Slashdot Mirror


Blue Origin Lands Rocket During Launch Escape Test (gizmodo.com)

SpaceX isn't the only private company interested in reusable rockets. Blue Origin, an American privately-funded aerospace manufacturer established by Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos, surprised everyone, including itself, by successfully landing its New Shepard rocket in today's in-flight launch escape test. Gizmodo reports: Moments ago, Blue Origin conducted an in flight test of its launch escape system, separating a crew capsule from its New Shepard booster at an altitude of 16,000 feet. This test was critical to ensure that the rocket will be safe for human passengers, whom Blue Origin hopes to start flying into sub-orbital space as early as next year. Not only did the crew capsule make a clean separation, deploy its parachutes, and land softly in a small cloud of dust back on Earth, but the booster -- which everybody expected to go splat -- continued on its merry way into suborbital space, after which it succeeded in landing smoothly back on Earth for a fifth time. Although Blue Origin has tested its launch escape system on the launchpad before, this is the first time such a system has been tested, by anyone, in flight since the 1960s. It was almost too perfect. You can watch the test here.

89 comments

  1. Competition.... by vikingpower · · Score: 1

    ...seems to show one of its many upsides. This may spur SpaceX to do at least as well, or better. Forget about Boeing et al.. These are small, agile (in the dictionary sense, not in the software engineering sense) companies that can move, react and even pivot in a way Boeing et al. could not even begin to dream of. Great job, Blue Origin! Now it's SpaceX's move.

    --
    Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
    1. Re:Competition.... by SJ · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Given that Blue Origin are still yet to actually reach space, i'd say it's still their move...

    2. Re:Competition.... by bruce_the_loon · · Score: 1

      Well SpaceX has done the Dragon 2 pad abort test successfully and has the in-flight abort test scheduled for mid-2017. And has landed several first stages, so I guess they're about the same distance along in the development. Unlike Boeing.

      --
      Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
    3. Re:Competition.... by Spy+Handler · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They are not a competition for SpaceX since SpaceX does not do suborbital flights.

      Blue Origin's actual competition is Virgin Galactic, which is also trying to get paying passengers on 15-minute suborbital flights.

      The difference between a suborbital and an orbital flight is like the difference between a Schwinn bicycle and a Ford F-150 pickup truck.

    4. Re:Competition.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Blue Origin reached space multiple times. What they didn't reach yet is an orbital trajectory for their payload.

    5. Re:Competition.... by dunkelfalke · · Score: 2

      Funny thing that USA didn't point out this difference when Alan Shepard had his flight.

      But yes, they are not a competition for SpaceX since SpaceX does not do manned flights.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    6. Re:Competition.... by dargaud · · Score: 1

      Actually most books about space mention that John Glenn was the first American in Space, skipping Sheppard (and his successor whom I cannot recall) entirely.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    7. Re:Competition.... by vikingpower · · Score: 3, Informative

      The order is: Shepard, Grissom, Glenn, Carpenter, Cooper, Shirra, Borman, Lovell.... (source: "The Parliament of Poets", by Frederick Glaysher)

      --
      Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
    8. Re:Competition.... by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      Abort test! that the one they did at the start of last month?

    9. Re:Competition.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blue (and SpaceX) have been working towards this stuff for years. It's the exact *opposite* of business agility: it's project focus, without any shareholder or manager kibbitzing to distract from that focus, and with deep enough pockets to follow through to good results.

      SpaceX have an in-flight abort planned too, but don't get distracted by daily headlines (that's how you lose focus, grasshopper). Both have been on big ol' Gantt charts for a long time.

    10. Re:Competition.... by michelcolman · · Score: 2

      Blue Origin reached space multiple times. What they didn't reach yet is an orbital trajectory for their payload

      which is the hard part.

    11. Re:Competition.... by silentcoder · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You don't have to be in orbit to be in space. That was never part of the definition. The standard definition is passing the Karman line - which is between 90 and 100km above earth (depending on where you launch from and the air pressures - but generally by convention assumed to be 100km or above). That's being in space. The next definition is leaving the atmosphere - again the boundary is not perfectly clearly defined but generally taken as being above 150km.

