Amazons Jeff Bezo Blue Origins First Successful Launch - No sign of landing though

_Tombstone_

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEdk-XNoZpA

Its launch vehicle, the New Shepard, powered by a BE-3 engine, reached an altitude of 307,000 feet, where the space capsule separated to float gently back down to earth. The only failure on the day, per Bezos’ post, was that an attempt to land the launch the vehicle for reuse went wrong.

Bezos and Elon Musk’s SpaceX have been in a legal battle over patents on rocket reusability, which would dramatically lower the cost of future launches. While SpaceX is further ahead of Blue Origin in testing reusability, it has yet to land a rocket from a working launch.

http://qz.com/395155/jeff-bezos-has-a-rocket-now-too/

"Of course one of our goals is reusability, and unfortunately we didn't get to recover the propulsion module because we lost pressure in our hydraulic system on descent," Bezos wrote. "Fortunately, we've already been in work for some time on an improved hydraulic system. Also, assembly of propulsion module serial numbers 2 and 3 is already underway — we'll be ready to fly again soon."

Wednesday's New Shepard test flight reached a maximum altitude of 58 miles (93 kilometers) — just a few miles short of the 62-mile-high (100 km) boundary between Earth and space. The demonstration flight occurred just weeks after Blue Origin President Rob Meyerson announced that test flights would begin this year.

http://www.space.com/29278-blue-origin-launches-private-spaceship-test.html

_Tombstone_

Wednesday's New Shepard test flight reached a maximum altitude of 58 miles (93 kilometers) — just a few miles short of the 62-mile-high (100 km) boundary between Earth and space.

http://www.bbc.com/future/bespoke/20140304-how-big-is-space-interactive/index.html

Interactivey flying shuttle whats at what height thingy ma gig

nokia69

about time they launched

at this rate they will reach LEO in about ten years

Thargor

Great looking vehicle, very sci-fi. Ridiculous that them and SpaceX are suing each other over reusable vehicles though, thats too obvious to patent.

nokia69

Thargor wrote: »

Great looking vehicle, very sci-fi. Ridiculous that them and SpaceX are suing each other over reusable vehicles though, thats too obvious to patent.

AFAIK it was Bezos who started with the suing, which really is foolish since what they are both doing is not really a new idea, its just that with todays better technology it looks like they have a real chance of success

_Tombstone_

nokia69 wrote: »

AFAIK it was Bezos who started with the suing, which really is foolish since what they are both doing is not really a new idea, its just that with todays better technology it looks like they have a real chance of success

Patents are a bit of a mess now, theirs Troll company's out their now who just buy them up and then go looking to see who they can sue cuz something they do is vaguely related/using/abusing a Patent they have just bought. 9 times outta 10 they wouldn't have a leg to stand on but fighting it in Court would cost more than just settling so....theirs been alot of settling over the last number of years.

Heres a big case from this month where the Troll finally got what they deserved.

Patent Office invalidates key claims of 'podcast patent'

Complicated area, I kind of see the need for them but they're being granted by idiots it seems. That Patent ^^^shouldn't have even existed in the first place.

They're supposed to promote innovation but they're not the way things are working at the minute.

Musk made headlines for giving away all the Tesla Patents a few months back, he didn't really.

https://gigaom.com/2014/06/14/what-elon-musk-did-and-did-not-do-when-he-opened-teslas-patents/

shedweller

When i saw that rocket lift off i was immediately reminded of that scene in one of those Austin Powers movies where Dr Evil goes to space in his rocket.

Sorry...i had to!

_Tombstone_

Wonder if they meant for it to look like a big Dildo, look at it in the distance at 50 secs, jaysus.













Sorry I had to.

_Tombstone_

How big companies are stopping Congress from fixing the patent system

Good article on it.

nokia69

http://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2015/09/11/bezos-visit-give-cape-blue-streak/72019942/?from=global&sessionKey=&autologin=

On Tuesday, Bezos will visit Cape Canaveral Air Force Station to make his highest-profile announcement yet about how he hopes to redefine human spaceflight, radically reducing its cost so many more people can experience the cosmos.

finally some more info from blue coming on tuesday

Thargor

I dont like Bezo's approach "people can experience the cosmos", aka rich people can take a pointless up and down trip on something they had the technology to build in the 1940s and maybe get a sniff of zero G at the top. Its just such a pointless dead end and they go on about it like its humanity's future or something.

nokia69

Thargor wrote: »

I dont like Bezo's approach "people can experience the cosmos", aka rich people can take a pointless up and down trip on something they had the technology to build in the 1940s and maybe get a sniff of zero G at the top. Its just such a pointless dead end and they go on about it like its humanity's future or something.

