Jeff Bezos reaches space on Blue Origin's first crewed launch
Source: CNBC
VAN HORN, Texas -- Jeff Bezos is the world's most wealthy person, and now the first to hold that title while not on the Earth.
Blue Origin launched him into spaceflight history on Tuesday, with Bezos riding his company's first crewed New Shepard rocket, alongside both the oldest and youngest people to ever have flown in space.
The capsule carrying the Blue Origin crew accelerated to more than three times the speed of sound before it reached 80 kilometers (or about 262,000 feet altitude), the boundary the U.S. uses to mark the edge of space. The crew will float in microgravity for a couple minutes, before the capsule returns and lands under a set of parachutes.
Read more: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/20/jeff-bezos-reaches-space-on-blue-origins-first-crewed-launch.html
82 year old Mercury 13 program pilot Wally Funk
Apollo Zeus
(251 posts)underpants
(182,772 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)peppertree
(21,624 posts)TheBlackAdder
(28,183 posts).
.
NullTuples
(6,017 posts)Bezos' effort did have a pilot, but she wasn't allowed to do anything despite being the one with experience.
Mike Nelson
(9,952 posts)... happy he's okay... but I happily turned off the news. My interest is low...
... I trust he pays his taxes every year... with the money he's worth, his contributions are important and needed!
BumRushDaShow
(128,858 posts)But I know people like to obsess over billionaires who we have no control over nor who we will ever have control over.
pwb
(11,261 posts)The 1% give the rest of us the finger with this example of how small the rest of us are to them.
DownriverDem
(6,228 posts)for the flight and it is seen as a big deal? I don't get all the excitement.
brooklynite
(94,502 posts)Start somewhere.
BumRushDaShow
(128,858 posts)I think they were in microgravity at apogee range for a couple minutes.
Bezos's ship actually went about 70,000 ft higher than Branson's ship - ~350K ft vs ~282K ft. This was probably because Branson's was launched from a high-altitude jet vs Bezo's that launched from the ground.
The difference too with both of these test flights is that ALL OTHER "astronauts" going anywhere that high, are suited up in bulky, self-contained environmental spacesuits. These individuals were not.
Many of us like reading and/or watching scifi, where you have people climbing aboard or fleeing into some ship on the ground that takes off into space without them needing to don some kind of space suit. Baby steps will need to happen to finally get us to that point.
aggiesal
(8,911 posts)Do an orbit, then I might be excited.
COL Mustard
(5,897 posts)Any space flight would be fine with me!
DanieRains
(4,619 posts)COL Mustard
(5,897 posts)nt
BumRushDaShow
(128,858 posts)it was testing a concept.
In order to get to this -
you gotta do this first -
aggiesal
(8,911 posts)The shuttle proved concepts like, Reusable boosters, reusable shuttle with payload and passengers.
This was like using a rocket to toss a ball (with windows) in the air then watching it come down.
I do feel it was just a joy-ride. Go into orbital space and do some laps around
Earth, and maybe I'll get excited about it.
They didn't even break the atmosphere where a heat shield was needed.
Apollo & Shuttle excited me 1000X more than this flight.
This wasn't even comparable to Alan Shepard's mission.
BumRushDaShow
(128,858 posts)This is what was needed to get on the shuttle -
The Branson craft took passengers up to about 53 miles and the Bezos craft to about 67 miles altitude without any self-contained environmental system suits.
Even the "orbital" skydiver guy Felix Baumgartner was able to provide data for his (private) effort, dropping from about 24 miles up -
I know it is de rigueur to dismiss any little non-Grumman efforts (YES what is now Northrup-Grumman did the Apollo and shuttle missions - it wasn't some fictional group of all government workers). But something like this vehicle supposedly having the largest size of windows to go that altitude, can provide data on the glass stress, window frame performance, etc., to potentially be able to use something like that higher into actual orbit, for some future vehicle.
mac2766
(658 posts)the significance of this. Otherwise, I'm left feeling that a gross injustice has been made to the majority of the people around the world. That a single person can accumulate enough wealth that allows him to start his very own space program while the greatest majority of humans on our planet suffer and do without even the basics.
COL Mustard
(5,897 posts)I'd end up like that guy a few years back who welded some garbage cans together and tried to launch. Didn't work out too well for him.
Mopar151
(9,980 posts)The first couple railroads did'nt stick, either.
Warpy
(111,245 posts)so Important Men can travel all over the planet in an hour or two instead of having to endure long flights on private jets.
EX500rider
(10,839 posts)Ziggysmom
(3,406 posts)empedocles
(15,751 posts)Politicub
(12,165 posts)It's fashionable to hate on everything related to him, and I'm sure people sincerely are tormented by someone having so much wealth. Full disclosure: I don't believe anyone should hold as much wealth as Bezos, either, and I believe he's a toxic human being.