      Those are "in space" the difference between orbital and suborbital is how long you can *stay* in space. Suborbital comes right back - but it's a *lot* cheaper to do (you need a lot less horizontal velocity). It has it's uses too - it's a very fast way to get very long distances. ICBMs are frequently designed for suborbital trajectories for example.

      But orbit is another beast altogether - that's not just going to space but staying there for an extended period, it takes a lot more fuel - which means a much heavier rocket, meaning more powerful boosters and more complicated stages. That's what SpaceX is doing. They are working on the harder of the two. B.O. is working on the easier one - both are making great strides in their games, but they are not playing the same sport. They are merely similar sports - it's like asking who was better Babe Ruth or Peter Pollock. Both are absolute legends in games that involve hitting a hard ball thrown at you away with a stick -but it's not the same game, it isn't scored the same and you can't compare them directly.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    12. Re:Competition.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not sure what books you're referring to, but they are simply wrong - and I would question your use of the word "most".

    13. Re:Competition.... by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 2

      The REAL definition is when your actually in space, no one can hear you scream.

    14. Re:Competition.... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      ICBMs are frequently designed for suborbital trajectories for example.

      ICBMs are ALWAYS designed for suborbital trajectories. Otherwise, they wouldn't hit anything.

      Even a FOBS (Fractional Orbital Bombardment System) is suborbital.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    15. Re:Competition.... by camperdave · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Blue Origin reached space multiple times. What they didn't reach yet is an orbital trajectory for their payload

      which is the hard part.

      I'm not so sure about that. Only two rocket systems land their boosters: SpaceX and Blue Origin. On the other hand, there is a multitude of rocket systems that can put payloads in orbit. Considering that once you have the booster slowed down to terminal velocity, it doesn't matter how fast it was originally going; the landing process is going to be the same. So maybe Blue Origin is focussing on the really hard part (the landing) and leaving the easier part (scaling up to orbital speeds) for later.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    16. Re:Competition.... by silentcoder · · Score: 2

      I stand corrected.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    17. Re:Competition.... by bruce_the_loon · · Score: 1

      If you weren't aiming for sarcasm, then https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bhW2h08zhY video of their test.

      --
      Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
    18. Re:Competition.... by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      If you want to count research rockets, DC-X and Rotary Rocket, Bell Lunar Landing Research Simulator, and a few additional small research rockets.

    19. Re:Competition.... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Boeing is doing quite well, thankyouverymuch. The XB-37 is a nice bit of tech and YoYoDyne could ramp up all sorts of other ideas if they wanted.

      What Boeing is doing is milking the cow as much as is possible. You want a complicated, expensive spacecraft that can be sourced from sub assemblies built all over the congressional map? Boeing can do that for you.

      They just don't have any sort of 'mission' to do anything else besides make money for themselves and their shareholders.

      Horses for courses.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    20. Re:Competition.... by Bartles · · Score: 2

      No, it's not the hard part. That's just guidance and a bigger rocket. Keeping the rockets from exploding during development is the hard part. Also doing everything cheaply and efficiently is the most difficult part.

    21. Re:Competition.... by werepants · · Score: 2

      No, this is wrong. The reason rocket science is hard is because getting to orbit is hard. Going suborbital requires much less velocity, which means much less energy, which means less fuel, and you have tons more margin to work with. You can use cheaper, more reliable materials, you can afford to over-engineer structures and systems for safety. A suborbital rocket can also ignore many technical challenges entirely - there's no staging, for instance, there's no need for thermal protection for re-entry, there's far less destructive capacity involved so you have simpler pads and support infrastructure and less regulatory burden since your rocket isn't capable of destroying small towns.

