Blue Origin To Launch Big Rockets From Canaveral's Rechristened Complex 36

As reported by The Verge, Jeff Bezos's space venture Blue Origin today unveiled its new facility at Cape Canaveral's Launch Complex 36. Complex 36 was once the launching point for NASA and USAF Atlas rockets, as well as for NASA's Mariner missions. "Now," says the article, "after a decade of inactivity, the complex will be revamped and renamed Exploration Park. ... Bezos said the company hopes to launch people from Exploration Park later this decade. He also announced plans to build a new orbital rocket at the facility, which he noted will use the company's upcoming BE-4 engine." (More coverage of the Blue Origin opening at the L.A. Times and Wired.)

Comments

Lex Luthor

[Anonymous Coward]

Does Jeff Bezos remind anyone else of Lex Luthor?

Re:Lex Luthor

[kyubre]

The egyptian pharaoh version of Lex Luthor... While the slaves are busy building his empire of a pyramid, he's preparing for his passage into the heavens.

Re:Lex Luthor

[davester666]

And he's taking it all with him.

How long to a real revolution in engine tech ?

[Anonymous Coward]

While these are good things to be seeing, they are only incremental changes on what has gone before.

How far is humanity off from a _real_ advance in engine technology which will greatly advance what we can do in space and what form is that engine technology likely to take ?

While warp drive would be nice, the kind of thing I am actually thinking about is the ability for a manned spacecraft to reach any planet in the solar system within, say, a couple of months or better.

Re:How long to a real revolution in engine tech ?

[FlyHelicopters]

We won't have a real advance in rocket motors until we get over our collective fear of "OMG the nuclears!".

Chemical reactions do not provide nearly enough power to weight thrust to move in space at reasonable speeds.

Re:How long to a real revolution in engine tech ?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not like you can pretend that "OMG teh nuculars" isn't actually founded in real concerns.

There's a little place in Ukraine which will be inhabitable in another 10,000 years or so, and Japan is still dealing with the fallout.

Or are you just going to stupidly insist we just say "fuck it" and keep trying until we figure it out? Because that would be moronic.

Re: How long to a real revolution in engine tech ?

[Anonymous Coward]

There won't be one because our Republican rulers hate science.

Re:How long to a real revolution in engine tech ?

[Anonymous Coward]

wat.

Re:How long to a real revolution in engine tech ?

[Anonymous Coward]

We won't have a real advance in rocket motors until we get over our collective fear of "OMG the nuclears!".

Chemical reactions do not provide nearly enough power to weight thrust to move in space at reasonable speeds.

And the small fact no one has built a nuclear rocket... score 4 informative? Are you serious?
I have a hard bound "fundamentals of nuclear flight" and all you need to do is google jack ass flats to see how far we got.

http://www.nv.doe.gov/library/factsheets/DOENV_763.pdf

Re:How long to a real revolution in engine tech ?

[Gr8Apes]

Nuclear, or even anti-matter/matter, engines are still propellant based, and Orion from the 50s was and is a viable system. Only issue is an Orion craft would realistically have to be built in orbit, preferably around the moon, and fired off so it's not pointing at earth. It's also more suited to much longer voyages, rather than intra-solar system.

That said, physics needs to give us a new means of traveling from one point in space to another before a true advance in space travel technology can happen.

Re:How long to a real revolution in engine tech ?

[joelsherrill]

The study of nuclear rocket engines has a history dating back to the early 1950s. There was a Space Nuclear Propulsion Office until 1972. A NERVA is on exhibit at the US Space and Rocket Center. I also noticed that UAHuntsville and NASA Marshall appear to have been investigating this technology for at least the past few years based on news announcements and published papers. If you want to know what challenges are still ahead and how ready the technology is, checkout some of the recent published material.

Re: How long to a real revolution in engine tech ?

[Anonymous Coward]

They like science just fine when it leads to better weapons.

