Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Blue Origin Will Be VTOL

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the less-glide-for-your-ride dept.

Spy Handler writes "The Blue Origin spacecraft, being built by Amazon.com billionaire Jeff Bezos' new venture, will have VTOL (vertical take-off and landing) capability, according to the company's FAA permit applications. It will be a cone-shaped vehicle about 50 feet tall and 22 feet in diameter at the base, and carry 3 or more passengers to an altitude of 325,000 feet"

92 comments

  1. Impressive turn-around time, too... by stoborrobots · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They're claiming that the commercial launch around 2010 will be able to make 52 lauches a year, meaning that they expect to be able to turn around one of these babies in a week from landing...

    That will require some interesting reliability stats on the exposed surfaces...

    --
    "Go to CNN [for a] spell-checked, fact-checked summary" -- CmdrTaco
    1. Re:Impressive turn-around time, too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      An airliner has a turnaroud time of about an hour.

    2. Re:Impressive turn-around time, too... by Grench · · Score: 2, Informative

      EasyJet, a UK-based LCC airline, has a turnaround time of 30-minutes on its fleet of Airbus A319 and Boeing 737 aircraft. Their entire business model revolves around very low turnaround time, so that they can use the same aircraft as many times a day as is possible.

      --
      He's Jesus, for Christ's sake.
    3. Re:Impressive turn-around time, too... by pookemon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or maybe they are having more than one of them?

      --
      dnuof eruc rof aixelsid
    4. Re:Impressive turn-around time, too... by drgould · · Score: 4, Interesting

      At one point they were able to turn the DC-X (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DC-X) around in 26-hours.

      It's just a matter of designing for reliability and servicability instead of cutting-edge performance like NASA does.

      It helps that this is a sub-orbital vehicle.

    5. Re:Impressive turn-around time, too... by CRCulver · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      It's not only EasyJet, but all budget airlines. Airlines must pay airports for time spent at the gate, so companies trying to keep prices as low as possible must be able to get in and out of airports quickly.

    6. Re:Impressive turn-around time, too... by Tx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As others have pointed out, they'll probably have more than one vehicle. I would also add that there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that there's be enough demand for 52 launches a year in the long term, though they could possibly sustain it for maybe a few months to a year after launch. After that, the novelty value will have worn off, and a trip in this thing will be looking like pretty damn poor value for money.

      --
      Oh no... it's the future.
    7. Re:Impressive turn-around time, too... by dubdays · · Score: 1

      Except that the price might very well drop significantly after the company profits wildly the first year or two and reservations start to decline. Once they have all of the equipment/vehicles/etc., they just need to charge enough to break-even with a little profit on top. An inexpensive space trip would keep tons of people signing up. Not that a trip to space is going to be cheap anytime soon, but $100,000-$300,000 is a lot different than $5,000,000 or more.

    8. Re:Impressive turn-around time, too... by rayde · · Score: 1

      unless they begin using it as a means of very fast travel from point a to point b...

    9. Re:Impressive turn-around time, too... by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I would also add that there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that there's be enough demand for 52 launches a year in the long term, though they could possibly sustain it for maybe a few months to a year after launch.

      This is one of those assumptions that you put in your business plan spreadsheet, that makes the difference between success and failure but which nobody can say for sure.

      Elementary economics tells us you can't possibly say something like "there won't be enough demand for 52 launches per year in the long term." What you have to say is "the market will demand less than 52 launches per year at a certain price." Price the launch low enough, and you'll be able to sell a thousand or even a million launches; the question is, can you make a profit.

      Creating a popular web site and creating a aerospace company are on the surface very different things. But one thing that is in common is that there is an adoption curve. You almost never have enough people want your service at the outset to sustain it. What you need is enough people to want your service to keep the ball rolling, to bring in enough cash that venture dollars don't feel too lonely as they're waiting to be shoveled into the furnace.

      The key to everything is pricing and its relationship to volume. IN a mature business, you want to charge to maximize profit, but in a startup you aren't expecting to see profit. It's more complex because your pricing has to do more things than deliver a profit. It has to deliver enough volume so that you can begin to achieve economies of scale and learn how to operate the business efficiently; it also has to show that your business plan's ales projections and cost projections are realistic. Pricing and volume has to validate your assertions about your ability to manage the technology, as well as your assertions about how the market will respond to price.

      In a venture like this, you'd charge more at the outset, because you really can't deliver more. So supposing after initial test, you think you can launch four times a year for the first year, because you're shaking down your system and learning how to scale the system safely and efficiently. So, you charge so much that the number of rides you sell is exactly four, neither more nor less. You still burn lots of money and don't get much back. Next year, you can launch eight times, which is twice as often. You drop your prices, hopefully less that 50%; let's say 66%. Presuming that your marginal costs stay the same or drop, it means you lose more money.

      In time, repeat this process enough, and (God willing) your marginal costs start to drop, and you start to approach the area where you are making profit on each transaction instead of losing money. However, if your model was wrong, you may end up get no closer to that point: if you don't achieve economies of scale with increased volume, or if demand does not fall with price rising.

      Every business plan depends on predicting the future, and making leaps of faith about certain assumptions. Most of the time, some assumption was wrong; if it's right, and you're talking about something like this where you can't create a business overnight, then you can expect to enjoy larger than normal profits if you are right. Higher rewards nearly always entail higher risks (although the converse is not true).

