Why aren't you working at Blue Origin yet?

>Takes bait.
Feeding the Third World, why? We had to figure that shit out for ourselves, and don't try the: "MUH SLAVERY" meme, Muslims are still taking slaves and started taking them (from Africa too) long before Europeans did.

Gender wage gap is a myth: blogs.spectator.co.uk/2015/07/the-gender-pay-gap-is-a-myth/.

I must have missed the part where SpaceX launched and landed the same rocket 4 times.

Smaller rocket, all launches were sub-orbital and the New Shepard rockets are much smaller than the Falcon 9s. Impressive in terms of rocketry, but not as impressive as what SpaceX has done with their landings.

all falcon 9s are suborbital

blue origin landed first, relaunched first, and had the most difficult recovery

spacex is just kiddie shit by comparison

You're clearly just a contrarian that wants to find any way to shit on SpaceX because they have over-shadowed Blue Origin in every way.

spacex doesn't need shitting on

they do that well enough on their own by blowing up a rocket every year

See you in 10-15 years when SpaceX becomes an incredibly successful company and Blue Origin remains forever irrelevant, just like it is now.

>in 15 years
kek
not an argument

You guys are fucking brainlets, it's blatantly obvious that Mars One will get to Mars before any of these meme-tier organisations.

Prove me wrong.

>Blue Origin
They're literally making a rocket-powered rollercoaster ride out of the atmosphere. I'm not saying what they're doing is easy, but the scale of their rockets is just a few notches above amateur rocketry.

>Mars One meme

Absolute kek. You've been brainwashed by the popsci media. Get that filthy meme tier garbage out of here.

Clearly, our most plausiable way of getting to Mars is Inspiration Mars.

So does blue origin build shitty engines the old fashioned way? Rather than the new fancy spacex way?

You mean grasshopper?
First falcon reflight soon, the real battle starts then.

I want to hug that girl.

It will explode again before they even refly one booster

>hydrolox is easy
back to r*ddit with you

>It will explode again before they even refly one booster
>herp derp
They've had two explosions out of 29 rockets (then pinpointed and eliminated a failure mode after each). It's unlikely that they'll have another in the next few launches.

My understanding is that they're going to refly a booster as their second flight after the return to flight.

>>hydrolox is easy
It's a mature technology now. People have even made liquid-hydrogen-fuelled cars. It's been in routine use for half a century, and every major space program has used lox/h2, even China and India.

It's costly and gives low impulse density and poorer thrust-to-weight. Now it's just a matter of whether the design team accepts those costs and disadvantages, not a measure of their technical excellence.

I do appreciate that they are aiming towards orbital/lagrangian colonies rather than memeing about planets

Blue Origin is also in a partnership with ULA. With that kind of funding they better fucking not explode.

BECAUSE I'M NOT AN US CITIZEN, SO I CAN'T WORK ON ANYTHING "SENSITIVE" (I.E. 70 YEAR OLD TECHNOLOGY)

>Blue Origin rockets don't explode.
Blue Origin has only built 4 rocket stages in total, starting in 2006. One (Goddard) was only for low-altitude hopes and only flew 3 times, one ("PM2") went out of control on its first high-altitude flight (second flight), one (New Shepard 1) crashed on landing, and the third (New Shepard 2) has been retired after four suborbital hops, not unlike SpaceX's Grasshopper, which went eight hops without incident.

In total, since 2006 (the same year Blue Origin launched its first rocket) SpaceX has built 70 operational rocket stages, and flown 66 of them. They had one Falcon 1 booster failure (engine failure), one Falcon 1 upper stage failure, one Falcon 1 staging failure, one Falcon 9 1.0 booster engine out (and proceeded to orbit), one F9Rdev flight termination due to sensor failure, one Falcon 9 1.1 upper stage failure, and one Falcon 9 FT fuelling accident.

The two Falcon 9 failures both happened in the upper stage, the first after 5 years of successful launches and 36 consecutive successfully-operating stages. Blue Origin has never built an upper stage, they've only built 4 single-stage suborbital rockets. New Shepard only started flying in April of last year and has launched less frequently than SpaceX has in that span of time (five flights to nine), and successfully landed less (four landings to six).

We'll see whether Blue Origin rockets explode less than SpaceX ones when they've brought a single vehicle out of the experimental phase and done a significant number of operational flights over a significant length of time.

I went deaf after "BECAUSE".

>It's a mature technology now.
yeah well so are rockets, but spacex can't seem to get them right

>counting 2nd stage as a separate rocket to boost success numbers
pathetic

They've blown up two customer payloads in as many years. There's only so many ways you can spin this positively for spacex

>>counting 2nd stage as a separate rocket to boost success numbers
To contrast them appropriately with the successful flight count of a single-stage, suborbital rocket.

