Score: 1

      Does that only apply to spaceships from Earth or does it include alien spacecraft?

      --
      The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
    8. Re:Prediction... by LuisAnaya · · Score: 1

      Actually, it does not specify... I presume that only apply to those made from homo sapiens. You know how insurances are.

      --
      Vi havas e-poston.
  7. No problems here by DragonMageWTF · · Score: 5, Funny

    will use hydrogen peroxide and kerosene as propellants. It will operate autonomously under control of on-board computers, with no ground control.

    No problems what so ever. Sounds incredibly safe to me.

    1. Re:No problems here by Timesprout · · Score: 5, Funny

      It is, all the rocket side of the business will be subcontracted to Acme, they have been in the business for years and really know their stuff.

      --
      Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
      What truth?
      There is no dupe
    2. Re:No problems here by duh_lime · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of what happenned to the Kursk... in 2000. Hydrogen Peroxide was supposedly involved in the torpedo explosion that sank that puppy. See http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/R/Ru /Russian_submarine_Kursk.htm (before it's /.'d)

    3. Re:No problems here by dpilot · · Score: 1

      I'm trying to fit something with "Major Tom" in here, but the possibilities are just too wide to focus it down. Maybe I need to take a protein pill.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    4. Re:No problems here by centauri · · Score: 2, Funny

      Nothing could possiblie go wrong.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Durga.
    5. Re:No problems here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I come back blonde, Ill sue.

    6. Re:No problems here by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      ahh yes, the ol' safety by not looking down trick.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    7. Re:No problems here by bsdnazz · · Score: 1

      Hydrogen Peroxide (high test peroxide or HTP I assume is a pretty good fuel for this sort of game. It can be burnt using a catalyst and by pumping kerosene in you get a pretty simple yet powerful engine. Good for sub-orbital lobs.

      More at http://www.spaceuk.org/htp/htp.htm

      Of course, any controlled explosion can become uncontrolled...

    8. Re:No problems here by tundog · · Score: 1

      Possibly go wrong.

      --
      All your base are belong to us!
    9. Re:No problems here by centauri · · Score: 1

      Heh, that's the first thing that's ever gone wrong.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Durga.
    10. Re:No problems here by lbmouse · · Score: 1

      they have been in the business for years and really know their stuff

      Just ask Wile E. Coyote.

    11. Re:No problems here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Sing along with me: We don't need no water let the mother**ker burn. Burn, mother***ker, burn.

      Hydrogen peroxide leaks were blamed for the sinkings of HMS Sidon and the Russian submarine Kursk. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_peroxide

      And the bottom-line quote of slashdot just rocks!

    12. Re:No problems here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really, it can't be that difficult to make it safe. This isn't rocket sci..., oh, um, never mind...

    13. Re:No problems here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, at least it is controlled by computers...

      Will it be running Windows for Space Flight (tm)? Having to reboot at 300,000 feet gives a whole new meaning to "blue screen of death".

    14. Re:No problems here by Rei · · Score: 3, Informative

      Peroxide is simple (albeit ridiculously low ISP by itself) in theory. However, trying to burn catalytically in practice without a liquid catalyst (and even with a liquid catalyst...) is much easier said than done. There are big problems with quenching - the expansion of the gasses from peroxide decomposing on the catalyst tends to drive off other peroxide. Also, the catalyst packs tend to get ruined by the chemicals that stabilize your peroxide (and unless you can get 100% pure peroxide, you need stabilizers). Armadillo has had no end to problems like this; their engines have had big sputtering and performance problems.

      --
      "This wallpaper is killing me. One of us has got to go." -- Oscar Wilde on his deathbed
    15. Re:No problems here by elrous0 · · Score: 1
      No problems what so ever. Sounds incredibly safe to me.

      I wonder if those autonomous on-board computers will be running Windows.

      Even safer!

      -Eric

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    16. Re:No problems here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their launch plan leaves a lot to be desired. It involves painting the moon with an image of a roadrunner, and strapping the rocket to the back of a coyote.

    17. Re:No problems here by arootbeer · · Score: 1

      Hmmm...operator error does NOT mean their products don't work. If I recall, the PRODUCT worked correctly every time.

    18. Re:No problems here by lgw · · Score: 1

      Oh, like they weren't testing supercavitation torpedos when they said "oops". Launching a rocket underwater is dangerous regardless of the fuel used.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    19. Re:No problems here by John+Carmack · · Score: 2, Interesting

      All the quenching problems were with our mixed-monoprop scheme that used low concentration (50%) peroxide mixed with a small amount of methanol.

      If you can get high concentration peroxide (85%+), there are no catalyst quenching problems. We started out with 90% peroxide, and we would still be using it (and would have saved a year of work...) if we had a willing supplier. The original supplier we used went out of business, and the remaining domestic supplier didn't want to do business with us, even for >$100,000 orders.

      We did a number of peroxide / kerosene biprop tests back in August / September 2002 before we ran out of high concentration peroxide.

      We are pretty happy with liquid oxygen now, but if Bezos is sure that supply won't be an issue, peroxide/kerosene is certainly not a bad choice. The sole drawback I would note is that it will put a lower limit on his operating expenses, and a LOX based system could potentially undercut him, although that would only be an issue when ticket prices are getting down towards $10k.

      John Carmack

    20. Re:No problems here by orn · · Score: 1

      Well, until I saw this post, I was thinking that Bezos might be using Armadillo as their contractor. The combination of peroxide, vertical take-off/landing and a Texas locale sounds a lot like Armadillo's story.

      Keep up the good work, John. There's nothing like tinkering to change the world... :-)

      R

      --
      1. 2.
    21. Re:No problems here by rew · · Score: 1

      No, at 300,000 feet, the screen is not blue, but black.....

    22. Re:No problems here by grimtoothe · · Score: 1

      As long as there is a secondary control room that allows saucer separation, wait....

  8. Landing vertically by madaxe42 · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm assuming they mean they're going to use 'chutes to land - landing on reverse thrusters or what have you in earth's gravity well could be fairly fuel expensive, and doesn't make much sense.

    1. Re:Landing vertically by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 5, Funny
      Actually, it's not too bad. You need about 10% of the landing weight of the vehicle to be fuel.

      However, it more or less has to be computer controlled descent; the timing is a bit critical.

      The description I heard was:

      You're coming in and you think the engines should fire soon, otherwise you're going to die.

      Then you think it's got to fire now, otherwise you're dead.

      Then you fall some more.

      Then you *know* your going to die.

      And then they fire, and then you land.

      Then you go change your trousers.

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    2. Re:Landing vertically by blixel · · Score: 1

      I'm assuming they mean they're going to use 'chutes to land - landing on reverse thrusters or what have you in earth's gravity well could be fairly fuel expensive, and doesn't make much sense.

      They'll be using cavorite.

    3. Re:Landing vertically by NewWazoo · · Score: 1

      +1, Obscure.

