Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

Bezos's Blue Origin Prepares Launch Facility 127

Posted by CmdrTaco from the hey-jeff-can-i-get-a-lift dept.
mhteas writes "Jeff Bezos's very quiet and private spaceship company Blue Origin is preparing to set up a launch facility in west Texas on 165,000 acres Bezos bought. There's a little more information about Blue Origin's plans too."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Bezos's Blue Origin Prepares Launch Facility More

Bezos's Blue Origin Prepares Launch Facility

Comments Filter:

  • So very quietly... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Hammerikaner ( 570527 ) on Monday January 17, 2005 @05:16PM (#11388941) Homepage
    Yes, so quietly that we've been hearing about this for the better part of a week!

  • repeat (Score:5, Informative)

    by Jodka ( 520060 ) on Monday January 17, 2005 @05:19PM (#11388962)

    A similar story was reported previously on Slashdot here [slashdot.org].

  • It's about time that more people get into it... (Score:5, Funny)

    by UID1000000 ( 768677 ) on Monday January 17, 2005 @05:19PM (#11388963) Homepage Journal
    Blue Origin's Web site says the company doesn't intend to stop with a suborbital vehicle. The ultimate goal is to establish an "enduring human presence in space," and Bezos told Reuters in November that his company hopes to progress to orbital vehicles.

    Sounds like he might be trying to obtain the Bigelow space race for a space station. 50 million dollars is a nice prize.




    On a side note Google buys enough dark fibre to make a space elevator thus obtaining total control of the globe with the only cheap way to get to orbit.
    • More power to Jeff! Maybe he can attract the most talented engineers from the best schools and agencies to turn this into a reality. Whether or not he wins the Bigelow Prize is besides the point, but the advancement of private technology, the spirit of adventure, and the general attentiveness of the public to the issue will still be a victory. I am an optimist, as the present was not created by pessimists - nor will the future.

    • Uhmmm... dark fibre for a space elevator?

      Somehow i doubt that unused fibre-optic cable http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_fibre [wikipedia.org] is going to be useful for construction of a space elevator.

      Maybe you are thinking of carbon nano-tubes? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_nanotubes [wikipedia.org]

      I dunno, could be me, but i don't think fibre-op cable is especially strong.
      • I would recommend carbon nano-tubes but the joke was referring to the fact that this is a space article, the Google offered a job on the Googleplex on the Moon and that no one really knowns what Google is going to do with it. It's kind of a ha ha thing.

        Especially with the way that people bitch about the article selection. If the editors weren't busy with the newspapers they run they'd be fine. (Well I don't know if they run papers but it seems like a few of them read www.msnbc.com, wwww.nytimes.com, and ww
    • Consider the following:

      Using a 40 foot cargo container willed with someones bottle water, Blue-0 demonstrates the following:

      1. Said Container is loaded at the Blue-0 launch site.

      2. Blue-0 then launches with said container.

      3. Blue-0 then lands in some manner to some place like Sri Lanka.

      4. Blue-0 then returns home in the same manner.

      Why water? Because everyone knows long haul truckers get thirsty.

  • For CmdrTaco (Score:5, Funny)

    by phidipides ( 59938 ) on Monday January 17, 2005 @05:20PM (#11388972) Homepage
    You can read more about this here [slashdot.org].

  • Future Email (Score:5, Funny)

    by vmcto ( 833771 ) * on Monday January 17, 2005 @05:22PM (#11388985) Homepage Journal
    Other customers that purchased a Moon Light Ride also liked the following adventures:

    Mars Explorer Getaway

    Mercury Asbestos Slide

    Venus "Green with Envy" Tour

  • Problem (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 17, 2005 @05:22PM (#11388986)
    I hate to say this, but the problem with human space travel is that there is just nowhere to go. There are no alien civilizations (or even alien plant life) within reach. There are no habitable planets within reach (unless you count Mars or Venus, but as wastelands go, Antartica is paradise in comparison with either of those in terms of human habitation). It sucks, but it's true.
    • We know the Moon is abundant with helium-3, which is rare on Earth and may someday serve as fuel for fusion reactors. We haven't nearly explored enough of Mars or Venus to determine if there is some pragmatic reason to go there.
      • Mars has an atmosphere, and water. The reason to go there is to live there.

