Streetwind Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 Press release: [url]https://www.blueorigin.com/news/news/blue-origin-makes-historic-rocket-landing[/url] Video: [url]https://t.co/zgwEliVniV[/url] While the New Shepard vehicle only does suborbital hops to just above 100 km, that nevertheless still makes them the first private company to ever pull it off. It landed back at the launch site too, not just anywhere downrange, thanks to mostly going straight up and down. It's also a big step forward for their ambitions of using it for cheap, rapid-reusable space tourism launches. SpaceX missed the boat (or barge? Hurr hurr :D) on this one, although their flight profile is more challenging and the F9 is much, much larger. And we may yet see a Falcon stage land this year as well when the company returns to flight in December. This is a pretty great day for reusable spaceflight, so congrats to Blue Origin! Now let's see how quickly they can relaunch it multiple times in succession! :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kerbart Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 spaceX has sent rockets straight up and landed them again. Not really impressed by what BO did. Once they do a [I]real[/I] launch nd land the rocket hundreds of kilometers away from where it launched, I will be truly impressed. And unless they sent a second rocket to record the video, it contained a lot of CGI. I'm less impressed with CGI than I am with real footage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Streetwind Posted November 24, 2015 Author Share Posted November 24, 2015 [quote name='Kerbart']spaceX has sent rockets straight up and landed them again. Not really impressed by what BO did.[/QUOTE] SpaceX has sent a rocket up to 1 kilometer in height and landed it again. Blue Origin sent a rocket upt to 100 kilometers and landed it again. Right now, Blue Origin has pulled off the more impressive feat. SpaceX's job is now to one-up them again by landing a stage from an orbital ascent trajectory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SargeRho Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 SpaceX have nearly-successfully landed a stage after an actual flight, failing only because the engine didn't react quickly enough, which they have fixed since. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karriz Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 Very impressive, this could really lead into something big if they manage to start an affordable space tourism business. Also, they do have plans for scaling up the technology for an orbital rocket, but it would obviously be a whole new vehicle. Having the hovering ability certainly helps, which is something that F9 lacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibb31 Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 [quote name='Kerbart']spaceX has sent rockets straight up and landed them again. Not really impressed by what BO did. Once they do a [I]real[/I] launch nd land the rocket hundreds of kilometers away from where it launched, I will be truly impressed.[/QUOTE] It was real launch. New Shepherd is a suborbital tourism vehicle. This is the nominal mission profile. What they have done here is beat Virgin Galactic, not SpaceX. [COLOR="silver"][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR] [quote name='SargeRho']SpaceX have nearly-successfully landed a stage after an actual flight, failing only because the engine didn't react quickly enough, which they have fixed since.[/QUOTE] We'll know that when they successfully land. [COLOR="silver"][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR] [quote name='Streetwind'] SpaceX's job is now to one-up them again by landing a stage from an orbital ascent trajectory.[/QUOTE] Falcon 9 first stage is suborbital too. I'm extremely impressed by this achievement. The pinpoint landing seemed to be dead-center. I'm much less impressed by their less than transparent PR and the YouTube video that mixes PR CGI and real footage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperFastJellyfish Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 [quote name='Kerbart']spaceX has sent rockets straight up and landed them again. Not really impressed by what BO did. Once they do a [I]real[/I] launch nd land the rocket hundreds of kilometers away from where it launched, I will be truly impressed. And unless they sent a second rocket to record the video, it contained a lot of CGI. I'm less impressed with CGI than I am with real footage.[/QUOTE] This is their operational flight plan, AFAIK. Calling it not a real launch is just ignorant. SpaceX has nothing to do with BO's efforts here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibb31 Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 You can feel the burn: [quote name='"Elon Musk (@elonmusk)"'] Congrats to Jeff Bezos and the BO team for achieving VTOL on their booster [/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shpaget Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 What's this talk of CGI?? I see only a segment of 20 seconds of CGI that is clearly not intended to deceive, but rather to represent the intended mission. The separation of booster and pod, the only technical part of that segment, is obviously CGI which would be insanely difficult to film from that perspective and no one in his right mind would mistake it for actual footage. The important part, the landing itself is, as far as I can see, completely video footage, no CGI at all. Those people made a significant achievement and I don't understand the dissing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibb31 Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 The CGI bit is inappropriate (and a bit disingenuous) in what's intended to be the narration of a test flight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cantab Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 Awesome work by Blue Origin. It seems to me the "hard bit" is the actual touchdown, and they nailed it. Though with only one success it could be beginner's luck. Falcon 9 has a slightly more complex flight profile, but really the boostback isn't the complicated bit I think, it's the touchdown that's been a challenge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kerbart Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 [quote name='Nibb31']Falcon 9 first stage is suborbital too.