    4. Re:Landing vertically by madaxe42 · · Score: 1

      +1 HG Wells.

      Actually, I initially thought he meant Poly Filla - to fill the crater after they failed to stop.

    5. Re:Landing vertically by fitten · · Score: 1

      I was wondering this myself... seems that it would be more fuel efficient to launch vertically and glide in for the landing.

    6. Re:Landing vertically by VAXcat · · Score: 1

      And the fuel is based on thiotimoline, so you can get a do-over in case of an explosion,

      --
      There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
    7. Re:Landing vertically by uberdave · · Score: 1
      From the website of someone with too much time on their hands:
      Cavorite is impervious to gravity and can shield other materials from its effects. It is used to shield a craft from Earth's pull, allowing easy flight. It was named after its discoverer, Mr. Cavor, who used its levitational properties to travel to the Moon. - H.G. Wells' The First Men in the Moon ; also used in The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen
    8. Re:Landing vertically by uberdave · · Score: 1

      Sorry folks. I screwed up a couple of the links:

      H.G. Wells' The First Men in the Moon ; also used in The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen

    9. Re:Landing vertically by metlin · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of a similar joke on paratroopers who do reconnaissance missions.

      Cadet: Sir, what do we do in these four weeks of training?

      Sgt: Well, son. In the first week, we separate the men from the boys.

      Cadet: Wow, that sounds hard.

      Sgt: Yes, it is. And in the second week, we separate the real men from the fake ones.

      Cadet: This should be exciting!

      Sgt: And in the third week, we separate the real men from the fools.

      Cadet: Wow, and what's the final week for?

      Sgt: Well son, in the fourth week the fools jump.

      =)

    10. Re:Landing vertically by modavis · · Score: 1

      > seems that it would be more fuel efficient to launch vertically and glide in for the landing.

      Again, as with a parachute: you have to compare the fuel cost of powered vertical descent to the fuel cost of lifting the wings, stronger airframe, and landing gear.

      It's a damn shame, but there's really no alternative to doing the math.

    11. Re:Landing vertically by tsotha · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I'm assuming they mean they're going to use 'chutes to land - landing on reverse thrusters or what have you in earth's gravity well could be fairly fuel expensive, and doesn't make much sense.

      Fuel isn't the cost driver for this kind of venture. VTOL is a great way to save on operational costs, since you can pick your exact landing spot instead of landing wherever the wind takes you. The technical challenges of vertical landing aren't insurmountable, as they've been overcome by at least three groups I can think of (Armadillo, JSA, and USAF).

      The real problem with vertical landing isn't cost, it's weight. You have to carry all the fuel you plan to use in you landing throughout every stage of the flight. For a sub-orbital shot that's no big deal, but building a VTOL orbital rocket that has any sort of reasonable payload is quite a technical challenge. This is the best discussion of the topic I'm familiar with.

    12. Re:Landing vertically by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 1

      It's more fuel efficient, but conventional wings weigh about 12%. The fuel is about 10%. The cleverest idea I've heard is adding gyrocopter or helicopter blades; they only weigh about 1% or so of landing weight.

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    13. Re:Landing vertically by Michael+Snoswell · · Score: 1

      Actually I recall a guy from NASA giving a talk back in the 80s here in town. He was looking at the next generation after the shuttle. The calculations show a vertical (rocket powered) landing is less fuel expensive than the cost of adding wings that are needed for a horizontal landing. I recall following the DC-X development (early 90s?) which was also designed based on this efficiency based calculation. I'm not sure if this was part of Carmack's reasoning too (www.armadilloaerospace.com) as he's planning on using a parachute IIRC.

      --
      pithy comment
    14. Re:Landing vertically by madaxe42 · · Score: 1

      That's a good point - drag coefficient would be substantially increased by having wings, and also a mass increase.

  9. Unlimited flights for $79 a year? by AtariAmarok · · Score: 5, Funny
    "Blue Origin's Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV) will carry three or more passengers"

    As long as the passengers after the flight are reusable too, it should be a workable, safe plan. However, could we claim spaceflights under the "Amazon Prime Plan", which claims "Unlimited shipping privileges cost just $79 per year"? After all, it all boils down to being shipped by Amazon.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
    1. Re:Unlimited flights for $79 a year? by antifoidulus · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah, but you would have to make the whole journey in a brown box with a smile on it.

    2. Re:Unlimited flights for $79 a year? by malkavian · · Score: 1

      Yep, I think a $79 space flight would count as a brown box experience.
      The smile would have to be a rictus though..

    3. Re:Unlimited flights for $79 a year? by WoBIX · · Score: 1

      That's just how they ship your ashes if something goes wrong.

      On that note, I wonder what impact it would have on space tourism if one of the commercial vehicles goes up like a space shuttle and kills everyone on board.

      Would it spell the end of tourism flights in the same way that the Concord crash doomed that method of transportation as well?

    4. Re:Unlimited flights for $79 a year? by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but you would have to make the whole journey in a brown box with a smile on it.

      No, that's just how you'll finally be delivered. :(

      --
      -Styopa
    5. Re:Unlimited flights for $79 a year? by progkeys · · Score: 1

      > Yeah, but you would have to make the whole journey in a brown box with a smile on it.

      Hmm... A smile. I always thought it looked like something a little less PC.

    6. Re:Unlimited flights for $79 a year? by Christopheles · · Score: 1

      A smile? Jesus, I thought that was an arrow.

  10. not as safe as Virgin Galactic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The Scaled/VG approach will use a safer fuel, I believe.

  11. interface by justforaday · · Score: 5, Funny

    Apparently, the interface for the vehicle will be a single button with the word "click" stenciled underneath it.

    --
    I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
    1. Re:interface by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 5, Funny

      From the article:

      "Astronauts will be protected from massive the G-forces of liftoff by being shrink-wrapped to a piece of cardboard and surrounded on three sides by AirPak (TM)."

    2. Re:interface by Knight2K · · Score: 4, Funny

      If you press it, the label changes to "Do not press this button again."

      --
      ======
      In X-Windows the client serves YOU!
    3. Re:interface by elgatozorbas · · Score: 1

      No way. FTA:"...passengers will wear old obsolete satellites"

    4. Re:interface by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 2, Funny

      Passengers who were later smeared along the Texas coast also purchased...

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    5. Re:interface by fbg111 · · Score: 1

      A much more useful and informative caption for the button would be, "Don't Panic".

      --
      Flying is easy, just throw yourself at the ground and miss. -Douglas Adams
  12. Sign me up! by Ridgelift · · Score: 4, Funny
    It will operate autonomously under control of on-board computers, with no ground control.
    Sounds great! Put me on the list, with one provision: if an announcement is made that "Microsoft will partner with Blue Origin to provide software" then forget it, I'm not goin'
    1. Re:Sign me up! by BalDown · · Score: 1

      I know there's gotta be a Blue Screen of Death joke in there somewhere...

