Hey listen, people that work at these companies also like and read hackernews. Maybe try to have a little compassion before you sound off with thoughtless comments like “it looks cartoonish compared to spacex.”
People work pretty damn hard on these things that you piss on without a care.
Sorry to hurt your feelings but Jeff Bezos is doing just about everything he can to get the comparison with SpaceX out there and nobody commenting on any of this intends to hurt the feelings of those working on either one of these projects. There have been plenty of harsh words on Tesla, SpaceX, Apple, Google and so on on HN and this is the first time that the 'compassion' angle gets played.
How about: Blue Origin and SpaceX are as different as apples and oranges, the one is doing space tourism and may at some point become a player, the other is serving up a sizeable fraction of the worlds launch capacity at a pace that seems to be picking up every month. As soon as Blue Origin becomes Blue Orbitals a comparison would make sense.
> There have been plenty of harsh words on Tesla, SpaceX, Apple, Google and so on on HN and this is the first time that the 'compassion' angle gets played.
Then again, HackerNews does have the stereotype of criticizing things in ways that show a fundamental misunderstanding of the topic being discussed…
This time, the difference between suborbital and orbital is a big deal. You'll note that press coverage of BO uses 'suborbital' to describe these flights, while BO's marketing keeps talking about 'space'.
They can credibly claim 'space' because of the altitude. I really hope they will stay on schedule to do something more serious than this, I can't wait until there are two private sector parties with orbital launch capability and reusability at their core.
For sure, it's exactly why you get these comment threads. They're going after the same press that SpaceX gets without being candid about the vast differences between the two companies when it matters most. Such wilful muddying of the waters serves nobody.
Rocket Lab has - at this point - as much or even more credibility than Blue Origin has in spite of the more modest goals and the huge disparity in funding. At some point Blue Origin will simply have to deliver, sooner is better than later.
To be very fair, a large proportion of the population doesn't intuitively understand the difference. Most people think you go to orbit by going "up".
Just because SpaceX is doing something much harder than what Blue Origin is doing, that doesn't make it easy or trivial. Even getting a rocket that size to space is incredibly difficult, and not that many nations have done it. The fact that they're doing it, with a (soon to be) crewed capsule, which lands vertically... that's mind blowing.
The fact that SpaceX has a ton of success doesn't raise the table stakes. Basically, no one else (except SpaceX) is doing what Blue Origin is doing, nor have they done it in history. That is tremendous. I am very, very happy for Blue Origin, even though I'm rooting harder for SpaceX. Respect all around.
> Most people think you go to orbit by going "up".
This is very true. More than one person I know commented on how strange it is that SpaceX rockets go 'sideways'. They think going 'up' is the prelude to going into orbit.
Can't wait to see the orbital stuff. What blue origin is showing currently looks reusable. Curious if it will scale, some of this is easier at lower scale.
I am curious about the claim of a feather soft landing - there is pretty much nothing lighter than feather light, even an airplane landing is harder. That's a big accomplishment if true (and looks like there should be at least a jolt of some sort just eyeballing. Props to the team for getting it so light.
(2) Jeff Bezos is not a 'little player', he goes out of his way to invite comparison (in a positive sense) between SpaceX and Blue Origin.
(3) I'm super happy that SpaceX exists and I sincerely hope that Blue Origin will shape up and starts to put stuff in orbit rather than to play the 'space tourism' angle. It seems rather frivolous to start off with manned space flight when you normally speaking cut your teeth - and derisk your design - using many useful unmanned launches until you get it all to work reliably and safely. Going 'up and down' does not seem all that impressive, even though of course it is plenty complicated but it is all relative to what others are doing.
(4) I can't stand hype. And to me Blue Origin is hyping for all it is worth. For now they're Armadillo Space on steroids time will tell how they will fare. Until then these test flights test stuff that matters but not nearly at the level that Blue Origin makes it out to be.
Finally, to avoid stepping on sensitive toes: nothing in this comment is meant as disparaging to employees of Blue Origin, SpaceX, Rocket Lab, ULA, Ariane Space or any other group of people that are working to get mass of this planet, the more the merrier regardless of how much a project works out or not I wished I was younger and had more of a physics background so I could contribute. So I'm relegated to watching this development and it is the most excited I've been since I was 4 years old and saw the first man on the moon. I don't think I've missed a launch in the last year or two.