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    10. Re:Impressive turn-around time, too... by Tx · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Thanks for the Econ 101 lecture ;). Obviously my contention is that there won't be enough demand at the prices they will end up charging as the economics of the business work through. And yes, no one can say such things for sure. However my point is that the "product" here is fundamentally not a particularly attractive one, once you take out the "one of the first to do it" and "uniqueness of experience" factors. It's a fundamentally high altitude flight with a few minutes only technically in space, where even the most wildly optimistic pricing I've heard, $20,000 per head, would buy weeks in luxury on a tropical island. I'm a huge space fan, I'd sell significant limbs to do any kind of significant space travel, but I wouldn't pay $20,000 for a few minutes of suborbital flight, even if it was a minor sum to me.

      --
      Oh no... it's the future.
    11. Re:Impressive turn-around time, too... by OwnedByTwoCats · · Score: 1

      My mod points expired yesterday; otherwise you'd have one more.

      +1 Informative.

    12. Re:Impressive turn-around time, too... by hey! · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the Econ 101 lecture

      If it's condescension you want, you've come to the right place. I've got more of it than I know what to do with. It's nice to be with people who have a sense of humor.

      However my point is that the "product" here is fundamentally not a particularly attractive one, once you take out the "one of the first to do it" and "uniqueness of experience" factors. It's a fundamentally high altitude flight with a few minutes only technically in space, where even the most wildly optimistic pricing I've heard, $20,000 per head, would buy weeks in luxury on a tropical island.

      Well I agree. In all probability.

      I doubt any of these kinds of ventures are really planning on making a living with joyriders.

      One would imagine the company would have a number of aerospace services and products, including development of entire proof of concept systems, subcontracting on space and defense applications. In the long term, orbital capability would be a logical goal; certainly it's on Scaled's long term vision. Speaking of Scaled, they have a large number of projects like the ones I mentioned above for automotive, defense and other customers. SS1 gives their company a certain cachet that probably is worth every nickle they lost above the prize money.

      Probably the biggest prize in the long run would be be the development of space craft with considerable downrange capabilities. This would provide faster than Concorde service; even if there is insufficient commercial travel market at possible prices to support this, there would certainly be military uses. And the culture of these outfits is to produce fast incremental change, cheap, so we would not expect something as unweildy as the Concorde.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    13. Re:Impressive turn-around time, too... by Grench · · Score: 1

      I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but still... This definitely needed correction.

      British Aerospace (before they became BAe Systems) used to build a range of high-wing STOL jet airliners, the BAe 146 series, which was developed into the Avro Regional Jet. Their short-field performance is unparalleled; the 146 and Avro RJ are the largest jet transport aircraft certified to land at London City airport, a 4,300ft runway in the very centre of London's docklands.

      This line of jet aircraft was the last commercial aircraft constructed in the United Kingdom. 221 of the 145 series and 170 of the Avro RJ series were built, many of which are still used worldwide (Sabena, British Airways, Air France, NorthWest Airlines, United Airlines, Aer Lingus, etc etc)

      http://www.airdolomiti.it/upload/immagini/Air%20Do lomiti%20BAe%20146%20300%20for%20print.jpg

      In addition to the jetliners, British Aerospace also manufactured the highly-successful Jetstream series of small turboprop aircraft. Around 480 of these aircraft were built, and a large number of these are still in use globally.

      --
      He's Jesus, for Christ's sake.
    14. Re:Impressive turn-around time, too... by StrawberryFrog · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, the difference is that people buy books and other stuff all the time, so when you want/need other books/stuff later you favour the shop that served you well before.

      When you get thrown 99km upwards to the "edge of space" (whoo-hoo, you're not even in orbit) and float down again, you don't need to do it again. The novelty wears off and that's over. That's the point - the interest is to due the novelty; the service being essentially uselesss it will become passe when it's common. 52 flights ought to be enough to do that.

      --

      My Karma: ran over your Dogma
      StrawberryFrog

    15. Re:Impressive turn-around time, too... by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      What? Not even one of these

    16. Re:Impressive turn-around time, too... by ranton · · Score: 1

      I do not see why they would have a problem keeping interest alive for many years if they can get the price to a reasonable level, such as around $30k. Even if people can afford a weeklong luxurious holiday for the same price, the novelty of going into space and being weightless will probably be enough.

      There were 7.5 million millionaires in the U.S. in 2004, up 10% from 2003. Even if the growth drops to 5%, after 10 years that is about 12 million over that period of time. For this company to sell 52 rides a year for 10 years, that is 1560 rides. That is 0.013% of all millionaires. If your average millionaire actually buys more like 1.3 rides (accounting for spouces and children), that is 0.01%. Only 1 in every 10,000 millionaires would have to want a ride on this spaceship, and this does not even account for customers from other countries.

      In all likeliness, after 5-10 years the price will start dropping as the process becomes more streamlined. As the price drops even more people would want to ride this spaceship. I know that if I was making about $200k a year I would pay to go up just once in my lifetime for $20k.

      While it is definetly not guaranteed to make money, I do not see how it is that unlikely.
      --

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    17. Re:Impressive turn-around time, too... by Spy+Handler · · Score: 1
      I wouldn't pay $20,000 for a few minutes of suborbital flight, even if it was a minor sum to me.

      I saw the Discovery Channel program on the X-prize winning SS1 flights, and it was awesome. I would pay $200,000 if I had a few million dollars in my pocket, considering the only way to get into orbit is paying the Russians $20 mil.

  2. What will it cost? by ilovegeorgebush · · Score: 1

    I find it an intruiging venture indeed. Not only from someone not based at a National Aeronautics department; but someone that is an entrepreneur.

    Are the costs to take one of these commercial flights known yet? And wasn't a similar venture investigated by Virgin owner, Richard Branson?