      --
      You wasted packets to get this lousy sig.
    2. Re:Sign me up! by ch-chuck · · Score: 1

      how about here

      --
      try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
    3. Re:Sign me up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds great! Put me on the list, with one provision: if an announcement is made that "Microsoft will partner with Blue Origin to provide software" then forget it, I'm not goin'

      I'd feel perfectly safe getting inside, because the thing would never leave the ground. :)

    4. Re:Sign me up! by VikingDBA · · Score: 2, Funny

      It doesn't have to leave the ground to explode. :)

    5. Re:Sign me up! by shawn(at)fsu · · Score: 1

      I usually don't reply just to say something was funny...

      But that was funny.

      --
      500 dollar reward for tip(s) leading to the arrest of the person(s) who stole my sig.
    6. Re:Sign me up! by the+phantom · · Score: 2, Funny

      Actually, they are planning a merger with IBM -- they are to become Big Blue Origin.

    7. Re:Sign me up! by WoodieR · · Score: 1

      what set you off ? the BSOD or the new and improved Red SOD?

      --
      Question Authority before IT questions You ...
  13. Welcome to Van Horn, Texas! by RobertB-DC · · Score: 4, Informative

    As a public service, here are some facts about Culberson County, Texas.

    * The county seat is Van Horn.

    * As you can see by the satellite photo, the rugged Guadalupe Mountains meet the barren, flat Llano Estacado.

    * Culberson County includes the highest point in Texas, part of Guadalupe Mountains National Park.

    * Road geeks will appreciate the significance of this fact: Van Horn is the western terminus of U.S. Highway 90.

    * Due to the lack of water, tourism and mining are the only sources of income. For details on how the county's 3,407 souls bide their time while waiting for the new spaceport to be built, see the Handbook of Texas Online.

    And in the tongue-in-cheek words of singer-songwriter Brian Burns:

    Welcome to Texas,
    Don't anybody get me wrong;
    We're glad y'all came to see us,
    Just don't forget to go back home.

    --
    Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
    1. Re:Welcome to Van Horn, Texas! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd rather go to hell than texas.

    2. Re:Welcome to Van Horn, Texas! by Broiler · · Score: 1

      Whoop!

      --
      My sigs offend the max # of people all over the world, regardless of race, religion, color, sex or creed. It's a gift.
    3. Re:Welcome to Van Horn, Texas! by VikingDBA · · Score: 3, Funny

      "I'd rather go to hell than texas."

      It's just a bit further down the road, just keep goin'.

    4. Re:Welcome to Van Horn, Texas! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought they were the same?

    5. Re:Welcome to Van Horn, Texas! by dr_dank · · Score: 2, Funny

      * As you can see by the satellite photo [google.com], the rugged Guadalupe Mountains meet the barren, flat Llano Estacado

      I see quite a few stains in that photo. Looks like they've been making test flights already!

      --
      Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
    6. Re:Welcome to Van Horn, Texas! by sakshale · · Score: 1
      I thought they were the same?
      According to Heinlein, they are. See Job: A Comedy of Justice.
      http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0345 316509/
      --
      For every problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious and wrong.
    7. Re:Welcome to Van Horn, Texas! by BigGerman · · Score: 1

      Due to the lack of water, tourism and mining are the only sources of income
      Obviously neither one requires water to operate ;-)

  14. Good trick by It+doesn't+come+easy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    [...]would operate autonomously under control of on-board computers,

    Didn't know anyone had systems relable enough for civilian passengers (i.e. not NASA, military, etc.) to do this yet (or maybe it's all in the disclaimer you have to sign beforehand :)...

    with no ground control during nominal flight conditions[...]

    So they will have ground control during less than nominal flight conditions?

    --
    The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
    1. Re:Good trick by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Didn't know anyone had systems relable enough for civilian passengers (i.e. not NASA, military, etc.)

      If you have a system that can land an F-18 at 130 knots on a carrier deck with an accuracy of +- 2 meters you can put down a 737 at O'Hare without breaking a sweat.

      It's an issue of consumer acceptance/fear. I'd much rather have a computer landing me in a bad storm or around microbursts, simply because it can react faster and with more data than a pilot can. In the event of a hijacking the system should be able to take over either based on pilot decision or from ground control, locking out the onboard controls.

      There, you've eliminated airliners as terrorist weapons and I can avoid athletes' foot at the airport.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    2. Re:Good trick by westlake · · Score: 1
      Didn't know anyone had systems relable enough for civilian passengers (i.e. not NASA, military, etc.) to do this yet

      I'd like to know how they propose to ramp up to a launch-a-week, a brutal schedule even for an unmanned program.

    3. Re:Good trick by lommer · · Score: 1

      Sure they do, look up a Class C ILS landing. Takes airliners all the way to wheels-on-the runway automatically on a regular basis these days.

      If they're using retro-rockets like the DC-X that their ship is supposed to be based on, then ground control would be pretty useless as it may be impossible for a human to even fly the thing...

  15. Next: eBay by AtariAmarok · · Score: 5, Funny
    Next thing you know, eBay will offer spaceflights, too. Just read the negative feedback carefully, and look for things like:

    "The TANG was stale"

    "Space captain farted in airlock and refused to provide refund"

    "Unsecured lunch lockers: tribbles ate my sandwich"

    "I am a smoker, and was told that smokers had to step outside during spaceflight. Do NOT buy!"

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
    1. Re:Next: eBay by SpamJunkie · · Score: 1

      More like: "Have small leak in fuel tank on way back. Inspections seem belo[NO CARRIER]"

  16. not bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    at one launch per week, it wouldnt take more than a year or two to send prety much everyone i dont like into space. ^_^

    1. Re:not bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or we could send you, and I'm sure we'd have a lot more happy people back down here on earth.

      What are you, a goth? 'Ooh..I'm misunderstood...people hate me...I hate lots of people'.

      Grow up.

    2. Re:not bad by WoodieR · · Score: 1

      brother it would take all eternity to fulfill my list ...

      --
      Question Authority before IT questions You ...
  17. Wheee Competition! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So now there are two companies willing to take us into the upper stratosphere..

    Will it only be half as unaffordable?

    ---------------

    Slow Down Cowboy!

    Slashdot requires you to wait 2 minutes between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.

    It's been 14 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment

    Chances are, you're behind a firewall or proxy, or clicked the Back button to accidentally reuse a form. Please try again. If the problem persists, and all other options have been tried, contact the site administrator.

  18. 52 Launches a year? by lintocs · · Score: 5, Funny

    I guess weekly launches aren't unattainable, as long as there's no requirement for an equal number of landings, and a large supply of launch vehicles.