Re: How long to a real revolution in engine tech ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Precisely. Add to that that democrats keep pushing the idea that any idea no matter how stupid is just as valid as any other & that blaming the republicans for everything is the best way to get elected & we see why the republican ideas are accepted by so many.

Re:How long to a real revolution in engine tech ?

[thinkwaitfast]

No, that's narrow thinking in that there's is one way to do things. The real revolution occurs when it becomes inexpensive enough to let the world's billion or so kids start hacking on space projects like they did with computers in the 70's-80's. That's a lot free labor and new ideas rather than the current dozen or so players steeped in legacy thinking. Imagine where cell phones would be today if the PC were never invented.

Re: How long to a real revolution in engine tech ?

[thinkwaitfast]

Who's More Pro-Science, Republicans or Democrats? - Neil deGrasse Tyson

Re:How long to a real revolution in engine tech ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I assume you're referring to the Semipalatinsk Test Site? If that's the case its in Kazakhstan, not Ukraine. And it took over 450 nuclear detonations, done with little regard to the consequences, to turn it into what it is today. Even so it is a relatively small contaminated area compared to the continent/former USSR. With what we know now about radiation, newer materials, newer manufacturing techniques, etc, as long as we don't do monumentally stupid things (like placing emergency backup generators in a flood zone, see Fukushima) preventing most nuclear accidents is relatively easy.

Re:How long to a real revolution in engine tech ?

[Medievalist]

We won't have a real advance in rocket motors until we get over our collective fear of "OMG the nuclears!".

Chemical reactions do not provide nearly enough power to weight thrust to move in space at reasonable speeds.

I know, man. If it wasn't for all the NIMBYs, we'd have put men on the moon by now!

Re:How long to a real revolution in engine tech ?

[lgw]

And the small fact no one has built a nuclear rocket.

The Russians did, or at least the motor. It used the moderator as the thrust mass, IIRC, so once it was out of fuel the reactor would shut down. Not sure how well it would work - dense power is great, but once you're out of Earth orbit only ISP (i.e., exhaust velocity) really matters, and you wouldn't want to use this close to Earth.

Re:How long to a real revolution in engine tech ?

[FlyHelicopters]

Launching stuff into space isn't a "hacking problem", it is a physics problem.

The amount of energy that has to be imparted on 1lb of "stuff" to put it 400 miles up and traveling at 17,500 mph cannot be ignored.

It takes a huge volume and weight of fuel to make that happen. Chemical reactions are the problem, they just don't make enough energy per pound to make space travel all that useful.

Re:How long to a real revolution in engine tech ?

[FlyHelicopters]

We put 12 people on the moon by brute forcing it with a huge sum of money and a massive rocket that was never really safe to begin with, all to have a few hours to walk around up there.

It worked, and it is just amazing how it all happened, but it wasn't a sustainable future which is why the last three missions were canceled.

It is simply not reasonable to launch Saturn V rockets to put 2 people on the moon for a day. The cost/return ratio is, pardon the pun, out of this world. :)

Re:How long to a real revolution in engine tech ?

[kellymcdonald78]

The rocket equation is an uncompromising bitch. Until we come up with a reactionless "woo woo" drive. Its all about efficiently expelling mass at high speed out of the back of your spacecraft (thrust and specific impulse). The only way to get high thrust, high impulse is with nuclear or antimatter (chemical and solar don't have the energy density)

Re:How long to a real revolution in engine tech ?

[kellymcdonald78]

I think he's referencing Chernobyl, which is so inhabitable, there are people living there right now and Belarus is already reclaiming land that was originally in the exclusion zone. Sure you don't want to go partying up in the Red Forest, but most of the zone is very much habitable

Re:How long to a real revolution in engine tech ?

[kellymcdonald78]

that should read "so uninhabitable"

Re:How long to a real revolution in engine tech ?

[kellymcdonald78]

-40 years. As in we had it, but threw it away. NERVA was pretty much flight ready in the late '60s

Re:How long to a real revolution in engine tech ?

[FlyHelicopters]

There's a little place in Ukraine which will be inhabitable in another 10,000 years or so, and Japan is still dealing with the fallout.

