Blue Origin successfully lands a rocket stage that's flown to space

[mikegarrison]

[quote name='Robotengineer']They do not intend to do orbital flight AFAIK, just suborbital tourism.[/QUOTE]
They do not intend to do orbital flight -- for now. I would not expect Jeff Bezos to be satisfied with that forever.

I believe that B.O. also has ambitions to be an engine manufacturer for other rockets.

[fredinno]

[quote name='MircoMars']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.[/QUOTE]

Didn't they do something similar with grasshopper and Falcon 1?

[COLOR="silver"][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR]

[quote name='Kerbol Macrosystems']Elon Musk's twitter is fantastic right now. He's posting every (Blank) did it first he can find.[/QUOTE]

He's only mirroring the actions of his butthurt fanboys.

[COLOR="silver"][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR]

[quote name='Superluminaut']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[/QUOTE]

I think Virgin is actually farther along though- their facilities an infrastructure are complete, and now they are undergoing testing for flight-ready tourism vehicles.

[COLOR="silver"][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR]

[quote name='mikegarrison']They do not intend to do orbital flight -- for now. I would not expect Jeff Bezos to be satisfied with that forever.

I believe that B.O. also has ambitions to be an engine manufacturer for other rockets.[/QUOTE]

Honestly though, Blue Origin will be entering a crowded orbital market, no matter if it enters CubeSat/SmallSats (SPARK, Pegasus and Minotaur 1, and soon Firefly Alpha and Electron) the niche Delta II-level market (not enough payloads) EELV (Falcon 9, Vulcan/Atlas, Soyuz, Antares for commercial missions) and HLV (Falcon Heavy, Angara A5, Ariane 6). It may actually be better to stay in suborbital tourism for the near future.

[Kerbal01]

Reminder that Spacex has done precision landings from a booster on a suborbital trajectory, 5 times.

[mikegarrison]

[quote name='fredinno']Honestly though, Blue Origin will be entering a crowded orbital market, no matter if it enters CubeSat/SmallSats (SPARK, Pegasus and Minotaur 1, and soon Firefly Alpha and Electron) the niche Delta II-level market (not enough payloads) EELV (Falcon 9, Vulcan/Atlas, Soyuz, Antares for commercial missions) and HLV (Falcon Heavy, Angara A5, Ariane 6). It may actually be better to stay in suborbital tourism for the near future.[/QUOTE]
Which is why they may actually be using this more as a tech demonstrator than as a stepping stone to being a launch company themselves. There is a huge replacement market for the Russian engines, and BO appears to be interested in servicing that market.

[COLOR=silver][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR]

[quote name='DarthVader']Reminder that Spacex has done precision landings from a booster on a suborbital trajectory, 5 times.[/QUOTE]
Not if you use KSP's definition of suborbital, ie. "go into space and then come back". Two feet off the ground is "suborbital". What BO did was get a rocket all the way into space (100 km) and land it again. And nobody has done that before.

[KerBlammo]

Fantastic video of the suicide burn landing!

A great day for the sub-orbital joy-ride industry.

[Taowulf]

[quote name='Robotengineer']I don't like BO's rocket, it's too... ...[I]short.[/I]

[COLOR=silver][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR]

[/QUOTE]

Judge me by my size, do you? - Yoda

[Kerbal01]

[quote name='mikegarrison']Which is why they may actually be using this more as a tech demonstrator than as a stepping stone to being a launch company themselves. There is a huge replacement market for the Russian engines, and BO appears to be interested in servicing that market.

[COLOR=silver][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR]


Not if you use KSP's definition of suborbital, ie. "go into space and then come back". Two feet off the ground is "suborbital". What BO did was get a rocket all the way into space (100 km) and land it again. And nobody has done that before.[/QUOTE]
I'm not talking about Grasshopper (which made it to atleast 1km, not 2 feet) I'm talking about the sub orbital tests after S1 separation conducted on Cassiopie, Orb2, DSCOVR,Crs-4, Crs-5 and CRS-6, all of which did precision landings on a surface.

[mikegarrison]

[quote name='DarthVader']I'm not talking about Grasshopper (which made it to atleast 1km, not 2 feet) I'm talking about the sub orbital tests after S1 separation conducted on Cassiopie, Orb2, DSCOVR,Crs-4, Crs-5 and CRS-6, all of which did precision landings on a surface.[/QUOTE]
Annnnd, how many of those crossed the Karman line before landing under their own power? Edited November 25, 2015 by mikegarrison

[Kryten]

[quote name='DarthVader']Reminder that Spacex has done precision landings from a booster on a suborbital trajectory, 5 times.[/QUOTE]
If that's a 'landing' then so's Armadillo's return of Stig B.

[Kerbal01]

[quote name='mikegarrison']Annnnd, how many of those crossed the Karman line before landing under their own power?[/QUOTE]
All of them.