Blue Origin has done almost nothing in terms of practical operation compared to SpaceX. They've had an order of magnitude less chances to fuck up, and despite being around for just as long, have done almost no useful work.

>They've blown up two customer payloads in as many years.
True, but they've also successfully launched 14 customer payloads into orbit in those two years, the majority of which were going beyond LEO, and therefore needed not only successful staging, but a successful and precisely-timed restart in orbit (another common failure point).

As they transition to mature operations as one of the most active launch services in the world, this is when any subtle flaws are most likely to make themselves felt.

>To contrast them appropriately with the successful flight count of a single-stage, suborbital rocket.
Blue Origin hasn't failed a single mission. SpaceX failed 3 falcon 1 missions and 3 falcon 9 missions.
It's a simple fact that they develop more slowly and carefully, and reap better results because of it.

>Blue Origin has done almost nothing in terms of practical operation compared to SpaceX
This is just as meaningless a statement as "SpaceX has done almost nothing in terms of practical operation compared to ULA"

>They've had an order of magnitude less chances to fuck up
What? SpaceX fucked up on their first three flights.

>and despite being around for just as long, have done almost no useful work.
They haven't received several billion in public and private investment either, and Bezos's personal contributions are not anywhere near Musk's yet.

>As they transition to mature operations as one of the most active launch services in the world
haha
You still think this will ever happen when they continue to blow up costumers every year and delay falcon heavy again and again?
New Glenn will likely fly for a decade before the first BFR is ever built (a decreasingly likely prospect, considering how SpaceX's failure rate increases over time)

>Blue Origin hasn't failed a single mission.
Blue Origin hasn't succeeded in a single mission. They've been around as long as SpaceX but have done nothing but experimental flights.

They've built and flown 4 rockets and crashed 3 of them.

>>They've had an order of magnitude less chances to fuck up
>What? SpaceX fucked up on their first three flights.
Blue Origin also crashed its first three rockets. SpaceX was driving hard for results, and they got them.

2002 SpaceX founded by dot-com near-billionaire.
2006-2008 SpaceX flies Falcon 1 4 times and reaches orbit, gaining credibility, customers, and funding.
2010 SpaceX launches Falcon 9 with Dragon to orbit. Dragon also returns from orbit successfully. A man could have ridden in it and survived.
2016 SpaceX is established as a major orbital launch provider, announces intent to build fully-reusable super rocket that can take small towns to Mars.

2000 Blue Origin founded by dot-com billionaire.
2006-2007 Blue Origin flies Goddard 3 times and crashes it.
2010 Blue Origin still hasn't built a second rocket.
2016 Blue Origin is still doing suborbital test flights, announces intent to eventually build partially-reusable orbital rocket (like the one SpaceX already has).

>They haven't received several billion in public and private investment either
So you think failing to attract investment is a positive?

>You still think this will ever happen when they continue to blow up costumers every year and delay falcon heavy again and again?
Yeah man, this is exactly how it works with rockets. The reliability never improves after the first few incidents, and no successful vehicle has ever been delayed.

If you're counting landings as "failures" spacex has had more than a dozen failed recoveries.

>Blue Origin hasn't succeeded in a single mission. They've been around as long as SpaceX but have done nothing but experimental flights.
They've had NASA and university research payloads flown already on these "test" flights
They will fly people into space in 2017, and SpaceX won't until 2019 (they also have a high chance of killing their crew)

>Blue Origin also crashed its first three rockets
and SpaceX didn't?
haha

You also forgot
>2015: blue origin lands a rocket back from space (before spacex)
>2016: blue origin launches and lands the same rocket 3 more times, with the third landing being more demanding than anything spacex has done

>So you think failing to attract investment is a positive?
I'm saying you're retarded for thinking that spacex isn't moving faster because of much higher investment.
Bezos isn't whoring out shares of his company for private investment either.

>The reliability never improves after the first few incidents, and no successful vehicle has ever been delayed.
Did you even read what I said?
Time between first and second falcon 9 failures: 15 launches
Time between second and third falcon 9 failures: 9 launches

I wouldn't be surprised if they have another failure by May next year.

There's a big difference between flying a payload on a useful orbital launch and attempting recovery on an incremental expendable-to-reusable development plan, and just doing a straight-up-and-down hop with a VTVL development vehicle.