      For a simple comparison, a kg to space (100km) means you've only got to worry about gravitational potential energy, mgh, a total energy of 1kg * 10m/s/s * 10^5m, or 10^6J. For a kg to orbit, you have to have that gravitational potential energy, plus ~7.8 km/s. KE = 1/2mv^2, so 1/2 * 1kg * 7800m/s^2 = 3*10^7J. That means, from the very start, you need ~30 times the energy. To find a similar difference in capability, you could look at a Cessna vs an SR-71. The two are only similar in the most superficial ways.

      Getting to orbit absolutely is the hard part. Blue Origin is working on it, but they started at suborbital specifically because it is easy, and their entire motto is gradatim ferociter, meaning "step by step, ferociously". Suborbital is an easier step, so they are taking a more gradual approach than SpaceX.

    22. Re:Competition.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FOBS is only "suborbital" in the sense that it doesn't complete a full orbit. It could complete an orbit, or multiple orbits, but the idea is to de-orbit the warhead as soon as it's approaching the target.

      The idea was, for example, that the Soviet Union could lob nuclear warheads at the US over the south pole, rendering the north-facing BMEWS radars useless. It does of course cut into the payload, but given that Russian heavy boosters were originally designed for much larger (by size and weight, not necessarily yield) bombs, and that advances in nuclear weapons technology and guidance systems meant you could do as much damage with a physically smaller warhead, it didn't matter that much.

    23. Re:Competition.... by lgw · · Score: 2

      The thing about rocket science? Every part is the hard part.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    24. Re:Competition.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No comment is complete without a good car analogy, bruh.

    25. Re:Competition.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mercury, in order: Shepard, Grisson, Glenn, Carpenter, Schirra, Cooper
      Gemini (first flights) Young, McDivitt, White, Conrad, Stafford, Borman, Lovell,
        Armstrong, Scott, Cernan, Collins, Gordon, Aldrin

    26. Re:Competition.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obligatory XKCD^H^H^H^HWhat If https://what-if.xkcd.com/58/

    27. Re: Competition.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not the padding on the acceleration couches. Not unless you want a nasty bump.

    28. Re:Competition.... by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      of course I was aiming at humour/sarcasm with https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    29. Re:Competition.... by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      They are not a competition for SpaceX since SpaceX does not do suborbital flights.

      I think if you search on "blue origin ula", you'll find that the United Launch Alliance and Blue Origin are working on a new orbital engine, the BE-4. They are in competition now as the ULA was so far behind SpaceX that they needed to bring in Blue Origin. It's just that SpaceX is still at least three years ahead of everybody else, although Blue Origin seems to be front loading a lot of their man rating early and are possibly ahead in that regard.

    30. Re:Competition.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you sure you're not sitting?

    31. Re:Competition.... by camperdave · · Score: 1

      I'll give you the DC-X, but the Rotary Rocket never got more than 75 feet off the ground, and the Bell Lunar Landing Research Simulator was a training craft for landing on the moon. It had no capacity or intention to launch anything.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    32. Re:Competition.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FOBS were orbital, in as much as they get up to orbital velocity. The might not complete a full orbit (hence the "fractional"). They are banned by the SALT2 treaty (at least FOBS with nuclear payloads are),

  2. imagine if.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    egos and greed didn't get in the way of bezos and musk working together on something.

    1. Re:imagine if.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Then they would have nobody to compete with. Which could, in fact, slow them down. This way, they are trying to trump each other... Competition is important - without the fierce competition between USA and SSSR, it is likely that we would be still waiting for the first man on Moon.

    2. Re:imagine if.. by Kokuyo · · Score: 1

      Hmm I'm not so sure. Sometimes a bit of competition, meaning pressure, can do more to inspire than having more brainpower and money on hand.

      I'm just happy that there actually are people pushing the boundaries of human capability at all.

    3. Re:imagine if.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Won't somebody think of the adverts! A generation of geniuses has been put to work devising ways to make people click on adverts. Their heroics should be recognized.

      What does going to space have to do with adverts anyway? Space travel is pointless. Click click click, raising brand awareness, THAT is what humanity should be striving for.

