• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Blue Origin

Mr Person

A Little Bitter
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Oct 14, 2015
Messages
49,978
Reaction score
34,068
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I suspect some may request refunds and ticket sales will drop after the first explosion....
 

Rexedgar

Yo-Semite!
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Apr 6, 2017
Messages
38,233
Reaction score
24,580
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I suspect some may request refunds and ticket sales will drop after the first explosion....
There is a cancellation/change fee, this isn’t SouthWest.
 

Mr Person

A Little Bitter
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Oct 14, 2015
Messages
49,978
Reaction score
34,068
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
There is a cancellation/change fee, this isn’t SouthWest.

True, but how many of the passengers truly care about ticket price?


Most of these people could buy a yacht just to detonate as part of a deep-sea party, from another yacht.
 

Abbazorkzog

Zapatista Libertarian
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2014
Messages
12,199
Reaction score
4,079
Location
#TrumpWasAnInsideJob
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
There are how many billionaires now?
And not a single one of those lazy bastards has decided to become Batman yet...
 

Schrott

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 14, 2021
Messages
687
Reaction score
296
You are missing my point. Doesn’t matter who financed this fireworks. Alan Shepard did this with much more risk, 60 years ago. I would think that there was a foundation there that could be built upon. Sorry, I am meh about Bezos and Branson’s “feats.”
You completely missed the point. Shepard's rocket and capsule were throw away tech, state of the art of their time.
Todays private rockets, spaceplanes will be reused.
That is the big deal
 

Rexedgar

Yo-Semite!
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Apr 6, 2017
Messages
38,233
Reaction score
24,580
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
True, but how many of the passengers truly care about ticket price?


Most of these people could buy a yacht just to detonate as part of a deep-sea party, from another yacht.
Wait, wut?

1627002810248.jpeg
 

nucky9

Active member
Joined
Dec 1, 2020
Messages
268
Reaction score
172
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I grew up on Star Trek, and I get the appeal of democratizing space. But this isn't that (though it may lead to it), this is just a bunch of really rich people who have run out of things to piss away money on, at worst, or a way to try and make even more money to piss away, at best.

I wonder how many people who don't even have reliable access to basic necessities contributed to Bezos' litte adventure?
 

Chomsky

Social Democrat
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2015
Messages
57,870
Reaction score
44,748
Location
Third Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Color me unimpressed with today’s flight. Alan Shepard did the same thing 60 years ago.

I’m not belittling anyone’s courage who participated, but not much of a difference from the first manned space flight from the US.

What a clownish after presser….


EDIT: The landing of the launch vehicle was impressive!

But IMO, it's a losing implementation. Richard Branson's implementation is cheaper by magnitudes, and that will lead the way.
 

bluesmoke

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 18, 2016
Messages
17,038
Reaction score
5,518
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You completely missed the point. Shepard's rocket and capsule were throw away tech, state of the art of their time.
Todays private rockets, spaceplanes will be reused.
That is the big deal


How will it be determined what number of uses can be had from one rocket/capsule/spaceplane?
 

Schrott

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 14, 2021
Messages
687
Reaction score
296
How will it be determined what number of uses can be had from one rocket/capsule/spaceplane?
It is about reusability. Space Shuttle, despite being a master piece of engineering, was to expensive and not quiet reliable enough.
With the privates, reusing the most expensive parts, like 1. stage, or capsules became a must, because of the cost savings potential. SpaceX has reused its first stages up to 10 times and is reusing its Dragon capsules, crew and uncrewed.
Blue Origin is following the same path, even that it has to do some serious catching up to do. Now they have made their little rocket so reliable, that they can give people a 100km hopp and than reuse it again. That is a path finder for their larger rockets, in development.
The general idea is, to have thousands of people to live and work in Space, expand beyond our planet.
That only works if the transportation cost per pound, gets reduced, close to what todays cost on a airplane is.
We do not throw airplanes away after they land and built new ones.
 

bluesmoke

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 18, 2016
Messages
17,038
Reaction score
5,518
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It is about reusability. Space Shuttle, despite being a master piece of engineering, was to expensive and not quiet reliable enough.
With the privates, reusing the most expensive parts, like 1. stage, or capsules became a must, because of the cost savings potential. SpaceX has reused its first stages up to 10 times and is reusing its Dragon capsules, crew and uncrewed.
Blue Origin is following the same path, even that it has to do some serious catching up to do. Now they have made their little rocket so reliable, that they can give people a 100km hopp and than reuse it again. That is a path finder for their larger rockets, in development.
The general idea is, to have thousands of people to live and work in Space, expand beyond our planet.
That only works if the transportation cost per pound, gets reduced, close to what todays cost on a airplane is.
We do not throw airplanes away after they land and built new ones.