[/QUOTE] Try to repeat what BO did in KSP -- go straight up, and land vertically. Now try what Space X is trying to achieve. Get a significant horizontal speed component and try to land your rocket on a patch the size of the launch pad. And then tell me that BO "beat" SpaceX in achieving what SpaceX is trying to achieve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elthy Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 Its impresive that it can throttle down to 20%, but the hoovering with that much left thrust would mean the empty weight is realy high... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wumpus Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 Wouldn't a better comparison be Space Ship One? They not only landed a rocket that went into space, but to get the X-prize they had to: Do it manned. Do it twice (with a quick turnaround). Do it completely commercial (of course, so did Blue Origin). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YNM Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 Some impressive thrust vectoring there ! Also, having solid flat ground than floating panel helps a lot... SpaceX surely [i]needs[/i] dry land to help with the landing of their stages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MircoMars Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 I think this is a perfect testbed for the whole "landing a rocket under power" thing. SpaceX should have started something like this to promote and exploit spacetourism and test the landing controls. then slowly build it bigger (for small payloads/ public cubesat events) and combine it with the dragon system but this is hindsight speaking, so never mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motokid600 Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 They really should release the raw video. Way too much pageantry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sampa Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 eh...reminiscent to the DC-X prototype designed by Apollo 12 astronaut: Charles "Pete" Conrad. Very cool that they managed to get this going! Now if they can make the next step of putting people into orbit instead of suborbital flight! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robotengineer Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 I don't like BO's rocket, it's too... ...[I]short.[/I] Other than that, it's cool that they sent it up. When will they be doing a manned test flight? [COLOR="silver"][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR] [quote name='Sampa']eh...reminiscent to the DC-X prototype designed by Apollo 12 astronaut: Charles "Pete" Conrad. Very cool that they managed to get this going! Now if they can make the next step of putting people into orbit instead of suborbital flight![/QUOTE] They do not intend to do orbital flight AFAIK, just suborbital tourism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kerbol Macrosystems Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 Elon Musk's twitter is fantastic right now. He's posting every (Blank) did it first he can find. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sampa Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 [quote name='Robotengineer'] They do not intend to do orbital flight AFAIK, just suborbital tourism.[/QUOTE] or...fly the capsule to a higher altitude... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Superluminaut Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 Love it, at this point I'd rather fly this than virgins vehicle just because it's more rocket like. Could they make it look less like a ..... though? lol Poor Elon, don't be such a new shepard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hugix Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 [quote name='Streetwind']SpaceX has sent a rocket up to 1 kilometer in height and landed it again. Blue Origin sent a rocket upt to 100 kilometers and landed it again. Right now, Blue Origin has pulled off the more impressive feat. [/QUOTE] How is falling from 100 km any more difficult than falling from 1 km? The big 99 km in between is something that gravity does for you. You don't need no engines or engineering to fall down. The trick is in the landing. And both companies showed they can do a powered descent & landing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 (edited) [quote name='Robotengineer']They do not intend to do orbital flight AFAIK, just suborbital tourism.[/QUOTE] With this booster, yes. They've had orbital plans for a while, and announced earlier this year they'd bought land for a factory for an orbital vehicle and set up a lease on a vacant pad in CCAFS. There's not much information on the orbital vehicle yet, but we do know they plan boostback first stage recovery. [quote name='hugix']How is falling from 100 km any more difficult than falling from 1 km? [/QUOTE] GNC. Why do you think SpaceX has been so successful at the latter and so unsuccessful at the former? Sure it's 'just falling' if you don't care where you land, but both companies are trying to hit pinpoint targets. Edited November 24, 2015 by Kryten Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motokid600 Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 [quote name='hugix']How is falling from 100 km any more difficult than falling from 1 km? The big 99 km in between is something that gravity does for you. You don't need no engines or engineering to fall down. The trick is in the landing. And both companies showed they can do a powered descent & landing.[/QUOTE] It's 99km of atmosphere you have to navigate without destruction. It's certainly atleast a [I]little[/I] more difficult. That being said.... The New Sheppard cannot in any way shape or form be compared to the Falcon 9. What the F9 does and is intended to do is much more impressive even in failure. One can only compare the New Sheppard to the grasshopper and it's achievements. Which as of now have been surpassed by Blue Origins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts