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

[Firemetal]

Well "copy" isn't the word I'd use. They both have different purposes all together. SpaceX's goal is to make spaceflight cheaper while Blue Origin's is a space tourism agency. They may have gotten inspiration from each other but not copied.

 

[wumpus]

43 minutes ago, Firemetal said:

Well "copy" isn't the word I'd use. They both have different purposes all together. SpaceX's goal is to make spaceflight cheaper while Blue Origin's is a space tourism agency. They may have gotten inspiration from each other but not copied.

The only thing Blue Origin is "copying from" (or more accurately "following on to") is DC-X.  They might be trying to reduce costs in a way similar to Spacex "don't throw the entire spacecraft away each flight", but you could claim they both are "copying from" the Space Shuttle just as well.

I wouldn't be remotely surprised if Blue Origin *really* copied spacex and decided to recover the first stage and lose a second stage while going into orbit, but they aren't nearly far along enough to need to do that.

[razark]

Blue Origin is crappy, because they built something that didn't go into orbit, and wasn't supposed to.

SpaceX is good because they built something that didn't go into orbit, and wasn't supposed to.

 

Blue Origin launched a rocket.
SpaceX launched a rocket.

BO got their rocket into space.
SpaceX got their rocket into space.

BO did not get their rocket into orbit.
SX did not get their rocket into orbit.*

BO landed their rocket vertically using propulsion.
SX landed their rocket vertically using propulsion.

 

BO did this before SX.  Even if it was less impressive, done for different reasons, and aimed at a different goal, BO still did it first.  The first flight of the Wright Flyer was a lot less impressive than the first flight of the Concorde, but the Wright Flyer came before the Concorde.

 

Bonus points:
BO launched their rocket more than once.
SX did not launch their rocket more than once.

*Yeah, whatever.  The part SX recovered did not go into orbit.  The payload it carried did, and when SpaceX recovers that, they can have their bonus points, too.

Edited August 3, 2016 by razark

[RCgothic]

New Shepherd attains an apogee of what, 100km?

 That's 0.981MJ/kg specific energy to the payload at apogee, conservatively.

 

Falcon 9 first stage separates at about the same height, but can be doing 8000km/h +. That's an additional 2.46MJ/kg specific energy, or 3.35MJ/kg total.

 

So before even involving the difficulties of piloting to a remote landing site, energetically what SpaceX does is nearly 3.5 times harder.

 

Ok, Blue Origin did it first. But it's like the difference between landing Freedom 7 and landing Apollo 8.

[magnemoe]

10 minutes ago, RCgothic said:

New Shepherd attains an apogee of what, 100km?

 That's 0.981MJ/kg specific energy to the payload at apogee, conservatively.

Falcon 9 first stage separates at about the same height, but can be doing 8000km/h +. That's an additional 2.46MJ/kg specific energy, or 3.35MJ/kg total.

So before even involving the difficulties of piloting to a remote landing site, energetically what SpaceX does is nearly 3.5 times harder.

Ok, Blue Origin did it first. But it's like the difference between landing Freedom 7 and landing Apollo 8.

Still, say the first US suborbital spaceflight with mercury and John Glen was before USSR sent Gagarin into orbit. The US could still claim they was first to send an man into space. 
Yes its far easier, Blue Shepard is designed to do this as an joyride after all, you need something more like an falcon 9 to reach orbit with an large pod. 

 

[Red Iron Crown]

BlueOrigin can rightfully claim the first flight to space using a fully reusable rocket from the surface. SpaceX hasn't done that yet, nor do they plan to (afaik there are no serious plans to recover an upper stage, nor should there be, IMO).

They're both chasing reusable launch vehicles, just from different angles. SpaceX has gone with traditional orbital rockets and are edging closer to reusing their booster stages. BO is doing the opposite, starting with reusability and building toward orbital capability. I think they'll eventually have to start using a disposable upper stage, but we'll see.

 

[razark]

1 hour ago, magnemoe said:

the first US suborbital spaceflight with mercury and John Glen

You misspelled "Allen Shepherd".

[tater]

1 hour ago, magnemoe said:

Still, say the first US suborbital spaceflight with mercury and John Glen was before USSR sent Gagarin into orbit. The US could still claim they was first to send an man into space. 
Yes its far easier, Blue Shepard is designed to do this as an joyride after all, you need something more like an falcon 9 to reach orbit with an large pod. 

 

As @razark said, the first US flight was Alan Shepard (not Allen  ) a few weeks AFTER Gagarin. Glenn followed both.

 

Edited August 3, 2016 by tater

[Duski]

Some of you have been saying that the F9 booster hasn't be reused at all yet. Have they just been making new ones? I wonder why they're doing this. You might be able to tell if new to this part of the forum and I want to start learning about all these space agencies. And all of you are right, they do have different objectives, tourism, large missions and all that. But many of these space agencies could branch out and do multiple of these things. Like, SpaceX could start getting interested in orbital tourism, BO could start thinking about missions to another planet or something like that. It's just like Samsung how they branched out and made products from Mobile Phones to Televisions.  