I can only assume you mean Chernobyl.

First, that was an example of extreme human stupidity, and while we can't promise humans won't be stupid again, it is worth noting that a few bad events compared to the huge number of good ones shouldn't cause us to all give up.

It is also worth noting that the bulk of the area around Chernobyl is now safe to move back to. This idea that the whole area is unsafe for 10,000 years is just silly.

Re:How long to a real revolution in engine tech ?

[FlyHelicopters]

Yep, you're right... Except directly around the reactor itself, most of that area is now at fairly safe levels.

The area that is "unsafe" continues to shrink every year. While the reactor core itself will remain unsafe for a long time, the actual amount of land lost is pretty minor.

And of course they broke every safety rule in the book when they blew up the reactor.

First, we shouldn't be building such unsafe designs in the first place and we should be taking the existing ones out of service.

Second, we should be building much safer designs, after all the technology has moved on a lot in 30 years. It would move on even more if we bothered to get over our "OMG the nuclears" fears.

And finally, if we limit ourselves to solar, wind, and hydro power (since coal, oil, and natural gas are not long term options), then we aren't going anywhere and are doomed long term as a species.

Re:How long to a real revolution in engine tech ?

[FlyHelicopters]

Nuclear, or even anti-matter/matter, engines are still propellant based, and Orion from the 50s was and is a viable system.

Perhaps, or perhaps not... NASA's Ion Drive was a nice step forward. Not useful for leaving Earth's Gravity Well, but a nice advance for moving between planets using less mass for a given unit of acceleration...

The reality is that not enough work has been done to develop them.

Imagine for a min if the best jet engines we had were the ones used in the Gloster Meteor and the ME-262, and someone suggested building a 747 using jet power. You'd think they were nuts. And you'd be right, if that was the limit of your vision.

But jet engines developed rapidly from the 40's, to the 50's and beyond, so that today we have amazingly reliable, fuel efficient, powerful engines that would have been pure fantasy in 1944.

So you have to be willing to imagine a future when they are far, far better than today. Because chemical rockets aren't it.

Re:How long to a real revolution in engine tech ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thrust still matters, it's just not as critical as at launch. A high thrust engine can still make use of the Oberth effect (even from a nuclear safe orbit), so they're more efficient at converting isp and fuel into delta v. For interplanetary missions (particularly crewed missions), NTRs also significantly improve payload mass fraction while allowing use of a free return trajectory or a trajectory allowing abort to free return (Apollo style) without using the main engines.

Also, nuclear rockets have been built, they just haven't been flown.

Re:How long to a real revolution in engine tech ?

[MrKaos]

I think he's referencing Chernobyl, which is so inhabitable, there are people living there right now and Belarus is already reclaiming land that was originally in the exclusion zone. Sure you don't want to go partying up in the Red Forest, but most of the zone is very much habitable

Except for people who have, or want to have, children.

Re:How long to a real revolution in engine tech ?

[dunkelfalke]

There are people living in landfills. Doesn't mean the landfills are habitable, only that people are desperate.
The roads in the zone are generally safe, but outside roads it is fair game. There are very dangerous invisible radiation hotspots and if you find an animal carcass you can bet it is pretty radioactive as well.

Re:How long to a real revolution in engine tech ?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

That's not true, not by a long shot. There's plenty of work to be done on chemical engines alone, because the elephant in the room is manufacturing and maintenance costs, NOT performance.

Re:How long to a real revolution in engine tech ?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Energy is actually a red herring here. The energy itself is a negligible portion of the costs of current spaceflight. The overwhelming portion of costs is in expensive human labor involved.

Re:How long to a real revolution in engine tech ?

[FlyHelicopters]

except energy is one of the reasons for the huge labor costs.

If you didn't require an expendable vehicle the size of Saturn V just to put 2 people on the moon for a day, then that cost could be much lower.

Materials, labor, energy, all cost something. A small, efficient, reusable spacecraft that could lift objects for a fraction of the effort currently expended is what is needed.

