Slashdot Mirror
Blue Origin "New Shepherd" Makes It To Space... and Back Again (arstechnica.com)
Geoffrey.landis writes: Blue Origin's "New Shepherd" suborbital vehicle made its first flight into space (defined as 100 km altitude)... and successfully landed both the capsule (by parachute) and the booster rocket (vertical landing under rocket power). This is the first time that a vehicle has made it into space and had all components fully recovered for reuse since the NASA flights of the X-15 in the 1960s. Check out the videos at various places on the web.
Flights that just pop up to the Karman line and back down are virtually nothing like flights that actually go to orbit. Even the X-15, which actually reached a quarter of orbital velocity, was far more like an orbital flight than a straight up/down jaunt.
The Karman line is only 1/3rd to 1/4 of the way to proper orbital altitude. And the energy required to achieve orbital altitude is only a tiny fraction of that required to reach orbital velocity. And the rocket equation means that the faster you want to go, the exponentially more mass it takes. These little up-down jaunts do nothing except to confuse the general public into thinking that they're doing something similar to orbital spaceflight.
I hate to bring up our imminent arrest during your crazy time, but we gotta move.
Cue the hordes of Slashdotters dying to show their allegiance to Musk by trolling and minimizing the accomplishment.
Billy (age 5): Look, Mommy, I writed a symphony!
Mom: Wrote, not writed, idiot. Let me see that. Harumph! This is barely a sonata. And no one writes for harpsichord anymore!
Billy: I wrote it for you! It's pretty, like you are!
Mom: Pandering, now? Disgusting. And I guess I would have been impressed, if Mozart hadn't beat you to it, by, oh, like, two hundred years!
"This is the first time that a vehicle has made it into space and had all components fully recovered for reuse..."
But those commenters who were cued will almost certainly queue to make comments. Perhaps we can get a Variety style headline out of this.
Going to space vs getting to orbit
LongTail SSH Brute Force analysis tool is here!
The New Shepard is named for Alan Shepard, not for people who tend sheep.
So at first I thought, oh wow a private enterprise space platform that can launch satellites, and perform useful endeavors. Nay, nay. Its just a reusable craft to give rich people a way to get 4 minutes of space exploration before parachuting back to earth. Gee, how noble.
What does it look like after landing in the desert?
The real difference is that in order to get a payload into orbit you need enough thrust to move the fuel required to get you there. This means powerful engines. This rocket had a small engine that is capable of hovering. On an orbital class rocket your engine will have too much thrust making it impossible to hover. That is what SpaceX is trying to do. Land using a thrust to weight greater than one. This is much more difficult than a hovering landing which SpaceX has already done multiple times, along with other test craft decades ago.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
Didn't SpaceShipOne and Two qualify as the first trip into space, and return, with reusable components? Yes, space in this case is a suborbital 100KM/62Mi flight. SpaceShipTwo was rocket powered, not dissimilar to the X-15 (well, a rocket plane, so to speak).
"Wang! Pay attention!"
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Did they land it on a barge?
No they did not land it on a barge.
Did they land it at sea?
No they did not land it at sea.
Blue Origin did not do these things I see.
So not as difficult can they be.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Competition is nothing but good for everyone in the long run, and as much as I think Elon Musk and SpaceX have done some pretty cool stuff, this Blue Origin company is showing that they too can do cool stuff and be competitive, and I can't see any way that's a bad thing for anyone. So how about you whiners and complainers stop whining and complaining and just enjoy that they did something that was a success?
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
I commute that far every day, and no one writes a slashdot article about me. These bastards do it once and suddenly they're fucking Iron Man.
You do musical analogies pretty damn well. Thank you!
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
Spaceship Two wasn't very reusable now was it?
oooohhhhh, too soon?....
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Great stuff, nice hobby.
I'm sorry, but I still maintain that Jeff Bezos' rocketry hobby is just that, the inconsequential hobby of a very rich man that will never really contribute much at all to the space "industry" other than having what essentially is a very expense drone for a guy that likes expensive toys.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Weren't both the White Knight and SpaceShipOne fully recovered for reuse? Wasn't that the point of the X-prize (and doing it twice in two weeks)?
links: SpaceShipOne and X-Prize.