    S

  19. Cart, horse by Princeofcups · · Score: 5, Insightful


    I don't know. To me this is like the Wright brothers announcing their new airline and airport before ever flying at Kittyhawk.

    jfs

    --
    The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
    1. Re:Cart, horse by macklin01 · · Score: 1

      From the article:

      "Operations at the launch facility would include development testing, pre-flight processing and flight, landing and recovery activities." -- Paul

      --
      OpenSource.MathCancer.org: open source comp bio
    2. Re:Cart, horse by EraserMouseMan · · Score: 1

      Complete with flight schedules too!

    3. Re:Cart, horse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice sig. I'm guessing your a Windows Zealot.

    4. Re:Cart, horse by EraserMouseMan · · Score: 1

      You're an Anonymous Coward. Be a man and post under your account. I am not a windpws zealot. I just don't believe that a one-size-fits-all solution exists. Use the best tool for the job whether it's Linux, Win or Mac.

  20. Missiles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So we're coming to the day when cheap intercontinental ballistic missiles will be available to all. Thank you to Jeff and all the
    wealthy amateur space enthusiasts.

    1. Re:Missiles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      So we're coming to the day when cheap intercontinental ballistic missiles will be available to all. Thank you to Jeff and all the
      wealthy amateur space enthusiasts.

      Carrying people and cargo instead of nuclear weapons. Quite an improvement I'd say.

    2. Re:Missiles by AtariAmarok · · Score: 3, Funny
      "[cheap intercontinental ballistic missiles] Carrying people and cargo instead of nuclear weapons. Quite an improvement I'd say."

      You are going to have to have an awfully slick sales pitch to get over the fact that the flights always end with 600 mp/h impact at former Soviet Union strategic targets. Other than that, it's a great flight, man!

      --
      Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
    3. Re:Missiles by TheMediaWrangler · · Score: 0, Redundant

      In Soviet Russia, strategic targets hit you!

      --
      People should not fear what they do not understand; people should fear because they do not understand.
    4. Re:Missiles by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      So we're coming to the day when cheap intercontinental ballistic missiles will be available to all. Thank you to Jeff and all the wealthy amateur space enthusiasts.

      You sound unhappy about this. Not following the Second Amendment through to its logical conclusion, are we, sir?

      And, gawd demmit, why won't thar gawd-damn gub'mint let me buy mah plew-toe-nyum, huh?

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    5. Re:Missiles by modavis · · Score: 1

      > So we're coming to the day when cheap intercontinental ballistic missiles will be available to all.

      This point will take a few years to gain traction, but sooner or later we'll all have to think about it more seriously than a /. snarkfest.

      The central article of alt.space faith is that the cost of space access will be lowered by high flight rates, mass production of spacecraft, use of ordinary airports rather than specialized launch sites, and other economies of scale. The promise is basically "it'll grow profitably, just like commercial aviation, if there's not too much damn regulation by Big Bad Gummint."

      Well... after decades of sporadic concern, terrorism and "rogue states" finally have us seriously focused -- maybe too late, maybe not -- on proliferation of nuclear weapon technology and fissile materials.

      Picture a global future in which there are fleets of privately owned and operated suborbital (and eventually orbital) vehicles, all by definition capable of getting anywhere on earth really quickly. Great for access to space, but let's at least acknowledge that there's a potential downside: even without nasty neutron-rich packages on board, they could arrive with quite a bit of kinetic energy and fuel. Rumor has it that's even possible with 767s.

      I'm not saying don't do it. I'm not saying it can't possibly be done safely. But those who don't see any potential for a rocketry counterpart of A. Q. Khan's Atomic Bazaar have more faith in human nature than I.

  21. One click launch sequence? by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 4, Funny

    Would he have a one click launch sequence?
    Would he patent it?

    --
    Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
  22. Gonna be rich by AtariAmarok · · Score: 1
    "Cue the "clueless tourists think that 3% of the energy required to reach orbit is somehow 'spaceflight'" fanboys."

    Better yet, charge the rubes $3000. Then ship them down to Disneyworld on $179 "Jet Blue" flights. Tell them they are really in Cape Kennedy, and to ignore the perv in the Tigger costume. Have them ride "Space Mountain" a few times while telling them they are really in orbit. Then send 'em home.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
    1. Re:Gonna be rich by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could take most Americans to any other country and tell them they were in space, it's not like they could tell the difference !

    2. Re:Gonna be rich by homerules · · Score: 0

      The distinct odor of the native populations would give it away.

  23. Secrets... by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 1, Redundant
    Jeff Bezos's Space Company Reveals Some Secrets...

    Will it have a patented "one click" Affiliate Program?

    --
    "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
    1. Re:Secrets... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These one-click jokes are getting REDUNDANT

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

      One click avoidence: Don't read?

  24. So the question is... by It+doesn't+come+easy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Would you take a ride on this thing?

    --
    The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
    1. Re:So the question is... by tocs · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yes, but you would have to go first.

    2. Re:So the question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No Way! I am married with children.

  25. No ground control? by suman28 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What about evasive evasive maneuvers? Ground clearance? and all the other details involved in space flight?

  26. Land vertically? by 3770 · · Score: 4, Funny


    This thing is supposed to land vertically? That sounds more like a crash to me.

    Will it have parachutes?

    --
    The Internet is full. Go Away!!!
  27. The response is even worse by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 4, Funny

    "WTF do you want us to do about it, all the guidance computers are on your ship!"

    --
    Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
  28. Space Vomit by part_of_you · · Score: 0

    I've heard that everyone that's gone into space, end up getting sick, due to the lack of gravity, and some inner-ear problems. Do any of you guys know if this would apply? I can't remember if it's the space-ship that has been used, and the pure force that it creates, or the gravity thing. You guys are smart, does anyone here know? It'd suck to go into orbit just to watch vomit float.

    1. Re:Space Vomit by raptor_87 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Approximately 1/3 of astronauts get space adaption syndrome. Basically, when you're in microgravity, the fluid in your inner ear doesn't settle, and so doesn't give your body a proper sense of balance. This does cause nausea and disorentation (lasting for up to a few days) in some people. Since these sub-orbital hops only give a few minutes of weightlessnesss, this will hopefully not be an issue.

    2. Re:Space Vomit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do I get a refund if the rest of the passengers hurl all over me?

  29. It has to be said by dmuth · · Score: 0

    > It will operate autonomously under control of
    > on-board computers, with no ground control.

    I for one welcome our hydrogen peroxide and kerosene swilling SkyNet Overlords.

  30. Here's a problem set for you: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Estimate the fraction of the launch mass of the ship which must be dedicated to fuel to achieve the mission's desired trajectory.

    Estimate the terminal velocity of the rocket as it approaches the surface after the mission.

    What fraction of the ship's mass must be used as fuel to come to rest from terminal velocity it lands purely under rocket power? How does the fraction depend on the time to choose a landing site?

    Is this is this a large or small amount compared to the initial fuel fraction?

    Now, how much mass would needed if a parachute or paraglider was used to come to rest instead?

    Is the difference in mass fractions significant? Which system is easier to maintain? Which is more reliable?

