Blue Origin Release Flight Videos 180
Reality Master 101 writes "Space start-up Blue Origin (financed by Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos) had a secret test flight on November 13, 2006. They've now released video and pictures of the very successful flight. Looks like they're making good progress." From the page: "We're working, patiently and step-by-step, to lower the cost of spaceflight so that many people can afford to go and so that we humans can better continue exploring the solar system. Accomplishing this mission will take a long time, and we're working on it methodically."
Re:WMV (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Low cost spaceflight a reality ?!?!?! (Score:3, Insightful)
Trans: "This is gonna be super safe. Trust us. Just don't expect miracles."
Where do you get the idea that they're promising something "super safe"? All I got from that is that they're trying to warn people that they're trying not to rush things.
"to lower the cost of spaceflight so that many people can afford to go"
Trans: "And as soon as we can find a market and get the launch costs to the break-even point..."
Huh? They've already have a market. Just look at the number of people that have already made reservations for flights on Virgin Galactic.
"Accomplishing this mission will take a long time, and we're working on it methodically."
Trans: "Anyone who wants to pony up some funds will be welcomed, but it will still take a while."
The company is being funded out-of-pocket by (multi-billionaire) Jeff Bezos, and I'm fairly certain he wants to keep financial control over it for at least the near future. It's his baby, pretty much. I really don't think they're begging for funding.
As a NASA launch services engineer I must say.... (Score:3, Insightful)
What they should do is get business partners who already know how to build rockets and offer them incentives to partipate. NASA's vision right now is not on target but that is not a failure of NASA engineers but a failure of management. Draw the engineering teams into this that already have experience. Don't do it half-assed.
And before the NASA bashers get their RSS feed and feel the need to talk about how stupid NASA is...yes NASA has problems but between Orbital, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Honeywell, Pratt and Whitney, ATK, the Russians, the other numerous companies who build and integrate rockets and have spend billions upon billions on launch vehicles, this current effort is honestly a waste to me. It's great to see people wanting to innovate, but wanting and doing are not the same.
Rocket science is not easy. You cannot cut corners on development and testing and there is no substitute for the decades of experience these companies have.
If you want to innovate, get on board advanced propulsion or space elevator projects. sub-orbital is not hard...warp drive to the next galaxy is hard.
Re:Defrosters (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not condensation and frost -- it's steam. As another commenter mentioned, the rocket uses H2O2 as propellant.
2 H2O2 => O2 + 2 H2O
$20M isn't what it used to be (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:As a NASA launch services engineer I must say.. (Score:3, Insightful)
One might even say all NASA seems interested in is transferring government money to Orbital, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Honeywell, Pratt and Whitney, et al. without anything to show for it. *cough*X-33*cough*
Maybe they need to be embarrassed into some actual innovation instead of more business-as-usual.
Re:$20M isn't what it used to be (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:As a NASA launch services engineer I must say.. (Score:4, Insightful)
The Space Shuttle does not come in under power (Score:2, Insightful)
The space shuttle glides all the way in. It does not come in under power. The only propellant it burns on its way in is for the deorbit burn.
Note that the cost of the propellants is a very small portion of the overall launch costs, and therefore having to carry extra fuel is not a big factor in the economics. In fact, it makes sense: you are already carrying the engines, all you need is some extra fuel, and guidance.
-OGas core reactor rocket (Score:3, Insightful)
As for a tail first landing, that is the best way to go when landing on airless, or nearly airless targets such as the Moon, or Mars. Not only do you not have to worry about atmosphere density or maintaining flight speeds (how many runways are there on Mars?), but once you're down, you're already set up for re-launch.
Re:"space startup" (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that's pretty much how the "New World" was colonized, wasn't it? A bunch of richer-than-God private individuals footing the initial bill to create startup companies importing, say, exotic foods (tea, rum, tobacco)?
I can't say the rate of return for a space-tourism venture would be on the same level, but it's pretty much how exploration has always traditionally been done.
Re:As a NASA launch services engineer I must say.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Rocket science is not easy. You cannot cut corners on development and testing and there is no substitute for the decades of experience these companies have.
To quote John Carmack, "Rocket science is not as easy as amateurs think it is, but it's not as hard as the professionals think it is."
NASA is only part of the problem. The other problem are the Lockheed's, etc, who think nothing can be done for less than a billion dollars. They have zero incentive to reduce the cost of space -- why should they? They make billions of dollars off it. Do you think they would ever try the "cheap clusters of modular rocket systems to orbit" as Armadillo is going to do? Hell no. That would bring mass production into it -- and we can't have that.
Do you know why the insurance company was willing to put up the money for the X-Prize? Because they asked the old guard, and the old guard told them it was impossible to do for less than a billion dollars.
Only the competition from new blood is going to break the stranglehold (and the arrogance, as you demonstrate) of the old guard.
Re:Need more ... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a rocket with one purpose: brief high-altitude joyrides.
Don't watch these distractions that cater to rich thrill seekers. Watch companies that are actually going to space, like SpaceX. They're the ones that have the potential to make a difference.