HN Theater @HNTheaterMonth

⬐ evv

The behavior of the booster landing looks very different than SpaceX's.

Blue Origin's booster seems to switch to a different control logic at ~30ft up, from a rapid descent to a slow controlled touchdown procedure. Meanwhile, SpaceX has a very smooth touchdown that seems to use a single control logic. I'm sure that the SpaceX approach is better for fuel consumption, but the slower Blue Origin landings seem better for spectators!

I love watching the physical effects of somebody's code, and I'd love to hear more about the decisions that led to this behavior.

⬐ IneffablePigeon

SpaceX is forced to do the "hoverslam" landings (where the velocity reaches zero exactly as altitude reaches zero) because their engines can't actually throttle low enough to hover when the booster is almost empty. At the lowest power it would still accelerate upwards.

Blue Origin's booster, as far as I know, doesn't have this limitation (not that it seems to cause SpaceX too much trouble).

⬐ HALtheWise

It is probably fair to say that initially SpaceX was "forced" to perform hover slams due to thrust/weight ratios, but they seem to have embraced that option and turned it into a strength. For example, some of their landings now use three engines instead of one, getting slightly better fuel efficiency and "slamming" even more dramatically. If they were given the option today to do a slow landing like New Shepherd, I don't think they would take it. It will be interesting to see whether Blue goes to a faster landing profile when they start making orbital rockets that are actually performance sensitive.

⬐ elteto

SpaceX's Merlin engines can't throttle down low enough to achieve a thrust-to-weight ratio of 1 (hover) or less than 1 (controlled descent), therefore they have to do a "suicide burn" where they synchronize engine startup during descent such that speed is "exactly" 0 m/s just as the stage is touching down on the landing zone/barge.

It seems like BO's engines are smaller and/or have deeper throttle capabilities, so they actually do hovering and controlled descent.

⬐ DuskStar

> It seems like BO's engines are smaller and/or have deeper throttle capabilities, so they actually do hovering and controlled descent.

Blue Origin only uses one engine for New Shepard, so it's actually proportionately much larger than the Merlin engines on Falcon 9. The reason they can hover is that New Shepard is fundamentally a MUCH lower performance vehicle than Falcon 9. This allows them to land with a larger fraction of their launch mass, decreasing the amount of throttling required.

The single BE-3 engine used by New Shepard can throttle from 490KN to 89KN, about 18%. The 9 Merlin 1D engines on a Falcon 9 first stage can throttle to 39%, but 8 of them can be shut down during landing for a total throttle capacity of 4.33%. The fact that New Shepard can hover with 18% throttle but Falcon 9 can only do a suicide burn with 4.33% should tell you everything you need to know about the relative performance (and use cases!) of the two rockets.

⬐ shirro

They are both great solutions.

Blue Origin could design the most elegant solution to their problem without a lot of compromises.

SpaceX always intended reuse but originally they were going to recover boosters with parachutes. They already had a full flight manifest depending on engines designed for mass production and thrust to weight, not throttle ability. So they had to work with what they had which was a rocket that could not hover. They turned the limitations into a benefit because the hoverslam is more fuel efficient which is far more critical for their service than it would be for Blue Origin.

⬐ wallace_f

>SpaceX always intended reuse but originally they were going to recover boosters with parachutes

I know that engineers have obviously done that math on this, but I still find it incredibly counterintuitive that they are not at least shaving off some velocity with any chutes or other aerodynamic surfaces (except of course there are the grid fins, but afaik those are primarily for steering the ballistic trajectory in the upper atmosphere at hypersonic speeds, and don't significantly alter the terminal velocity relevant to how much fuel you need for a hover burn).

⬐ greglindahl

SpaceX totally 'flies' the first stage, but as a cylinder with gridfins it can't shed that much velocity due to aerodynamics.

⬐ IneffablePigeon

If you watch the first stage telemetry as it comes back down on the livestream (they don't always show you it, sadly) you can see that actually a huge proportion of the velocity is lost through atmospheric drag. I was shocked the first time I saw it.