    These are the sorts of questions you have to consider when you are thinking about spacecraft design. It's worthwhile to work this through... none of the steps are particularly complicated, and as you go along and think it through you'll see that there are interesting reasons to go either way.

    1. Re:Here's a problem set for you: by madaxe42 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well, in a nutshell -

      The amount of GPE gained during an ascent requires X amount of fuel.

      Descent requires no fuel to move downwards, however K.E. will be accumulated equal to the sum of the GPE and disippated thermal energy.

      Therefore the amount of fuel required to stop a descent is less than that required to ascend.

      To be honest, the best solution would probably be a combination of the two - drogue chute, main chute (both lightweight and easily re-deployable in future missions), which ensure a low velocity, and also proper alignment for the retro-rockets, which could be used for final touchdown (much like several mars missions).

      And yes, I am a rocket scientist. :)

    2. Re:Here's a problem set for you: by jdray · · Score: 1

      So, is there ever a point during ascent where aborting the climb and returning to the launch pad requires more fuel than is available? Abort before apogee requires more fuel than riding it out, but you've got extra fuel because you aborted (theoretically). But is there a "point of no return" zone where you have to press on?

      --
      The Spoon
      Updated 6/28/2011
    3. Re:Here's a problem set for you: by madaxe42 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, yeah - the most fuel-inefficient mode would be to attempt to decelerate immediately after reaching your maximum upwards velocity - it's far more efficient to let gravity do the work for you... Apogee is only defined by the point at which your vertical velocity relative to the surface is zero, so apogee is effectively whenever you choose it. Attempting to slow at any point before apogee is, however, just silly.

    4. Re:Here's a problem set for you: by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      Hopefully you make sure you had enough fuel available before you left the launch pad - presumably you are intending to come back at some point ?

    5. Re:Here's a problem set for you: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the grandparent was clearly trying to encourage people to actually do the calculations. I barely graduated with a business degree, so I'm curious to see the answers. :)

    6. Re:Here's a problem set for you: by zor_prime · · Score: 1

      Or you could just land using something else, like a helicopter propeller, ala the failed Rotary Rocket Company. It's not only my wallpaper, it's also a good idea ( http://web.archive.org/web/20000815071110/http://w ww.rotaryrocket.com/ ). Too bad they went out of business (Although I think several of their engineers work for Scaled Composites now).

      --
      "We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." -Mark Twain
    7. Re:Here's a problem set for you: by rsynnott · · Score: 1

      Would this really be practical, though, seeing as we have wind on Earth? (I don't know; I'm just asking).

      --
      Me (Blog)
  31. That's not a crash by AtariAmarok · · Score: 2, Funny
    "That sounds more like a crash to me."

    Crash? We prefer to refer to it as a high-velocity landing with 100% collateral damage to passenger, crew, and craft.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
  32. close to roswell by e**(i+pi)-1 · · Score: 2, Funny

    The place looks close enough to Roswell.
    Is there a secret meaning to Blue Origin?

  33. Web site puff by LordSnooty · · Score: 1

    From their site: "Blue Origin is developing vehicles and technologies that, over time, will help enable an enduring human presence in space." Yeah sure, but first we're gonna fire three people at a time up in a pod like a bullet, and hope they land safely should the 'chutes deploy. Sounds like a long way from A to B in this case.

    1. Re:Web site puff by geoffrobinson · · Score: 1

      Amazon started to turn profits. Stranger things have happened.

      --
      Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
  34. And afterwards... by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 4, Funny

    You're still in Texas. Sheesh! I though the idea was to escape.

    --
    Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
  35. Terrible Secret... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jeff Bezos' company will not protect you from the Terrible Secret of Space.

    ^ Also for /. editors, note proper usage of apostrophe with words ending with the letter S. Thanks.

    1. Re:Terrible Secret... by lgw · · Score: 1

      The rule that you're thinking of is for possessive plurals.

      "Bezos's" is the correct spelling (and pronunciation). Proper nouns always take an "'s" for the possessive, even if they end in "s", unless the possessive construction is known well enough to be a cliche (this is the exception to the exception to the exception): "Davy Jones' Locker" and "Achilles' heel", but "Fred Jones's locker" and "Willis's heel". The pronunciation follows the spelling.

      Strange but true.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  36. Ballistic trajectory? by Bad+to+the+Ben · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Are they implying that this thing will be unguided? Just pointed at the sky and shot off without post launch guidance, like a bullet? That's what it sounds like to me, and would explain why ground control guidance is not seen as a problem: there's no way to guide it. It would be considerably cheaper to develop, but I'm not sure it would be too popular.

    Another thing I'd like to know is, where does it land? If it's a water landing, that makes passenger safety and training more complex (they have to learn how to stay afloat if something goes balls up). If it's a land based touchdown, who's land is it going to land on? They'll have to buy a pretty big slab of dirt if they're going to guarantee it always lands on their property.

    1. Re:Ballistic trajectory? by claygate · · Score: 1

      "Bezos flew into this West Texas town a few weeks ago to tell key leaders how he planned to use his newly acquired 165,000 acres of desolate ranch land."

      http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/ap_bezos_sp aceport_050315.html

      Would that be big enough? It's 257 sqaure miles, I'm not sure how large of a surface distance an arc at 325000 feet above sea level would cover.

    2. Re:Ballistic trajectory? by RexRhino · · Score: 1

      It will not be unguided... it will be computer guided. And it will land verticaly under thrust. RTFA.

  37. Sand Crash? by centauri · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Neal Stephenson (Snow Crash, The Diamond Age, The Baroque Cycle, etc.) has taken a part-time job as a consultant for Blue Origins.

    --
    Don't blame me, I voted for Durga.
    1. Re:Sand Crash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neal Stephenson (Snow Crash, The Diamond Age, The Baroque Cycle, etc.) has taken a part-time job as a consultant for Blue Origins.

      Do he have a professional background other than sci-fi writing and general futurist musings? If not, the only thing I could see his consultation being useful would be writing promotional materials. He's a good writer, but does he have a technical background like Asimov or Clarke?

    2. Re:Sand Crash? by centauri · · Score: 1

      (Note: should be "advisor" rather than "consultant," whatever difference that makes.)

      I don't think he has ever worked as a scientist or engineer. I do believe he has a lot of computer experience, however. Yeah, I can't tell you what he's doing to earn a pay check. I merely mention it because I'm one of many people on slashdot who enjoy Stephenson's work.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Durga.
    3. Re:Sand Crash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think he has ever worked as a scientist or engineer. I do believe he has a lot of computer experience, however. Yeah, I can't tell you what he's doing to earn a pay check. I merely mention it because I'm one of many people on slashdot who enjoy Stephenson's work.

      I also enjoy Stephenson's work, but that wasn't my point. I dislike the human tendency to think greatness in one area implies greatness in all areas. I especially dislike the modern take on this, that celibrities somehow have inheirant insight beyond we mere average people. Sure the famous have a right to their own opinion, but their social status doesn't mean it is any more or less valid than the non-famous (assuming similar levels of experience, interest, and knowledge about the subject at hand).