        The Moon will never be anything more than a base: There's no way to get a self-sustaining colony on that rock.

        That's why Mars is interesting, and the Moon is not.
        • While I understand what you're saying about the moon lacking natural resources, it's not necessarily true that there's no way to get a self-sustaining colony there. It just means that we have to do a lot of the "heavy lifting" of the construction ourselves, including creation of an atmosphere trap (bubble or can or whatever), gardens, etc. The moon itself is essentially a large platform of unrefined resources (Silicon, Oxygen, Iron, Aluminum, etc.) with a huge import of solar energy (around 1300 W/sq.m).
          • What are you going to do for water and nitrogen? Sure, you can recycle a lot, but you're still going to need water and nitrogen to sustain a colony.

            That stuff is on Mars. Not on Luna.
            • The same thing you're going to do for people, machinery, and vegetation: import it. Nitrogen is one of those things that we don't lose a lot of with our use of it (growing plants, breathing), as it's essentially a buffer gas where we humans are concerned. Plants think otherwise about it, but I think they just utilize it rather than modify it (not completely clear on this point). And, if you import a couple metric tons of hydrogen, you can use the oxygen on dear Luna to create water.

              I didn't say that the
              • "While I understand what you're saying about the moon lacking natural resources, it's not necessarily true that there's no way to get a self-sustaining colony there."

                Those were your words, bud. That was what I was disagreeing with.

                There is nitrogen on Mars, we know that. The only question is how much, and that will take further study.

                Seems to me like we ought to figure out how to build a fusion reactor before we worry too much about where we're going to get HE3.
            • For water and nitrogen we go out and get us a water-ice comet. That is how we can get the water at least. I see no reason why we "need" the nitrogen other than for plants. So we don't need that much of it.
              • Er, people like to eat plants. That's why nitrogen is important.

                Grabbing comets is a much more ambitious project than setting up a sustainable Mars mission.
                • My point was we won't need as much nitrogen if we don't use it in an atmosphere. Plants can use a solid form of nitrogen that is easier to keep in near 100% recylcing. For anything we need (such as O2, we can grab a commet. Being able to grab a commet or ice asteroid would pretty much garuntee a sustainable mission anywhere in the solar system.

    • Re:Problem (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Two words: Asteroid belt.

      Three more words: Unlimited mineral resources.
      • "buffalo as far as the eye can see"!

        • Three more words (Score:1, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward
          Really shitty analogy.

          We're talking about another PLANET'S worth of metals and ores. We haven't done much more than scratch the surface of our own...

          Asteroids don't decompose when you 'kill' them, either. They'll still be there even if you just take half of one.

    • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday January 17, 2005 @05:53PM (#11389199)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Problem? When people go into space, and stay in their hotel rooms, what do you think they'll do? HAVE SEX!! Only the foolish will not consider this when designing their space industry at this point in history. I predict that psace tourism won't be too popular unless peopel have access to zero-gravity sex.

      .
      -shpoffo
  • Let's go someplace private and quiet. Like a spaceship.

  • Will they be using ... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 17, 2005 @05:24PM (#11388998)
    the patented one click launch button?

  • Sci fi movies ? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by sla291 ( 757668 )
    Am I the only one to believe that this kind of projects will soon be featured in not-so-future sci fi movies ??
    • I thought they *were* in Sci-Fi movies of the 50s? Ya know, some guy and his team build a space ship and fly to Jupiter or something. No?

    • imagine how lame they'd be... a new star trek series set 2030: Star Trek, Origins. Well, we have no Warp yet, neither any aliens but... it's a NGSA (NonGovernmentSpaceAgency) funded...

  • Guess (Score:3, Funny)

    by computerme ( 655703 ) on Monday January 17, 2005 @05:31PM (#11389042)
    Guess what item I will be adding to my "Amazon Wish List"

    ??????