For SpaceX's VTVL development vehicles, they had 13 hops and 12 successful recoveries, and that's entirely in addition to their orbital launches (and capsule). For Blue Origin, it's been 10 hops and 7 successful recoveries, and that's all they've done (except the suborbital capsule with solid-fuel launch escape system).

The only things that matter are g forces from descent and heating, both of which were more extreme for Blue Origin landings than for the Orbcomm landing.

>For SpaceX's VTVL development vehicles, they had 13 hops and 12 successful recoveries
a 1km hop is nothing compared to a 100km hop
The landing control is easy; NASA did it in the 90s. Only SpaceX has had troubles with it.

SpaceX has had 6 successful landings and 7 failures.

>the third landing being more demanding than anything spacex has done
This is the most retarded of your claims. Falcon 9 has landed on a moving barge in rough seas, after lifting a far heavier load and from a much greater altitude and speed.

What SpaceX is doing with stage recovery is an order of magnitude harder than what Blue Origin is doing.

>I'm saying you're retarded for thinking that spacex isn't moving faster because of much higher investment.
So you acknowledge that SpaceX is moving faster? Making more progress? The actual company advancing the final frontier while Blue Origin eats their dust?

Let's post SpaceX jokes, Veeky Forums.

I'll start:
>Falcon 9 will fly in 2008
>Falcon Heavy will fly in 2013
>Dragon 2 will fly humans in 2015
>Red Dragon will fly to Mars in 2018
>ITS will launch unmanned to Mars in 2022
>SpaceX will build launch 4000 satellites by 2020
>30 MPA chamber pressure engine "design goal"
>reliability through simplicity
>commodification through high flight rate
>"ULA is finished"
>Musk literally said "I am here and you are dead" to some Arianespace people in 2004

>What SpaceX is doing with stage recovery is an order of magnitude harder than what Blue Origin is doing.
Come back when SpaceX has re-flown a stage 4 times, and landed a stage after an in-flight abort, and then we'll talk.

>So you acknowledge that SpaceX is moving faster?
Did I ever deny that they are moving faster? Like I said before, they're reckless and are failing hard because of it.

>The actual company advancing the final frontier
I don't see any SpaceX rockets launching right now, do you?
China is objectively advancing the frontier more than SpaceX right now.

>g forces from descent and heating, both of which were more extreme for Blue Origin landings
What are you basing that on? The Falcon 9 is going so much faster that it needs a braking burn when re-entering the atmosphere.

You know, I used to think the persistent anti-SpaceX people with their bullshit arguments and stubborn idiocy were just trolls, but this is looking more and more like some 50 Cent Army / Correct The Record type astroturf work.

Are you 12 years old?

Steeper suborbital trajectories always have higher g's

Compare Alan Shepard's experience to that of orbital Mercury flights.

>I don't see any SpaceX rockets launching right now, do you?
They launched 8 times already this year. Even if they don't launch any more until next year, that's quite a respectable rate and ranks them among the major players. They should launch again in under a month.

SpaceX won't be able to compete with New Glenn.
>single stick with the same capability as block 1 SLS
>methane fuel makes recovery and reuse simple
>higher efficiency engines
> higher stage 1 separation velocity means that payloads can reach high-energy orbits much easier than with falcon 9
>more than enough capacity to make stage 2 reusable
>developing a 20+ person capsule for orbital and Lunar flights and tourism
>on-site manufacturing will make spacex shipping across the country look archaic
>optional hydrolox 3rd stage, completely outstripping anything SpaceX has
>back-order customers for falcon 9 and fh will start jumping ship for New Glenn almost immediately
New Glenn vs Falcon Heavy is like Saturn V vs N1
One is high performance greatness and the other is unsafe inefficient garbage
>but muh ITS
literally will not fly until the 2030s at the earliest
I'd put money on New Armstrong flying sooner than ITS

China will fly 3 times that many rockets by year's end on a similar budget and nobody will bat an eye.

>Steeper suborbital trajectories always have higher g's
Not when they're moving at different speeds, dimwit.

New Shepard goes straight up and down, shuts off its engine at 40 km, and barely coasts up to 100 km altitude.

The Falcon 9 lower stage doesn't just boost the upper stage into space, it also blasts it to about a 2 km/s horizontal speed before separating.

If you take the upper stage and payload off of it, the Falcon 9 lower stage could fly itself to orbit. Even if you take the capsule off of New Shepard, it could still not come close to flying the trajectory of the loaded Falcon 9 booster. It's like a little toy by comparison.