    --
    ilovegeorgebush
    1. Re:What will it cost? by pookemon · · Score: 2, Informative

      You mean Virgin Galactic. It's rumoured to be around $200k per flight.

      --
      dnuof eruc rof aixelsid
    2. Re:What will it cost? by ilovegeorgebush · · Score: 1

      Ahh thank you. Looks like I won't be going on one for quite a while...

      --
      ilovegeorgebush
  3. Scales better than SS1 by MichaelSmith · · Score: 4, Interesting

    SpaceShip[12..] is a design which will only work as a straight up-down suborbital vehicle. The basic idea behind Blue Origin: to have a straight forward rocket with a high mass fraction can be made to scale towards semiballistic lobs and eventually orbit. Its a good way to go.

    --
    http://michaelsmith.id.au
  4. Welcome to 1961 by damburger · · Score: 0, Troll

    Vostok was launched vertically on a rocket, and landed vertically by falling.

    So is a VTOL spacecraft newsworthy?

    --
    If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    1. Re:Welcome to 1961 by Pacifist+Brawler · · Score: 4, Funny

      I think the important fact that we are overlooking here is the concept of a controlled veritcal landing -- one that allows for subsequent vertical take-off. Otherwise anyone with a basic knowledge of chemistry and poor instincts for self-preservation could do this much cheaper.

      --
      IANA*
    2. Re:Welcome to 1961 by OwnedByTwoCats · · Score: 1

      Vostok wasn't reusable.

      A reusable VTOL craft is new.

  5. Hmmmm by countach · · Score: 1

    Hmmm, a vertical take off and landing spacecraft. Sounds like a Saturn V rocket.

    1. Re:Hmmmm by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1
      Sounds like a Saturn V rocket

      Saturn V didn't land. As the basis of a single stage to orbit system I think this is very interesting. The hardware associated with staging caused the loss of both shuttles.

      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au
    2. Re:Hmmmm by Salgak1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Sounds more like the old DC-X / Delta Clipper project. . . In fact, according to Wikipedia, Blue Origin has hired a number of DC-X engineers . . .

    3. Re:Hmmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      But staging is what enabled orbital and metaorbital flights possible in the first place, as you could subtract the (dead)weight of used-up stages from the fuel/payload equation. There isn't much to do about it, except find either lighter construction materials or a method of speeding the propellant out of the nozzles much faster (preferably the second). Even then, multistage SO vehicles would perform better... unless... anyone could devise a method of refueling them during ascent, in which case first (or only) stage would transfer from "minus" to "plus" column.

      Now, where along path to orbit could you install a "refueling station" (or refueling randevouz point)? One obvious point is jet plane flight ceiling (~ 30 km altitude), another is stratospheric baloon ceiling (~ 42km altitude). Perhaps a large, flat(-ish) lighter-then-air platform equipped with additional boosters (say, ion engines powered by solar panels... atmosphere is quite thin and transparent above troposphere) could achieve even better altitude and serve as the "launchpad". In fact, the launching would have to be quite complex maneuvre, which would include initial drop-off, starting the engines during the fall (it is a tricky part... if it fails, you have to deploy parachutes and start all over - bring new parts to stratoplatform and assemble them, transport the payload back up...) and steering away from the platform on the way up (it can obviously, present another problem...).

      Anyway, whichever clever method we use to establish another stationary checkpoint on the route to orbit, it will be too low to have any practical meaning for the launch, as it strips off less then 15% of the pathway, with added complications and overall cost.

      Therefore, I believe that multistage is here to stay... but perhaps there is something to be done about recovering and reusing each stage - if they were designed with such goal. Some of most criticized Space Shuttle design decisions were the answer to previous wasting of very expensive and powerful first stages of Saturn V during each launch - now the main engines survive and are brought back to the base, but in exchange the vehicle with crew onboard is ventured, placed in dangerous position during the launch. If orbiter was to sit on top of the stack, clear from foam and ice debris and salvable in case of the trouble, then the main engine would be expended in each mission. So, obvious answer to present problems would be to separate the orbiter from the main engine with tank and make that "lifter" recoverable (i.e. winged and maneuverable, capable for horizontal gliding and landing) too, and place orbiter on the top of the launch assembly.

    4. Re:Hmmmm by gstoddart · · Score: 1
      Hmmm, a vertical take off and landing spacecraft. Sounds like a Saturn V rocket.

      Ummm .... no. VTO maybe, but not VTOL.

      All rockets take off vertically. They're talking about a craft which also lands vertically so it's physically in launch position.

      Saturn V rockets landed rather balistically. There is a huge difference.

      Cheers
      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    5. Re:Hmmmm by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      You might be curios enough to check out the "Delta X" that McDonnald Douglas built for NASA. The craft worked pretty good for MD; NASA didn't read the manual, and crashed the proto type. But it was demonstrated that all worked VERY well.

      I was just thinking, if one of these things took off in Tokyo, and landed in Los Angeles, Then they could say, "We'll deliver your package when it absolutly, positively has to be there Yesterday".

    6. Re:Hmmmm by wulfhound · · Score: 1

      The primary problem for orbital flight isn't altitude, it's delta-V.. and even if you have a platform cruising at 33KM at perhaps Mach 2, you still need a heck of a lot of fuel to get to orbit. A staged rocket uses only a relatively small proportion of its fuel in getting to 33KM or Mach 2.

    7. Re:Hmmmm by jabuzz · · Score: 1

      Multiple stage rockets only made orbital flights possible because the technology was not available to achieve a single stage to orbit. That does not mean that SSTO is not a highly desirable or perminantly impossible goal that is not worth persuing.