  • If only (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    If only our community supports bezos as much as they support (steve) jobs, we'd actually be getting somewhere.
    • Particularly if you're using this [skyramp.org] to get there. From my admittedly layman-oriented perspective, skyramp technology is an economical alternative to conventioal vertical-launch behemouths from the aerospace companies, which is why it needs a private, non-subsidized backer like Bezos in order to be built.
      • Robert Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. Moon base lords it over earth using their maglev launcher.
        • Yeah, my hope was that humankind would adopt this hidden-in-plain-sight technology before the Moon people did. The idea actually belongs to Werner Von Braun, who advocated doing space launches with ramps to save energy, but the military wanted their vertical-launch ICBMs so that they could volley-fire nukes at the Russians. Heinlein, to be sure, is a visionary of a different kind.
  • In the mean time, there's 165,000 acres of land wasting away. Free stay at the guest ranch with each space ticket purchase.
    • Hah, you can go on eBay and buy 500 to 1000 acres of West Texan land for a couple grand. So 165,000 acres may not be free, and that is a lot of land, but the stuff is practically free out there.
      • Err that last sentence didn't quite make sense (need to learn to preview before submit, I know).

        I meant "So 165,000 acres may not be free, and that is a lot of land, but the stuff is really cheap out there."
  • Bezos has probably been listening to Kanye West's song Spaceship a little too much:

    "I've been workin' this graveshift and I ain't made shit
    I wish I could buy me a spaceship and fly past the sky"
  • "Blue Origin operation, headquartered in a warehouse on East Marginal Way in Seattle"

    Haw Haw.

    Man dreams of space, begins pouring concrete for launch pad. Big deal. Does he have a ship? A design? Anything?

    • Man dreams of space, begins pouring concrete for launch pad. Big deal. Does he have a ship? A design? Anything?

      Um, there are plenty of available designs (SpaceShip One comes to mind). Whichever one he uses, he will have to buy it from the company that engineered it and can manufacture it, as I doubt he can put one together in his garage. So long as he has the money, he can make it work.

      "Blue Origin operation, headquartered in a warehouse on East Marginal Way in Seattle"

      Haw Haw.

      Haw Haw??? Jiminey

  • Oooh! (Score:4, Funny)

    by ZiZ ( 564727 ) * on Monday January 17, 2005 @05:40PM (#11389122) Homepage
    So if I sign up for Amazon Space Services, can I use my referral ID to generate revinue whenever someone goes to space after clicking on one of my links?
  • We could visit the black monoliths on Titan.

  • with patented (Score:1, Redundant)

    by acomj ( 20611 )
    One click Ticketing!
    One click launch!

    The only space center one with the one click difference!

  • Perhaps Bezos may have to delay this venture a bit, after his prodigy (Amazon) cash's out my $10 billion credit on file? Either that, or it's time to audit the accounting system... Excerpt below from my latest Amazon order confirmation (today, 1/17/05)...LOL "...Shipping Method: Standard Shipping Shipping Preference: Group my items into as few shipments as possible Subtotal of Items: $39.94 Shipping & Handling: $12.45 ------ Total before tax: $52.39 Estimated Tax: $3.61 ------ Total: $56.00
    • upon first glance I thought it said Blue Virgin

      I'd never ride in one of those. It would keep on getting shot down.

  • From the article (Score:3, Funny)

    by SageMadHatter ( 546701 ) on Monday January 17, 2005 @05:56PM (#11389228)
    The craft will launch vertically, like the classic rocket ship of science-fiction movies, and will land vertically as well.

    So do non-fiction rockets. Something tells me the author of the article may not realize this.
    • Just because it can be done, doesn't mean it's a good idea.

      Carmack apparently chose the vertical-landing scenario because their launch range wouldn't let them use a parachute.

      When you've got an atmosphere that's really good at slowing stuff down, using rocket fuel to slow you down is a really terrible idea.
      • Using a parachute may make it easier, but it reduces re-usability and turn around time. Using a VTOL (vertical take of and landing) you can, in theory, land anywhere that is flat enough without a runway and if you have enough fuel, launch again. Space ship one using a parachute greatly increases it's turnaround time since you have to repack the chute. Or pack a new chute. The plane that lifts it up also increases turn around time.