Obviously the terminal velocity of the stage is still pretty fast but compared to the speed it starts at it's much smaller.

⬐ wallace_f

Yea, atmospheric drag does most of the work to slow the boostet rocket. Which makes it all the more counterintuitive to my brain that the economics and engineering doesn't make sense for deploying some kind of chutes to shave off velocity.

Every kg in fuel you need to burn to land, you need to lift off the pad. From what I found through some Googling, a F9 booster uses a little under 1,000kgs to do the hover burn. I would imagine some lightweight aero surfaces would be more weight-efficient at decelerating the rocket than the 999th, 997th, 996th, (nth) kg of fuel.

⬐ agildehaus

Parachutes hinder re-usability. You can't deploy a chute, land, then expect to take off again quickly without manual refurbishment. SpaceX's ultimate goal is zero refurb re-usability.

A parachute would also be next to worthless for landing a fully-loaded BFR on Mars.

SpaceX takes the iterative approach and is designing their vehicle for Mars landings now to get practice, at the expense of being able to carry a bit less to high-energy orbits (which they've largely negated with Falcon Heavy and Falcon 9 upgrades) here on Earth.

⬐ danielvf

I noticed the same thing when the first New Shepard video was released. Here’s a more detailed explanation of what’s going on:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10620730

⬐ pilsetnieks

F9/FH cannot throttle down enough to do a hover landing, so they have to do a suicide burn (i.e., fire the engine just so the speed goes to 0 m/s at 0 m altitude.) The engine is too powerful and the body is too light to hover.

Blue Origin might eventually encounter just that problem with New Glenn.

⬐ walrus01

I don't know where you're getting this idea. The grasshopper hovered all the time in tests and uses the same single-engine as the F9 full thrust.

https://www.google.com/search?q=spacex+grasshopper+video&num...

⬐ greglindahl

I don't think it was exactly the same engine, and Grasshopper didn't have 9 engines, it had one. The engines are a surprisingly large mass fraction of a dry first stage.

⬐ doikor

They probably just put extra weight (fuel) in the grasshopper for easier testing. The F9 on the other hand is basically an empty soda can with engines at the bottom and small fins at the top when it’s landing so even when firing just a single engine at minimum power it will generate too much thrust to hover.

⬐ jordanthoms

Keep in mind, yes this is just a small suborbital vehicle but Blue Origin is making a lot of progress on their New Glenn rocket, which has a reusable first stage and capabilities between the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy with a single core. They'll be built right next to the launch site in Cape Canaveral and use Methalox rather than RP-1 (SpaceX is moving to Methalox for the BFR rockets).

I'm a big SpaceX fan and they've got a big lead in terms of actual launches and recovery experience, but don't count Blue Origin out.

⬐ 51Cards

One difference I find is that Blue Origin's videos almost seem too polished to me? With the advertising-esque overlays, the rock music, the editing. Always feels like I'm watching a commercial vs. an actual space flight. SpaceX has done this but usually it's just during their 3D sim videos. I guess the difference is that Blue Origin really needs to market this to the "general public" as that is their projected income source for now.

Edit: I also found it interesting that they chose to show the closeup of the capsule landing in "slow motion".

Edit 2: Seems they have just added the full live stream video vs. just the polished edited version I was commenting on earlier.

⬐ _wmd

Maybe stating the obvious, but you are watching a commercial :)

⬐ nordsieck

Start 31:16 https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=31m16s&v=ZUV53Nn3PhA

Launch 1:09:50 https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=69m50s&v=ZUV53Nn3PhA

⬐ nordsieck

Looks like they edited the livestream.

Launch 38:41 https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=38m41s&v=ZUV53Nn3PhA

⬐ loeg

Direct link (to the video included in the article as of this writing): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSDHM6iuogI .

(Edit: Note that it's an earlier launch from December. They've pulled the livestream video of this launch, which is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUV53Nn3PhA .)

⬐ wmf

Note that's from December; there's another flight today but that isn't it.

⬐ loeg

It's the (as of writing) current video linked from the "article" URL. Apparently the live stream was removed.