Re:How long to a real revolution in engine tech ?

[FlyHelicopters]

You should do some math on the energy required to move six people, all the stuff they need to live for a year, from Earth to Mars in 3 months.

Then you should figure out the size of the chemical rocket you'll need to do that. Just for fun, I'll let you cut the final number in half.

It will still be a stupidly massive huge number that isn't reasonable.

Then you should do the same math for a trip to Jupiter's moons, this time taking 6 months. This time I'll be really nice and let you cut the number down to 25%, assuming large advances in chemical rockets.

Same stupid big number.

We aren't going anywhere using chemical rockets, the size gets to unreasonable numbers amazingly quickly.

Re:How long to a real revolution in engine tech ?

[kellymcdonald78]

You mean like Denver Colorado? Background radiation exposure in Denver is worse than the vast majority of the Chernobyl or Fukushima exclusion zones. There are specific hot spots that are dangerous, but these can be easily detected and remediated (if small) or marked

Re:How long to a real revolution in engine tech ?

[kellymcdonald78]

Are the hundreds of thousands of people who live in Denver desperate? Background radiation there is much higher than the vast majority of the Chernobyl and Fukushima exclusion zones. Dangerous hotspots can be detected and marked

Re:How long to a real revolution in engine tech ?

[dunkelfalke]

I think you are vastly underestimating the radiation levels in the exclusion zone. Maybe you should try to go there once, with a dosimeter. A day tour from Kiev is easily doable, but if you go offroad, prepare to discard your clothes afterwards.

Why? Because what you fail do understand is that the background radiation is the least of your worries. Radionuclides in the dust, in the soil and generally in the environment are. You will contaminate your clothes, that is for sure. You can easily contaminate your food if you are not very careful and there is a good chance to breathe in radioactive dust.

Anyway, if you have balls to try it out, you better speak some Russian, though, because Ukrainians usually don't speak English well, if at all. That is the case even among the younger population. You will also see how the locals don't give a damn about their safety (crazy driving habits and so on).

Re:How long to a real revolution in engine tech ?

[Gr8Apes]

So you have to be willing to imagine a future when they are far, far better than today. Because chemical rockets aren't it.

Exactly my point. The Ion drive was a nice step forward although it too is a reaction drive and is limited by physics we all know and understand today. Solar sails have their uses and possibilities, but still offer no leap forward. We'd need to understand some new physics before a leap can occur.

Re:How long to a real revolution in engine tech ?

[MrKaos]

I'm referring to radionuclide contamination as a result of these releases that are difficult to detect in the food chain or as inhalants, as opposed to localized emitted radiation.

Re:How long to a real revolution in engine tech ?

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

I'm referring to radionuclide contamination as a result of these releases that are difficult to detect in the food chain or as inhalants, as opposed to localized emitted radiation.

There is no such thing as a radionuclide that's difficult to detect. Or rather, there's no such thing as an active radionuclide that's difficult to detect. We can accurately measure every single decay, and from a distance to boot. The ones that are more difficult to detect are the ones which very long half-lives, and in that case their danger comes from their chemical properties anyway, not their radiological properties.

Re:How long to a real revolution in engine tech ?

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

Why? Because what you fail do understand is that the background radiation is the least of your worries. Radionuclides in the dust, in the soil and generally in the environment are. You will contaminate your clothes, that is for sure. You can easily contaminate your food if you are not very careful and there is a good chance to breathe in radioactive dust.

Uhh, "Radioniclides in the dust, in the soil and generally in the environment" is the definition of background radiation. It doesn't matter where it comes from. Radiation is radiation when we're talking population risks.

And background radiation is what we're talking about. You'd do well to read up on the places where the background radiation is high and the population studies that have been done on those places and the large accidental irradiations (the Taiwan one is illustrating). Furthermore, while it's much too early to say that radiation hormesis is real, the LNT-model is dead and done for. You'd do well to read up on the many studies that have been done on the subject.