        One other thing about VTOLs. Thinking long term, they are the only kind
        • If you look at the fuel consumption math for rocketry, you'll immediately understand why reducing thrown weight is THE design driver for orbital launches. Carrying around extra fuel just for landing vastly increases your launch vehicle weight, and that's Bad (and Expensive).

          They've got a long way (engineering-wise) before they're ready to go to the moon. If they believe they're going to take off in a single-stage to orbit vehicle, fly it to the moon, land, take off again, and fly it back to Earth...well,
          • Look at some SASSTO and BETA information. It was probably possible to make a SSTO vehicle in the 60s. It is even more possible now. The DC-X people tried, but couldn't get funding for DC-Y. Now that NMD is getting billions pumped into it once more, perhaps someone will get Brilliant Pebbles out of the drawer again.

            The fact is, wings and the structure reinforcement to allow wings costs weight. Weight which could as well be fuel.

            There are some articles on SSTOs here [spacefuture.com] and here [spacefuture.com].

            • Do you really think wings weigh more than your Flash Gordon rocket landing fuel?

              DC-X was a technology demonstrator. It was not an efficient way of moving payloads to orbit. VentureStar had some serious possibilities, but since it's not Shuttle or ISS, NASA's not interested.

              Do the math. Carrying your landing-on-earth fuel to the Moon means that you have to lift it out of Earth's gravity well, land it on the moon, lift it off the moon, and slow it down for landing. Guess what all those things take? LOT
              • Do you really think wings weigh more than your Flash Gordon rocket landing fuel?

                I'm not saying it weights more, but some people have made calculations, including for SASSTO [astronautix.com], which showed that an equivalent winged TSTO would have 3.6x the dry mass of SASSTO on touchdown. Not to mention that winged vehicles need more complex heatshields, because they spend more time on reentry. While Bono's original concept didn't even need a heatshield : the engine plume on descent was the heatshield. The wings are nothing

                • To add to what you two guys are talking about, I was thinking that there would be 3 ships for the most part. Earth to Earth Orbit, Earth Orbit to Lunar orbit, Lunar Oribt to Lunar Surface. No matter how you do the last, you need a VTOL. For the middle, you something with an engine and it can look like a flying pig for all we care. (nice having no atmosphere, and can be built in orbit).

                  One thing though about an having a rocket landing, as opposed to a plane landing is that you can bring down a heavier lo
                  • "One thing though about an having a rocket landing, as opposed to a plane landing is that you can bring down a heavier load. I am not worrying about fuel requirements in this case, its just that you have a limit to what a run way and tires can take. The space shtutle tire are replaced after every mission and cost 4K each. That is a high expense."

                    4K each? You think that's a significant cost? Boy, you really really don't know a lot about how spaceships work.

                    The State of the Art design for going to the Moo
                • OK, first, you seem to think I'm advocating space ships with wings. Not so. I think Shuttle is a stupid idea, driven by military design requirements that had nothing to do with cheap access to orbit.

                  VentureStar had possibilities.

                  A winged ship has 3.6x the dry mass of SASSTO? I find that extremely hard to believe. Considering the state of modern composite fabrication, I think it's ridiculous.

                  Now, if you presuppose that you can refuel in space, the math changes radically. (Of course, we no longer have
                  • VentureStar had possibilities.

                    VentureStar was VTHL. Not VTVL. It was dangerously close to the realm of the impossible, because it required quite complex fuel tanks and heat shielding vs a simple VTVL with spherical tanks, and it ended up being impossible given the current tech of the day.

                    A winged ship has 3.6x the dry mass of SASSTO? I find that extremely hard to believe. Considering the state of modern composite fabrication, I think it's ridiculous.

                    If you apply composites to lower the dry mass of a w

                    • Yes, VentureStar was VTHL, which is way way way better for orbital vehicles than vertical landings for the reasons I've already explained.

                      I haven't read your Bono and Truax cites, but I will require a great deal of convincing to tell me that a parachute or gliding approach are disadvantageous wrt Flash Gordon.