    4. Re:imagine if.. by Jon+Peterson · · Score: 1

      I think it's hard to say when competition helps and when it hinders. I don't think we'd have done more with the ISS if there had been two competing ones, for instance.

      --
      ----- .sig: file not found
    5. Re: imagine if.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not mention without plundering technology, intellectual property, and the scientists themselves from Germany.

    6. Re:imagine if.. by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      it's a tough one to call. Competition *can* leader to greater efficiency - but sometimes it causes very inefficient outcomes. Richard Dawkin's uses the following example: a meadow is a giant solar energy collector. A forrest is a meadow on stilts. The first plants to get stilts had an advantage over the other plants - they got more of the sunlight. Competition forced other plants to follow suit. By now you have a seriously inefficient outcome - all the plants are spending almost all the sunlight they get just on maintaining those stilts. It's a massive waste of the very energy they are competing for - but none of the plants can stop wasting it or they get none at all.
      That's an example of competition causing a terribly inefficient outcome. Competition causes efficient outcomes only when it's constrained so nobody can do something that actively hurts their competitors and forces their competitors to adopt the same tactic. In nature, that would be the climate restraints that stopped meadows in some parts of the world from getting a lot of tall trees and being turned into forests as happened elsewhere. In economics - that's the role of regulation (and why an unregulated market would, in fact, be the least efficient form of the market you can get, quite aside from it's propensity for evil. The same drives that lead to inefficient outcomes being enforced by unregulated competition also leads to evil behaviour being required for survival).

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    7. Re: imagine if.. by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 2

      We didn't "plunder" the scientists, they willfully and happily came to the US after the fall of Nazi Germany.

    8. Re: imagine if.. by rworne · · Score: 1

      Yes they did.

      Considering the alternative was a lifetime of research in the "Worker's Paradise" or staying in the country where their handiwork was dropping daily on people's heads.

      Tom Lehrer has a great song about that...

      --
      I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
    9. Re:imagine if.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It ws partly due to the progress Russia was making with its Mir series of space stations that the US (later, International) space station was funded in the first place. It later became the International Space Station for political and economic reasons, mainly political. It (and the NASA astronauts to Mir program) were a way of funneling money to the former Soviet Union to help stabilize it. (So that, for example, they wouldn't start selling their nukes.)

  3. They have some of the MD DC-X Engineers on staff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The DC-X, short for Delta Clipper or Delta Clipper Experimental, was an unmanned prototype of a reusable single-stage-to-orbit launch vehicle built by McDonnell Douglas in conjunction with the United States Department of Defense's Strategic Defense Initiative Organization (SDIO)" {Wikipedia}

    Some of the guys from that project are now at Blue Origin.

  4. Is it just me... by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

    ...or does it look like Jeff Bezos is compensating for something?

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    1. Re:Is it just me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope.. ..the space race is just another human paganistic ritual and the rocket is the phallic maypole.
      We dont need virgin children running around it with ribbons as they tend to burn, but the geeks who built the pole are also naturally virgins so it is technically kosher.

    2. Re: Is it just me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go ahead: try to launch a rocket into space that is shaped like a vagina. I dare you.

    3. Re: Is it just me... by tsqr · · Score: 1

      Go ahead: try to launch a rocket into space that is shaped like a vagina. I dare you.

      Don't be silly. Space isn't shaped like a vagina.

    4. Re: Is it just me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be silly. Space isn't shaped like a vagina.

      Oh really? (NSFW)

  5. parachute by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The way the parachutes opened was really quite beautiful, too

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:parachute by dargaud · · Score: 1

      But they take a long time to open... Do they have time to work if you escape from the launch pad, near the ground ?

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    2. Re:parachute by vikingpower · · Score: 1

      Just looked up "abort mode IA" in the Saturn V Flight Manual (I am pretty proud to possess a paper copy of that one, it has a prominent place in my library). Time between drogue opening and parachute opening was 12 to 16 seconds, dependent upon altitude on abort. The manual is not very explicit on aborting on the pad or close to the pad, but something can be gleaned from the conditions under which the mission could be aborted; all of these presuppose ignition of all five engines of Stage I to have succeeded. I.e., before that event, it seems the crew would 've been fucked. After that, the abort propulsion rockets would 've given them at least a fighting chance.