I already ended the discussion, you're talking to yourself now, but maybe that's your thing, because you're autistic? I don't know and quite frankly I don't care. Maybe you'll get the point eventually in a few years time, for autistic people it takes time I understand to get the point and bear in mind you're one of the lucky ones, some autists never actually get the point, which may be your case, I hope not, because I really want from you to get the point, but I doubt you will, because your autism is severe by the looks of it.

because the most important technology for human kind is achieving negligible senescence

>Achievement Unlocked: Ultimate Desperation Script

What did he mean by this?

>>single stick with the same capability as block 1 SLS
Completely impossible given the thrust and specific impulse figures given. There's no reason to expect New Glenn to approach Falcon Heavy maximum performance, let alone SLS. It will more likely be comparable to Delta IV Heavy or even Falcon 9 expendable, with the demands of booster reusability and Blue Origin's higher-dry-mass approach to recovery.

ITS is further along in development, by a company with more experience and better facilities, than New Glenn.

>71 tons to LEO
You're move.

This is why nobody takes spacex/musk nutters seriously anymore.
>ITS is further along in development
haha
They literally have nothing of this project finished. The tank is not to scale and is in very preliminary testing. They don't even know if it will work properly. The "engine" they tested (for 7 seconds) is not the proper scale and not the proper chamber pressure as the stated final product. Let's not even start on their funding problems, let alone the fact that they need to re-rebuild 39A just to launch it and build completely new VAB-teir facilities at KSC to even build the thing.
I don't expect serious work on ITS to even start until 2019, that is assuming they don't have any more launch failures and don't kill NASA's astronauts.

New Glenn is simply not an expendable vehicle. They've given no indication of an intent to design or build an expendable variant. You're a complete moron if you think it'll get performance comparable to this estimate, which is based on expendability.

It's not big because they're planning for it to have super high performance. It's big because they know their method of reusability is going to be inefficient, and they want to be sure they can launch any payload on the established market.

It's likely that they're planning for under 40 tons to LEO.

>The tank is not to scale and is in very preliminary testing.
It's a full-size liquid oxygen tank for the "spaceship". The booster is just a longer version at the same diameter. It's the diameter that's challenging. Adding length is straightforward.

Blue Origin has shown no work on their tank. It looks like they only broke ground on the factory where they'll build it this June.

>New Glenn is simply not an expendable vehicle. They've given no indication of an intent to design or build an expendable variant.
What's your source on that?
>You're a complete moron if you think it'll get performance comparable to this estimate
You think you're smarter than Robert Zubrin?
twitter.com/robert_zubrin/status/775365975034114049

>It's big because they know their method of reusability is going to be inefficient
How is it inefficient?
What is your source on how it is inefficient?
How is SpaceX's method more efficient?
What is your source on how SpaceX's method is more efficient?

>It's likely that they're planning for under 40 tons to LEO.
FH payload to LEO reusable is Blue Origin has shown no work on their tank.
They aren't building with a meme material, so the tanks will not be a problem.

>It looks like they only broke ground on the factory where they'll build it this June.
and this is somehow behind what SpaceX is doing?

By the way, you have genuine autism, and are truly delusional. I hope for your sake that you're just young and stupid/impressionable.

Does this blue origin faggot work for them or something? Why are you so butthurt and determined to shill for them here?

>You think you're smarter than Robert Zubrin?
Yes. He's just another popsci faggot who plugs numbers into simple arithmetic formulas.

>How is it inefficient?
Large aerodynamic features (dead weight on the way up and for the landing), lighting the engine high and then coming to a hover before landing.

>What is your source
I'm not an idiot like you, who is three steps below a number-plugger like Zubrin and can only regurgitate things he has seen elsewhere. I can see and understand the obvious things for myself.

Hovering with a rocket is extremely inefficient. SpaceX currently does a 3-engine landing burn, to minimize the fuel required for the landing by landing as quickly as possible, therefore giving gravity as little time as possible to undo the deceleration the rocket engines are accomplishing.

SpaceX is using minimal aerodynamic features, which helps keep the dry mass exceptionally low.

>this is somehow behind what SpaceX is doing?
SpaceX obviously already has a facility where they can build tanks of the diameter required. Raptor is also similarly-sized to the Merlin engines, which SpaceX is already producing in quantity.

It's not even worth it to respond to your unending incredulity.

>Achievement Unlocked: Extreme Desperation Maneuver "Not Even Worth It"

SpaceX should hurry the fk up
get those rockets launching guys!

Next launch scheduled for Dec 18 unless the fuckers delay it again.

Why work for a company that has been going for longer than SpaceX, is backed by Bezo's deep pockets, and hasn't launched so much as a sausage into orbit?

even though SpaceX had been doing suborbital flights and relaunches with Grasshopper years before BO