With that being said, the launch built on decades of science, and was a remarkable achievement. I loved seeing the rocket that propelled them land gracefully on its landing pad. And everything happened so quickly! A lot of scientists and engineers should be proud of what they accomplished.
BumRushDaShow
(128,858 posts)and he had been working on that for 17 years (which was when the company was created).
Launch
Apogee
(they went about 70k ft higher than Branson )
Politicub
(12,165 posts)she could respond to the pre-launch comms check, I could hear her excitement. She was so happy in the moment, and that got to me.
BumRushDaShow
(128,858 posts)I could hear her yelling like the Slim Pickens character "Major Kong" in Dr. Strangelove.
This is what she sounded like on the audio when they got around the apogee point -
Politicub
(12,165 posts)The stories she could tell... what an amazing life.
dogknob
(2,431 posts)joshdawg
(2,647 posts)S**T!
yaesu
(8,020 posts)very historic!
EX500rider
(10,839 posts)bucolic_frolic
(43,128 posts)His risk outnumbers his billions on this nonsense trek.
llashram
(6,265 posts)in space...whooopdeef******doo...they are trying to get off this planet to who knows where. Meanwhile back on earth the unwashed billions are dying in droves from pandemics, corruption, evil orange people and his advisors, rising oceans, smoke from huge drought-wind driven fires, obvious climate change, racists hating on POC, and on an on to fates worse than death.
Yeah jeffieboy, I'm so excited about your riding a rocket...
Mickju
(1,803 posts)randr
(12,409 posts)No one should get credit for reaching space without orbiting the earth and bringing back pictures
multigraincracker
(32,674 posts)did he lay off half the crew just before landing?
Javaman
(62,517 posts)Mr. Evil
(2,839 posts)riding to space in a giant dick.
Initech
(100,063 posts)Mr. Evil
(2,839 posts)BumRushDaShow
(128,858 posts)were nothing but "giant dicks".
That's why I prefer the shuttle-style, but even that rode 3 "dicks" -
Apparently there was an inefficient fuel expenditure situation with launching shuttles this way as well asother issues that the pilots had with the glider-style shuttles.
Initech
(100,063 posts)IronLionZion
(45,427 posts)so he did. The super wealthy are exploring escape options for when we turn against them.
Bezos and Gates, the 2 wealthiest guys on the planet, are divorced. So my lack of wealth is probably not the reason why I'm single.
NNadir
(33,512 posts)...to regulate access to it.
Treating it like a garbage dump - as space debris is accumulating rapidly - will rob future generations of access, observational access, and technological access.
It is not a plaything for distracted rich people screw up.
I'm talking to you...Musk...you asshole.
BumRushDaShow
(128,858 posts)is actually getting our astronauts (and payloads) up to the ISS and back home, and if it were between him or Putin, I'd pick Musk. Bezos and Branson didn't get their ducks in a row solidly enough to get in on the early government contract party for the ISS missions.
I was just thinking today that any of these companies could make money building some type of vehicle that can actually collect all that junk that is floating at various levels of orbit. The stuff is dangerous to the legit satellites, let alone the ISS.
NNadir
(33,512 posts)...it is affecting telescopic images.
The Low Earth Orbit Satellite Population and Impacts of the SpaceX Starlink Constellation (McDowell, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 892:L36 (10pp), 2020 April 1 pp. 1-10)
The author is a member of the faculty at Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory: Cambridge, Massachusetts which works closely with Harvard's astrophysical scientists.
If I donate money to cancer treatments while in the business of selling carcinogens, I should not be praised for fighting cancer.
There are many ways to sustain the ISS that do not involve a cowboy strewing the skies with garbage he is intellectually incapable of understanding, thousands of ways to do whatever is worth doing at the ISS that do not involve cowboys like Musk burnishing an undeserved image as some kind of noble being. He is nothing of the sort.
We need to regulate access to space. It is an important resource for all future generations, not a plaything, or a forest to clear cut and then strip mine for money.
The technical challenge of space junk is enormous. We are talking about objects with extreme momentum, many of which are the size of a bolt or less. We will not address this issue with wishful thinking about commercial space junk enterprises.
It needs to stop. We need to address the problem instead of saying, "we'll deal with it someday." This "someday" rhetoric is playing out in a huge way with climate change, and we do not need or want more of the same.
BumRushDaShow
(128,858 posts)and agree that we are beyond the time for regulating what is going up in orbit.
But it's hard when you have things like this pandemic, along with climate change, which in turn impacts the weather (and thus the food production and has caused calamities around the world with extreme events), to somehow shoe horn something "space"-related into the conversations.
It is always a frustrating thing to look at someone who is wealthy and then expect them to change the spots (and ruthless streak) that got them to where they are. I have even said similar about all these multi-million dollar ballplayers and ask why they seem to like opening restaurants or designing sports wear and why not put the money into literacy programs or food banks or...
