|
|
There’s a major difference between SpaceX and Blue Origin that makes them incomparable, Business Insider
“We congratulate Blue Origin on the progress they’re making with vertical take-off and landing of their booster.” That said, it’s important to know the difference between the two companies their goals, and, most of all, their reusable rocket technology.”
It’d be way harder for Bezos’ rocket to get into orbit than just space, Wired
“This feat raises some questions and some hackles, judging by SpaceX CEO Elon Musk’s response to Bezos’ announcement on Twitter, defending his own company’s strides toward reusable rockets. Let’s take a look at a few of the issues.”
Love it. This is a *very* good use of the Internet.
Saying SpaceX did suborbital VTOL flight is a bit of a stretch – IIRC their grasshopper tests only went up a couple hundred meters, whereas the Blue Origin test went all the way up above the space line and back down.
Um … you did see the Falcon 9 flights that went much higher and then came back ….
VTOLanding not almost landing
Yes, I did. And I found them quite impressive. But, Blue’s booster went to space *and* landed in one piece and SpaceX hasn’t done that, regardless Elon’s spin.
I’d also like to point out the decidedly one-sided nature of this “conversation”. Jeff Bezos’ single tweet elicited 8 unrequited tweets from Elon. It makes me wonder why Elon is so riled up.
Because he is pissed off that he didn’t spend the extra money to rebuild falcon R and keep his lease at spaceport America and stick his landing first. He chose the cheaper slower more practical way.
The businessman side of him cost him the glory.
You mean the ones that didn’t successfully land upright, unlike Blue Origin? SpaceX hasn’t done that yet.
The considering the complete lack of the velocities necessary for orbital trajectory, I think New Shepard has more in common with the recovered flights of Grasshopper and F9R dev1 than the stages that are coming back from part of an orbital mission, hundreds of miles from the pad.
New Shepard has more in common with the Rutan Spaceship One from a decade ago.
SpaceX Grasshopper from 2011 has more in common with Blue Origin’s Goddard from 2006 than the New Shepard suborbital flight.
https://youtu.be/RsPfU6azNjw
“the New Shepard orbital flight.”
umm, typo? wishful Freudian slip?
Typo or brain failure. The the word I intended to type was suborbital. I’ve edited accordingly
Not to mention that Blue Origin flew and landed their prototype New Shepard at low altitude comparable to Dev9 back in 2011, and their Goddard prototype comparable to Grasshopper back in 2006.
I love it. It’s like Sheldon and Kripke trash talkin!
I don’t know. This seems like the beginning of a post-apocalyptic movie or video game: two billionaires, each in control of a fleet of functioning rockets, start arguing with each other…
Well played, Mr. Bezos. You took the high ground today.
We want front page news!
Who cares about the high ground
Both winners!!!!
GREAT FREE ADVERTISING FOR REUSABLE AFFORDABLE ROCKETS 🙂
Hit em Elon!!
Pop him again Jeff!
Hit em again Elon!!
Oh that was a good one!
These guys been taking notes from Trump or something?
Pro Wrestling
Mr. Musk’s responses were disappointing at the very least.
And Delta Clipper beat them both and the Space Shuttle (Orbiter & SRB’s) beat that, but this little tiff has got me wondering who flew the first reusable rocket? The earliest I can find so far is von Braun’s A-5, which was recovered by parachute and reused on some flights. First flight was in 1938, but I haven’t found when the first reuse was yet. Some of Goddard’s rockets were landed by parachute, but I don’t think any were reflow. Anybody else know? Any earlier examples? Of course the A-5 could only fly to a few miles altitude, so what was the first reusable rocket capable of space flight? I’m guessing Shuttle?
Orbital vs suborbital means big difference in size, weight, and above all center of gravity. If F9 had been half that length it would have stuck that last landing, but it wouldn’t have been an orbital rocket trying to cut the cost of orbital flights. Maybe the F9 needs longer legs mounted up a bit higher.