      --
      Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
    3. Re: parachute by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Fighting" is right -- it looked like a wild ride! I wonder if Space-X's method will be less chaotic.

    4. Re:parachute by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      That procedure is under "open the window and just jump" when your that close lol

  6. Re:lazy millennials by Maritz · · Score: 1

    This guy thinks people born between date x and date y are all the same as each other.

    Bright guy.

    --
    I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  7. Re:lazy millennials by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The people aren't the same of each other, but the culture in which they're raised is roughly homogenous, if they lived on a west or east coast city then went to a liberal university. What they osmosise from society around them will affect their behaviour, which is a double edged sword.

  8. The launch commentary sounded, um... by wassomeyob · · Score: 1

    ... like it was added in to the video afterwards. OR it was ALL faked. (Sorry, couldn't resist)

    1. Re:The launch commentary sounded, um... by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      It sounded like they lifted some over-zealous marketing wonks out of the conference room and stuck them on the air. The video was cool, but I just about threw up every time they spoke.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    2. Re:The launch commentary sounded, um... by ISoldat53 · · Score: 1

      I agree. I watched most of it on mute. The poor engineer they had commenting sounded like they pulled him off his job to do the commentary. He obviously wanted to be back at his job.

  9. If nothing else... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This new space race is providing shitloads of awesome videos!

  10. Re:So Space X is really just a bunch of idiots? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No, they're not.
    But those who don't know the difference between what Blue Origin is trying to do and what SpaceX is already capable of are idiots.

  11. Nope, no compitieron at all... by frnic · · Score: 1

    And if you believe that United Launch Alliance (Lockheed. Martin and Boeing) are looking forward to farm and honest competition - well, right. Sure, that is certainly the hallmark of the military industrial complex.

    Big money likes to win and can afford to buy the privilege. SpaceX and Blue Origin had better hurry and hope UAL doesn't decided to swat the annoying startups.

    Our country runs on money - we are a country dedicated to making the uber rich richer.

    1. Re:Nope, no compitieron at all... by lgw · · Score: 1

      Big money likes to win and can afford to buy the privilege. SpaceX and Blue Origin had better hurry and hope UAL doesn't decided to swat the annoying startups.

      The big money actually works the other way. Boeing has a market cap of $83B, but $9B in cash and $11B in debt. LM is of similar size, but has mostly debt.

      On the other side, Bezos has a personal net worth of over $45B, and Musk of over $13B. That's a lot more weight to throw around, if they want to.

      Bezos could technically buy a controlling interest in either BA or LM with his personal fortune.

      The threat is that BA and LM are much better at feeding money into the "militarized regulatory complex", and might cleverly lobby for rules that would shut down the outsiders. But neither Bezos nor Musk is blind to that part of the game, and they seem to be doing OK so far.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  12. I've grown to dislike Bezos by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    his cozy relationship with the CIA, and increasingly Amazon as well. But I have to admit: he has hired some smart folks for his hobby.

    1. Re:I've grown to dislike Bezos by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      It's all probably part of a conspiracy to restart the astrospies program.

  13. Wow by wvmarle · · Score: 1

    Just, wow.

  14. News in 1993 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Boeing (Douglass) did this in 1993. Old news. Older heads realize that 2 decades ago we figured out that this wasn't actually cost effective. It does, however, make for great video.

    1. Re:News in 1993 by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 2

      So true, because manufacturing and engineering costs in 2016 are exactly the same as they were in 1993. Material science hasn't advanced at all in the last 23 years either.

    2. Re:News in 1993 by michelcolman · · Score: 2

      You mean the MD DC-X which never went above 10300 ft? Not exactly space...