[Kryten]

Elon Musk is a sodding billionaire. I don't care if he's the head of your favourite corporate monolith, he does not need some arsewhipe to yammer on about his achievements whenever somebody else does anything vaguely related to space.

[Kerbal01]

[quote name='Kryten']Elon Musk is a sodding billionaire. I don't care if he's the head of your favourite corporate monolith, he does not need some arsewhipe to yammer on about his achievements whenever somebody else does anything vaguely related to space.[/QUOTE]
Are you referring to me?

[Kryten]

I'm referring to plenty of people in this thread, but yes, that includes you.

[cantab]

[quote name='DarthVader']I'm not talking about Grasshopper (which made it to atleast 1km, not 2 feet) I'm talking about the sub orbital tests after S1 separation conducted on Cassiopie, Orb2, DSCOVR,Crs-4, Crs-5 and CRS-6, all of which did precision landings on a surface.[/QUOTE]Precision crashing does not count. SpaceX have come close, but close doesn't let them re-use the booster.

[gooddog15]

Congrats to Blue Origin and their New Shepard team. What an awesome achievement. :D


[SIZE=1]Now to become a hypocrite....[/SIZE]
I don't think it's fair to compare New Shepard to the falcon 9. One's a suborbital rocket, while the other is strictly orbital.
New Shepard is just peanut's compared to the Falcon 9. Sure, NS flies all the way to space and back, but so can any first stage with a simple capsule thrown on top, just without you know, the successful recovery part. The Falcon 9 is a first stage and is strictly a first stage, throwing up the weight of a second stage + payload high up in the atmosphere at a velocity of nearly 2.0km/s prior to deceleration and final touchdown on a [I]freaking[/I] barge in the middle of the [I]freaking[/I] ocean. Meanwhile, NS flies up to 100 km, separates it's capsule, falls back down and lands somewhere in Texas. It's still an impressive feat that it can perform a successful propulsive landing, but so could DC-X 30 years ago (except it did it without going suborbital).

Besides Space X *technically* did it first, but on a [I]freaking[/I] barge, in the middle of the [I]freaking[/I] ocean, only to tip over and blow up after a second or two of being stationary. Blue Origin New Shepard landed in [I]Texas[/I], where everything is big, with it's wide open spaces and all. The only difference is that NS survived and is being examined as we speak. It's like Mars 3 and Viking 1. The latter was the first to [I]successfully land[/I] but it [I]died[/I] just 11 seconds after, while the former landed and was the first to [I]successfully operate[/I] on the surface and [I]continued doing so[/I] until somebody at mission control screwed the pooch.

What is impressive though, is that they managed to do it on their second try.
Although, it is only their second try. I wouldn't be surprised at all if one or two careens and kisses the earth at high velocity in the next few test flights.

[COLOR="#E6E6FA"]Fret not my Space X fanboy brethren. This is like how the Ruskies Sputnik won the battle, but Merica's Apollo won the war. But this time our boots will be planted firmly on red ground.[/COLOR] Edited November 25, 2015 by gooddog15
now to wait for all the aggressive people come around

[mikegarrison]

[quote name='DarthVader']All of them.[/QUOTE]
I see, so that's why they are at the bottom of the ocean right now? Because they "landed under their own power"?

You are just making yourself look like a fanboy here. There is plenty of praise to go around for everyone. You don't need to falsely diminish what BO was able to do just because it wasn't SpaceX who did it.

[COLOR=silver][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR]

[quote name='Kryten']Elon Musk is a sodding billionaire. I don't care if he's the head of your favourite corporate monolith, he does not need some arsewhipe to yammer on about his achievements whenever somebody else does anything vaguely related to space.[/QUOTE]
While I agree, I'll point out that Jeff Bezos is probably even more so a billionaire than Elon Musk. It's been pretty funny today watching people take sides in a battle of egos between dotcom billionaires who are playing KSP in real life.

[MaverickSawyer]

[quote name='hugix']How is falling from 100 km any more difficult than falling from 1 km?[/QUOTE]

Uhm... Speed and winds... Until the last 30-45 seconds of flight, the Propulsion Module is falling at supersonic velocities. There was also high altitude crosswinds of 119 knots, which the PM steered through to stay on track. (that's why the Crew Capsule lands so much further away... no active guidance on descent.) Let's see you do THAT from a kilometer up.

[COLOR="silver"][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR]

[quote name='mikegarrison']They do not intend to do orbital flight -- for now. I would not expect Jeff Bezos to be satisfied with that forever.

I believe that B.O. also has ambitions to be an engine manufacturer for other rockets.[/QUOTE]

Correct. The BE-4 will be used on both the as-yet vaguely described in-house orbital launcher, and on ULA's Vulcan.

