Blue Origin: Amazon Successfully Launches, Returns Rocket

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
With the Space X team getting a bit of bad the press lately over failed landing attempts, it has to chap Elon Musk's ass that Bezos beat him to the punch like this.

Launching from Texas on Monday, Bezos' New Shepard crew capsule and propulsion module blasted into space with no passengers on board. After reaching its planned test altitude of 329,839 feet, the vessel returned to Earth, landing upright just four and a half feet from its launch pad, according to Blue Origin.
 
That's pretty exciting. I wonder how much of the rocket is re-useable and how many runs each rocket is good for.

I'd also like to see them do it 10x or more without incident, but hopefully that's coming.
 
Cool but the blurb didn't mention anything about orbit so don't book those ISS reservations yet.
 
Good job, guys. Congratulations on a successful landing. That was pretty amazing.
 
Dead Parrot said:
Cool but the blurb didn't mention anything about orbit so don't book those ISS reservations yet.
Click to expand...
It's very obviously not an orbital insertion since it specifies "experience 4 minutes of weightlessness" so it's basically going to be a really expensive ride that will probably make Disney look cheap...
 
sfsuphysics said:
It's very obviously not an orbital insertion since it specifies "experience 4 minutes of weightlessness" so it's basically going to be a really expensive ride that will probably make Disney look cheap...
Click to expand...

Probably? ;)
 
Nailed the landing, in both instances, not bad for a first time, Musk eat Blue Origin's dust, they even tested the landing legs before takeoff, most impressive.
 
Well, this is hardly comparable to SpaceX's attempts. These are just "short" trips to space, basically firing up 100 km and then coming back down on the same spot. SpaceX's rockets are intended to put heavy payloads in orbit. Their rockets are subject to much greater stresses, and are returning at much greater speeds.

I don't mean to say that it's not a significant achievement, but comparing it to SpaceX is not a fair comparison. It's the difference between sinking a golf ball from the green and missing from the drive range.
 
Kynnath said:
Well, this is hardly comparable to SpaceX's attempts. These are just "short" trips to space, basically firing up 100 km and then coming back down on the same spot. SpaceX's rockets are intended to put heavy payloads in orbit. Their rockets are subject to much greater stresses, and are returning at much greater speeds.

I don't mean to say that it's not a significant achievement, but comparing it to SpaceX is not a fair comparison. It's the difference between sinking a golf ball from the green and missing from the drive range.
Click to expand...

Wrong.
Getting something into Space is the "easy" part.
Making a re-useable rocket which oh by the way lands itself and doesn't require a salvage crew/job is VERY impressive. Hats off to these guys!
 
schoolslave said:
Wrong.
Getting something into Space is the "easy" part.
Making a re-useable rocket which oh by the way lands itself and doesn't require a salvage crew/job is VERY impressive. Hats off to these guys!
Click to expand...

The thing is, Space X has to land on a barge in the ocean. The reason Blue Origin can land so close to their launch-pad is because they're just going straight up and coming straight back down. Space X's reusable rocket portion has to have a space to land down-range because by the time the first stage is done boosting, the rocket has already been turning to prepare for the rest of the orbital insertion.

Hats off to Blue Origin for doing this, but I suspect landing on solid ground after going straight up and coming straight back down is easier than landing on a barge in the ocean after traveling hundreds of miles. Being reusable(in the case of a rocket, at least) also means you're reducing the potential payload you could carry because some of the fuel mass you have at launch is "reserved" for the landing.
 
schoolslave said:
Wrong.
Getting something into Space is the "easy" part.
Making a re-useable rocket which oh by the way lands itself and doesn't require a salvage crew/job is VERY impressive. Hats off to these guys!
Click to expand...

I did say it was impressive. I said it wasn't comparable to SpaceX, however, because SpaceX is attempting to do that same thing under more difficult conditions. SpaceX's rockets are bigger, because they have to go higher and faster. Getting to space is easy, staying in space is hard.

Blue Origin doesn't need to de-orbit their rockets, because they never enter orbit in the first place, so that's a whole step that they get to avoid. Reentry happens by itself. And after de-orbiting, SpaceX has a heavier rocket moving faster they need to slow down. And consider the shape of the rockets, SpaceX's rockets are taller, and as a result less stable. Blue Origin's is low and fat, meaning a lower center of mass, meaning easier to balance.

So, Blue Origin succeeded at an impressive task, while SpaceX has failed (though come pretty close) at an even more difficult task.
 
SpaceX's stuff tends to burst into flames so yeah, Blue Origin's success isn't at all comparable to what SpaceX regularly does. Though, I do think that SpaceX deserves credit for setting a whole bunch of supplies due at the ISS on fire.
 
So, I guess SpaceX didn't do this in 2013?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2t15vP1PyoA

A trip to space is really no different. They didn't get up to orbital velocity, not by a long shot. Quoting Elon Musk on this one, "Getting to space needs ~Mach 3, but GTO orbit requires ~Mach 30. The energy needed is the square, i.e. 9 units for space and 900 for orbit."

