We always hear about SpaceX and what Elon is up to, but what about Blue Origin...

When are Doc Johnson and Hitachi going to make rockets?

We already have Space sex, Blew O-ring, and Virgin Orgasmic.

They don't have an engine"Already". The word you're looking for is "finally". BO has been at it longer than SpaceX and so far they've got an Engine and a suborbital testcraft. SpaceX is competing with established defense giants for commercial, DoD and NASA contracts. BO has a hell of a lot of catching up to do.

And did BO ever tell us what happened to that test stand they lost?

This
Fuck ULA so much

virgin galactic is a meme

very funny. air launch pretty much restricts you to small sats in low earth orbit, and they don't currently have any plans for a bigger launcher.

they do have some advanced designs on the drawing board, but the company as a whole lacks urgency, since they have a yearly $1B subsidy as a military launcher.

* ACES: a more advanced version of the Centaur upper stage. It is a really neat design for using otherwise wasted LH2 boiloff for extra power.
* Vulcan: not reusable, but using methane fuel. It should be much cheaper to build and operate than Delta IV and Delta Heavy (liquid hydrogen is a bitch to work with).

I'm not really counting their plans for "distributed launch" (refueling in orbit) as it is such an obvious marketing reaction to SpaceX's stage reuse.

They are pretty far along. You don't hear from them much because it is entirely privately funded by Mr Bezos who is much richer than Musk ever was. Although their working rocket is just for sub-orbital hops, it functions as at test-bed for all their tech, just like SpaceX's Falcon 1 did at the beginning.

Honestly I don't care who takes us to space first, I just want ULA to crash and burn miserably.
I hate them so goddamn much.

VG has no plan or strategy of going to space at ALL
their sub orbital meme shit was also a disaster and will never work

They are stilll years away from an orbital launch
Falcon 1 at least used a Merlin

government bux
while shitposters like to whine about how SpaceX is the welfare whore company, they've never actually taken a single dime of subsidy, all government cash they've gotten thus far is from NASA purchasing launches

the ULA however have gotten fucktons of free money, and have not done a single thing with that money other than stuff it in their pockets

they never will
Once SpaceX gets the BFR up and running, there will be absolutely no reason for ULA to continue getting subsidy because they'd be outclassed on every single front by a much cheaper competitor
the only reason they still would even after the BFR comes up is run of the mill corruption, which the US has in droves

the excuse is that there has to always be a second choice because of redundancibility. so yeah... you will never get rid of corrupt old aerospace

...

>The Virgin Galactic
>Can't even further than LEO
>Too afraid of girls to plan Mars Base
>Headed up by a beta ginger

>The Chad SpaceX
>Bangs Johnny Depps GF
>Reuses his rockets and his condoms to save money
>Only allows the hottest pussy onto his mars missions

New Glenn will be a better rocket than Falcon9 but it will come to the market a year or 2 before BFR and this will crush everything ever designed,Think 1000$/kg to LEO for New Glenn and Falcon and 10$ or less for BFR

Also remember how long it took Spacex to consistently land the Falcon 9 1st stage; know imagine a company with much less experience trying to land something considerably larger than the F9, the fireworks are gonna be fun.

*now

stuff that probably won't fly

if Blue Origin gets New Glenn flying or even close to flying, Lockheed and Boeing will pull the plug on ULA and leave it to fulfill remaining contracts

that would leave spacex and blue origin as competitors which would make the us gov happy. ula was created because boeing and lockheed said their launch businesses couldn't survive

SLS survives as long as senator shelby survives

hell northrop grumman has a launcher now (they bought OATK)

>government bux
No, B.O. is a bunch of workers fleecing Bezos, not Bezos fleecing the government. Bezos is a little lost lamb in the field of rocketry, where hopeless space cadets have been eating investors for breakfast since before he earned his first dollar.

>while shitposters like to whine about how SpaceX is the welfare whore company, they've never actually taken a single dime of subsidy, all government cash they've gotten thus far is from NASA purchasing launches
Not true. A lot of the SpaceX funding has been for development. The government pays SpaceX to develop Falcon and Dragon (and government employees do a lot of the work at NASA, validating and advising), and SpaceX gets to own the design.