Re:How long to a real revolution in engine tech ?

[kellymcdonald78]

Well I'm not planning to learn Russian to prove someone on the internet is wrong. But I would eagerly and happily visit the exclusion zones in either Ukraine or Japan, after all the most dangerous part of the trip would be the drive to and from the airport. I have visited Chalk River (the site of several nuclear accidents) You on the other hand are vastly overestimating the radiation levels in the exclusion zone. A extensive survey conducted by the Ukraine in 2012 found that 94% of the settlements within their portion of the exclusion zone could be resettled without restrictions due to radiation. In 2010 Belarus found that 80% of the settlements in their portion of the exclusion zone could be resettled without restrictions. In the other places (where some restrictions would be required), the limits for the vast majority of these areas concern the burning of local wood, or the consumption certain wild mushrooms. Cesium levels are now below background and Chernobyl is now a tourist attraction. The biggest limitations to resettlement is the infrastructure that has decayed over the past 30 years and has to be rebuilt at the cost of several billion dollars

Re:How long to a real revolution in engine tech ?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

I thought we were talking about the kinetic energy of the payload and the necessary fuel... That is ridiculously cheap. (And regarding manufacturing energy, an actual study would come in handy for that.)

Re:How long to a real revolution in engine tech ?

[MrKaos]

I'm referring to radionuclide contamination as a result of these releases that are difficult to detect in the food chain or as inhalants, as opposed to localized emitted radiation.

There is no such thing as a radionuclide that's difficult to detect.

In a lab certainly, it's a whole lot different for a vegetable packer or a water bottling plant or a consumer with a meal in front of them. It would look kind of silly waving a geiger counter over a plate of spaghetti - is that what you are proposing?

Or rather, there's no such thing as an active radionuclide that's difficult to detect. We can accurately measure every single decay, and from a distance to boot. The ones that are more difficult to detect are the ones which very long half-lives, and in that case their danger comes from their chemical properties anyway, not their radiological properties.

That's great however I don't think that it is practical for farmers to do this.

Re:How long to a real revolution in engine tech ?

[FlyHelicopters]

No, it isn't cheap, because at some point you're just hauling fuel to lift the fuel which you need to lift more fuel.

If the fuel wasn't so big and heavy, you wouldn't need so much of it.

Chemical reactions don't provide enough impulse per pound of weight to be useful for space travel.

Re:How long to a real revolution in engine tech ?

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

You're suggesting it's difficult for a vegetable packer or a water bottling plant? These are industrial processes, where it's trivial to measure radioactivity as and when the products are processed and packaged. Especially in the case of the water bottling plant. Do you seriously think they don't measure the chemical properties of the water they're bottling as it is? Adding a step in that process, a step that is simpler and easier to measure than other properties they are already measuring is cheap and easy.

When it comes to the consumer, measuring radioactivity is of course fraught with problems, But most of those problems are problems of false alarms, i.e. thinking foodstuff is contaminated that really isn't. So that's not a safety concern as such, more of a nuisance. If you want to do it as a consumer it would be completely possible (if a bit over the top). Compare that with biological or chemical contaminants where it would be completely impractical, that is, impossible to do anything worthwhile when the food is already on your plate. Much, much, more difficult to detect and classify. You have to basically perform a different cumbersome test for each and every contaminant you're looking for. Tests that would take days in the case of biological contaminants. In the case of radioactive contamination it really is (more or less) as easy as "waving a Geiger counter" over the plate. And a good calibrated Geiger counter can be had for less than a common smartphone...

There's even historical precedent. What did you think we did in Sweden past Chernobyl? Yes, it caught us by surprise, the initial detection being made by a nuclear power plant in the eastern parts, but "fool me twice" and all that. We're continuously monitoring the air from the east for radiological contamination, and the food supply chain was checked both overall and individually when that was warranted, with recommendations for which foodstuffs to avoid and where to get game meat from e.g. moose tested. As large scale contamination goes, this one was easy compared to all the other crap that falls from the sky.