The NASA Space Shuttle was designed to be reflown up to 100x, the first reusable flown in 1981. Rocket sections were also reusable. The US govt is already paying private industry for both service and development of space technology. Private industry will figure it all out by having access to the original US govt tech and current/future financing.
 

Schrott

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 14, 2021
Messages
687
Reaction score
296
The NASA Space Shuttle was designed to be reflown up to 100x, the first reusable flown in 1981. Rocket sections were also reusable. The US govt is already paying private industry for both service and development of space technology. Private industry will figure it all out by having access to the original US govt tech and current/future financing.
The Shuttle and the demand list of it was way beyond technology of that time. Just think about the complicated heat tiles and their glue. It really stretched the technology of the 80s to its limit. It was flat out to expensive to operate in the end with its outdated systems.
It did a fantastic job building ISS and fixing and updating Hubble.
But it never kept its promise, to lower the per pound lifting price, it did the opposite.
Are lifting bodies a matter of the past. No. Sierra Nevada Corp is building the Dream Catcher, a mini Shuttle. 2 versions, a crewed ( 3) and a cargo. It can be put on top of any midsize rocket, ULA, SpaceX or Ariane. The charm of it is, it can land on any regular airport, anywhere in the world, fully automated, or crewed.
Put it on a Falcon 9, the only thing lost, would be second stage.
For capsules you need a special operation when they land, which is very expensive and time consuming. You land on a airport, attach a airport tug and haul it of.

Yes NASA's job is to be a trail blazer and it has done a outstanding job and now is handing down its knowledge to the industry. Competition will than decide.
Which means who can do it most reliable for the best price and still makes a profit.

But that is just low earth orbit. The next step is Moon and beyond and that is it were it gets real serious. Now we are talking about gigantic rockets.
 

bluesmoke

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 18, 2016
Messages
17,038
Reaction score
5,518
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The Shuttle and the demand list of it was way beyond technology of that time. Just think about the complicated heat tiles and their glue. It really stretched the technology of the 80s to its limit. It was flat out to expensive to operate in the end with its outdated systems.
It did a fantastic job building ISS and fixing and updating Hubble.
But it never kept its promise, to lower the per pound lifting price, it did the opposite.
Are lifting bodies a matter of the past. No. Sierra Nevada Corp is building the Dream Catcher, a mini Shuttle. 2 versions, a crewed ( 3) and a cargo. It can be put on top of any midsize rocket, ULA, SpaceX or Ariane. The charm of it is, it can land on any regular airport, anywhere in the world, fully automated, or crewed.
Put it on a Falcon 9, the only thing lost, would be second stage.
For capsules you need a special operation when they land, which is very expensive and time consuming. You land on a airport, attach a airport tug and haul it of.

Yes NASA's job is to be a trail blazer and it has done a outstanding job and now is handing down its knowledge to the industry. Competition will than decide.
Which means who can do it most reliable for the best price and still makes a profit.

But that is just low earth orbit. The next step is Moon and beyond and that is it were it gets real serious. Now we are talking about gigantic rockets.


Going from inner to outer space is geometric. Without having done any research, I'm just wild-guessing that the $250K passenger ticket aboard the Bezos overcompensation vessel would be about $10M onboard the outer space vessel. And likely private innovation will be partially govt subsidized, to whatever extent. That process was initiated yrs ago.
 

Schrott

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 14, 2021
Messages
687
Reaction score
296
Going from inner to outer space is geometric. Without having done any research, I'm just wild-guessing that the $250K passenger ticket aboard the Bezos overcompensation vessel would be about $10M onboard the outer space vessel. And likely private innovation will be partially govt subsidized, to whatever extent. That process was initiated yrs ago.
The current price are based on what is currently available and naturally, its novel, vogue. Flying with a airplane in the 50 and 60 was just for the better of or rich and it was rather stylish. People dressed up for it and everything was First Class. I remember flying in a Super Constellation from Frankfurt to Madrid, with my mother.
My mother was dressed like a Lady and I was stuffed into my best. Must have cost a fortune.
Yes government will always be involved financially and regulatory. Its infrastructure and it is part of the government job to finance such. The return in taxes could be gigantic.
 
Top Bottom