⬐ rory096

The webcast was removed from Youtube when it ended — we'll have to wait for them to recut and reupload it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUV53Nn3PhA

⬐ iamcreasy

Can anybody answer me, why BlueOrigin has to detach the passenger module? Can't they just land the passenger module with the booster since the booster have such controlled landing?

⬐ shirro

Possibly booster landings were judged much less reliable than parachute landings when they originated the concept. Nobody had propulsively landed a booster that had been to space until Blue and SpaceX did it at around the same time.

Before that things didn't always go so well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvim4rsNHkQ

SpaceX were going to land Dragon 2 with rockets and it looks like NASA wasn't interested. Parachutes are still the safe, proven option.

With orbital class boosters potentially being landed every couple of weeks and Blue having flown their vehicle multiple times I would guess future vehicle generations will benefit from that experience.

SpaceX's BFS is going to combine a second stage and crew/cargo vehicle. If successful, competition might be pushed in the same direction.

⬐ ekianjo

By detaching the passenger module you can effectively give passengers a longer flight.

⬐ agildehaus

New Shepard has a single engine. If that engine fails to light, either every passenger dies or you escape the passenger module and ... land with parachutes.

It's simpler to just separate near apogee and land with parachutes.

⬐ ptmcc

There are a lot of aerodynamic controls that are integrated into the ring at the top of the booster. The capsule needs to be detached in order for them to work appropriately.

Also, safety.

⬐ jessriedel

I don't know, but one possibility is that they think it's easier to ensure the extremely high degree of safety with a separate parachute capsule. If the boosters can be recovered 99% of the time, but are destroyed 1% of the time, that would be plenty reliable to drastically cut the cost of the trip but obviously not reliable enough for humans. And it might not make sense to bring that reliability to something like 0.1% or 0.01%, which you need for humans, if it doubles the cost of the booster.

⬐ ckdarby

Curious what happens if the parachute for the landing capsule fails or only one deploys? Does it spin out of control and not land at 1 mph?

⬐ shirro

They tested that already. They can land with two just fine. There is video on their youtube channel https://youtu.be/xYYTuZCjZcE?t=2m10s where they test this.

They also tested an emergency escape from the booster near maximum dynamic pressure https://youtu.be/ESc_0MgmqOA?t=51s

⬐ greglindahl

Yes, a one-chute-fails test is standard for these sorts of systems.

⬐ ckdarby

What about a two-chute fail?

⬐ wyck

I would assume there is a backup chute that can be deployed, probably with an altimeter that can auto far if manual deployment fails.

⬐ robryk

Some background: Apollo Command Module had an apparently similar arrangement of parachutes. In the case of Apollo CM, two out of three main chutes had to be properly inflated for the landing to not likely cause a significant injury. In case enough main chutes failed, the crew could cause them to be cut away and a reserve chute to be deployed. IIRC speeds under just a reserve chute were similar to speeds under two main chutes.

There are two significant differences between this spacecraft and Apollo CM: Apollo CM landed on water, while New Shepard lands on land and Apollo CM used a crushable piece of hull for final landing shock attenuation (that's why its landing attitude was slightly skewed), while New Shepard seems to use landing thrusters (a' la Soyuz).

⬐ callesgg

It is fun to see that they are trying to get some publicity the same way that spacex has pulled of so nicely.

I guess they could work on the polish of the video.

I have become quite used to the insane production value levels that spacex has. I have asked myself how many people is involved in just the filming/streaming of spacex launches on multiple occasions.

⬐ elvirs

'beautiful soft landing' ? really? at the beginning of the video she said the capsule will touch the ground at 1-2 mph speed because the rockets will come on kicking up dust and all. no visible dust and speed went from constant 16-17 mph in last 5 seconds to 0. Did the rockets fail?

⬐ rory096

As she said, it happens in the last milliseconds. You can see the cloud of dust kicked up just before impact at 49:00 in the video — that the speed reduction didn't make it to the on-screen indicator is probably more a reflection of the short time window than the rockets failing.