    8. Re:Hmmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      SSTO means bigger, heavier "log" falling from the sky on reentry, suffering greater destructive forces of friction... it ought to be more expensive to design, manufacture and maintain.

      I understand that we seek to have romantic illusion of Argonauts-alike independence with "spaceship" or "spacecar" that would be more self-containd vehicle (just tank the fuel in and off you go) then repetitive vertical masonry project of huge surface-locked organisations, but that time has not come yet.

      Overall, it is like trying to design a working hydrofoil in age of rowing boats - we need to find better propulsion system first, something so efficient and controllable that it can move smoothly enaugh on start and landing, thrust the troposphere in both directions gently without causing to much friction and overheating, move quickly thru radiation belts and still get out of gravity well on fuel budget. And, oh, yes, all this without sprinkling radionuclids thruout atmosphere. It clearly calls for energy transformation solutions which will leave out the thermal energy link from the chain. So far, we don't seem to have any such solution, at least not on the large scale. Our way of thinking about energy hasn't got to far from "light a (chemical, nuclear fission, nuclear fusion, matter-antimatter anychilation) fire, put the pot above,..." universal recipe. Once we learn how to make all this energy sources to directly induce current in a (super)conductor, without dissipating-the-energy-we've-got-in-a-small-volume -thus-heating-a-fluid-entrapped-by-structurally-st rong-container-so-that-it-speeds-in-direction-wher e-we-left-the-only-exit-for-it, then we will be able to accelerate "fuel" (load of ballast particles carried in spaceship storage, or particles found in environment, i.e. atmosphere) to move the vessel by reactive force - that part we know a little better. But for the time beeing, we are better off with multistage launches.

  6. In normal units by Sklivvz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "The Blue Origin spacecraft, being built by Amazon.com billionaire Jeff Bezos' new venture, will have VTOL (vertical take-off and landing) capability, according to the company's FAA permit applications. It will be a cone-shaped vehicle about 15 meter tall and 7 meter in diameter at the base, and carry 3 or more passengers to an altitude of 99 kilometers"

    --
    My Stack Overflow user
    1. Re:In normal units by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Funny
      to an altitude of 99 kilometers

      I suspect that a rounding error crept in there.

      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au
    2. Re:In normal units by Minwee · · Score: 1

      Unless, of course, some regulatory agency like the FAI defined an altitude of 100 km as being somehow significant.

      Going 99 km up won't make you an astronaut. 100 km will. To go those extra few metres you need to tip your pilot.

    3. Re:In normal units by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1
      To go those extra few metres you need to tip your pilot

      Or lie about your mass.

      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au
    4. Re:In normal units by Fullhazard · · Score: 1

      So wait. 3 imperial people = 3 metric people? That's awesome! Of course, knowing the metric system, it's probably like 3 imperial humans = 3.2 metric, just enough to screw up things. Stupid Metric system.

  7. Prior art ? by vlad30 · · Score: 1

    http://imdb.com/title/tt0078681/ and in its spare time he'll pick up dead satellites and save NASA astronaughts

    --
    Your'e all thinking it, I just said it for you
    1. Re:Prior art ? by The_REAL_DZA · · Score: 1

      Actually, "prior art" creds probably ought to go to (once again) Mrs Wells' little boy, H.G.; if he were still alive he could make a supportable claim on everything from "global circumnavigation via gas-filled envelope" all the way up to "lunar visitation via VTOL craft".

      --


      This space intentionally left (almost) blank.
  8. Distance to space? by wjcofkc · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Considering that medium orbital distance is 6,250 - 10,000 miles high, and that this craft is intended to go no higher than 62 miles, is this a spaceship, or a space plane? Is sixty-two miles qualifiable for low Earth orbit? Otherwise, it is a nice thought to be able to go 62 miles straight up and land somewhere else on Earth in short order relative to a jumbo jet.

    A fine step forward eitherway. I look forward to the day when these new space companies will competing for passengers - regular people passengers.

    Priceline.com, get the best rates for a moon vacation!

    --
    Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
    1. Re:Distance to space? by pookemon · · Score: 1

      They're not trying to enter orbit, they are trying to reach space (100 km). And they are not taking passengers from point A to point B (unless you count point B as space).

      --
      dnuof eruc rof aixelsid
    2. Re:Distance to space? by Schraegstrichpunkt · · Score: 1
      Priceline.com, get the best rates for a moon vacation!

      Heh. We'll have a dozen different TLDs for all of the different planetary colonies, and everybody will still be clamouring for .com domains.

      --
      http://outcampaign.org/
    3. Re:Distance to space? by Red+Flayer · · Score: 4, Funny
      this craft is intended to go no higher than 62 miles, is this a spaceship, or a space plane?
      Neither. Here's a rather dull/akward metaphor:

      If a (flying) bird is a creature of the air, and a swimming fish is a creature of the water, what do you call a fish that can momentarily break the surface of the water?

      I'd still call it a creature of the water.

      Similarly, I'd call Bezos's craft a VTOL airplane -- though I might give it an asterisk -- VTOL airplane*.

      *capable of reaching super-mesospheric** altitude.

      **Where super-mesospheric*** means above 99.9999% of the atmospheric mass.

      ***Though at the the time of the X-15 flight (1963) the US considered 50 miles**** (~80km) to be the boundary of space.

      ****But the significance of the 100km boundary is that it is the approximate altitude of the turbopause, below which turbulent mixing***** of the atmosphere predominates; above this, molecular diffusion dominates.

      *****Speaking of which, it's time to get another cup of coffee (with milk, turbulently mixed) before the asterisks really get out of hand.
      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    4. Re:Distance to space? by everphilski · · Score: 1

      Similarly, I'd call Bezos's craft a VTOL airplane -- though I might give it an asterisk -- VTOL airplane*.