      And why would it not be cost-effective? Sure, you lose some capacity because you have to take extra fuel to bring the booster back (and you have to use more fuel to send that fuel up), but if you just make the rocket big enough, it won't double the price. If you can reuse the booster once, it's paid for itself. And certainly if it's a booster the size of the proposed BFR. You don't just want to throw that away.

    3. Re:News in 1993 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well, manufacturing costs dropping significantly (which they did) actually reduces the value in doing this.

    4. Re:News in 1993 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, SDIO did in 1993. McDonnell-Douglas just won the contract to build the hardware. DC-X was only ever intended to be a developmental prototype to work out control issues, the real thing would have been several times its size.

      It was doing fine until SDIO handed it over to NASA, who promptly broke it.

    5. Re:News in 1993 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In addition, the DC-X managed a 24-hour turn around, doing two flights in two days. It also demonstrated its intact-abort capability when a cloud of cold hydrogen gas (which had built up around the vehicle before launch due to odd wind conditions) ignited at launch, and the explosion blew off part of the DC-X's airframe. The thing was still shedding pieces when Pete Conrad (who was flight control for that mission) hit the abort button (well, clicked the box on the computer screen) and it stopped ascending, burned off fuel to a safe landing weight, and landed safely.

      Later, NASA technicians failed to properly connect a hydraulic line to one of the landing legs, so when it landed after the first NASA flight, it fell over, broke apart, and burned in the fire from residual propellants.

  15. Seriously? Could it be any more phallic? by Ecuador · · Score: 1

    I had to call my wife to watch this one! Wow, she said, a huge penis is blasting off! Yeah, I told her, watch as the crew capsule will separate... Crew capsule? Oh! yes, there goes the head!
    Was the design on purpose, to troll radar operators with a penis cross-section?
    It being funny of course didn't take much away from the important parts of the mission, nice landing for both booster and capsule. Good to see these guys progressing.

    --
    Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    1. Re:Seriously? Could it be any more phallic? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      That's interesting. My wife had the pretty much the same comment. "Why are you looking at a picture of a giant dildo with a feather on it?"

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  16. Re:What do you think of *that*, MUSK? by BradleyUffner · · Score: 5, Insightful

    He probably thinks that getting a rocket in to a stable orbit, delivering long term useful cargo, and then landing on a moving barge in the ocean is a LOT harder than shooting a rocket practically straight up and coming right back down to land.

    I think I agree with him.

  17. Quite impressive! by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

    Damn, that was really smooth. They didn't even expect the rocket to return; this is a double-win for Blue Origins. The commentator said this was both vehicles "final flight"...that rocket looks pretty beat up on the outside lol. Hopefully, after all the post-flight analysis is done, Jeff donates this to a museum. I'd love to go get a up-close of this impressive vehicle even if it's slightly phallic lol.

    1. Re:Quite impressive! by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Dunno if I would call a complete rotation of the capsule as 'smooth'. Lots of fun perhaps. Vertigo inducing perhaps. But not smooth.

      Looks like they need to tweak the thruster controls a bit. But it's nice that the conical capsule shape is aerodynamically stable (mostly).

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Quite impressive! by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      I was more meaning "smooth" as in nothing blew up/crashed lol. For real" astronauts, it would have been bumpy but OK. For tourist astronauts...yeah, everyone would need a shower after that hahaha

  18. Re:lazy millennials by Pascoea · · Score: 1

    who are going to first search the Internet as soon as they encounter a problem

    Are you somehow suggesting that looking on the internet to see if someone else has encountered and solved the same problem is somehow inferior than spending hours (or days, or months, or years, depending on the problem) trying to solve the problem yourself? Or are you suggesting that every time someone needs a wheel for something they "re-invent" it?

    In an academic environment I would condone such behavior, in the real world a company that operated that way wouldn't last a year.

  19. The most predictable thing about this test... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Is that the internet comments would immediately turn this into a pissing contest between SpaceX and Blue Origin. How about cheering on -any- company trying to make new strides in space tourism, space services and space exploration? Fuck off wankers.