Compare to the nominal landing at 1:14 in this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSDHM6iuogI

⬐ elvirs

oh ok yeah can see it better in this video. thanks

⬐ plicense

Pardon me for the stupid question, but how is bringing the speed down to 0 milliseconds before landing by firing the rocket thrusters different from just letting the capsule hit the ground? I thought the thrusters were there to make the passengers not feel the inertia due to sudden arrest of speed from 16-17mph to 0mph. Firing the thrusters milliseconds before landing seems to have the same effect as just letting the capsule hit the ground? Or is it to protect the capsule itself?

⬐ kevan

I'm a bit rusty on my physics, but the general idea is that with both methods the total impulse (force over a time interval) is the same. The capsule goes from 16mph to 0mph.

But, if you let the ground stop you, you end up with all of the energy transfer in a few milliseconds. Because the time is so short, the force spikes to crazy high levels. This breaks equipment and people. The rockets firing spread out that force over a longer period of time.

For example (all numbers made up):

Time the ground takes to stop you: 25ms

Time rockets fire before touchdown: 100ms

Landing capsule weight: 2000kg

Impulse needed to stop capsule: 7.15264m/s * 2000kg = 14300Ns

Assuming in both cases the force is evenly applied over the time period...

Force from the ground stopping you: 14300Ns / 25ms = 572,000N

Force from the rockets + the ground: 14300Ns / (100ms + 25ms) = 115,000N

⬐ akaryocyte

It feels odd to see such a transparent exhaust from a rocket

⬐ saagarjha

The Space Shuttle burned hydrogen and produced water, none of which are really easily visible to the human eye. If you look closely at a launch you might be a able to catch a glimpse of the heat shimmer from the main engine.

⬐ greglindahl

Worth noting that you're talking about what's going on after the SRBs finish firing. The solids produce a lot of visible exhaust.

⬐ saagarjha

Yeah, ammonium perchlorate doesn't burn as cleanly as liquid hydrogen does.

⬐ exDM69

The space shuttle main engines did fire at liftoff while the SRBs were firing. They may be a bit hard to see at launch but the exhaust mach diamonds are clearly visible e.g. in [0]. They were much more clearly visible in the 7-ish seconds before liftoff, after the SSMEs had been ignited but before the SRBs go off.

[0] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/STS120La...

⬐ greglindahl

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that the SSMEs were not firing at liftoff. Since they fire for a few seconds before the SRBs get lit, I suspect most people know what's going on with them.

⬐ pilsetnieks

It's a hydrogen/oxygen engine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BE-3), the exhaust is basically water or maybe hydrogen peroxide.

https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/16821/what-is-the-...

⬐ newnewpdro

Didn't it seem like the capsule speed suddenly dropped from ~18MPH to 0MPH at landing? I was under the impression there would be a short burn smoothing that transition, it did not appear to be the case to me.

Also, the whole commercial advertisement format of the launch is far too contrived. Hearing the host describe the capsule window as gorgeous cheapens the entire thing, it's like I'm watching home shopping network.

⬐ jessriedel

The burn just before impact is very short. It is designed to ensure there are no injuries, but not to make the landing feather soft. I don't know what the technical restrictions are that motivate this, but I'm sure the design choice is deliberate; the Soyuz landing is very similar.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-l7MM9yoxII&feature=youtu.be...

⬐ __john

The exciting bit

https://youtu.be/ZUV53Nn3PhA?t=4202

⬐ zargath

Im a huge SpaceX fan, but Blueorigin's New Shepard does seem more robust. Maybe just because its a smaller and more thick rocket, but somehow by not being as spectacular it makes space travel more "normal" as we all hope it someday will become.

⬐ nickik

Also, the BE-3 engine will be very useful and seeing how stable it performs is very good. It will fly on the upper stage of New Glenn (BE-3U). There are other projects that are suspected to use the BE-3.

⬐ nordsieck

> more thick rocket

This is almost entirely driven by the fuel used - liquid methane is about 6.5 times more dense than liquid hydrogen.

⬐ dotancohen

With the super-chilled densified propellants, the Falcon 9 would be better off shorter and thicker to reduce surface area. However, the Falcon 9 must be ground-transported, which is why it has the same diameter restriction that the SST's SRBs had: 3.6 meter.

With no restriction on ground transport, the New Shepard can be as thick as engineering deems is necessary.

⬐ nordsieck

> Falcon 9 would be better off shorter and thicker to reduce surface area

Can you show me some references to this?

My understanding is that there is a tension between two goals.

The first goal is to maximize aerodynamic efficiency, which means minimizing frontal surface area.

The second goal is to minimize non-fuel weight, which means minimizing the surface area to volume ratio.

It's not obvious to me that the Falcon 9 would be better off shorter and wider.

⬐ dotancohen

> Can you show me some references to this?

Lots of people have done the calculations. Poke around the Reddit Spacex forum and NSF forums, lots of discussions there.

> The first goal is to maximize aerodynamic efficiency, which means minimizing frontal surface area.

The fairing is already wider than the first or upper stages, so increasing those stages to the fairing's width would actually improve the aerodynamics.

⬐ grondilu

> Blueorigin's New Shepard does seem more robust.

Well, NS was designed for re-usability from the start, while F9 had only re-usability plugged-in later as an experimental feature. SpaceX's priority was to get to orbit ASAP in order to be commercially viable.

I bet BFR will look much studier than F9.

⬐ ceejayoz

> Im a huge SpaceX fan, but Blueorigin's New Shepard does seem more robust.

That's a little like comparing a F1 racer to a wheelbarrow, isn't it? Both are immensely useful for specific things, and would fail miserably if applied to the other's thing. New Shepard is cool, and I'd love to hop in it some day, but it's doing a little up-and-down suborbital hop. The two launchers have totally different purposes, and are constructed in entirely different ways as a result.

⬐ None

None

⬐ pipboy

why not show metric units, only on screen if not while they present. Please :)

⬐ FPGAhacker

Hey listen, people that work at these companies also like and read hackernews. Maybe try to have a little compassion before you sound off with thoughtless comments like “it looks cartoonish compared to spacex.”

People work pretty damn hard on these things that you piss on without a care.

⬐ jessriedel

More important than the feelings of employees is probably just the fact that HN doesn't need uninformed comments talking exclusively about how the music in the video makes the commenter feel, or which company they think is cooler.

⬐ bkor

> uninformed comments talking exclusively about how the music in the video makes the commenter feel

If someone is talking exclusively about themselves, why is this considered uninformed?!?

⬐ jessriedel

I don't mean "uninformed about the comment's claim", I mean "uniformed about the topic of discussion"

⬐ someguydave

uninformed comments seem to be the general rule on HN, unfortunately.

⬐ jessriedel

Do you know a better place on the internet? (Honest question.)

⬐ someguydave

No. Someone needs to invent something like HN but with the capability for 1.) cryptographic signatures for all content and 2.) the ability to create a completely custom blacklist/whitelist for the content and comments you see.

⬐ privateSFacct

The comments come in part because spacex mission profiles are more demanding. Falcon 9 thrust / payload capacity is 10-20Kg to mars level launch capability. New Shepherd is crossing the Karan line. Both totally cool, but very different. Just thrust alone is probably something like 23,000 vs 500 kN?

Most of us are rooting for Blue Origin to succeed despite the fact they worked together with ULA to try and block spacex access to a pad in florida (total BS!).

Seriously, build the orbital rocket then Nasa SHOULD give you space or make spacex provide space if needed - but the claims of need between 2013 and 2018 for the nasa pad seemed totally bogus.

⬐ albertgoeswoof

Anyone who builds space rockets for a living is so far beyond the average hacker news reader that they really shouldn't care. I mean, this literally is rocket science.

⬐ None

None

⬐ FPGAhacker

Not true at all. About the not caring. We are all trying to do the best we can, and we can all be discouraged by the cavalier words of others.

⬐ killjoywashere

I think he meant the Blue Origin crew shouldn't care. Yes, Hacker News commentors should care. Agreed.