So not only is securing the food supply chain from radioactive contaminants reaching the consumer doable, and doable on a large scale. We have historically already done it.

Re:How long to a real revolution in engine tech ?

[MrKaos]

Do you seriously think they don't measure the chemical properties of the water they're bottling as it is?

I think they take a sample at some interval and base everything on that. Do you think they examine every bottle and print a custom label for every one of the hundreds of millions of units they ship?

Adding a step in that process, a step that is simpler and easier to measure than other properties they are already measuring is cheap and easy.

Unless every unit is examined, as opposed to a sample quantity, then it is useless. Specifically we are talking about how detecting a radionuclide, like 239pu, in the microgram range, in a moderator of radioactivity at industrial packaging rates would be close to impossible. I also think the machine that could do that, the training to operate it and the disruption it would cause to the industrial process would add huge amounts of costs to the foodstuffs.

However, it's interesting what you say and if you can show me that such a machine that is available to industry now then I'd be able to see that it is possible. Right now it sounds idealistic.

When it comes to the consumer, measuring radioactivity is of course fraught with problems, But most of those problems are problems of false alarms, i.e. thinking foodstuff is contaminated that really isn't. So that's not a safety concern as such, more of a nuisance. If you want to do it as a consumer it would be completely possible (if a bit over the top).

My point is the threshold where you need to do it so you don't get some cancer. Why should we *need* to do this just to have nuclear power.

Compare that with biological or chemical contaminants where it would be completely impractical, that is, impossible to do anything worthwhile when the food is already on your plate. Much, much, more difficult to detect and classify. You have to basically perform a different cumbersome test for each and every contaminant you're looking for. Tests that would take days in the case of biological contaminants.

I don't understand. Are you saying that because biological contaminants already exist in food then it's ok to increase the radiological load?

In the case of radioactive contamination it really is (more or less) as easy as "waving a Geiger counter" over the plate. And a good calibrated Geiger counter can be had for less than a common smartphone...

It might be a rather amusing way to freak out other dining companions. Imagine your meals hitting the table, you pop out the gc and say, 'Let me just check my meal for radionuclides so I don't get cancer....No, I'll be fine' as you put it away. I think I would die laughing at the looks on everyone's face secretly wanting to check there own just to be sure. I might do it next time I go for sushi for a laugh.

There's even historical precedent. What did you think we did in Sweden past Chernobyl? Yes, it caught us by surprise, the initial detection being made by a nuclear power plant in the eastern parts, but "fool me twice" and all that. We're continuously monitoring the air from the east for radiological contamination, and the food supply chain was checked both overall and individually when that was warranted, with recommendations for which foodstuffs to avoid and where to get game meat from e.g. moose tested.

I don't doubt what you say (Is Moose good to eat?) but when governments fuck up or get caught un-aware they tend to lie to keep people calm. I'm certain that Sweden is probably one of the better quality governments out there, however I also have zero doubt that the political party of the day would use the opportunity to lie and gain good will with the people.

As large scale contamination goes, this one was easy compared to all the other crap that falls from the sky.

So not only is securing the food supp

Re:How long to a real revolution in engine tech ?

[Medievalist]

The cost/return ratio is, pardon the pun, out of this world. :)

So, exactly the same as nuclear, only with less fetish-stroking.

Nuclear fantasies are a staple of Slashdot forums, but I personally think fission technology is both quaint and unsuited to observable human behavioral patterns. Thank god I live in a country with some pitiful semblance of democracy, so that the majority will occasionally prevails, despite insanities like the Cheney energy policy.

Re:How long to a real revolution in engine tech ?

[FlyHelicopters]

So my question then becomes... if you really want to be nuclear free, what then?

How are we going to provide a stable, reliable power grid so that people can have dependable 24/7 power?

Solar and wind alone? I've given this some through and honestly I just don't see that as a viable option. Oh, in a few places it might be... but to be completely free of coal, oil, and natural gas, you'd need it to be viable everywhere.

