Blue Origin vs SpaceX. Blue Origin trying to steal the credit from SpaceX?

[Duski]

I was watching some videos the other day and come across a video of Blue Origin. It showed their rocket (Shepherd I think it was) and it said they were 'making history' by being able to reuse the booster on their rocket. And a year earlier, There were already Falcon 9's being reused. And I saw some representative of Blue Origin in the video (Or it might've been Jeff Bezos who owns Blue Origin) saying: "Yes, what SpaceX does is very similar to what we do." Even though their Shepherd rocket only went up into space and deployed its capsule then both come back down. 

So, Blue Origin trying to steal the credit for reusable boosters?

[Gaarst]

Falcon 9 is not reused (yet).

BO recover and reuse their launcher near the launch site from vertical suborbital flights which are made precisely to test it. SpaceX recover their launchers from actual missions, sending stuff into space at the same time, on barges in the middle of the ocean.

I'm no SpaceX fanboy, but BO is not even close to SpaceX.

Edited August 2, 2016 by Gaarst

[urablahblah]

In some respects, BO is trying to equate their reusable rocket to SpaceX's while saying they did reusability first. While this may fool laymen who know nothing about rockets or orbital dynamics (I.E. most of the news media), it doesn't hold water against SpaceX's success with their Grasshopper test rocket, which is essentially a Shepherd without a capsule. Basically, the argument against BO's claim to fame is this: If SpaceX wanted to go suborbital and land a grasshopper before BO did with the Shepherd, they could have. They didn't because they weren't looking to make money an edge-of-space thrill ride for the wealthy but from a workhorse rocket for space exploration. 

[Kryten]

8 minutes ago, Gaarst said:

Falcon 9 is not reused (yet).

BO recover and reuse their launcher near the launch site from vertical suborbital flights which are made precisely to test it. SpaceX recover their launchers from actual missions, sending stuff into space at the same time, on barges in the middle of the ocean.

I'm no SpaceX fanboy, but BO is not even close to SpaceX.

I wouldn't say that's fair. New Shepard is a suborbital research and tourism platform, these flights are the same as it's 'actual missions'. The only reason they're not doing commercial missions right now is they don't have the right licence from the FAA yet.

[tater]

While their flights are indeed their mission, the New Shepard mission parameters are grossly less difficult to achieve than what the Falcon 9 has been doing. It's going to be interesting to see what they get up to next, however.

[Lukaszenko]

I don't think whether it's an actual mission or a test is all that relevant here. What is relevant, is that one rocket puts a payload in orbit, and the other doesn't. That difference is so huge that it's quite literally astronomical.

Once you're in orbit, you're half-way to anywhere. But, you have to get to orbit. Not close, not almost there, not even 99% there, because anything less than a stable orbit, and you're coming back. And New Shepherd is nowhere near significantly close to orbit to be even worth discussing.

Yet.

Edited August 2, 2016 by Lukaszenko

[Kryten]

 

4 minutes ago, tater said:

While their flights are indeed their mission, the New Shepard mission parameters are grossly less difficult to achieve than what the Falcon 9 has been doing. It's going to be interesting to see what they get up to next, however.

Their next step is TSTO with at least first-stage reuse, we already know that. They'll be designing it for VTVL reuse from the start, with plenty of experience with that already from New Shepard; it'll be interesting to see what kind of design decisions they make relative to Falcon, which was originally designed for ocean recovery via parachutes and was basically jury-rigged into VTVL.

[tater]

I know what they are talking about, I meant I was interested in seeing exactly what you discuss... what their design decisions are.

[Wjolcz]

As I said in the SpaceX vs NASA thread: they shouldn't be compared.

The R&D approach and the target of both companies seem to bee rather different (at least right now). I would consider myself a SpaceX fanboy, simply because of the scale and what Elon is trying to accomplish. I'm looking forward to the BO's orbit-capable rocket though. The more reusability in the space industry the better.

As for the promotional vid: It's just how PR works. Got to show yourself  in a bright light if you want to have any customers.