⬐ pavs

Seriously? Is "Looks a bit cartoonish compared to falcon9" is really such a horrible thing to say? Even by HN standard (which I have been visiting quite regularly for over 10 years), this is really tame.

⬐ wybiral

Plus competition is good. The last thing we want is for one US company to basically have a monopoly on commercial space.

Otherwise we'd probably all still be using Internet Explorer.

⬐ greglindahl

Platitudes are important, elsewise we'd have far fewer comments on HN!

There's no chance that anyone can monopolize the launch market because of the way it's structured, with lots of governments wanting independent access to space. What you want is at least 2 low-cost providers.

⬐ SmellyGeekBoy

That's literally one troll comment, the rest seem to be technical discussion, speculation about the future of space travel, and people asking about metric units. Why not reply to the comment in question?

⬐ jacquesm

Sorry to hurt your feelings but Jeff Bezos is doing just about everything he can to get the comparison with SpaceX out there and nobody commenting on any of this intends to hurt the feelings of those working on either one of these projects. There have been plenty of harsh words on Tesla, SpaceX, Apple, Google and so on on HN and this is the first time that the 'compassion' angle gets played.

How about: Blue Origin and SpaceX are as different as apples and oranges, the one is doing space tourism and may at some point become a player, the other is serving up a sizeable fraction of the worlds launch capacity at a pace that seems to be picking up every month. As soon as Blue Origin becomes Blue Orbitals a comparison would make sense.

⬐ lukealization

You sound exactly like the type who would defend ULA and other rocketry incumbents when SpaceX was a tiny startup.

Why are we so intent on dismissing the little players here?

⬐ jacquesm

If that's your takeaway then I think there isn't much point starting a debate with you but on the off chance that that is what you are looking for:

(1) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=823615 and many others besides, some of them well before SpaceX was even officially on the books.

(2) Jeff Bezos is not a 'little player', he goes out of his way to invite comparison (in a positive sense) between SpaceX and Blue Origin.

(3) I'm super happy that SpaceX exists and I sincerely hope that Blue Origin will shape up and starts to put stuff in orbit rather than to play the 'space tourism' angle. It seems rather frivolous to start off with manned space flight when you normally speaking cut your teeth - and derisk your design - using many useful unmanned launches until you get it all to work reliably and safely. Going 'up and down' does not seem all that impressive, even though of course it is plenty complicated but it is all relative to what others are doing.

(4) I can't stand hype. And to me Blue Origin is hyping for all it is worth. For now they're Armadillo Space on steroids time will tell how they will fare. Until then these test flights test stuff that matters but not nearly at the level that Blue Origin makes it out to be.

Finally, to avoid stepping on sensitive toes: nothing in this comment is meant as disparaging to employees of Blue Origin, SpaceX, Rocket Lab, ULA, Ariane Space or any other group of people that are working to get mass of this planet, the more the merrier regardless of how much a project works out or not I wished I was younger and had more of a physics background so I could contribute. So I'm relegated to watching this development and it is the most excited I've been since I was 4 years old and saw the first man on the moon. I don't think I've missed a launch in the last year or two.

⬐ rory096

>If that's your takeaway then I think there isn't much point starting a debate with you but on the off chance that that is what you are looking for:

You may not know this, but the user you're responding to has historically been one of the more prominent SpaceX fanboys on the internet. (Formerly most active mod of /r/SpaceX)

(edit: okay, maybe you do know this. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9449298)

>(1) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=823615 and many others besides, some of them well before SpaceX was even officially on the books.

Nobody's questioning whether you supported SpaceX then. But don't let your past cheerleading of the now-frontrunner preclude you from supporting the promising newcomers now. Space is big enough for many players.

>(2) Jeff Bezos is not a 'little player', he goes out of his way to invite comparison (in a positive sense) between SpaceX and Blue Origin.

Good. If SpaceX is his role model, he's sure to set his sights high.