I would agree but I think he has bigger plans than that, the new engine they are working on is large enough to get some serious things done and then there is the link with ULA, I think Bezo's may end up buying ULA, Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings bid 2billion for ULA a while back, Bezo's may be willing to pay more

Thargor

Its still pointless space tourism though, and its always going to be meaningless low Earth orbit at best, at least Musk and Virgin and the rest are trying to make self sustaining industries and actual advances out of their companies...

_Tombstone_

Blue Origin has leased Launch Complex 36 at the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, the historic site of 145 launches, including those of Pioneer 10 from NASA, the first spacecraft to visit Jupiter, and Surveyor 1, the first craft to make a soft landing on the moon.

But Launch Complex 36 has sat idle for a decade. “Too long,” Mr. Bezos said at the ceremony. “We can’t wait to fix that.”

Blue Origin will also open a factory to assemble rockets nearby. “We’re not just launching from here,” Mr. Bezos said. “We’re building here.”

The company will invest $200 million and create 330 jobs, state officials said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/16/science/space/jeff-bezos-rocket-company-to-build-and-launch-in-florida.html


Still short on details...they're not sure themselves I don't think.

_Tombstone_

You can't beat the Daily Mail for this stuff.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3235742/Battle-billionaires-Amazon-s-Jeff-Bezos-historic-Cape-Canaveral-launchpad-bid-beat-Elon-Musk-s-SpaceX-Richard-Branson-s-Virgin-Galactic.html

Much better.

Capt'n Midnight

Thargor wrote: »

Its still pointless space tourism though, and its always going to be meaningless low Earth orbit at best, at least Musk and Virgin and the rest are trying to make self sustaining industries and actual advances out of their companies...

Had forgotten that Virgin weren't just about ego trips

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34254873

The aim now is to loft payloads up to 200kg into standard orbits, instead of the previously stated 120kg.

And it should be possible to get 400kg into some other, lower orbits.

Virgin Galactic intends to debut the liquid oxygen/kerosene rocket in 2016 or 2017 for a price of under $10m.

"This is customer-led; we've been talking to the market about what they wanted, and it's this new capability," said CEO George Whitesides.

"And what we hear from industry is that if we had this capability right now, we'd be selling [launches] like hot cakes," he told BBC News.

Capt'n Midnight

Thargor wrote: »

I dont like Bezo's approach "people can experience the cosmos", aka rich people can take a pointless up and down trip on something they had the technology to build in the 1940s and maybe get a sniff of zero G at the top. Its just such a pointless dead end and they go on about it like its humanity's future or something.

Don't get me started

_Tombstone_ wrote: »

Wednesday's New Shepard test flight reached a maximum altitude of 58 miles (93 kilometers) — just a few miles short of the 62-mile-high (100 km) boundary between Earth and space.

Early 1940's The first successful test flight was on 3 October 1942, reaching an altitude of 84.5 kilometres (52.5 miles)

There's a lot of money being spent in the US on re-inventing 1960's tech.

Rocket fuel is cheap. Unless you have long production runs it's probably easier just to use more fuel in a bigger rocket than design a whole new rocket that's marginally better on paper. (note how many aerospace designs get heavier during development in the real world) In the meantime using new materials on an old design can also help, look at how the shuttle payload increased when they used lighter materials for the external tank. Today's control system electronics are a fraction of the weight they were back in the 1960's so lots of incremental weight savings can be made on a design with a long run.


Remember that that Apollo used vertical landings, from orbit, back in the 1960's.

And there's the whole Mach 3 , USA SSC debacle. The classic school boy error of forgetting that if planes can do three times as many trips per day then airlines aren't going to need as many of them. The problem is that if you don't have a long production run then the development costs aren't spread very far. And with lots of US companies chasing a market that's already got a range of reliable low cost launchers there doesn't seem to be enough market share to go around.

_Tombstone_

nokia69 wrote: »

about time they launched

at this rate they will reach LEO in about ten years

Take it back Nok, they're after doing what spaceX haven't been able to so far.