This isn't an "eat our dust" moment. SpaceX is way ahead of them on this since they are aiming for reusable rockets to get people to and from ISS. Totally different goalpost.

SpaceX has done 4 (I think) resupply missions to the ISS already. So Blue Origin can celebrate . . . I guess, but the event is more "historic" in the sense that SpaceX didnt' bother doing it, not in the sense that they can't.
 
The rocket section was awesome. However I think everyone in the capsule died with their spine stuck out their eyeballs. That thing hit HARD.
 
Rather than doing an e-peen comparison, I think that this success marks a step forward overall. We need to work on several different methods to make getting into Space more reliable and less costly. This is why we *want* several different companies/groups working on these things. I think diversification of approach is a good thing and will help us achieve our overall goal.

So I don't care what SpaceX is doing vis-à-vis Blue Origin. I care that both of them are moving forward using their own methods. This flight was a step forward, and I hope to see more steps in the future, from Blue Origin, and from SpaceX.
 
SpaceX demonstrated ground landings with their Grasshopper test vehicle some time ago. It's landing an ocean platform has been giving SpaceX trouble. Trying to land a spent booster on a floating pad in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean is quite a bit more difficult than a ground landing.

I don't get where all the SpaceX hate comes from. Of all the companies that competed for NASA money only SpaceX and Orbital Sciences have actually produced hardware for ISS resupply.
 
I have to say this is exciting.
I'm 100% for the commercialization of Space. Space Jobs for everyone!

I'm waiting for day I look up and see this..........
the-outrunners.jpg
 
Awesome. :)

Some make it sound like it's Alan Shepard vs. Gus Grissom or John Glenn. First US man in space vs. 2nd, or first to orbit the Earth....

We have multiple companies (not NASA) that are creating rockets to go into space. Eventually with passengers. With all the science fiction stuff some of us are into, and science fantasies of the future, this is fucking amazing stuff!

One of my dreams as a kid was to go into space (was to be an astronaut, but that didn't work out). My Dad made the comment when I was a small kid (thinking first Shuttle launch) "One day, you'll be able to go to the moon. I won't, but you could.". That could be a real possibility. I will most likely have the opportunity to go into space. My kids will definitely be there. Unless some catastrophic event happens (wars, natural, etc.).

Man, this is the stuff dreams are made of. Some kid watched that video and his imagination is going wild. He's going to be asking Santa for a rocket ship for Christmas. Exciting stuff.

May not be directly comparable to Space-X, but I don't think people are really comparing this for that. It's just a simple comparison between two space bound companies.
 
Outstanding. Nothing short of that. Such a hard task to accomplish. To get it back within 4 ft? Damn! That is some good math there folks.
 
nilepez said:
No, but I suspect this little trip will set you back 100k
Click to expand...

... and again have you looked at Disney vacation packages? Sure now it's not anywhere close to that amount, but by the time they get the OK for this (how long has Virgin Galactic been promoting a service that does not yet exist?) who knows...
 
sfsuphysics said:
... and again have you looked at Disney vacation packages? Sure now it's not anywhere close to that amount, but by the time they get the OK for this (how long has Virgin Galactic been promoting a service that does not yet exist?) who knows...
Click to expand...

He said tickets/passes (presumably for a theme park, not a vacation package)
.
 
Crimson said:
It looks like a penis.
Click to expand...

I think they stole the design from Dr. Evil.

But on a serious note, with what this just did, it would work perfectly as a way to return to orbit from a Lunar base. This went high enough and fast enough that it could be used to return Lunar astronauts to an orbiting shuttle for return to Earth or larger ship for going deeper into space.

Now just need to get them, SpaceX and Bigelow Aerospace together to get our Lunar colony started :)
 
Well in SpaceX's defense, these guys did put their landing pad on ground. The SX guys wanted to up the difficulty (waves,etc.) and land on a floating platform for some reason. I mean, massive Aircraft Carriers still pitch/roll in the ocean, I can only imagine what the platform is doing.
 
Steve, first off, SpaceX has already demonstrated lift off and landing of the dedicated booster. Now SpaceX is trying to land the booster from re-entry where it has to slow down significantly, than a mere gravity assisted drop from 100km.
Also I think SpaceX's touchdown looked far more controlled but I think there SpaceX didn't go up as high as Blue Origin. I still think SpaceX has a more refined control system for slow decent (not for re-entry decent which is still R&D).

Did you see that module splashdown on the ground with those parachutes deployed? Oh boy... that's definitely a crash, not a landing. Unless all that dust was from deceleration thrusters firing just prior to touchdown, but it wasn't mentioned what technology it's using, only seemed like parachutes.
 
I guess what they are doing with it is "simple" since its just shooting a capsule up and releasing it.
What I find funny is that trash can shape with short legs, seems quite different to me, not that I follow anything about rockets though
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top