                      You still haven't addressed my basic concern: Why carry fuel to do what you can get air to do with no weight penalty?

                      Sure, you can have tanker ships. Michael Flynn supposed the same thing for his
                    • Yes, VentureStar was VTHL, which is way way way better for orbital vehicles than vertical landings for the reasons I've already explained.

                      I see no advantage from horizontal landing. You need larger, more expensive runways, reentry is a long roast instead of a short burn, etc. In fact, one of the reasons X-33 (VentureStar precursor) failed was the complex shape tanks, required to fit the floating body shape volume better. Apollo and Soyuz do not use horizontal landing either.

                      Wings are good when your vehi

                    • "Apollo and Soyuz do not use horizontal landing either."

                      Yeah, but they use parachutes. Remember those? The other thing I mentioned that are a better idea than Flash Gordon?

                      "The fuel is cheap."

                      Weight is not. The fuel you propose to use for landing is fuel you have to accelerate to orbital insertion speed, and then decelerate on your retro-burn back into the atmosphere.

                      "Most of the cost in reusable space launch today is not fuel, but design and maintenance costs"

                      Yup. It's a rule of thumb in the indus
                    • Yup. It's a rule of thumb in the industry that heavy craft are more expensive to design and maintain than light craft. Ask any aeronautical engineer. Like me.

                      Your rule of thumb is a broken fallacy. Both the auto industry and the software industry use matrixes which depend on both complexity (usually number of parts) and size. Size being the least significant of both.

                      Don't take my word for it, see the costs of Shuttle maintenance. Things like RCS (which use toxic hydrazine fuel) and SSME (which is hard t

  • It seems every Richie Rich is trying to go to Mars these days. My prediction is after $100 million and no results, Bezos will get tired of it and close up.

  • But will it improve life like his last investment? (Score:3, Informative)

    by ScentCone ( 795499 ) on Monday January 17, 2005 @05:58PM (#11389242)
    Hmm. I'm ALL for stuff like this, but I'm feeling a little gun shy after the last quiet thing [segway.com] into which he pumped a lot of money.
  • This bezos sure is a pro at getting the media to eat out of his hand. He sure has balls! Runs a fucking full blown PR campaign all the while telling the media how hush-hush it all is.

    Maybe he just PAYS THE MEDIA MONEY to write whatever he wants? Didja ever think of that?

    Anyway, my bet is that this is just a PR stunt to boost brand name value of Amazon....

  • More info (again) (Score:5, Funny)

    by FleaPlus ( 6935 ) on Monday January 17, 2005 @06:29PM (#11389488) Journal
    Again, here's my rejected submission from the last time this story was run. The info in it is somewhat better, IMHO.

    After years of secrecy [slashdot.org] and much speculation [google.com], Blue Origin [blueorigin.com] has finally announced [msn.com] its plans [vanhornadvocate.com] to build and operate a privately-funded aerospace testing and operations center in West Texas [wikipedia.org]. The company [wikipedia.org], run by Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos [ninemsn.com.au], is "currently developing a sub-orbital space vehicle that will take off and land vertically to take three or more astronauts to the edge of space." Flight operations could begin as soon as six years from now. Hopefully this will be a significant step towards Bezos's dream [msn.com] of enabling "an enduring human presence in space."

    I'd also like to remind the reader that Neal Stephenson (author of Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver, and many pieces of quality sci-fi literature) works for Blue Origin. Here's what he said when asked about it in a slashdot interview from last year [slashdot.org]:

    Like Spock on the deck of the Enterprise, I sit in the corner and await opportunities to jump out and yammer about Science. Unlike Spock, I don't have anyone reporting to me and I never get to sit in the captain's chair and aim the phasers. This is probably good.

    Though the X-Prize is cool and good, Blue Origin never intended to compete for it. Consequently, it has had no effect, other than destroying productivity whenever a SpaceShipOne flight is being broadcast.