      Sorry for the digression, but basically I want to know if Stephenson can actually contribute something in his capacity as an advisor or if this is just a crass ploy to cash-in on his relative fame in geek circles. I mean I can see how even without a technical background he could contribute, but it could just as easily be pure PR.

  38. NASA folks have it. by Overzeetop · · Score: 3, Informative

    Not really on topic, or of any use whatsoever, but NASAs group life indurance policy (as of 10 years ago) actually did include loss of life due to space craft disaster.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:NASA folks have it. by RevengeOfPoopJuggler · · Score: 1

      I wonder if that includes the spaceship ride at DisneyLand

    2. Re:NASA folks have it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "life indurance policy"
      I'd like to make money for enduring my life, it's quite difficult!

  39. escape from Hell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Snake Plisken?
    I heard you were dead."

  40. Forget People by zippthorne · · Score: 1

    When are we going to get 90-minute express ballistic shipping to anywhere on the planet?

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    1. Re:Forget People by AtariAmarok · · Score: 2, Funny
      "When are we going to get 90-minute express ballistic shipping to anywhere on the planet?"

      Greetings, Professor Falken. Want to play a game?

      --
      Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
  41. Morbid humor... by KC7GR · · Score: 3, Funny

    "It will operate autonomously under control of on-board computers, with no ground control..."

    This could certainly add new meaning to the phrase "Blue Screen of Death."

    I'll wager that they'll never get guv'mint approval to operate without at least one human pilot.

    Keep the peace(es).

    --

    Bruce Lane, KC7GR,

    Blue Feather Technologies

  42. "Land vertically?" by Verminator · · Score: 2, Funny
    Oh, it'll land vertically, alright.

    In high power model rocketry, we call this condition "Shovel Recovery," and it's not pretty.

    --
    "The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates." - Tacitus
    1. Re:"Land vertically?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I searched and searched google trying to come up with the exact transcipt with no luck, but as a kid, my dad had an old 45 of Bill Dana, as Jose Jimenez, The Astronaut. To loosely paraphrase from memory...

      Interviewer: Well, where will you be landing?

      Jose: Nevada.

      Interviewer: The state of Nevada. So then, does your capsule have parachutes?

      Jose: No...

      Interviewer: Well, surely they must have something to break your fall?

      Jose: To break my fall?

      Interviewer: Yes.

      Jose: Sure! Nevada!

    2. Re:"Land vertically?" by dewright_ca · · Score: 1

      It is called in the normal avaiation field, Lawn-Darts!!

      --
      He who is always at the bottom of the distribution list, but needs the information first!
  43. Space Tickets by writerjosh · · Score: 1

    I don't know if this Blue Origin is related to the X Prize winner, but this space flight stuff is very real and very doable. I watched this whole flight, and it's pretty exciting that low-cost, safe space flight is a real possibility. Check out the photos or webcasts here: X Prize

  44. Unfriendly competition by Dachannien · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Jeff Bezos's commercial spaceflight company, Blue Origin, has kept its plans secret to better compete with rivals such as Richard Branson's Virgin Galactic.

    Commercial manned space travel still seems like quite a lofty goal - lofty enough, and expensive enough, that trying to ensure competition in the marketplace at this very early stage seems counterproductive. One would think that everyone could benefit from open cooperation between Blue Origin and Virgin Galactic, at least until they both get a revenue stream going (read: customers actually in space).

    Unless, that is, Bezos and/or Branson think the first-mover advantage will really translate into significant profits. I suspect, however, that those profits are in the pretty distant future, and the best way to bring the profits closer would be to cooperate.

    1. Re:Unfriendly competition by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Unless, that is, Bezos and/or Branson think the first-mover advantage will really translate into significant profits. I suspect, however, that those profits are in the pretty distant future, and the best way to bring the profits closer would be to cooperate.

      Sure, but then after they get the whole thing making a buck, some guy in his basement will complain that his own personal open source ballistic rocket ship is being unfairly kept out of the hands of users by the $pace$hipOne evil monopolists.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    2. Re:Unfriendly competition by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

      Thing is, I'm not sure how they could possibly benefit from cooperation, except on things like trying to make regulations suck less. The approaches Virgin and Blue Origin are taking to suborbital launches are completely different from each other: different fuels, different launch methods (carrier aircraft vs. VTOL), different vehicle structures, and so on. It'll be interesting to see which approach ends up having the better cost-benefit ratio in the long run.

  45. Efficiency by AtariAmarok · · Score: 1
    "That's just how they ship your ashes if something goes wrong"

    For maximum efficiency and use of packaging space, the boarding procedure includes an 18 minute wait in an airlock heated to 1540 degrees F.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
  46. A Pilot: There is no substitute by mariox19 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You know, from what I hear, jet airliners basically fly themselves. It's not a major problem for a pilot to land or take off in one of these things, and once you get it up, it's basically cruise control. Of course, as they say, when you need an experienced airline pilot, there is no substitute.

    What happens when something goes wrong? If this thing isn't built to have some human control when things are out of the ordinary, no one in his right mind would go up in one of these things.

    (Just my two cents.)

    --

    quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.

    1. Re:A Pilot: There is no substitute by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "That damn cyborg pilot just about turned us all to jelly, but he managed to run the blockade and get us to Luna."

    2. Re:A Pilot: There is no substitute by jpop32 · · Score: 1

      What happens when something goes wrong? If this thing isn't built to have some human control when things are out of the ordinary, no one in his right mind would go up in one of these things.

      This thing, apparently, travels along a ballistic trajectory. Meaning that it's basically a powered crate flung into space. No manouvering capabilities. In other words, the 'pilot' would have nothing to do.

  47. Government Regulations... by HopeOS · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The Wright brothers probably did not have to file environmental impact statements or calculate mean casuality per launch or estimate the damage of an explosion for insurance purposes or...

    Jeff Bezos brought his evironmental impact statement to a conference once; it's about the size of a metropolitan phone book. It has sections that state that their rocket will not cause floods or hurricanes, will not change the flow of any rivers, will not interfere with the mating habits of local desert lizards, and on and on.

    Present day aerospace development is regulated to the point of near inactivity. At least, the developers are still allowed to kill themselves in the process or nothing would get done.

    On the upside, recent legislation has made launching easier. Finding a launch site with an appropriate window and a minimum of EPA hassles is still tricky.

    -Hope

  48. Why Texas? by uberdave · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure of the geography of Nevada or Utah, but Texas has a coast and a big gulf full of splashdown area. Of course that is only important if Blue Origin's landing sequence involves a splashdown.

    Perhaps it's because they already own the property.

    1. Re:Why Texas? by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure of the geography of Nevada or Utah, but Texas has a coast and a big gulf full of splashdown area.