>If that's your takeaway then I think there isn't much point starting a debate with you but on the off chance that that is what you are looking for:
You may not know this, but the user you're responding to has historically been one of the more prominent SpaceX fanboys on the internet. (Formerly most active mod of /r/SpaceX)
Nobody's questioning whether you supported SpaceX then. But don't let your past cheerleading of the now-frontrunner preclude you from supporting the promising newcomers now. Space is big enough for many players.
>(2) Jeff Bezos is not a 'little player', he goes out of his way to invite comparison (in a positive sense) between SpaceX and Blue Origin.
Good. If SpaceX is his role model, he's sure to set his sights high.
>(3) I'm super happy that SpaceX exists and I sincerely hope that Blue Origin will shape up and starts to put stuff in orbit rather than to play the 'space tourism' angle. It seems rather frivolous to start off with manned space flight when you normally speaking cut your teeth - and derisk your design - using many useful unmanned launches until you get it all to work reliably and safely. Going 'up and down' does not seem all that impressive, even though of course it is plenty complicated but it is all relative to what others are doing.
Blue Origin just completed an absolutely massive rocket factory in KSC's Exploration Park. Their (ambitious, oxygen-rich staged combustion methalox) orbital-class rocket engine will complete testing this year, bound for use both on their own SHLV-class orbital New Glenn as well as ULA's Vulcan in 2020. Meanwhile, with New Shepard they've perfected their hydrogen BE-3 (to be modified for vacuum work as the BE-3U) and will soon gain experience with flying crew. That's more meaningful than you let on — crew capsule development is a very long process. Dragon started development in 2004, 15 years before it will fly crew. New Glenn will start with dozens of unmanned payloads — crewed flights aren't expected until 7-8 years down the line. (And they'll presumably still need to develop their own orbital capsule.)
>(4) I can't stand hype. And to me Blue Origin is hyping for all it is worth.
SpaceX is built on hype. Hype precedes accomplishment, by nature.
>For now they're Armadillo Space on steroids time will tell how they will fare. Until then these test flights test stuff that matters but not nearly at the level that Blue Origin makes it out to be.
You say that as if it's a bad thing. Armadillo is one of the most profoundly impactful companies in all of spaceflight history — there's a direct line from Carmack's VTVL work to SpaceX's booster landings. Nobody disputes that Blue Origin is many years behind SpaceX, and their "top-down" approach can be criticized and contrasted with SpaceX's "bottom-up" approach, but their accomplishments so far should not be understated — they are at least as impressive as SpaceX's Grasshopper and F9R work. And they're low single-digit years away from leapfrogging every competitor besides SpaceX into low-cost partially-reusable heavy-lift flight.
This last bit is what is so exciting! I think they may even come out ahead on re-usability. And I'm not a BFR fan frankly - the whole going around earth on a rocket - blah. Automated planes or something first please!
More important than the feelings of employees is probably just the fact that HN doesn't need uninformed comments talking exclusively about how the music in the video makes the commenter feel, or which company they think is cooler.
The comments come in part because spacex mission profiles are more demanding. Falcon 9 thrust / payload capacity is 10-20Kg to mars level launch capability. New Shepherd is crossing the Karan line. Both totally cool, but very different. Just thrust alone is probably something like 23,000 vs 500 kN?
Most of us are rooting for Blue Origin to succeed despite the fact they worked together with ULA to try and block spacex access to a pad in florida (total BS!).
Seriously, build the orbital rocket then Nasa SHOULD give you space or make spacex provide space if needed - but the claims of need between 2013 and 2018 for the nasa pad seemed totally bogus.
No. Someone needs to invent something like HN but with the capability for 1.) cryptographic signatures for all content and 2.) the ability to create a completely custom blacklist/whitelist for the content and comments you see.
Anyone who builds space rockets for a living is so far beyond the average hacker news reader that they really shouldn't care. I mean, this literally is rocket science.
Seriously?
Is "Looks a bit cartoonish compared to falcon9" is really such a horrible thing to say? Even by HN standard (which I have been visiting quite regularly for over 10 years), this is really tame.
Platitudes are important, elsewise we'd have far fewer comments on HN!
There's no chance that anyone can monopolize the launch market because of the way it's structured, with lots of governments wanting independent access to space. What you want is at least 2 low-cost providers.
That's literally one troll comment, the rest seem to be technical discussion, speculation about the future of space travel, and people asking about metric units. Why not reply to the comment in question?
People work pretty damn hard on these things that you piss on without a care.