[tater]

Just now, Duski said:

Some of you have been saying that the F9 booster hasn't be reused at all yet. Have they just been making new ones? I wonder why they're doing this. You might be able to tell if new to this part of the forum and I want to start learning about all these space agencies. And all of you are right, they do have different objectives, tourism, large missions and all that. But many of these space agencies could branch out and do multiple of these things. Like, SpaceX could start getting interested in orbital tourism, BO could start thinking about missions to another planet or something like that. It's just like Samsung how they branched out and made products from Mobile Phones to Televisions.  

ALL of us have been saying they have not reused an F9 yet because they haven't as anyone who has paid any attention knows.

They have been testing the recovered boosters, and just recently test fired one for a full burn duration.

[Duski]

2 minutes ago, tater said:

ALL of us have been saying they have not reused an F9 yet because they haven't as anyone who has paid any attention knows.

They have been testing the recovered boosters, and just recently test fired one for a full burn duration.

Well that'll be interesting.

 

40 minutes ago, Red Iron Crown said:

BlueOrigin can rightfully claim the first flight to space using a fully reusable rocket from the surface. SpaceX hasn't done that yet, nor do they plan to (afaik there are no serious plans to recover an upper stage, nor should there be, IMO).

They're both chasing reusable launch vehicles, just from different angles. SpaceX has gone with traditional orbital rockets and are edging closer to reusing their booster stages. BO is doing the opposite, starting with reusability and building toward orbital capability. I think they'll eventually have to start using a disposable upper stage, but we'll see.

 

I could agree with this as a summary.  

 

And as some have said, Blue Origin did launch and reuse their rocket. SpaceX launched F9 and didn't reuse their rocket. Yet they seem to have popularity on their side.

Prestige these days.

Edited August 3, 2016 by Duski

[razark]

12 minutes ago, tater said:

not Allen

Spoilsport.

[tater]

There is a thread in this very forum:

 

Near the end there is video of the test.

[Lukaszenko]

10 hours ago, razark said:

Blue Origin is crappy, because they built something that didn't go into orbit, and wasn't supposed to.

SpaceX is good because they built something that didn't go into orbit, and wasn't supposed to.

 

Blue Origin launched a rocket.
SpaceX launched a rocket.

BO got their rocket into space.
SpaceX got their rocket into space.

BO did not get their rocket into orbit.
SX did not get their rocket into orbit.*

BO landed their rocket vertically using propulsion.
SX landed their rocket vertically using propulsion.

 

BO did this before SX.  Even if it was less impressive, done for different reasons, and aimed at a different goal, BO still did it first.  The first flight of the Wright Flyer was a lot less impressive than the first flight of the Concorde, but the Wright Flyer came before the Concorde.

 

Bonus points:
BO launched their rocket more than once.
SX did not launch their rocket more than once.

*Yeah, whatever.  The part SX recovered did not go into orbit.  The payload it carried did, and when SpaceX recovers that, they can have their bonus points, too.

Yes, they were first at flying the Wright Flyer. 

But the fact that they were working on the Wright Flyer at the same time as SpaceX was working on the Concorde, and flew it only a couple months before the Concorde, is precisely what makes their "first" so much less impressive.

Edited August 4, 2016 by Lukaszenko

[Nibb31]

Seriously, this fanboism is getting out of hand. These aren't football teams. These are companies with different products with different requirements and different goals. It's like claiming that Coca Cola is better than General Motors because they were the first to make Sprite.

Ultimately, who gives a hoot about who was first to do this or that? The more companies we have doing stuff in space, the better.

And to anyone who says that one is "less impressive" that the other, lets see your credentials in rocket building first.

[Duski]

1 hour ago, Nibb31 said:

Seriously, this fanboism is getting out of hand. These aren't football teams. These are companies with different products with different requirements and different goals. It's like claiming that Coca Cola is better than General Motors because they were the first to make Sprite.

Ultimately, who gives a hoot about who was first to do this or that? The more companies we have doing stuff in space, the better.

And to anyone who says that one is "less impressive" that the other, lets see your credentials in rocket building first.

But BO wouldn't be very beneficial as being one of the many companies in space because like people have said, they're for space tourism. It's probably only beneficial for people's entertainment. But it would be beneficial for me as I would love to go space for a visit.  

[Nibb31]

24 minutes ago, Duski said:

But BO wouldn't be very beneficial as being one of the many companies in space because like people have said, they're for space tourism.

No they're not. Only their New Shepard project is aimed at suborbital tourism. They are working on plenty of other projects, including their BE-4 engine that will be powering ULA's Vulcan as well as their own orbital launcher, and an entry for the DARPA XS-1 competition.

The entire strategies of both companies are different. It makes no sense to compare their advances, because they are advancing in different directions.

 

 

[Lukaszenko]

2 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

Seriously, this fanboism is getting out of hand. These aren't football teams. These are companies with different products with different requirements and different goals. It's like claiming that Coca Cola is better than General Motors because they were the first to make Sprite.

Ultimately, who gives a hoot about who was first to do this or that? The more companies we have doing stuff in space, the better.