      It isn't an airplane - by your analogy, I should be an airplane, as I live in the air (I spend more time in the air than in the water) ... but I don't have wings or propellors/turbojet...

      It has no feature that puts it in league with an airplane. It is a rocket, 100%. It is not an orbital rocket, it is a suborbital rocket, meaning it makes hops but never stays out of earths orbits ad infinum. Its a spaceship that hops to space and hops back. It would be like calling an electric car that can only do 150 miles not a "real car" because it can't travel 400 miles like my Saturn can...

    5. Re:Distance to space? by Billosaur · · Score: 1

      Similarly, I'd call Bezos's craft a VTOL airplane -- though I might give it an asterisk -- VTOL airplane*.

      And in that regard, we don't need another rocket that reach 100km -- what we need is private industry to develop one-off and reuseable systems to work in Earth orbit and beyond, and heavy lift vehicles to get cargo into space in bulk to help build the next generation of Moon exploration vehicles. It sounds like Bezos is in it for the tourist dollars more than anything, and I'm afraid the ticket price is going to far outwiegh the VTOL capacity and the quick turnaround time. I won't be surprised if Blue Origin becomes his personal space yacht. I'm getting this feeling that I'm reading a Heinlein story.

      --
      GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
    6. Re:Distance to space? by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1
      It isn't an airplane - by your analogy, I should be an airplane, as I live in the air (I spend more time in the air than in the water) ... but I don't have wings or propellors/turbojet...
      Umm, no. You'd be a creature of the surface, if you choose to extend the analogy.

      It would be like calling an electric car that can only do 150 miles not a "real car" because it can't travel 400 miles like my Saturn can...
      Gotta disagree again. Since when does the criteria for 'car' include travel distance of 400 mi?

      In the context of the OP, what is it that differentiates 'spaceship' from 'spaceplane' from 'airplane' from 'rocket'?

      'Rocket' is a propulsion system, or a term used to describe a vehicle that uses a rocket propulsion system. Airplanes can be rockets. Hell, cars can be rockets (Remember the Darwin award for the guy who strapped one to his car and is now embedded in a cliffside?).

      A 'plane' describes a fixed-wing vehicle. An airplane would be a fixed-wing vehicle that operates in the atmosphere; a spaceplane would be a fixed-wing vehicle that operates in space. I'd say Bezos's craft operates predominantly in the atmosphere, thus I'd call it an airplane.
      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    7. Re:Distance to space? by everphilski · · Score: 1

      The electric car comment was an extension of your "the rocket only goes 62 miles" comment.

      Airplanes can be rockets.

      No, rockets carry their own oxidizer onboard. Airplanes breathe oxidizer from the ambient.

      A 'plane' describes a fixed-wing vehicle.

      A plane describes a vehicle that derives its predominant lift force from aerodynamic forces (90%+). A rocket has no lifting surfaces but derives lift from its engines.

      You could put Bezos' vehicle on the moon, on Mars, under the ocean (if it was denser than the surrounding water) and it would function. Not so for a plane.

      And that's the last I'm going to say for this stupid, inane conversation.

    8. Re:Distance to space? by OwnedByTwoCats · · Score: 1

      The German Me-163 Comet aircraft did not breathe oxidizer from the ambient.

    9. Re:Distance to space? by Billosaur · · Score: 1
      No, rockets carry their own oxidizer onboard. Airplanes breathe oxidizer from the ambient.

      Quite true -- but then how do you classify the Bell X-1 and its bretheren? Of course in the 40's and 50's, they were called "rocket planes" and justifiably so.

      --
      GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
    10. Re:Distance to space? by zentinal · · Score: 2, Informative

      Shouldn't / Doesn't the definition of an airplane include the vehicle achieving flight primarily through the exploitation of aerodynamic forces, instead of primarily through the expulsion of reaction mass? The Blue Origin vehicle (if the picture on the cover of the FAA Draft is any guide) has no wings, it looks like the DC-X.

      If a vehicle has wings or a lifting body, and flies by using the lift generated by those wings or the lifting body, then it is an plane. If the vehicle travels exclusively through the atmosphere using aerodynamic lift, then I'd say it is an airplane (driven by gravity, propellers, jets, or rockets). If part of the operational envelope includes operation beyond the 62 mile (100km) altitude normally defined as the limit of space but it still has aerodynamic lift generating elements used for takeoff, cruise (think of the "skipping" designs), or landing, then it is a spaceplane. The shuttle is a spaceplane. Spaceship1 is a spaceplane.

      What then is the Blue Origin vehicle? It doesn't have any (as far as I can tell) any lift generating surfaces, so it cannot be a plane of any sort. Is it a manned rocket? According to pedants in the thread, rocket applies only to the means of propulsion, so I'll play along and say no. Is it a missile? How about a manned (what it carries), sub-orbital (altitude envelope), ballistic (flight profile), missile (type of vehicle)?

    11. Re:Distance to space? by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1
      Is it a missile? How about a manned (what it carries), sub-orbital (altitude envelope), ballistic (flight profile), missile (type of vehicle)?
      Well, 'missile' sounds so, I dunno, war-like. Why not call it a Manned Extra-Mesospheric Projectile (Sub-Orbital Ballistic). Or that MEMP Son-of-a-bitch?
      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    12. Re:Distance to space? by TheDreadSlashdotterD · · Score: 1

      Hell, cars can be rockets (Remember the Darwin award for the guy who strapped one to his car and is now embedded in a cliffside?).