OpenSource.MathCancer.org: open source comp bio
I disagree. The point (and it was clear even in the summary) is that the rocket landed back down. THAT's what was being tested. Granted, they didn't have to take as much propellant with them, but that isn't as big a deal when they were testing the ability to LAND from space.
Anything that goes up to this altitude eventually "lands", not always in one piece.
convergent evolution
Its great that they were able to achieve a suborbital flight with reusable hardware but are suborbital jaunts of this type really useful? Virgin Galactics basic system could eventually have some practical uses one day, such as suborbital high speed air travel (with major changes of course and a hefty price tag) but I don't see a suborbital capsule doing anything more than straight up and down trips.
The backlash here is because the article's author claims "Jeff Bezos finally one-upped Elon Musk in space."
That's completely inaccurate. Jeff Bezos' sub-orbital landing is the commercial jingle to Elon Musk's five-movement symphony of orbital re-entry and landing. Anybody who is saying this feat is more impressive is just ignorant.
To be more technically correct, the author could have claimed that Bezos one-upped Scaled Composites and Spaceship One, which made sub-orbital spaceflights several years ago to claim the Ansari X-Prize, but even then he has only really replicated their accomplishment. So the point isn't that the New Shepherd isn't technically impressive (it is) or that sub-orbital spaceflight is easy (it isn't), but that the article is totally wrong in its comparison to SpaceX.
Armadillo Aerospace has been able to reuse its stig rocket twice. Stig also made it close to 100 km. Alas, it was not able to do both at the same time. If Armadillo had more money, they probably would have been first.
Who knew we would already segment into different fanboy camps for commercial space flight.
In one camp we have the SpaceXers quickly pointing out that New Shepard "only" made it to the Karman line, which really, any mall drone can do. Pshh.
In the other camp, we have the Blue Origin supporters pointing out that getting a rocket to the edge of space and _landing_ it is a pretty cool feat in and of itself.
Then there are the Rutans, (rightly) pointing out that SpaceShipOne did this a few years back. So, what's new?
The Armadillos, unfortunately, are still trying to avoid becoming roadkill on the way to the party.
Here's the camp I'm in: This is commercial spaceflight! Non-states are succeeding in getting rockets and such into space! Let me repeat: we have companies sending craft to FREAKING SPACE! THIS IS AWESOME! THEY ARE ALL AWESOME!
-Chris
SpaceShip One touched space and all elements were recovered and flew to space again.
BO's demonstration is more publicity than practical rocketry. It doesn't look like the aerodynamic elements of BO's current rocket are suitable for recovery after orbital injection, just after a straight up-down space tourism flight with no potential for orbit, just like SpaceShip One (and Two). They can't put an object in space and have it stay in orbit. They can just take dudes up for a short and expensive view and a little time in zero gee.
It's going to be real history when SpaceX recovers the first stage after an orbital injection, in that it will completely change the economics of getting to space and staying there.
Bruce Perens.
Believe it or not this happened to me. That's why I'm so screwed [In fact it was (is) a suite]
Why don't we all agree, there's now 2 vehicle designs, non-NASA built, that can land vertically.
Debate is good, but this (2 vendors) is great.
Blue Origin took about 9 years to recreate a ~50 year old NASA project which took about 10 years.
Just a few centuries more and they'll be caught up.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
The dust up and sudden stop of the crew module looked really painful! The last line of the video, "so who wants to go into space?". I do, but not be spam in a can on the return!
IMHO, SpaceX is still way ahead having delivered to the ISS and completed landings on land (okay so not the full monty) and is attempting to land on an ocean platform. The last of which when coupled with seaborne launching gives them the more efficient ability to do equatorial launches.
I always thought that SpaceX made a mistake by trying to land their booster on the pitching/rolling deck of a ship. I like SpaceX, but congratulations to Blue Origin on a successful recovery.
Congrats, on getting to the point SpaceX was years ago! Are there on plans on the drawing board to do something new?