Land the Rocket!

And the Crew Capsule and broke the 100Km barrier aswell.

Thargor wrote: »

I dont like Bezo's approach "people can experience the cosmos", aka rich people can take a pointless up and down trip on something they had the technology to build in the 1940s and maybe get a sniff of zero G at the top. Its just such a pointless dead end and they go on about it like its humanity's future or something.

Early Access Tickets now available.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pillaOxGCo

Jeff Bezos finally one-upped Elon Musk in space. On Tuesday Bezos' company, Blue Origin, announced its New Shepard space vehicle had ascended to 100.5km and returned successfully to the ground near its West Texas launch site.

"Now safely tucked away at our launch site in West Texas is the rarest of beasts—a used rocket,” said Jeff Bezos, founder of Blue Origin, in a statement. “Blue Origin’s reusable New Shepard space vehicle flew a flawless mission—soaring to 329,839 feet and then returning through 119mph high-altitude crosswinds to make a gentle, controlled landing just four-and-a-half feet from the center of the pad. Full reuse is a game changer, and we can’t wait to fuel up and fly again.”

The successful flight keeps Blue Origin on track to begin commercial flights of research payloads by the middle of 2016. The vehicle is also designed to carry people, but the company has not disclosed a timetable for crewed flights.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/11/blue-origin-sticks-rocket-landing-a-major-step-toward-reusable-spaceflight/

http://spacenews.com/blue-origin-successfully-flies-new-shepard-suborbital-vehicle/

nokia69

_Tombstone_ wrote: »

Take it back Nok, they're after doing what spaceX haven't been able to so far.

Land the Rocket!

And the Crew Capsule and broke the 100Km barrier aswell.

they are still a fair bit behind SpaceX, 100KM is a long way from LEO

the Falcon 9 is a far more impressive rocket

but its great to see, another step on the road to cheap rockets

_Tombstone_

Why you shouldn't compare Blue Origin's rocket landing to SpaceX

shedweller

I'd be real interesred to see the results of the teardown they do on the rocket after the flight.

nokia69

shedweller wrote: »

I'd be real interesred to see the results of the teardown they do on the rocket after the flight.

did they say they would do one ?

if it was me I would fly it again ASAP, but you might be right they will need to check most parts, the engine being the most important, but if they have done enough ground testing then the engine should be fine, for reuse a Hydrogen engine should be better than kerosene

_Tombstone_

WHEN ELON MUSK AND JEFF BEZOS CLASH OVER REUSABLE ROCKETS, WE ALL WIN

Unless you are unlucky enough to have to work for either of them.

shedweller

nokia69 wrote: »

did they say they would do one ?

if it was me I would fly it again ASAP, but you might be right they will need to check most parts, the engine being the most important, but if they have done enough ground testing then the engine should be fine, for reuse a Hydrogen engine should be better than kerosene

I didnt hear actually. And although it would make sense, i would now imagine the engine has been tested to death. So much so that it may just warrant a visual check after this launch. Maybe replace one or two high wear items that had to be there. Still, a blow by blow photographic commentary of a teardown would please me juust a little!
And didn't that engine gimbal like hell just before the landing??! Phenomenal stuff.

Ghost Train

A repeat launch/landing (reuse) yesterday of the hardware tested in november

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74tyedGkoUc

_Tombstone_

OOh, same rocket! ^^

SpaceX have abit to go to get there, first booster by some accounts wouldn't have been able for a relaunch at all.

nokia69

SpaceX are clearly ahead of Blue, at this point its not even close

Hmmzis

Fair play to BO, that's a fantastic achievement. Next step is to reduce the procesing time down to something less than 2 months.
Anyone knows their goals for turnaround times?

nokia69

Hmmzis wrote: »

Fair play to BO, that's a fantastic achievement. Next step is to reduce the procesing time down to something less than 2 months.
Anyone knows their goals for turnaround times?

AFAIK Bezos has never said and no interviewer has ever bothered to ask, they never ask the right questions :mad:

I see no reason why the finished rocket could not do multiple launches on the same day, the reason for the 2 month gap was software changes, and as they do more launches there may be other small changes to refine the system

_Tombstone_

Blue Os next rocket sounds fair beast of a yoke but a bit away at 2019, the BE-4, 550,000 pounds of thrust vs 170,000 pounds in a Falcon. 3.2 Falcons so. Both Reusable.