      Confirmed Bogus. Although others have strapped rockets to cars before, your reference has been known to be false for a while.

      --
      I have nothing to say.
    13. Re:Distance to space? by zentinal · · Score: 2, Funny

      If you throw up during the flight. Would that be "projectile vomiting"?

      If it's used mainly to send Billionaires on trips between continents, would it be an InterContinental Billionaire Missile?

      Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all week.
    14. Re:Distance to space? by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

      If a (flying) bird is a creature of the air, and a swimming fish is a creature of the water, what do you call a fish that can momentarily break the surface of the water?

      Most people call those things flying fish.

    15. Re:Distance to space? by WhiplashII · · Score: 1

      Yes, but to take this even further - I say we get rid of those silent e's. I mean really, what is the point?!? And while we are at it, all those other silent letters must go - and don't get me started on words/letters with more than one pronunciation!

      Not to belabor the point - the words used in English to describe something new bear no relation to previous word usage. It only depends on marketing, for lack of a better word...

      --
      while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
    16. Re:Distance to space? by wjcofkc · · Score: 1
      I looked into it and it seems the agreed on minimum qualifaction for outer space is in fact the 62 miles they are shooting for. There is still alot of atmosphere at that altitude, and I doubt that a craft could hang around very long, sinking from a reduced gravity on it's way back down to 32 feet per second squared.

      I realize this is a first generation craft of a new era in space travel and that the tourism allure is the opportunity for (eventually) most people with average means can experience very low G and qualify as an astronaut I suppose.

      We do not yet know what the first generation of private space travel will yield in terms of immediate practical use beyond doing it for fun and it seems to me that any of the commercial spacecraft currently being developed and tested are all suitable for rapid and eventually airline priced transcontinental travel.

      We have wanted space planes for a very long time, this and other well funded private projects seem to fit the bill.

      A sufficiently complex (or not so complex) technology will generally be quickly adapted to suit pruposes the original inventor did not have in mind.

      One last thing about your post. When does an insightful post with funny context become nothing but score five funny? The funny tag should be able to stand alone or otherwise be coupled with any other moderation category, like: Score 5 Insightful - Score 5 Funny, where points for being funny are not actually expended or gained unless "Funny" stands alone. Just a thought, I liked your reply, it's funny and insightful.

      William

      --
      Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
    17. Re:Distance to space? by j_w_d · · Score: 1

      The point is that the ME-163 gained its lift aerodynamically. It had _wings_. An "airplane" can be powered by props, jets, or rockets, but it doesn't stay aloft on its thrust. Its wings do that work while the thrusters simply provide sufficient forward speed to generate the lift necessary to get it into and keep it in the air. Bezos' craft won't have wings, thus no aerodynamic lift, and thus won't "fly" in the sense that a plane does. It is not an airplane in any sense of the term. Calling the Bezos rocket an "airplane" is like calling a helicopter an "airplane," and actually, a helicopter is closer to being one if you think of the prop as a big rotary wing.

      --
      ------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
  9. Only shuttles aren't VTOL. by Vo0k · · Score: 3, Informative

    Soyuz for example gets launched vertically and lands vertically (on a parachute). That's not what is usually meant by VTOL but certainly meets the definition. What about that craft? Launch will almost certainly be vertical, landing on a landing strip is much harder than a splashdown or such. So will it be a cool "all-terrain space plane" or just a vanilla space rocket?

    --
    Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
    1. Re:Only shuttles aren't VTOL. by strider44 · · Score: 1

      Really? Shuttles aren't VTOL? Exactly how it explains in the first paragraph of the article?

      To answer your question, *obviously* it wouldn't be a space plane since it has vertical landing, exactly what this article is about. It is contrasting it to the space shuttle saying that it's *not* like the space shuttle.

    2. Re:Only shuttles aren't VTOL. by Vo0k · · Score: 1

      Space Shuttles MUST land horizontally. Soyuz and such MUST land vertically. And the summary says Blue Origin will have VTOL (vertical take-off and landing) capability , which might suggest it's something like an option, extra, non-default.

      --
      Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
    3. Re:Only shuttles aren't VTOL. by strider44 · · Score: 1

      You could have read the first couple of paragraphs of the article for clarification. I don't think that you're going to get very far reading pedantic meaning in the words of the summary.

      A spacecraft taking off from a private West Texas spaceport being bankrolled and developed by Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos would take off vertically, but unlike NASA's space shuttle would also land vertically, according to an environmental study that offers a glimpse into the secretive plans.

      The craft would hit an altitude of about 325,000 feet -- or almost 62 miles -- before descending and restarting its engine for a "precision vertical powered landing on the landing pad" in sparsely populated Culberson County, about 125 miles east of El Paso.

      It seems pretty clear it doesn't take off horisontally.

    4. Re:Only shuttles aren't VTOL. by z0idberg · · Score: 1

      Everything that flies has the option of a vertical landing. Some just do it more gracefully than others. :-)

    5. Re:Only shuttles aren't VTOL. by Billosaur · · Score: 1
      Space Shuttles MUST land horizontally. Soyuz and such MUST land vertically. And the summary says Blue Origin will have VTOL (vertical take-off and landing) capability , which might suggest it's something like an option, extra, non-default.

      And on a darker note, all spacecraft have the ability to land by crashing, as Soyuz, the Shuttle, and the DC-X prototype which will become Blue Origin have done. People can spend an awful lot of time arguing about the semantics, but in the end it doesn't matter how the rocket takes off or lands, as long as it does it safely. I don't think it would be very good publicity if Blue Origin killed a lot of passengers, anymore than the Challenger and Columbia accidents have helped NASA's reputation.