The really key thing SpaceX did, that sets them apart from other rocket startups, is that they developed Falcon 1 on their own, a complete orbital launch vehicle, including its two rocket engines, a $90 million investment paid out of Musk's own pocket. Significantly, both the Merlin 1C and the construction techniques applied to Falcon 1 were suitable for Falcon 9, making this next step quick and inexpensive.

However, as soon as SpaceX had done so, the government backed up the money truck for them, with several times Musk's investment in subsidies, followed by billions of dollars in sweetheart contracts and more development subsidies.

>reuses his condoms to save money
Fucking keked

No and they never will.

BO is like the DPRK of rocket companies

Given Bezos' reputation at amazon, probably in more ways than one.

I wish for all space companies to do very well.

Unless they are working for or have anything to do with China's space program. Then they can burn in hell. China in space is the worst thing that can happen to the rest of the world.

don't worry, china is on the brink of collapse
it's too rotten to support it's own weight and will implode in the next decade or so as a result, just as it has done 82 times previously

>China in space is bad
source?
The US military are the ones obsessed with... militarizing space. Not China.

You really want the Chinese taking up residences in space? Everything else from India to Russia to the USA is far better than having China up there.

>source

History.

These false equivalencies were tedious during the Cold War, and they're just as tiresome now.

China's a bad country run by bad people, like North Korea but less extreme. America has its flaws, but they're not comparably bad.

Basically, the same kind of people are still in charge in China as those who were responsible for the Great Leap Forward. They're not a creative force. They advance in technology by stealing. They advance their economy by renting out their population as slaves and their countryside as a pollution toilet.

They're going to try and use their irrelevant half-a-century-behind copycat space program as a pretext to impede, extort, and tax real space development and colonization.

As we leave mankind's cradle and pursue our grand destiny, all the garbage of Earth who contributed nothing to the achievement are going to demand to be taken along so the problems they make can be perpetuated, and we need to say, "No!"

He's also a pedophile now apparently, I hope he gets arrested or his investors pull out; he's a physical embodiment of everything that's wrong with modern capitalism (I'm not a commie btw)

This kills the thread.

>believing the most common personal attack in existence with no evidence

delusional
US is on the brink of death due to 50% white

Retarded on multiple levels

>The really key thing SpaceX did, that sets them apart from other rocket startups, is that they developed Falcon 1 on their own, a complete orbital launch vehicle, including its two rocket engines, a $90 million investment paid out of Musk's own pocket.

Not just that, but Musk personally made a LOT of the decisions involved, and they were mostly good decisions
Bezos instead wasted years going off on tangents or that suborbital tourism meme.

Musk really knows when to push his engineers. Like when they were developing the merlin, and they were discussing whether to do it a simple proven way that was more detrimental long term, or a more experimental way that had theoretical benefits (or was this raptor?)

either way, because that one engineer told musk that there was a better way, he then forced everyone to design it so. Lots of similar examples of that sort of thing

...

china's working on a super tiny falcon 9. 150kg payload, grid fins, cheap to use. They've done a lot of tests:

linkspace.com.cn/show/?id=45&page=1&siteid=1

bump

Fuck China. Literally everything the do is shit

How the fuck are we still using rockets, this is not a spacecraft that should be taking us anywhere.
I feel this tech has been stagnated on purpose over the decades before Space X came along.
We should have more futuristic shit already

If you have an alternative idea in mind please let us know.
Because so far rockets are the only thing that can get us out of the atmosphere

Please someone make one of these for ULA and SpaceX.

>I feel this tech has been stagnated on purpose

You are 110% correct. Only that's because there's literally nothing better in terms of efficiency and cost.

Since the other spacex thread is dead

On the last 2 launches was there a fairing recovery, I can't seem to find any info on it for the most recent launches

you can all see the photoshop job that's coming, don't tell me you can't

Why though? Why recover the fairing?

Why do we have to go FAST to exit the atmosphere?

Seems like we need rockets to go fast; if we don't need to then we can look at other modes of travel

I think its' more about having the speed to get up there

As long as something is going up faster than the speed of gravity, it will eventually reach space, right?

Honestly I don't know, but those kinda questions are why I'm studying aerospace engineering and gonna take physics classes.

I just like Musk personally and think he is involved in cool shit. The media doesn't do him any favors building him up like Iron Man. But if you look at what he actually accomplishes and is involved in he is a very impressive guy.