The US Air Force has decided to support them (and their ULA Partner) with many millions - initially 46mil - to get themselves off having to use the Russian RD-180 that they currently use to send up all their spy sh1t.

The BE-4 will go in ULAs next gen Vulcan Rocket.


Not to feel left out SpaceX got $33.6 million for Rocket Development, Orbital ATK - 47 Mil - Orbital ATK believes in satellite servicing, but not rocket reusability

And some other bunch - Aerojet Rocketdyne believes the liquid oxygen/kerosene-fueled AR1 to be the first engine produced in the United States to use an advanced oxidizer-rich staged combustion kerosene engine cycle - $115 Mil.

So they needed at least 2 but are backing 4.


http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/organizations/ula/race-replace-rd-180-goes-full-throttle/

http://www.geekwire.com/2016/blue-origin-ula-and-aerojet-strike-deals-with-pentagon-for-made-in-usa-rocket-engines/

_Tombstone_

Jeff Bezos Lifts Veil on His Rocket Company, Blue Origin

_Tombstone_

_Tombstone_ wrote: »

Blue Os next rocket sounds fair beast of a yoke but a bit away at 2019, the BE-4, 550,000 pounds of thrust vs 170,000 pounds in a Falcon. 3.2 Falcons so. Both Reusable.

The US Air Force has decided to support them (and their ULA Partner) with many millions - initially 46mil - to get themselves off having to use the Russian RD-180 that they currently use to send up all their spy sh1t.

The BE-4 will go in ULAs next gen Vulcan Rocket.


Not to feel left out SpaceX got $33.6 million for Rocket Development, Orbital ATK - 47 Mil - Orbital ATK believes in satellite servicing, but not rocket reusability

And some other bunch - Aerojet Rocketdyne believes the liquid oxygen/kerosene-fueled AR1 to be the first engine produced in the United States to use an advanced oxidizer-rich staged combustion kerosene engine cycle - $115 Mil.

So they needed at least 2 but are backing 4.


http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/organizations/ula/race-replace-rd-180-goes-full-throttle/

http://www.geekwire.com/2016/blue-origin-ula-and-aerojet-strike-deals-with-pentagon-for-made-in-usa-rocket-engines/

More on this^

ULA intends to lower its costs, and raise its cool, to compete with SpaceX

It still views SpaceX’s Falcon 9 reusability design – returning the full first stage – as “dumb” given the huge amount of fuel needed to bring the stage back. ULA’s plan for its future Vulcan rocket is to separate the Vulcan’s main-stage engines, cover them in a package that deploys a parachute and then scoop them up in midair with a helicopter.

nokia69

It still views SpaceX’s Falcon 9 reusability design – returning the full first stage – as “dumb” given the huge amount of fuel needed to bring the stage back. ULA’s plan for its future Vulcan rocket is to separate the Vulcan’s main-stage engines, cover them in a package that deploys a parachute and then scoop them up in midair with a helicopter

I don't really believe this, IMO ULA can't copy spaceX is because their new Vulcan first stage needs be compatible with their Atlas and Delta upperstages and tooling, so they won't be able to throttle down the engine low enough to get the right trust to weight ratio for a soft landing, like the Falcon 9

If they were starting off with a 100% new rocket I bet they would try to re create their own version of the Falcon 9, it will be very interesting to see how big the rockets Blue will build using the same engine

Its not looking great for ULA

Hmmzis

The main reason for ULA not being able to do propulsive landing of fist stages is that the current Centaur upper stage, while being very efficient, doesn't have sufficient thrust to get meaningful payloads to high energy orbits if the first stage would reserve fuel for a propulsive landing.
The Atlas V and Delta IV rely on their first stages to do the vast majority of the heavy lifting work. Staging happens very late for both vehicles so the upper stage has enough time to use a low thrust high Isp engine to get to its destination. The Mvac in turn is a beast of an engine in comparison to the RL10 and provides loads of thrust for the upper stage therefore the first stage can drop off earlier and have some fuel left for a landing. The trouble with a kerolox upper stage is the woeful Isp it gets so high energy orbits are an issue hence the Raptor upper stage development.