[Bill Phil]

I personally don't care what company or entity reduces launch costs, so long as it happens. 

No falcon stage has been reused yet. And BO did a successful landing after going to space first ( I think). They didn't orbit, of course, but neither does Falcon 9's first stage.

[Wjolcz]

3 minutes ago, Bill Phil said:

They didn't orbit, of course, but neither does Falcon 9's first stage.

Ooooh... I could get very nitpicky about this sentence.

But I won't.

I will resist.

[Scotius]

Well, we wished for another Space Race to speed things up. Looks like we'll get our wish In the private sector at least.

[Duski]

7 hours ago, Veeltch said:

As I said in the SpaceX vs NASA thread: they shouldn't be compared.

The R&D approach and the target of both companies seem to bee rather different (at least right now). I would consider myself a SpaceX fanboy, simply because of the scale and what Elon is trying to accomplish. I'm looking forward to the BO's orbit-capable rocket though. The more reusability in the space industry the better.

As for the promotional vid: It's just how PR works. Got to show yourself  in a bright light if you want to have any customers.

I guess you're right, they shouldn't be compared and one is by far superior than the other. But I can't really say that at the same time as at the moment they still have different objectives at the moment. And I'm a SpaceX fanboy too, Elon inspires me and as you said, is great what he's trying to accomplish. I must say though, what annoys me is how they're trying to steal the credit of this concept of reusing boosters. It is also kind of confusing.. Jeff Bezos being the owner of Amazon and wanting to start a space program. It's like they're planning something big. But then again, even Virgin Galactic is even further then them. 

 

7 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

I personally don't care what company or entity reduces launch costs, so long as it happens. 

No falcon stage has been reused yet. And BO did a successful landing after going to space first ( I think). They didn't orbit, of course, but neither does Falcon 9's first stage.

I will have to agree on you about how it doesn't matter what company it is. But probably the best candidate currently SpaceX. And yes, the Falcon 9 booster stage doesn't orbit and what it does is basically a half orbit and could probably orbit if it didn't use fuel for landing (but probably be stuck in orbit). But, either way, it's better than going and coming straight down. 

[Green Baron]

9 hours ago, Veeltch said:

Ooooh... I could get very nitpicky about this sentence.

But I won't.

I will resist.

Hi,

do you by chance know how much dV is in a bare Falcon 9 booster ?

 

[Wjolcz]

24 minutes ago, Green Baron said:

Hi,

do you by chance know how much dV is in a bare Falcon 9 booster ?

 

Hi,

do you by chance know that both rockets are not meant to reach orbit no matter their dV?

[Kryten]

2 hours ago, Duski said:

 I must say though, what annoys me is how they're trying to steal the credit of this concept of reusing boosters. It is also kind of confusing.. Jeff Bezos being the owner of Amazon and wanting to start a space program. It's like they're planning something big.

Blue have been working towards VTVL reuse far longer than SpaceX have. They had a VTVL demonstration vehicle (Charon) flying in 2005.

2 hours ago, Duski said:

But then again, even Virgin Galactic is even further then them. 

How do reckon that?

[Green Baron]

1 hour ago, Veeltch said:

Hi,

do you by chance know that both rockets are not meant to reach orbit no matter their dV?

Yes .... ??

Ok, assuming 400tons wet and 30tons dry and isp 300s crunch crunch 7600andsomething. Close ... or was that wrong ?

Edit: i know it's impractical :-)

Edited August 3, 2016 by Green Baron

[Duski]

34 minutes ago, Kryten said:

Blue have been working towards VTVL reuse far longer than SpaceX have. They had a VTVL demonstration vehicle (Charon) flying in 2005.

How do reckon that?

Well did Charon go into space? And you do say it is a demonstration vehicle.

And I reckon Virgin Galactic are doing better as they probably have a better reputation imo. I know the head of Blue Origin is Jeff Bezos the man behind Amazon but Virgin have an airline and are probably more experienced in aerospace. 

[Kryten]

Just now, Duski said:

Well did Charon go into space? And you do say it is a demonstration vehicle.