That isn't likely to happen in our lifetimes.

So a vote against nuclear is really a vote for coal, oil, and natural gas. Is that ok with you then?

Re:How long to a real revolution in engine tech ?

[Medievalist]

So a vote against nuclear is really a vote for coal, oil, and natural gas. Is that ok with you then?

Ah, the fallacy of the excluded middle. I'm afraid that's complete bullshit.

If you look at any reputable analysis (that is, ignore the fake nuke shill ones put out by Fred Singer and pals) you'll find that solar and wind would be quite possible - as long as you are OK with the same kind of massive public funding and international co-operation that nukes also require. And while tens of thousands of windmills are an attractive military target, a single fission plant is even more so.

But personally I'd rather have a distributed, agriculturally based carbon-neutral methane power scheme. We've already got most of the infrastructure, including coastal pipelines that feed huge natgas power plants. Generate jobs and eliminate pollution at the same time, and go completely coal, nuke and frack gas free in a single generation - all for less than the total amounts spent on the last eight years of war.

Re:How long to a real revolution in engine tech ?

[FlyHelicopters]

Ah, the fallacy of the excluded middle. I'm afraid that's complete bullshit.

You calling it bullshit doesn't make it so...

I'm dealing with what is, not what is technically possible if I were King and could dictate solutions.

Is a massive solar/wind system technically possible? Yes, of course it is.

It is politically possible? No, not even close. There are too many actors in that game with too many different interests and conflicting points of view.

If you look at any reputable analysis (that is, ignore the fake nuke shill ones put out by Fred Singer and pals) you'll find that solar and wind would be quite possible - as long as you are OK with the same kind of massive public funding and international co-operation that nukes also require.

You can fund solar and wind all you like, you run into issues of distribution and storage. While it is true that the sun is always shining somewhere and the wind is always blowing somewhere, that doesn't help when the power can't get from there to where it is needed. And that isn't a problem that money alone will solve, it is a political and national security issue.

Batteries aren't really the solution, they will never last long enough and people don't want to go without power. I recall an exceptional event in 2007, it rained here for 45 straight days. Could wind have made up the difference? Maybe, but I like the fact that the power is 24/7 reliable, wind and solar will never be due to how humans have divided up the planet.

That might change in the future, but it won't be in our lifetimes.

---

Do not misunderstand, I have no problem with building wind and solar where they made sense. We may see their share of US total power rise to 20% combined in the next 20 years. I don't think we'll ever see it pass 50% in our lifetimes, for various political and social reasons. It might pass 50% in our children's lifetimes, but I think it would take a reordering of the world's political systems to get it to 100%.

ReChristening?

[ThatsNotPudding]

Paging Inigo Montoya.

NASA is now just a landlord

[Anonymous Coward]

The era of manned space exploration has closed, for now. The Republicans and Democrats in Congress have so slashed the NASA budget, that NASA
is reduced to being just the landlord at Cape Canaveral. The next US-sponsored manned flight is more than five years away to test the next gen systems (if the Tea Party doesn't kill it altogether). Most of the integration and launch facilities have now been leased to Boeing, Lockheed, Bezos, etc.
This straight from the horse's mouth: I was at a lecture by the Administrator of Cape Canaveral last month.

Re:NASA is now just a landlord

[Anonymous Coward]

From what I understand NASA's budget has actually increased, it hasn't kept up with inflation mind you, but it hasn't done that since the early 90s. The big problem is most of their money has been redirected from science & exploration the the giant boondoggle officially named "Space Launch System", but "Senate Launch System" is probably the better fitting name.

Wow, /. has gone full winger retard

[Anonymous Coward]

Posts that told the truth used to be voted upward, but now with the new CONservative ownership of /. anyone telling the truth is marked as a troll. It's been sad watching this site die. Die. That is what they want for all of us. To die.

Re:Wow, /. has gone full winger retard

[bughunter]

Yea, even metamods punish upmodding of liberal posts. I get less mod points less often if I promote ideas that are conservative bogeymen.