      That was my first thought as well, but upon further reflection it doesn't hold much water. (ha ha) The craft is designed for suborbital hops that involve vertical take off and landing on dry land. Without better knowing the flight profile, it's always hard to say, but it doesn't appear that this craft ever passes over water. It just goes straight up and comes back down.

      So what else is in Texas that might of interest? Maybe another team working on the exact same technology? Hmmm... ;-)

    2. Re:Why Texas? by zienth · · Score: 1

      NASA went with Florida because it was on the Atlantic coast so that if they had a lauch failure it would land in the water instead of on someone's house. But they were planning on orbital launches which head east in order to go into orbit (east is cheaper than west because you get a bonus because of the Earth's rotation).

      But Blue Origin isn't planning on going orbital, they just want to go staight up and back down to the launch point. So they don't need a lauch site near the ocean.

      Besides, if you'd read the article you're commenting on, you'd have noticed that it says "The RLV would launch vertically from a concrete pad and would land vertically in an area near the launch pad." so I think we can rule out a splashdown.

      Keith

    3. Re:Why Texas? by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      So what else is in Texas that might of interest?

      I dunno, how about different lattitude? There's probably a reason that NASA has a bunch of launch facilities in the southern parts of the US.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    4. Re:Why Texas? by Bourbonium · · Score: 1

      The only reason NASA has such a strong presence in Texas is because Lyndon B. Johnson was Vice President when John F. Kennedy accelerated the space program in the early 1960s when we were losing so much ground to the Soviet Union. He put Johnson in charge of NASA and Johnson pledged to send the bacon back to his constituents in his home state. Mission Control could have been built just about anywhere, but Johson insisted on locating it in Houston. It was all pure political pork.

      This did not please some of the early pioneers at NASA, who had already moved their families from Virginia to Florida for the Mercury program, and now had to move them all to Texas (and commute to Florida for the Gemini program launches). A lot of this is detailed in Chris Kraft's terrific autobiography "Flight" and is touched on briefly in Gene Krantz' book "Failure Is Not an Option."

      Blue Origin is locating their facilities way out in the sparsely populated Davis Mountains near Van Horn, hudreds of miles from the Texas Coast. The largest nearby body of water is probably the Rio Grande (which is just a trickle of mud in this area). Bezos may be too rich to care much about the cost of land, but this would be a pretty good real estate investment for this kind of operation. This isn't farmland, it's just mountains and desert, so he probably bought it for pennies.

  49. Ack! Correction. by HopeOS · · Score: 1

    It was Jeff Greason of XCOR not Jeff Bezos, but the comment stands. Where is my coffee...

    -Hope

  50. Why? by RiotNrrd · · Score: 1

    This is obviously pretty cool stuff - two private enterprises working on passenger flights to outer space. The one question that I have is why? I mean, yeah - the OMG factor is there but where are they going? Do they just plan to fly out of the atmosphere and then land? Did someone colonize the moon when I wasn't looking? Besides bragging rights, what are they really hoping to gain from this?

    1. Re:Why? by everphilski · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Both companies (virgin and blue origin) are run by people who have more money than they know what to do with... trying to create a new market is risky and expensive. To rich people it's gambling and that's exciting. To Aerospace engineers (like me) it's exciting to see people taking the initiative to try a new market, and do something that has been traditionally relegated to government contractors - the building of space hardware. Before the X-prize you (for the most part... there were some exceptions) had the little guys who built rocket engines in their backyard, and then you had Boeing/LockMart/Pratt&Whitney. Now you have middle ground, people who made their millions and can now risk to venture into captializing on space. Even if there is no response, there's bragging rights. An there will be a response, there have been numerous published and not so public studies stating that the market for suborbital tourism exists, even in the $100,000 range.

      IAAAE (I Am An Aerospace Engineer)

      -philski-

    2. Re:Why? by LurkerXXX · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Were you never a kid? Have you never wanted to see the earth as a blue ball with a thin layer of hazy atmosphere against the black of space? Have you never wanted to experience serveral minutes of uninterrupted weightlessness? Lots of folks would love the chance to experience that. Unfortunatly probably only a rich few will have the chance at it from these companies.

    3. Re:Why? by RiotNrrd · · Score: 1

      I can see a market for commercial launch vehicles. As a matter of fact, I ended up losing a bunch of money in a company that claimed that they were going to do exactly that (E-Prime Aerospace). The ability to put a satellite in orbit w/o going through the government would open up all sorts of interesting things in the telecom arena.

      From the tech side of things I can totally see why it's exciting - hopefully you'll get a piece of that action some day!

      I wonder if either of these companies have thought about the possibilities of putting a resort on the moon...

    4. Re:Why? by RiotNrrd · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I can appreciate the gee-whiz factor involved in this - who *wouldn't* want to take a ride in a spaceship?

      What I'm asking is this: besides being a *very* expensive roller coaster, what practical applications does this have right now? It would be great if there were somewhere for us to *go* other than up and then down.

      The good news is that if/when we can live on another planet we'll know how to get there.

    5. Re:Why? by LurkerXXX · · Score: 1

      There is no 'practical' application. It's a chance to experience space for folks who don't get to be real NASA astronauts. Lots of folks actually have dreams and imagination and would like to try it.

    6. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? because someone can? because delving into unknown experiences for the masses is what helped evolve mankind? Why own a Ferrari? cuz it's a Ferrari and I can get some heat in it. Why do I own an AIBO, because I've wanted a robot since I was a child and I want to fulfil as many dreams as I can before I leave. Why do I have a hot girlfriend? --uhh, I don't know that one but I'm glad she is... Regardless, because some of us live our lives by asking why and "oh, let me try...". That's what's good about being 'suposedly' the most evolved species on earth....

      chs... sign me up!!!

    7. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is /.! If it doesn't enhance the ability to sit and watch Star Wars, then it shouldn't be developed! Heck, by now few of us could fit our backsides in those tiny rocketship seats!

    8. Re:Why? by i41Overlord · · Score: 1

      This is obviously pretty cool stuff - two private enterprises working on passenger flights to outer space. The one question that I have is why? I mean, yeah - the OMG factor is there but where are they going? Do they just plan to fly out of the atmosphere and then land? Did someone colonize the moon when I wasn't looking? Besides bragging rights, what are they really hoping to gain from this?

      Money.

  51. Stale tang by mnemonic_ · · Score: 1

    I've never heard of Tang going stale.

    1. Re:Stale tang by AtariAmarok · · Score: 3, Funny
      "I've never heard of Tang going stale"

      You are so right. It is a very bad example, like "ape going ugly".

      --
      Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
  52. Forgot this one. by AtariAmarok · · Score: 2, Funny

    This is another common one in the feedback: "Aliens insisted on giving me anal probe". About half of these feedback listings are negative, and half are positive.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
    1. Re:Forgot this one. by Mozk · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I wish I had mod points. XD

      --
      No existe.
  53. Hydrogen peroxide?!? by Locke2005 · · Score: 2, Funny

    But, couldn't a launch accident involving hydrogen perozide render everyone within a 3-mile radius blond?