      --
      GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
    6. Re:Only shuttles aren't VTOL. by ichigo+2.0 · · Score: 1

      I meet the definition of VTOL capable as well. Still need to work on reaching that 100 km though.

  10. Re:Normal units are boring! by Big+Nothing · · Score: 4, Funny

    "The Blue Origin spacecraft, being built by Amazon.com multi-hundradaire Jeff Bezos' new venture, will have VTOL (vertical take-off and landing) capability, according to the company's FAA permit applications. It will be a pointed-shaped vehicle about 8.3 fathoms tall and 2.17313508 x 10^-16 Parsecs in diameter at the base, and carry ~pi or more passengers to an altitude of 9.90600 x 10^14 angstrom"

    --
    SIG: TAKE OFF EVERY 'CAPTAIN'!!
  11. Actually by Xiph · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The only spacecraft EVER which have NOT been vtol are the shuttles, the russion ones are retired and dead and the american ones have had their share of problems lately.

    While the news of how they intend to do this, i think as someone stated above me, the real question is whether you can call it a spaceshuttle when it's only designed to go to weightlessness and return.
    Yes it gives a spacelike feeling, but it's not useful for putting up satelites, not possible to go to spacestations with it, from my point of view, it's just a step up from a parabolic flight, but it's not more a spacecraft, than a tow ferry is a ship.

    PS. i wish i had one :)

    --
    Blah blah sig blah blah blah irony blah blah
    1. Re:Actually by (H)elix1 · · Score: 1

      The only spacecraft EVER which have NOT been vtol are the shuttles, the russion ones are retired and dead and the american ones have had their share of problems lately.

      I can think of a few other non-VTOL spacecraft. The Pegasus rocket (in active use today), some other Spaceship One, or even some of the early US ASAT.

      --
      +++ UGUCAUCGUAUUUCU
    2. Re:Actually by Xiph · · Score: 1

      If you completely disregard the part of my post past the first line, then i guess you have a valid point.

      The thing is, that i perfectly clearly state that I don't consider going to 100 km (or 62 miles) to be going to space, because nothing orbits that low.

      An orbital rocket that's launched from underbelly of a fighterjet is a warhead, not a spacecraft. I don't consider a bullet to be an aeroplane either.

      --
      Blah blah sig blah blah blah irony blah blah
    3. Re:Actually by (H)elix1 · · Score: 1

      Same here, but Pegasus hit orbit. Smaller loads, but not a warhead too. Almost redacted the spaceship one flight for the same reason as you. I left it in as it seems to be the way 'private' spacecraft seem to be headed. May prove to be wrong, but VTOL is not the only game in town.

      http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/pegasus_launc h_020205.html

      --
      +++ UGUCAUCGUAUUUCU
  12. VTOL, as it should be by Ranten_N_Raven · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Just like God and Robert A. Heinlein intended!"

    Man -- I wish I was the one who'd thought that one up....

    --

    READ the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the other amendments! http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/const.html
  13. I simply would not be interested. by old_skul · · Score: 1

    The fact is, I will only be into the idea of traveling to space in a craft that reaches orbit. The idea of basically riding in a ship, basically going straight up, and then falling back down again, just does not interest me at all. They will have trouble filling seats 52 times a year, I think.

    But build me an orbiting hotel - and I'm there.

    1. Re:I simply would not be interested. by osee · · Score: 1

      Ever seen downhill (skiing|biking)? Not much point in that either. Yet people seem to be enjoying it tremendously :) I myself love the descent parts of cross country biking. btw. Most forms of biking does not include a destination among its goals...

  14. Powered Landing by satansovenmitt · · Score: 1

    My guess is Blue Origin VTOL vehicle will be using powered vertical landing like the DC-X - Delta Clipper design. While this design is not revolutionary it has some benefits, however there is a lot of wasted space since fuel needs for landing needs to be carried into orbit and back, water landings seem pretty much free to me. Also there have been some spectacular failures with this design... engine re-ignition is always a tricky one.

  15. The mods must be crazy by The_REAL_DZA · · Score: 1

    To paraphrase (ok, steal and then blatently modify) that old movie title, the mods MUST be crazy, because the parent post was hilarious! (I especially appreciated the use of "approximately pi" and the quite appropriate "2.17313508 X 10^-16 Parsecs", though it would have been cool if you could have figured out how to work in the classics "hogshead" and "fortnight"...)
    If I had a point, Nothing would get it.

    --


    This space intentionally left (almost) blank.
  16. Descent loaded with rocket fuel by osee · · Score: 1

    Yeah, good idea... The ship will have to bring back enough fuel to be able to do a soft touch down. Imagine the explosion when sth goes wrong during landing. Let's say during atmospheric reentry.

  17. Welcome to 1943 by jbeaupre · · Score: 1

    By that standard, so was the V2. No passengers though.
    How about Wan Hu legend in the 16th century?

    --
    The world is made by those who show up for the job.
  18. FAA Environmental Review by zentinal · · Score: 1

    In case you'd rather read the draft yourself, instead of depending upon Fox's analysis, here's a link to the draft environmental assissment.. Warning, it is a 229 page PDF. The exec. summary, however, is only 11 pages.

  19. Why can't we use journalistic units? by dmatos · · Score: 2, Funny

    "The Blue Origin spacecraft, being build by Amazon.com multi-millionaire Jeff Bezos' new venture, will have VTOL (vertical take-off and landing) capability, according to the company's FAA permit applications. It will be a pointed-shaped vehicle one sixth of a football field tall, and 270,000 human hair widths in diameter at the base, and carry as many passengers as can comfortably fit in a volkswagon beetle to an altitude of 260 empire state buildings (179 CN towers)."