If ULA makes their ACES upper stage with a good bit of higher thrust than the current Centaur they could also go with propulsive landings as the BE-4 is designed to be very deep throttleable (down to 30% or so).

nokia69

Hmmzis wrote: »

If ULA makes their ACES upper stage with a good bit of higher thrust than the current Centaur they could aslo go with propulsive landings as the BE-4 is designed to be very deep throttleable (down to 30% or so).

but is 30% low enough, I think it might easier with more engines, Blue will clearly build a better rocket using the same engine because they don't need to work within the same constraints

Its very strange to see ULA buying an engine from a future competitor, I doubt SpaceX would sell engines to ULA

Hmmzis

nokia69 wrote: »

but is 30% low enough, I think it might easier with more engines, Blue will clearly build a better rocket using the same engine because they don't need to work within the same constraints

Should be enough I think. The estimated thrust for the BE-4 is said to be 2400kN (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BE-4) and at 30% that gives a thrust of 720kN. In comparison the Merlin 1D at full throttle is capable of 730kN at sea level and the last barging attempt was tried with 3 M1Ds firing (didn't work out too well, but there's hope). SpX also do all of the retro burns with 3 engines firing and the single engine landing burn would most likely be at the highest thrust setting they can get out of it as it would reduce gravity losses.
If the first stage of the Vulcan/Atlas is in the same dry mass category as the Falcon 9 then the BE-4 should be grand for propulsive landings.
There is an interesting thread on NSF about pushing the limits of the hoverslam landing - http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39267.0

Its very strange to see ULA buying an engine from a future competitor, I doubt SpaceX would sell engines to ULA

I would think that nobody would really want to buy the M1D as rocket engines are generally not exactly plug&play devices. The rockets have to be built around the engines. If I recall correctly then SpX were selling the Merlin 1C model for a while for 5 million $ a pop but nobody bought a single one so they don't bother anymore.

nokia69

Hmmzis wrote: »

In comparison the Merlin 1D at full throttle is capable of 730kN at sea level and the last barging attempt was tried with 3 M1Ds firing (didn't work out too well, but there's hope)

we know it works, they are just need to iron out the kinks, are you sure they used 3 engines for the landing, I thought it was only 1

Hmmzis wrote: »

SpX also do all of the retro burns with 3 engines firing and the single engine landing burn would most likely be at the highest thrust setting they can get out of it as it would reduce gravity losses.

My point is that with more engines you have greater control over the throttle, one engine out of nine at full trust gives a lower % throttle than one engine out of two at 30%, I doubt 9 merlins is the best number of engines for reuse, SpaceX just got lucky that it works in this case, in the early days it was going to be a Falcon 5, which may not have worked, who knows

Hmmzis wrote: »

If the first stage of the Vulcan/Atlas is in the same dry mass category as the Falcon 9 then the BE-4 should be grand for propulsive landings.
There is an interesting thread on NSF about pushing the limits of the hoverslam landing - http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39267.0

but if thats the case then why not try it from the start, I see what you mean about needing a better upper stage, but the Vulcan FS is more powerful than the Atlas and they also have the option of strap on solids, so IMO the only logical reason is its not possible with only two BE-4s

I suppose we will know more when Blue give more details of the rockets they intend to build with the BE-4, I suspect they won't be using a helicopter to catch engines

Hmmzis

nokia69 wrote: »

we know it works, they are just need to iron out the kinks, are you sure they used 3 engines for the landing, I thought it was only 1

We know it works with one engine and it should work also with 3 or even with all 9 firing for the landing (given the stage can survive the insane T/W ratio). Normally they would do a landing burn with only the centre engine. The landing burn for SES-9 was with 3 engines and that punched a hole in the barge due to one engine running on too low thrust (running on fumes literally).