>(3) I'm super happy that SpaceX exists and I sincerely hope that Blue Origin will shape up and starts to put stuff in orbit rather than to play the 'space tourism' angle. It seems rather frivolous to start off with manned space flight when you normally speaking cut your teeth - and derisk your design - using many useful unmanned launches until you get it all to work reliably and safely. Going 'up and down' does not seem all that impressive, even though of course it is plenty complicated but it is all relative to what others are doing.

Blue Origin just completed an absolutely massive rocket factory in KSC's Exploration Park. Their (ambitious, oxygen-rich staged combustion methalox) orbital-class rocket engine will complete testing this year, bound for use both on their own SHLV-class orbital New Glenn as well as ULA's Vulcan in 2020. Meanwhile, with New Shepard they've perfected their hydrogen BE-3 (to be modified for vacuum work as the BE-3U) and will soon gain experience with flying crew. That's more meaningful than you let on — crew capsule development is a very long process. Dragon started development in 2004, 15 years before it will fly crew. New Glenn will start with dozens of unmanned payloads — crewed flights aren't expected until 7-8 years down the line. (And they'll presumably still need to develop their own orbital capsule.)

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/972507214845014016

>(4) I can't stand hype. And to me Blue Origin is hyping for all it is worth.

SpaceX is built on hype. Hype precedes accomplishment, by nature.

>For now they're Armadillo Space on steroids time will tell how they will fare. Until then these test flights test stuff that matters but not nearly at the level that Blue Origin makes it out to be.

You say that as if it's a bad thing. Armadillo is one of the most profoundly impactful companies in all of spaceflight history — there's a direct line from Carmack's VTVL work to SpaceX's booster landings. Nobody disputes that Blue Origin is many years behind SpaceX, and their "top-down" approach can be criticized and contrasted with SpaceX's "bottom-up" approach, but their accomplishments so far should not be understated — they are at least as impressive as SpaceX's Grasshopper and F9R work. And they're low single-digit years away from leapfrogging every competitor besides SpaceX into low-cost partially-reusable heavy-lift flight.

⬐ privateSFacct

This last bit is what is so exciting! I think they may even come out ahead on re-usability. And I'm not a BFR fan frankly - the whole going around earth on a rocket - blah. Automated planes or something first please!

⬐ saagarjha

> There have been plenty of harsh words on Tesla, SpaceX, Apple, Google and so on on HN and this is the first time that the 'compassion' angle gets played.

Then again, HackerNews does have the stereotype of criticizing things in ways that show a fundamental misunderstanding of the topic being discussed…

⬐ greglindahl

This time, the difference between suborbital and orbital is a big deal. You'll note that press coverage of BO uses 'suborbital' to describe these flights, while BO's marketing keeps talking about 'space'.

⬐ privateSFacct

Enjoyed the video!

Can't wait to see the orbital stuff. What blue origin is showing currently looks reusable. Curious if it will scale, some of this is easier at lower scale.

I am curious about the claim of a feather soft landing - there is pretty much nothing lighter than feather light, even an airplane landing is harder. That's a big accomplishment if true (and looks like there should be at least a jolt of some sort just eyeballing. Props to the team for getting it so light.

⬐ jacquesm

They can credibly claim 'space' because of the altitude. I really hope they will stay on schedule to do something more serious than this, I can't wait until there are two private sector parties with orbital launch capability and reusability at their core.

⬐ greglindahl

Claiming 'space' and not saying suborbital is why people are criticizing them.

⬐ MPSimmons

To be very fair, a large proportion of the population doesn't intuitively understand the difference. Most people think you go to orbit by going "up".

Just because SpaceX is doing something much harder than what Blue Origin is doing, that doesn't make it easy or trivial. Even getting a rocket that size to space is incredibly difficult, and not that many nations have done it. The fact that they're doing it, with a (soon to be) crewed capsule, which lands vertically... that's mind blowing.

The fact that SpaceX has a ton of success doesn't raise the table stakes. Basically, no one else (except SpaceX) is doing what Blue Origin is doing, nor have they done it in history. That is tremendous. I am very, very happy for Blue Origin, even though I'm rooting harder for SpaceX. Respect all around.