In 2005 the SpaceX plan was to parachute cores to the ocean and pick them up, a fundamentally unworkable idea. It stayed that for four or five more years, well into production of Falcon 9. SpaceX didn't have anything VTVL until grasshopper in 2012.

2 minutes ago, Duski said:

And I reckon Virgin Galactic are doing better as they probably have a better reputation imo. I know the head of Blue Origin is Jeff Bezos the man behind Amazon but Virgin have an airline and are probably more experienced in aerospace. 

Reputation can't get you into space, and it's very dubious to say VG have a better reputation within the aerospace community. Blue haven't killed anybody, after all.

[Duski]

1 hour ago, Kryten said:

In 2005 the SpaceX plan was to parachute cores to the ocean and pick them up, a fundamentally unworkable idea. It stayed that for four or five more years, well into production of Falcon 9. SpaceX didn't have anything VTVL until grasshopper in 2012.

Reputation can't get you into space, and it's very dubious to say VG have a better reputation within the aerospace community. Blue haven't killed anybody, after all.

Well you can't really say they've haven't killed anybody as they could in the near future as they advance their rockets (If they do) and you referred to these cores parachuted into the ocean and pick them up. But, what about Charon? did it go to space?

[Kryten]

Charon didn't go to space, but how is that relevant? The point was that they were working on the technique long before SpaceX was, so they can hardly be 'taking credit' for the idea.

[VaPaL]

5 hours ago, Duski said:

and one is by far superior than the other.

I guess that can't be said. If the BO's objective was the same as SpaceX's, then yes, SpaceX would be superior. But BO is interested in tourism, so they aim for a totally different goal. They are both at the same level since they achieved the objective. Who can said that BO is not capable of doing the same as SpaceX if they never aimed for that. Who know, maybe if they tried, they would do it even better!

Futrthermore, the New Shepard have reflown 3 times now, Falcon 9 is yet to refly once. Ofc the NS is way smaller, simpler than F9, but they did it first nevertheless.

I never understand this 'hate' over BO, I understand it been overlooked, SpaceX accomplishments were more 'impressive' and broadcasted live, etc etc etc

 

EDIT: BTW the Grasshopper never flew higher than 744m, so there's no point asking if Charon went to space or not either. BO landed a rocket first, SpaceX second, NS went to space and landed first, F9 second.

Edited August 3, 2016 by VaPaL

[Jimmidii]

F9 was the first to be recovered after launching a payload with enough dV to reach orbit, though.

It's like Russia being the first into space, but the USA then being the first to the moon.

Blue Origin attracts disdain because they set themselves far FAR easier goals, achieved them, and then their PR started comparing those goals to SpaceX's. (Or rather, compared SpaceX's achievements to their own.)

The two shouldn't really be compared, they're trying to do different things, but Blue Origin invited the comparison on themselves.

[Lukaszenko]

It keeps being brought up in these discussions that the Falcon 9 1^st stage is suborbital, but I fail to see the relevance of this. Seriously…who cares? It is part of a system used to launch something into orbit. As such, it is not meant to nor will it ever work by itself. It’s like comparing a slingshot to an AK47...they’re both just about as effective by themselves. It’s only in combination with their bullets that their differences really start to show.  The point is that the most expensive scrapped part of launching something into orbit, is being recovered (and eventually reused). Whether this part itself goes into orbit, to the moon and back, leaves the atmosphere, or never even so much as leaves the ground is a red herring.

[magnemoe]

14 hours ago, Kryten said:

I wouldn't say that's fair. New Shepard is a suborbital research and tourism platform, these flights are the same as it's 'actual missions'. The only reason they're not doing commercial missions right now is they don't have the right licence from the FAA yet.

Yes, New Shepard was the first who landed an stage and reused it after an suborbital trajectory. 
Yes their stage is far smaller, it don't have an upper stage and they don't have to do boostback not land on an barge, still they was first.

As you say, New Shepard pretty much had to be tested as done, SpaceX did it another way, first they used grasshopper for pretty small jumps to get landing experience then they tried landing the used stages until this worked,