And to anyone who says that one is "less impressive" that the other, lets see your credentials in rocket building first.

So let's examine this. What would happen if Coca Cola claimed that they are better than General Motors because they were the first to make Sprite? You wouldn’t want to jump in and call foul? Because that’s exactly what happened here, and why this discussion is even taking place. Nobody was saying one is better than the other until BO themselves tried to say it.

So it’s not a question of fanboism, it’s a question of A trying to make themselves look better at the expense of B, despite half-assing whatever it was that B was doing.

BO basically jumped out of the sidelines in front of a marathon runner, and started celebrating that they crossed the finish line first. Even if I hate the marathon runner, I’ll probably still come to his defense. And probably so would you.

And why do I need rocket building credentials to see that an orbital launch system is more impressive than a suborbital one? You’re seriously claiming they are on the same level?

[Kryten]

Blue are not trying to say they're better than anybody by saying they've been first to reuse; they're simply saying they were first, and it is a pretty significant first regardless of the bluster about total orbital energy. Before, the best anybody had done with regards to VTVL rocket reuse were flights to a few kilometres by the DC-X program. 

[Nibb31]

2 hours ago, Lukaszenko said:

So let's examine this. What would happen if Coca Cola claimed that they are better than General Motors because they were the first to make Sprite? You wouldn’t want to jump in and call foul?

No because GM makes better cars than Coca Cola.

2 hours ago, Lukaszenko said:

Because that’s exactly what happened here, and why this discussion is even taking place. Nobody was saying one is better than the other until BO themselves tried to say it.

BO never said they were better than X. They said they were the first to land (and reuse) a booster that went to space. Which is true.

2 hours ago, Lukaszenko said:

So it’s not a question of fanboism, it’s a question of A trying to make themselves look better at the expense of B, despite half-assing whatever it was that B was doing.

No, A was doing its own PR regardless of B. Just like B does quite a lot of PR itself.

2 hours ago, Lukaszenko said:

BO basically jumped out of the sidelines in front of a marathon runner, and started celebrating that they crossed the finish line first. Even if I hate the marathon runner, I’ll probably still come to his defense. And probably so would you.

BO has been working on various space projects for longer than SpaceX. They are not a meritless outsider trying to steal the limelight. New Shepard is the result of 15 years of R&D.

If you really want to compare them to athletes, one has finished the 100m and the other is still running the 800m. Neither one has more merit than the other.

2 hours ago, Lukaszenko said:

And why do I need rocket building credentials to see that an orbital launch system is more impressive than a suborbital one? You’re seriously claiming they are on the same level?

Because sending a booster to space, landing it, and launching it again, is quite an accomplishment in its own right. Unless you have actually done it yourself, criticizing it as being easy just because somebody else is trying to do something more spectacular is childish. It is not easy.

[Red Iron Crown]

Speaking of unfair comparisons, here's how Musk responded to BO celebrating their first successful landing. "Said some things he shouldn't have" indeed, he got back exactly what he gave to Bezos. I don't know why you forgive Musk but give Bezos grief for doing the exact same thing.

[razark]

Well, since we're redefining "first", might as well go all the way.

Chuck Yeager in the Bell X-1 shall no longer be considered the first supersonic flight.  Yeager only did Mach 1, but Scott Crossfield did Mach 2.
David Scott will now be the first man on the moon.  While Apollo 11, 12, and 14 landed before, Apollo 15 did it with a car, and brought back the Genesis Rock.
Yuri Gagarin may have orbited the Earth before anyone else, but Glenn orbited more than once.  Glenn shall now be the first man in space. (Sorry Shepard and Grissom, you just didn't have the right stuff.)
Mir is now the first space station.  While there were others before it, Mir just did it bet... Oh.  Breaking news, ISS has now become the first space station.
In a second snubbing, Neil Armstrong gets it again, because Gemini 8 is no longer the first docking between two spacecraft.  That honor goes to Apollo 9, who did it with two manned spacecraft, making it the actual first.
Dr. Goddard did not, in fact, launch the first liquid fueled rocket.  He was beaten to that by von Braun, who was first several years later.

[Wjolcz]

7 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

If you really want to compare them to athletes, one has finished the 100m and the other is still running the 800m. Neither one has more merit than the other.

That's pretty much what I wanted to say when I saw @Lukaszenko's post.

7 hours ago, razark said:

Dr. Goddard did not, in fact, launch the first liquid fueled rocket.  He was beaten to that by von Braun, who was first several years later.

Because it was bigger, obviously.

[PB666]

IKR, seriously who really cares about company hype when we know companies are going to hype.

[Duski]

18 hours ago, Red Iron Crown said:

Speaking of unfair comparisons, here's how Musk responded to BO celebrating their first successful landing. "Said some things he shouldn't have" indeed, he got back exactly what he gave to Bezos. I don't know why you forgive Musk but give Bezos grief for doing the exact same thing.

Saw what you linked, and he did say some thing he shouldn't have but I guess he is defensive of his grasshopper rocket doing 6 sub-orbital flights whereas New Shephard only doing 4 (According to Wikipedia). At my perspective it looks like a popularity contest.