  20. Re:lazy millennials by tsqr · · Score: 2

    Are you somehow suggesting that looking on the internet to see if someone else has encountered and solved the same problem is somehow inferior than spending hours (or days, or months, or years, depending on the problem) trying to solve the problem yourself? Or are you suggesting that every time someone needs a wheel for something they "re-invent" it?

    Depends on the problem. I'm an engineer, and I've seen colleagues turn to Google when they need perform basic unit conversions that really should be second nature. The Internet is a fabulous resource, but tends to promote laziness and loss of problem-solving skills when relied upon too much. It also seems to dilute common sense, as when information is assumed to be correct because the source appears to be authoritative, even though cursory inspection shows the information to be wrong.

  21. Blue Origin Doesn't Go Into Orbit by darkmeridian · · Score: 1

    Just note that Blue Origin is a sub-orbital rocket. SpaceX has put stuff into orbit and recovered the first stage, which is much more complicated.

    --
    A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
  22. Re:lazy millennials by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have seen colleagues browsing forums and reading unrelated posts for a programming problem hoping to find the solution instead of actually debugging and testing their code properly and learning the technology they were using. They were millennials.

  23. Capsule by equivocal · · Score: 1

    That looked like a Right Stuff quality ride. I hope they had enough sensors in the capsule to simulate it. It might be a case of being able to successfully land a tub of goo.

  24. Re:So Space X is really just a bunch of idiots? by painandgreed · · Score: 1

    No, they're not. But those who don't know the difference between what Blue Origin is trying to do and what SpaceX is already capable of are idiots.

    Ya, Blue Origin is just trying to supply the new engine to the ULA along with man rated personnel module, while SpaceX is doing everything on their own and already has an engine.

  25. Back to your respective corners, fanboys! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    These guys (Musk and Bezos) are different men with different business models, different technical approaches, different goals, etc and they are BOTH doing great stuff

    Yeah, Musk has sent stuff into LEO to and from the ISS and also out to GEO. This is all excellent work and very promising BUT it's also been massively subsidized by NASA who saved SpaceX from bankruptcy by signing a contract to launch payloads on Falcons before Musk had ever proven he could fulfill that contract, and then signing up for a bunch of additional flights AND handing out several piles of development cash as soon as he showed he could. Musk has now repeatedly launched and recovered his capsules, has launched com sats, and has recovered boosters (hooray!) BUT he has never re-flown a booster and has now had a second 2nd stage explosion in the space of only about a year, with doubts that he properly diagnosed the cause of the 1st failure and no cause yet for the 2nd failure. Musk went for orbital flight before Bezos and before recovering boosters because HIS model required getting to orbit and then securing contracts to take stuff to orbit thuse securing a funding stream.

    Bezos, on the other hand, has done his work without taxpayer dollars. This means his program is necessarily tied to his shorter-term "space tourism" sub-orbital business model. He has a constant cash flow from Amazon and therefore did not need to rapidly secure a huge contract for orbital flights. Bezos has focused on sub-orbital flight and booster recovery and re-use because that's tied to HIS business model. While Bezos has not yet gone orbital, it's NOT because he cannot figure out how to - the additional horizontal speed was not a requirement for his early plans. What Bezos HAS done brilliantly that Musk has not yet been able to match is [a] the re-flight of a booster (the same one, five times!), [b] the re-flight of a spacecraft, and now [c] an in-flight Max-Q abort demonstration. It's doubly impressive that Bezos's 1st stage not only survived having an abort motor fired directly against its top end at Max-Q and then having the aerodynamics of the stack change so dramatically at the most-critical moment of flight, but it completed a normal pre-programmed flight and successfully landed - this has never before happened and it says a HUGE amount about the durability of that launch vehicle. The old Atlas rockets of the sixites would crumple and collapse if stood-up into launch position on a pad without being filled with fuel or a pressurisation gas.

    BOTH men are doing great work and BOTH men are breaking new ground on two different paths. BOTH are doing things the other has not yet done, and all future spaceflight is benefitting from what BOTH are doing.