We should be using atomic bombs but muh world peace.

All of you fucking RETARDS have no fucking clue what you're talking about. Take it from someone with an ear to the fucking industry, a little drunk on a Friday night but my superiors don't have a bug on this computer. Blue Origin is in a tangle because they have an incredible engine that's gonna power Vulcan, that's not even a contest. Aerojet Rocketdyne is fucking dead in the water minus refurbing engines for SLS (fucking kek). But fielding New Glenn puts them in direct competition with ULA, the bedfellow of the USAF. Because the USAF is a bunch of cucks with an eye on their wallet, they're gonna pussy out and lead both the ULA and Blue Origin along. ULA is banking hard on them being the old standby, while BO is banking hard on being the new upstart private company that can kind sorta compete with SpaceX for satellite launches. Both aren't gonna make their revenue marks to justify their respective ventures, and that's gonna leave them dead and SpaceX is gonna keep scooping up commercial venture launches, leading to a virtual monopoly for Elon Musky Vagina. You heard it here first you fuckwads.

Dang, does your dad work at Nintendo?

ULA is a dinosaur of oldspace, pork barrel mentality. The current rocket they're maybe going ot be testing in like 4 or 5 years will cost around 2 billion dollars per launch. That's like....20 current Falcon 9 launches. It absurd. It will be a miracle if it isn't massively retooled for reusability in the next few years.

Even if spacex fails, and they easily could, Bezos is an ace in the hole. The man is worth like 80 billion dollars. He could fund all of NASA out of pocket for 3 years and still be richer than 3 Trumps. His idea of space tourism is sound and could be huge in a decade or two if launch costs fall sharply and safety improves, especially if they start doing longer orbital sojurns. A whole fuckload of colleges would leap at the chance to send aerospace students into space for reaserch and prestige-"Join MIT Aerospace, we will SEND YOU TO SPACE MOTHERFUCKER" would put asses in seats and get money rolling in from boomers for whom the moon landing was a life highlight.

The p2p thing spacex wants to do would be better off focusing on tourism and reaserch jaunts into leo early on and not transport. Baby steps.

Where are you going to school and how did you learn all this?
Do you work for ULA or BO?

BO is funded by a man who is essentially a big walking boner for space. I don't think you understand how little Bezos cares about making money off of this. He's probably be okay losing money for ANOTHER 20 years on it, which is what he's done since the company has been going since like 2000. Dropping a billion a year on this has no effect on his bottom line at this point. He could give up, but I don't see it happening soon.

SpaceX on Mars and BO on the Moon right?

I'm not an expert by any means and you should take everything I say skeptically. There's some good information out there about all of this, this article really helps illustrate the nature of oldspace programs and the costs associated with them in the context of the SLS-
arstechnica.com/science/2017/03/new-report-nasa-spends-72-cents-of-every-sls-dollar-on-overhead-costs/

BO info is not too hard to find, Bezos is very open about how much he's pouring in and its clear from his net worth that its not even close to being taxing for his finances. He's made little effort to rush out a product because he knows he has the resources to take his time and, hopefully, have a better earlier record than Spacex has had. I like Spacex but god damn they've had some rough times using such new tech to do commercial work.
It would appear I may have gotten the launch cost of SLS wrong. It actually might be more around 5 to 17 billion dollars per launch. It is uniquely surreal to see that my earlier thoughts on the profligacy of the program were so conservative. Whatever it's final cost, it is staggering in scope the amount of money and the distribution of funds inherent in this system.

blog.al.com/breaking/2013/07/nasa_defends_space_launch_syst.html

It's all fun and games to dick-ride Elon and I do think he's got to get a fuckload of credit for the things he's done, but it's painfully obvious that the BFR earthly tranport system is going ot be a nightmare to get going as a serious way to transport people around at anything like a decent price. I think they honestly fucked up announcing it like they did.

Just getting nations to agree to let these things fly around is hard, building the off-shore infrastructure for them, setting it all up, testing it, actually getting to a very very very high for a rocket level of failure of say, one in one hundred thousand, it's going to be incredibly hard. they would be much better off NOT doing civilian launches as short distance jaunts,at least initially. Musk seems a little leery of space tourism, amd I know why-he likes to do things that are practical, and it colors everything he does.