Worse, even if a post gets to a +5, if it's got ideas or statements that conservative trolls want to suppress, then they'll send in their moderator accounts the following day, after the story falls off the front page, to mod the post down to 0 or -1 so that when the thread gets archived, that score is locked in.

Amazing how they're able to do that. They must have an army of sockpuppets.

Re:Wow, /. has gone full winger retard

[Anonymous Coward]

We who mod don't want everyone to die. Just the anonymous cowards like you that keep posting their off topic tripe.

Heh.

[EnsilZah]

So they're planning to build a rocket based on the same engines they're going to sell to ULA, which I'm sure comes as no surprise to anyone who's been following this stuff.
I guess it just speaks to ULA's desperation, to design their new rocket based on engines supplied by their future competitor.

Interesting times in the launch market

[werepants]

Aerojet-Rocketdyne just offered to buy ULA. ULA was planning on using Blue Origin's BE-4 engine for their upcoming Vulcan rocket, but if the AR purchase goes through there's no way the Vulcan will use anything but AR engines. Or maybe they'll just re-engine Atlas V with an AR replacement for the Russian RD-180 engine.

So I'm reading this as Bezos deciding that if ULA goes to AR, he's going to build his own BE-4 based rocket, with blackjack and hookers. If that pans out, we could have a pretty competitive landscape - BO vs SpaceX vs ULA/AR.

The question is if the launch market can support that many competitors, or if new customers will start to emerge. Historically we've only seen a market for a dozen or so yearly launches for this class of rocket, and if prices stay the same I don't imagine that will change much. We can root for a pricewar between Musk and Bezos which would expand the market, but that's a pretty rough prospect for ULA which does things the old, expensive way, and actually needs to turn a profit since there isn't a billionaire waiting in the wings to write them checks as needed.

Re:Interesting times in the launch market

[Fire_Wraith]

It's not a bad idea. After all, I hear hookers have a very high lift to thrust ratio...

Re:Interesting times in the launch market

[bughunter]

he's going to build his own BE-4 based rocket, with blackjack and hookers.

That sounds like an awesome rocket. Where do I sign up?

And do I need to bring my own single malt and cocaine?

Re:Interesting times in the launch market

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Aerojet-Rocketdyne just offered to buy ULA. ULA was planning on using Blue Origin's BE-4 engine for their upcoming Vulcan rocket, but if the AR purchase goes through there's no way the Vulcan will use anything but AR engines. Or maybe they'll just re-engine Atlas V with an AR replacement for the Russian RD-180 engine.

If AR actually buys ULA, the future competitiveness of ULA's vehicle will go down the drain. This would be very good news to SpaceX and BO!

Skipping drones right to rockets.

[fahrbot-bot]

Amazon is obviously getting pretty serious about their Guaranteed Delivery Dates.

Re:Skipping drones right to rockets.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your Prime membership will include not only a discount on launches, but faster delivery times for $2.99.

Jam Tomorrow

[Anonymous Coward]

For quite some time I have been hearing what Blue Origin is going to do, but I haven't heard of anything they have actually done. Have I missed some exciting launches or missed a sale on Amazon or something?

Tactfully said but

[Dunbal]

Bezos said the company hopes to launch people from Exploration Park later this decade.

Someone needs to remind Jeff that launching people is the easy part. In fact when you sit people on top of that much rocket fuel, it's pretty hard NOT to launch them. Getting them to where they need to in one piece, however. Well that's tricky.

Re:Tactfully said but

[MrKaos]

Bezos said the company hopes to launch people from Exploration Park later this decade.

Someone needs to remind Jeff that launching people is the easy part. In fact when you sit people on top of that much rocket fuel, it's pretty hard NOT to launch them. Getting them to where they need to in one piece, however. Well that's tricky.

Well it's debatable whether it would matter to Bezos if they lost a crew from the way Amazon works.

Wait just a minute

[Anonymous Coward]

BE-4 engine....Jeff Bezos is Noonian Soong!