My point is that with more engines you have greater control over the throttle, one engine out of nine at full trust gives a lower % throttle than one engine out of two at 30%, I doubt 9 merlins is the best number of engines for reuse, SpaceX just got lucky that it works in this case, in the early days it was going to be a Falcon 5, which may not have worked, who knows

That's true but would it really matter if the landing burn has to start 20 seconds before touchdown as currently for the F9 with one engine firing or 15 seconds or even 10 seconds for the BE-4 at 40% of max thrust? For a guidance computer those sort of time frames would still leave enough wiggle room for any thrust and course corrections needed. In any case there is no escaping of the hoverslam for a propulsive landing of an almost empty stage.
I think the 9 engine arrangement on the F9 is a good compromise between engine out capability, reuse and geometric arrangement. The F5 was just a study and they found that it would be better to just have the one F9 rocket that can do more and is still cheaper than anything else out there.

but if thats the case then why not try it from the start, I see what you mean about needing a better upper stage, but the Vulcan FS is more powerful than the Atlas and they also have the option of strap on solids, so IMO the only logical reason is its not possible with only two BE-4s

I suppose we will know more when Blue give more details of the rockets they intend to build with the BE-4, I suspect they won't be using a helicopter to catch engines

That is the question here I think. From the back of the envelope calculations that I've seen so far the Vulcan/Atlas could do propulsive landings with the BE-4 engine (3-4 of them on S1). Personally I think it's more of engineering thinking inertia at ULA. For decades the engineers there have been drilled with trying to squeeze out the last bit of performance margins from flight hardware and the available fuel to get the most mass up they possibly can. While BO and SpX thinking is very different to that. They are happy to sacrifice upmass capacity to get a shot at reuse and just build a bigger rocket and add upgrades to compensate. The advertised payload capacity to LEO for an F9 is 13.1 metric tons but realistically it could lift way more than that if it would fly in fully expendable mode (closer to 20t to LEO). For GTO the advertised capacity for F9 is 4.8t but SES-9 was 5.3t and it went to a slightly super synch orbit while still having some margin for a DPL attempt.

_Tombstone_

3rd time landing for this Rocket now. Vid later on sometime.

http://www.engadget.com/2016/04/01/jeff-bezos-blue-origin-will-launch-its-rocket-a-third-time/
http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/04/jeff-bezos-is-live-tweeting-todays-blue-origin-launch/

nokia69

_Tombstone_

Manned flight next year, passengers in 2018, somewhere in the Tens of Thousands to get ready for a relauch with each Rocket expected to be able for at least 100 launches. The odd experiment. New Rocket coming next year developed for the useless lazy ULA whose fat Government paychecks are no longer a certainty and who can no longer rely on Russian Rockets to do their lifting.

Pretty much sums them up. Whats the point except for a plaything for the rich?

Another vid of launch, since he announced it this time some people were waiting. Nice sound of it.

nokia69

_Tombstone_ wrote: »

Manned flight next year, passengers in 2018

Thats a bit conservative IMO, their system looks safe enough to me, a few more tests and plenty of people would be willing to take a trip this year

Ghost Train

nokia69 wrote: »

Thats a bit conservative IMO, their system looks safe enough to me, a few more tests and plenty of people would be willing to take a trip this year

They've only had three or four flights and it's less than a year since the first, so still early days
Good interview here about what it takes to get something human rated for nasa
http://www.airspacemag.com/ist/?next=/space-exploration/Certified-Safe.html

nokia69

I know its NASA or maybe FAA holding them back, but by the end of the year at this rate they could have more than 10 successful flights

_Tombstone_

_Tombstone_ wrote: »

Whats the point except for a plaything for the rich?

http://www.geekwire.com/2016/interview-jeff-bezos/

nokia69

_Tombstone_

Blue Origin will risk blowing up one of its rockets to test the crew escape system, and stream it live

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5i-f-D_A-M

josip

Everything worked ok it seems.

http://newatlas.com/new-shepard-survives-escape-test/45771/

Maximus Alexander

It's not much of a rocket though really is it.

josip

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

It's not much of a rocket though really is it.

The source of that article is obvious when you read "continued on into space" without mentioning the final altitude it reached.

Still, every successful launch/test by Blue Origin helps to maintain the competitive aspect of the private space market.
Not sure whether they'll end up competing with SpaceX or Virgin Galactic in the end though. Not sure they know either.

Capt'n Midnight

josip wrote: »

The source of that article is obvious when you read "continued on into space" without mentioning the final altitude it reached.

Still, every successful launch/test by Blue Origin helps to maintain the competitive aspect of the private space market.
Not sure whether they'll end up competing with SpaceX or Virgin Galactic in the end though. Not sure they know either.

Altitude means almost nothing.

V2's got that high, and they used 20% water in the fuel which was low energy to begin with, and they didn't save weight with integrated tanks.

And didn't the capsule gyrate wildly and didn't it have a hard landing too ?
Still a long way to go.