⬐ greglindahl

So you're saying we should bitch even louder when people say 'space' without saying 'suborbital'?

⬐ jacquesm

> Most people think you go to orbit by going "up".

This is very true. More than one person I know commented on how strange it is that SpaceX rockets go 'sideways'. They think going 'up' is the prelude to going into orbit.

⬐ jacquesm

For sure, it's exactly why you get these comment threads. They're going after the same press that SpaceX gets without being candid about the vast differences between the two companies when it matters most. Such wilful muddying of the waters serves nobody.

Rocket Lab has - at this point - as much or even more credibility than Blue Origin has in spite of the more modest goals and the huge disparity in funding. At some point Blue Origin will simply have to deliver, sooner is better than later.

⬐ jacquesm

I hope internally Blue Origin uses the metric system, it's been a long time since Miles per hour and feet were used to talk about rocketry, NASA learned this the hard way.

http://edition.cnn.com/TECH/space/9909/30/mars.metric.02/

⬐ rory096

>it's been a long time since Miles per hour and feet were used to talk about rocketry

Falcon 9 is built on the imperial system, as are Atlas and Delta. SpaceX is only switching to metric with BFR.

⬐ justinclift

Ouch. They use Siemens NX, which AFAIR has to be set to either metric or imperial for all models and assemblies.

Getting them mixed up sounds potentially risky. :/

Definitely would expect they've added some automatic safety checks around that, which is quite do-able in NX from memory.

⬐ hordeallergy

I wish they'd use them externally too. My on the fly calculations using feet and miles are clumsy approximations.

⬐ anovikov

:yawns:

⬐ stevespang

I never saw the dust kickup due to capsule engines, only dust was from capsule impact it seemed.

⬐ notaki

BO, lol.

⬐ pavs

Looks a bit cartoonish compared to falcon9. I know they have a different purpose and are different in size.

⬐ tomcam

What on earth does that mean?

⬐ CommieBobDole

I agree, though 'different purpose' might even be understating it a bit. While impressive, New Shepard is really just a small-scale test vehicle, designed to do exactly what you see here and nothing more; it goes straight up and comes straight down; it can't get anywhere near orbital altitude or orbital speed - on the latter, it maxes out around 2000 mph, which is about 15,000 mph short of orbital velocity.

I don't want to minimize what Blue Origin is doing here; they've got a good test vehicle, smart people, lots of funding, and ambitious plans, and they will no doubt be very successful, but what SpaceX does with the Falcon 9 on a regular basis is orders of magnitude more difficult and impressive.

⬐ ChuckMcM

Congrats Blue Origin Team! That was nicely done. I am always amazed when something so complicated is made to look "easy."

With Virgin Galactic getting back into test flights after losing Spaceship 2, the possibility that non-astronauts might be making suborbital flights seems so much closer.

I share the suggestion with other commentators here that using metric units might be more useful, even if your target audience (the tourists that fly) might not understand them, is a good one. Even if they don't understand them, tourists will recognize when something looks "Just like NASA does it" and that will instill confidence.

The dynamic range on the BE-3 is particularly impressive. I don't believe anyone else's restartable rocket engine has a similar range of operation.

I can't wait to hear when you guys start taking applications for passengers.

⬐ jackfoxy

Or use both units of measure. Is there a reason not to?

⬐ cm2187

Here is one: http://edition.cnn.com/TECH/space/9909/30/mars.metric/

⬐ SmellyGeekBoy

I think jackfoxy was referring to their press releases, not their engineering team.

⬐ grondilu

Also, their main altitude target is the Karman line, which is a nice round number in the metric system (100km). So why not stick to this?

⬐ exDM69

The de facto units in aerospace is usually thousands of feet for altitude and nautical miles for distance, knots (nm per hour) for speed and pounds for thrust. Some older aerospace literature I have even uses nautical miles for orbital altitude.

I'm fine with this, but I'm not fine with mixing imperial and metric units. The worst was NASA Space Shuttle launches where they used statute miles for downrange distance with some nautical miles here and there for good measure.

I'm guessing they use SI units internally for engineering.