The BBC reports that Blue Origin successfully tested their New Shepard spaceship:
Not only did they manage to conduct a successful launch, but they also successfully landed the rocket's propulsion unit, a step towards full reusability. Note that it was not an orbital flight, but reached a height of just over 100km.
takyon: SpaceX's CEO Elon Musk congratulated Jeff Bezos and his team on Twitter, before attempting to pour cold water on the achievement:
Musk seems a bit miffed to be scooped by Bezos for the first successful landing by a rocket that had flown into space. SpaceX has tried on a couple of occasions to land its Falcon 9 booster on a mobile, seaborne platform. And in this tweet, Musk is saying that by only flying into suborbital space the New Shepard vehicle isn't nearly in the class of his Falcon 9 rocket, which can heft payloads into orbit, and even geostationary orbit, some 35,000km above the Earth's surface.
Musk then proceeded to explain the physics of rocketry on Twitter, making the point that the Falcon 9 rocket booster with its nine Merlin engines was considerably more powerful than the New Shepard vehicle and its single BE-3 engine. (Just one Merlin engine has 934 kilonewtons of thrust, whereas a single BE-3 engine has up to 490 kilonewtons of thrust). Translation: Mine is bigger than yours.
Bezos was not deterred. During the media teleconference, he gave three reasons as to why his New Shepard flight was so significant. First of all, he said, the first stage of the Falcon 9 booster that SpaceX is trying to recover doesn't make it all the way to orbit. In this way, SpaceX is making a suborbital flight as well. Also, the first stage of the Falcon 9 rocket makes a deceleration burn in space to slow its reentry. This means New Shepard arguably traversed a more harsh reentry environment.
And finally, Bezos said, "The hardest part of landing is probably the final landing segment." Basically, he's telling Musk "mine stood up and yours fell over."
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday November 28 2015, @08:33PM
If I were to take sides, I'd probably side with Musk. But, there's really no point to taking sides. Both are doing work that needs to be done. I hope that they are sharing data between themselves, as well as other players. There's no point in sacrificing lives twenty times over to learn the same lesson again and again.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by isostatic on Saturday November 28 2015, @08:40PM
There's no point in sacrificing lives twenty times over to learn the same lesson again and again.
Lives are sacrificed across the world in the name of profit, not dozens, but millions. Why do you think they wouldn't be for ego?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday November 28 2015, @09:12PM
There will be plenty of lives lost, in the decades and centuries ahead. For profit, and for even stupider reasons. I don't have to approve of the loss of life, but it's going to happen. Minimizing the loss in the early stages will get us out there faster, so that we can have some nice interplanetary skirmishes. I won't say "war", because I simply can't see that happening.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Saturday November 28 2015, @09:15PM
On the other hand by normalising loss of life (something we accept in other industries, and not just dangerous ones like mining or transport), it may mean that space can progress at a faster rate without shutting down every few years when someone dies.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday November 28 2015, @09:19PM
There is that. Psychology is strange, isn't it? Big storm at sea, dozens of fishermen's lives lost, few people take notice. Half a dozen astronauts die in a blaze of glory, and a nation is paralyzed for weeks.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 28 2015, @08:54PM
Are they? I've got a pretty good idea where Musk is going and where he wants to go. I haven't followed the Bezos thing at all (in fact, I had no idea he was involved with rockets) until I saw this. However, the big takeaway I got from the footage (mixed with CGI stuff) was that his long-term goal is to give rich people 4-minute rides to suborbital space. As cool as this technical achievement is, for me it was tamped down by that video. All that R&D and resources and THAT is your vision?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday November 28 2015, @09:08PM
I'll agree, if your assertion is that there is no intrinsic value in rich boy's joyrides to the edge of space. But, there is PR value in it. People with money make decisions, after all. People with money who have been to the edge of space, and hunger for more, might decide to invest money on more important ventures. Bezos may be little more than high tech carnival, but the carnival will benefit more serious exploration. In a very roundabout way, to be sure, but publicity can't hurt the space ventures collectively, can it?
(Score: 4, Informative) by theluggage on Saturday November 28 2015, @09:22PM
I hope that they are sharing data between themselves, as well as other players.
Well, that is what the patent system is supposed to ensure. Since neither of them is, AFAIK, proposing free (be it beer or speech), open-source space travel and can afford the odd licensing fee, maybe it will work as intended (FX: sound of me not holding my breath)
PS: I know all rockets look a bit phallic if your imagination is that way inclined, but Blue Origin seem to have put in an extra effort...
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Saturday November 28 2015, @09:34PM
I'm just glad there's more than one! The Amazon/Blue Origin video was much more movie like...