[fredinno]

[quote name='mikegarrison']Which is why they may actually be using this more as a tech demonstrator than as a stepping stone to being a launch company themselves. There is a huge replacement market for the Russian engines, and BO appears to be interested in servicing that market.
[/QUOTE]

I agree. Honestly, Blue Origin is probably better off competing against the less crowded suborbital tourism and rocket engine market (escpecially the latter, as Aerojet-Rocketdyne is pretty screwed in the near future, being in a really bad position, and lacking products that have along term future other than RL-10 and SSME for SLS, and SPARK.

[KerBlammo]

[quote name='hugix']How is falling from 100 km any more difficult than falling from 1 km? [/QUOTE]

Did you see how fast that thing was falling even after it begun its burn? Its nothing like the Grasshopper flights (which were awesome). The Grasshopper was under power the entire time, went up, hovered and went down again, all under power. This is closer to what SpaceX has been trying to do with the Falcon 9 1st stage, except this was pretty much a straight up and down flight, so no supersonic downrange velocities to worry about.

If/When SpaceX pulls it off (and I hope they do) it will be a big step forward for actually putting things into orbit.

[Shpaget]

[quote name='gooddog15']I don't think it's fair to compare New Shepard to the falcon 9. One's a suborbital rocket, while the other is strictly orbital.[/QUOTE]

F9 return stage is never orbital.

[quote name='gooddog15']
New Shepard is just peanut's compared to the Falcon 9.[/QUOTE]
So F9 has more room for computer, navigation and guidance hardware. Is that what you're saying?

[quote name='gooddog15']
Sure, NS flies all the way to space and back, but so can any first stage with a simple capsule thrown on top, just without you know, the successful recovery part. The Falcon 9 is a first stage and is strictly a first stage, throwing up the weight of a second stage + payload[/QUOTE]

Smaller rocket - smaller payload. It's proportional. NS is also a first stage and strictly a first stage, throwing up the weight of its payload - second stage.

[quote name='gooddog15']
high up in the atmosphere at a velocity of nearly 2.0km/s prior to deceleration and final touchdown on a [I]freaking[/I] barge in the middle of the [I]freaking[/I] ocean. Meanwhile, NS flies up to 100 km, separates it's capsule, falls back down and lands somewhere in Texas. [/QUOTE]
Not somewhere in Texas. Exactly on the targeted landing area that happens to be smaller than the barge. BTW, what's your estimate, how fast is NS going?

[quote name='gooddog15']
Besides Space X *technically* did it first [/QUOTE]
No, they didn't. They crashed.

[quote name='gooddog15']only to tip over and blow up after a second or two of being stationary. [/QUOTE]
Nope. It was never stationary, or even upright.

[quote name='gooddog15']
Blue Origin New Shepard landed in [I]Texas[/I], where everything is big, with it's wide open spaces and all. [/QUOTE]
And the barge in the middle of the ocean is surrounded by skyscrapers that hinder the approach?

[Streetwind]

Holy saint in a camper van, guys. I open a thread to congratulate a team of engineers for a job well done and a noteworthy achievement, and share a cool video with you guys... and overnight you turn it into [I]this[/I]? Honestly?

I'm [I]so[/I] close to deciding to ask a moderator to lock this thread right now. Sometimes the Science Labs really make me lose faith in the KSP community's self-described maturity. :huh:

[magnemoe]

[quote name='KerBlammo']Did you see how fast that thing was falling even after it begun its burn? Its nothing like the Grasshopper flights (which were awesome). The Grasshopper was under power the entire time, went up, hovered and went down again, all under power. This is closer to what SpaceX has been trying to do with the Falcon 9 1st stage, except this was pretty much a straight up and down flight, so no supersonic downrange velocities to worry about.

If/When SpaceX pulls it off (and I hope they do) it will be a big step forward for actually putting things into orbit.[/QUOTE]
Yes, its far closer to Falcon 9 first stage than grasshopper. Still a bit easier than Falcon 9 because of lower horizontal speed.
Still Falcon 9 has shown its capable to doing the return burn and slow down.
The missing part is the actual landing, This is far easier on land than on an small barge as you not only have to kill speed but also land on an very small target, easier if you can be 100 meter off.

[Kryten]

[quote name='magnemoe']The missing part is the actual landing, This is far easier on land than on an small barge as you not only have to kill speed but also land on an very small target, easier if you can be 100 meter off.[/QUOTE]
It was a few metres off target at most. How'd you think they got those close up shots of the landing? Sowed the desert with thousands of tracking cameras?

[Shpaget]

New Shepard did not land just anywhere. It landed on a small target. It is directly comparable to landing on the barge. It also landed right smack in the middle of that target.


[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/YaUzusV.png[/IMG]

[Darnok]

[quote name='Shpaget']New Shepard did not land just anywhere. It landed on a small target. It is directly comparable to landing on the barge. It also landed right smack in the middle of that target.


[url]http://i.imgur.com/YaUzusV.png[/url][/QUOTE]

Ok, but what was its ascend path and what is ascend path of falcon?