    As for my visions of future private space flight: here I have to remind you of something, which is that, up to this point in the interview, I have been wearing my novelist hat, meaning that I talk freely about whatever I please. But private space flight is an area where I wear a different hat (or helmet). I do not freely disseminate my thoughts on this one topic because I have agreed to sell those thoughts to Blue Origin. Admittedly, this feels a little strange to a novelist who is accustomed to running his mouth whenever he feels like it. But it is a small price to pay for the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to become a minor character in a Robert Heinlein novel.
    • Thanks. I like yours better.

      Does it strike anyone that, given Carmack's open blogging about his trial-and-error development of a vertical takeoff/vertical landing rocket, as well as software [armadilloaerospace.com] (at the bottom) for some of his control functions, that Bezos may be throwing some high-grade engineering talent at a proven concept? If I had a pot of money and a big plot of land, I might do the same thing. For that matter, he could be padding a nest for Carmack and crew to incubate their eggs in.

      • For that matter, he could be padding a nest for Carmack and crew to incubate their eggs in.

        Nice thought, but this is a war of egos. Carmack has a name that resonates with a generation of gamers. His name has more power than Bezos' already. Do you think Bezos would let himself be overshadowed by the genius of Carmack?

        Much more likely that Bezos thinks he can just throw money at the problem until it is solved, contrasted to Carmack's approach of throwing his own proven genius at that same problem.

  • well (Score:1)

    by ctime ( 755868 )
    This is one of the most important things that we, as the human race, need to be exploring at this point. The obvious (and not so obvious to some) realities we're facing will be here to haunt us at some point. We can't stay here forever.

    The only problem I'm seeing is that Jeff isn't allowing people from the 'outside' to join or help at all (AFAIK). I'd give my left testicle to join.
    • Just your left? Hell, I'd give up both along with both my legs and arms and a kidney and lung. I'd love to be able to get off this rock.

      The Earth is the cradle of the mind, but one cannot stay in the cradle forever. -- Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, The Father of Rocketry, Datalinks
  • Imagine that a big asteroid is going to hit the Earth in a few years.
    Now, imagine the only way to survive is to leave the Earth.
    Now, imagine who can afford to do such a thing...
    Now, imagine that to avoid global panic governments decide not to disclose the issue.

    I guess this is too far fetched, but something tells me that because of the software they'll be running, once they take off they won't be going too far... especially after everybody discovers what they're up to =P
  • ...Amazon Women on the Moom.

    Thank you, I'll be here all week.
  • For any geek who thinks this would be the ultimate job:

    Apparantly they want YOU..

    Personally, I can't even understand all of the job descriptions... so I don't think it's for me.

  • Evil Mastermind plot? (Score:3, Funny)

    by jeffmeden ( 135043 ) on Monday January 17, 2005 @07:09PM (#11389891) Homepage Journal
    Has anyone considered that this might all be a ploy to create a space-borne vessel capable of taking over the world? Yeah, I figured I was the only one. Just wait and see...

  • Good hope for Armadillo Aerospace (Score:3, Informative)

    by budn3kkid ( 668179 ) on Monday January 17, 2005 @09:04PM (#11390888)
    I read they were having some issues finding an appropriate launch site, and Mojave is too far for them to travel all the way from Mesquite, TX.

    This looks like a good chance for Carmack & Co. to secure a decent launch site, if Bezos decides to rent out space (no pun intended) to third-parties to launch from their base.
  • "They've got themselves 15 square miles down in Texas,"

    No, thats 15 miles square. 15 square miles would be 9,600 acres. 16 miles square is 256 square miles, or 163,840 acres (close enough for this article).

  • I am sure everybody here remembers that the first space visitor was Dennis Tito, a millionaire. If Blue Origin does produce a commercial space flight, won't it be too costly for the common people?!
    • Tito paid $20 million for what was figured a $10 million cost flight (the Russians needed the extra cash to keep the rest of their program afloat, including their committment to the ISS). That was a government airline ticket.

      The Libertarians among us will argue that private enterprise can do it more affordably. This might be born out. SpaceShipOne's achievement is essentially a replication of the capability of the German V-2 rocket.

      While development of that rocket took quite a bit of money, once they got

Slashdot Top Deals

The biggest difference between time and space is that you can't reuse time. -- Merrick Furst

Close