    --

    It may look like I'm doing nothing, but I'm actively waiting for my problems to go away.
    --Scott Adams
    1. Re:Why can't we use journalistic units? by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      In the 1930's, a common military/engineering slang term for the smallest possible unit of adjustment was an "RCH", alternatively in the US a red (pubic) hair, and in England a royal (pubic) hair. If you look for it, you'll see it in old engineering articles, or, for instance, in H. Beam Piper's old scifi books, only they say "move it a red hair clockwise!" So measuring things by hairwidth has a good foundation in the sciences, as well as in popular news sources.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    2. Re:Why can't we use journalistic units? by Haeleth · · Score: 1

      It will be a pointed-shaped vehicle one sixth of a football field tall

      American or European football?

    3. Re:Why can't we use journalistic units? by dmatos · · Score: 1

      American football (and not the Canadian version, either). Isn't the playing field for European football called a "pitch"?

      --

      It may look like I'm doing nothing, but I'm actively waiting for my problems to go away.
      --Scott Adams
  20. I think the important question is by ichigo+2.0 · · Score: 1

    But how many libraries of congress per second is that?

    1. Re:I think the important question is by dmatos · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but the units are incompatible. Libraries of Congress are a measure of data. They are normally used to define the storage capabilities of innovative new computer media. "This new HD-DVD-ULTRA-SUPERDISC can store the equivalent of 14.7 Libraries of Congress." A Library of Congress per second would then be a measure of throughput.

      Granted, the Volkswagon Beetle is a confusing unit, as it can be used for either volume or mass. It's definition must be gleaned from context.

      --

      It may look like I'm doing nothing, but I'm actively waiting for my problems to go away.
      --Scott Adams
    2. Re:I think the important question is by ichigo+2.0 · · Score: 1

      That's not a problem, just chop up the library of congress into 3 passenger-sized pieces and divide that with the time it takes for the ship to reach orbit. :)

  21. Re:Hmmmm...more like Pheonix family of ssto by sirith · · Score: 1

    http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/history_of_the_ phoenix_vtol_ssto_and_recent_developments_in_singl e_stage_launch_systems.shtml

    All about the powered, precission landing, and quick turn around, reusable craft.

    --
    Humanism and realism over faith and delusion. Two hands working beats millions praying every time.
  22. Re:Normal units are boring! by mobby_6kl · · Score: 1

    ~pi? Just say pi, and mention Alabama somewhere in the footnote.

  23. Getting there by Malakusen · · Score: 1

    Sure it's not orbital. But the Wright Brothers didn't fly across the ocean in their first plane. Prop planes preceeded (sp?) jet planes. Once this starts getting popular and well developed, and it sounds like it will be a *very* fast way to get from point A to point B a long farging way aways, the design will be improved on. People will think of augmentations to it. Common use of it will inspire the next stage up from that. It's not a SSTOVTOL but it's getting there.

    *Single Stage To Orbit Vertical Take-Off & Landing, for those who don't read Larry Niven...

    --
    Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to conviction
  24. Useful as a first stage for an orbital craft by Latent+Heat · · Score: 2, Insightful
    While it would be nice to have a VTOL rocket craft that can reach Earth orbit, I think there will be more uses for this thing than people let on.

    The Redstone rocket was far from capable of achieving orbit -- it was pretty much straight up and back down as you say. Wiley Ley writes that the Redstone in its missile application didn't have range beyond 200 miles. But what the Hunstville people did was put a cluster of solid-fuel rocket stages on top of it, and not only could they reproduce the flight path of the much longer range Jupiter rocket for doing tests, they could get small payloads into orbit. A Redstone first stage followed by three more stages of clustered solid fuel rockets stuck on top was the Jupiter C. Not very high performance but stupid, simple, and reliable for its day. Not only did it fly a test trajectory for the up and coming Jupiter missile (the Jupiter C was not the Jupiter -- it was a Jupiter wannabe), it was capable of earth orbit years before Sputnik, but Ike wanted to go with the untested Vanguard because he did not want to use Army rockets (Jupiter) to avoid militarizing space. Of course Korolev got there first with Sputnik, the Vanguard blew up a couple of times trying to get there next, the Huntsville Germans finally got to fly their Redstone and launch Explorer 1, and a physics professor from Iowa named James Van Allen became a household word.

    I see Blue Origin as the new Redstone. If it provides a cheap, reusable access to suborbital space, it can act as a first stage to orbital craft for launching small payloads into orbit. Think of it, people have been talking about "flyback liquid-fueled boosters" for a long time -- this thing is a flyback booster.

    The other smart thing about Blue Origin is that the people ride in a separate capsule. It would be neat if the whole thing took off vertically and then landed vertically on rocket thrust with the crew and passengers inside. But this way, if the capsule lands separately on parachutes and landing rockets in the style of Soyuz, you don't have to worry about the people if the guidance system burps on the main spacecraft and the thing crumps on landing. The fact that Blue Origin has a capsule on top makes it just like a Redstone -- in addition to putting Shepherd and Grissom into a suborbit, it was capable of lofting an upper stage to put small instrument packages into orbit.

  25. Ya'll are missing the big new thing here by jnhtx · · Score: 1

    Everyone is locked on to VTOL, but that's not the real breakthrough here. The thing that is completely new is the idea of selling tickets to ride in an unpiloted vehicle of any sort.

    There has never, ever, been a flying vehicle carrying humans that didn't have a pilot with at least some control of the craft onboard.

    The big thing about this vehicle isn't that is VTOL, it is that will be the first ever passenger rated UAV.