Imagine if instead they'd showed off a system where, in the next decade or so,maybe a little after sending people to mars and iterating on the tech, you could book a multi-day vacation in orbit in a BFR modified to be a grand luxury hotel/resort, with zero-g sports and guided spacewalks, emceed by famous scientists. All for a few million dollars a head for the first few dozen runs. Musk's wealthy fans (and he has a shitload in Silicon valley) would have had celebratory coke parties that would make Escobar blush and thrown down a cool few hundred million to grab the early seats, the same way tens of thousands threw down years in advance on model 3.

>>
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity

How old are you people?

Well user you see, you don't just float above the earth in space, you have to enter an orbit and that involves balancing your speed with the rate at which earth's gravity tries to reach out and draw you back down. It's a very high speed indeed-the ISS orbits the earth many times per day for instance. Trying to do that sort of thing slowly is,at least for now, impossible-their are thrusters that use fuel very efficiently that you can run for much longer than chemical rockets, but they produce far too little energy to get you off the ground on earth and arem ore for maneuvering and accelerating in space.

SpaceX has gotten far more funding than Blue Origin.

Because their rockets are working and are reliable.
BO hasn't done dick

SpaceX had more funding in 2008, after just one tiny rocket launch, than Blue Origin has had throughout its entire history.

Results matter

The fairings cost a couple million, and all they need for a safe reentry is a parachute and some stabilizing thursters. They attempted recovery from some launches that were in the news but I can't find info on this launch

you are an idiot btw, and a commie on top

Bezos is investing billions in cutting edge reusable rockets and if that is an example of capitalism being wrong then I dont want to be right

Cutting edge, reusable rockets to launch rich customers and satellites into space for his own financial gain, that's the problem it's not like he's planning to send astronauts or cargo to the ISS or is pushing the limits of space exploration unlike SpaceX which is doing all three. What's the point of BO? It's rockets are going to be either too big or small to be competitive and there not going to be able to do anything special or new that hasn't been done before.

BO has more customers for NG than SpaceX has for FH
I'd say there's plenty of point of BO

>speed of gravity

FRESHMEN GET OUT REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Fuck Bezos.

Hate him almost as much as I hate ULA

You can't compare these vehicle. New Glenn is significantly more powerful than FH and has a very powerful engine, the BE-4, which is also a very large engine.

New glenn lies between FH and BFR, it would be on the very very low end of BFR preformance but quite a bit more than FH.

This is probably one of the reasons why FH is not going to have a very long service life before being phased out for BFR, and another motivating factor for doing BFR the way they are doing.

FH is bigger than New Glenn stupid

BO is years away from a launch

New Glenn has higher reusable payload and higher TLI payload.

SpaceX is a decade away from launching bfr

SpaceX is aiming for BFR launches in 2022

Neither FH nor New Glenn have finalized payload numbers, and incorrect, FH has higher payload

>SpaceX is aiming for BFR launches in 2022
they were aiming for FH launches in 2010

>FH has higher payload
can you read?

FH is not the BFR and the BFR will not be delayed for the reasons the FH was

45k kg
vs
64k kg

what part of "reusable payload" do you not understand?

>BFR will not be delayed for the reasons the FH was
you're right, it will be delayed for different but more numerous and challenging reasons

> Chad
> Uses condoms
pick one

>in 2022
Are you naive enough to believe in that timeline?

BFR is thiqq

>the virgin galactic
can't stop laughing

No

It'll only be useful once it's in space where you don't need massive thrust and the lack of needing to carry propellant/fuel around is a massive boost.

What did he mean by this?

sage.

I'm ashamed of this board.

and why not? They shrunk the thing so they can build it at hawthorne
Thats still 4 years away

>How the fuck are we still using rockets
Because this is real life in 2017, and not some sci-fi story where you just imagine the perfect thing and it works like magic.

You might as well ask, "Where is my flying car?", "Why the fuck are we still using firearms and not phasers?", and "What is the point of using lithium ion batteries instead of miniaturized cold fusion reactors?"

Rockets are what work, according to physics as we know it. Other than that, you need some exotic megastructure, which is certainly far more challenging and costly than developing very good rockets. Chemical rockets work well enough, and nuclear rockets are difficult, expensive, likely to make an unacceptable mess, and could very well fail to outperform chemical rockets in practice.