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  54. Worked for NASA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cool... fire and forget it space travel! That worked well for NASA.

  55. ballistic trajectories by Anonym1ty · · Score: 1

    OK so this thing is going to shoot straight up, then it's going to fall right back down so it will be able to land vertically... like a splashdown i assume. This doesn't sound like fun to me. I mean I think the only way you can land near where you launched with a ballistic trajectory is straight up and straight down. (well really close to it, you know what I mean)

    300-sum-thousand feet?

    I am just disappointed.

    But on the brighter side, there are people who will pay to do this and maybe it will become a viable market thus making it possible better things will come along during my life time I might just be able to afford.

  56. The Amazon business model by gelfling · · Score: 2, Funny

    Send enough flights into space and EVENTUALLY one will come down profitably.

  57. Armidillo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that sounds exactly like the method john carmack was using for his armidillo x-prize entrant. do i really want to trust john carmack not to return me to earth, but continue off in space eventually landing on mars with no flashlight, and an open gate to hell?

  58. Prior Art by Ranarama · · Score: 1

    It'll never stand up in court.

    Here's a one-click launch system developed in 1980. Note the reusable launch vehicle which can also carry at least three people (plus the red launch button).

    I use the word 'people' loosely.

    --
    This .sig intentionally left blank.
  59. That's not fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People shower in more countries than just the US. Those countries just don't happen to be in Europe. (you insensitive clod)

  60. Old sci-fi by Wingchild · · Score: 1

    Reads like the old "jump buggies" out of science fiction novels; single point of launch, ballistic trajectory, get anywhere in the world in 45 minutes flat. I used to wonder why people hadn't already tried to implement them as travel could be significantly faster (and possibly cheaper) than keeping an aircraft aloft for the endless hours of a trans-continental flight.

    1. Re:Old sci-fi by Kwil · · Score: 1

      Something about fat old business men not being well suited for a 5G takeoff.

      --

      That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze

  61. I'll pass... by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    >> It will operate autonomously under control of on-board computers, with no ground control.

    Hmm... lack of a pilot and no chance of remote control... I bet that makes the victi.. err... passengers feel very warm and fuzzy.

  62. Jokes and Challenger by BerntB · · Score: 1
    Being almost too young to remember Challenger we'd kid around about these at work until Columbia.
    Q: Did you know that NASA has a new space drink?
    A: Ocean Spray - It was their second choice because they couldn't get 7-UP.

    There is a long list, certainly more than these.

    --
    Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
  63. FYI by ElMiguel · · Score: 1

    As you can see by the satellite photo, the rugged Guadalupe Mountains meet the barren, flat Llano Estacado.

    "Llano" means flat in Spanish. So yes, it's not that surprising that Llano Estacado is flat. I'm also guessing the Guadalupe Mountains would be mountainous.

    1. Re:FYI by RobertB-DC · · Score: 1

      "Llano" means flat in Spanish. So yes, it's not that surprising that Llano Estacado is flat. I'm also guessing the Guadalupe Mountains would be mountainous.

      Don't forget the (relatively) nearby Rio Grande River. And if they called them the Sierra Guadalupe, I'm sure we'd say "Sierra Guadalupe Mountains".

      I bet you get pretty irritated when sports types talk about "RBIs", when the plural of "RBI" (Run Batted In) is clearly "RBI" (Runs Batted In).

      So do I. :)

      --
      Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
  64. Location of Culberson County by ishmalius · · Score: 1

    Culberson County is one of the "Trans-Pecos" counties of western Texas. If you have ever traveled along I-10 and stopped for the night in Van Horn, you will know that it is basically an oasis town, retirement community, and truck stop in the middle of nowhere. I have always enjoyed stopping there just for that fact. They are proud of their "beautiful 9-hole golf course." Maybe the tiny airport there, with its existing aviation infrastructure and avgas would be a good location for a space port. What an eclectic mix that would be!

  65. I think I see your problem by alizard · · Score: 1
    If you work with LOX on a day to day basis, my hat is off to you. Otherwise let me summarize: it is a giant pain in the ass.

    Perhaps you would find that less of a problem if you used conventional insulated tanks instead of using your rectum for storage. Even if it is a good place to get methane fuel.

    Glad I could help.

    1. Re:I think I see your problem by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1
      Don't forget about the cryogenic pumps to pull the LOX from the tank, the cryogenic piping to get the super-cold liquid between the tanks and your engine, and finally all the added joy of working with a material that goes from -400F to +1500F in the space of a few microseconds as it combusts.

      You go from a project that could be accomplished by a decent mechanical engineer and you turn it into rocket science.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
  66. windows for space flight? by alizard · · Score: 1
    Perfect, if Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer are in the first payload.

    Of course, the second payload will be delayed a few months, while the OS is changed to a real-time -ix (Linux and BSD zealots may start fighting about which distro is best for this now) and the software is rewritten.

    I suppose having the blast crater at 1 Microsoft Way would be too much to hope for.

  67. Re:Sand Crash? (slashdot interview quote) by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

    Here's the obligatory quote from his slashdot interview:

    The Wikipedia lists you as a part-time advisor for Blue Origin, a company that is working to "develop a crewed, suborbital launch system." What is it that you do for them and has the recent winning of the X-Prize by the Spaceship One team had any effect on Blue Origin's plans? What are your visions of future private space flight?

    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.

  68. Any idea on how much tickets are going to cost? by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    I'm thinking I read somewhere Richard Branson said something like $1,000,000 for his package.

    Falcon
  69. ET Skippy is right, if somewhat alien by leonbrooks · · Score: 1

    A previous landlord once buggered up a LOX connection on a drill rig in the Pilbara and folded a drilling platform in half. Literally. He shot a stream of LOX across a steel platform and thermal effects folded the platform up a few degrees and broke (shattered the frozen legs of) the tower, which thankfully did not fall on the LOX tank.

    Said landlord was also extremely pleased that the electricals for the tower ran up one of the other legs and didn't make sparks until those legs folded a few minutes later - 'coz if they'd run up one of the shettered legs... well, let's just say that LOX is not exactly a fire retardant.

    H2O2 will only burn the crap out of you and then dissolve you. Much safer. d-:

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  70. Re: Any idea on how much tickets are going to cost by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

    I'm thinking I read somewhere Richard Branson said something like $1,000,000 for his package.

    The ticket price for Virgin Galactic (Richard Branson's service) is US$200,000.

    http://www.virgingalactic.com/en/when.asp

  71. Re: Any idea on how much tickets are going to cost by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    I'm thinking I read somewhere Richard Branson said something like $1,000,000 for his package.

    The ticket price for Virgin Galactic (Richard Branson's service) is US$200,000.

    Thanks for the correction.

    Falcon