I eventually get to the point where I am resigned to the fact that it is pointless to expect it.
NNadir
(33,512 posts)...billionaires, this after generations of saying that the land belongs to the wealthy.
And of course, we have accepted that our health belongs to billionaires.
Now we are at the point of saying that the sky belongs to billionaires.
A friend of mine once engaged in an exercise where he held up his guitar and said, "I own this guitar. What does it mean?"
He asked whether if he died, the guitar would change in any way at the instance of his death? Did it's existence depend on his existence? Of course, he had the power to ruin it, to scratch it, make it go out of tune, but that was all. In no physical way was his being connected to his guitar's being. It would be exactly the same guitar if he gave it away to me at that instant.
Musk, Bezos, Branson and their ilk have it in their power, I suppose, to ruin the sky, but this is a power we have inappropriately granted them.
Call me a nut case but I believe that land, sea, water, air and yes, even the sky, "belong" to humanity, not Musk, Bezos, Branson ad nauseum. Of course, their existence does not depend on us, but our existence depends on them.
We should not be worshipping Musk, Bezos, Branson et al.; rather we should be shunning them.
BumRushDaShow
(128,858 posts)the Earth is too large for any of them and certainly even all of us... and I think sometimes we give them too much attention and credit for all the evil or any good that they do.
For every launch one of them might do, hundreds of thousands somewhere in the U.S. are throwing non-recyclable plastic bags on the ground, and might even watch them flutter away and up into the trees.
There are so many things that the billions on this planet can do to make even little changes in what we do, and how we do it, that can bring about some benefit closest to where we live and work.
I don't know if anyone is actually "worshiping" those guys (except maybe the people in their employ). But because there are so many critical things going on that need funding, I guarantee you that "space" would be at the very bottom of the priority list in the U.S. I'd rather see the privateers spend some of theirs on it if that will leave money for those who, for example, can't afford the hospital bills from a bout with COVID-19.
NNadir
(33,512 posts)..."critical things..." it might help if these guys paid taxes.
If Jeff Bezos paid as much of his wealth for taxes as I pay for mine, I'd be perfectly fine with devoting the vast money that would involve expenditure to cover the things you mention.
Our government has funded planetary missions, communications satellites, observatories like Kepler and Hubble, etc. If Jeff paid taxes, he could be a participant in these fine efforts along with me. I'd welcome his patriotism and sense of responsibility, just as I deplore his lack of them now.
As for using what's left over for a joy ride in space, I would like to see him apply to an international treaty organization ruling on the benefit to humanity his joy ride would bring.
I would also like that agency to have the power to reject his application should they find it a risk to future humanity, which many of these media extravaganza space adventures will prove to be.
Musk worship at DU usually takes the form of worshipping his cobalt laced thermodynamic nightmare of a car for millionaires and billionaires, but I see in some of the forums I inhabit, breathless praise for his space company as well.
It will not play well in history, I predict.
BumRushDaShow
(128,858 posts)Yeah Tesla... Big news around these parts with a $130k model burst into flames leaving nothing left of the car, out on the Main Line (Haverford) about 3 weeks ago.
Regarding the taxes? I hate to say that horse left the barn a long time ago. As long as there is no election finance reform (and no one immediately took up the mantle to at least attempt to fix McCain-Feingold when it was struck down with the Citizen's United ruling over a decade ago), then a large chunk of our elected officials will be bought and paid for, and the tax structure will be loathe to change.
And regarding the funding of all those past space-related activities - that money went to guess who? Private contractors. That goes all the way back to the Mercury effort and continues today.
The web has allowed more people to see the "behind the scenes" with a coating of their flashy marketing P.R. But whether it's SpaceX or Northrup-Grumman (the same "Grumman" of lunar module fame), the government ceased doing its own stuff decades ago - generally after WW2.
I had posted this about Northrup-Grumman - https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=15642296 in nolabear's GD thread - https://www.democraticunderground.com/100215641531
https://www.northropgrumman.com/space/space-legacy/
James Bernstein July 16, 2019
Astronaut Edwin E."Buzz" Aldrin Jr., Lunar Module pilot, is photographed during the Apollo 11 extravehicular activity on the Moon on July 20, 1969. (Photo by Neil Armstrong/NASA Photo)
The vehicle that took a dozen U.S. astronauts to the moon starting a half-century ago would not meet anyones definition of beauty: It looked like a giant grasshopper with bugged-out eyes and spindly legs. But the Apollo Lunar Module, also known as the Apollo Lunar Lander, was arguably the most remarkable vehicle ever built, one that brought glory not only to its manufacturer, Grumman Aerospace Corporation of Bethpage, but to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and to the United States. The nearly 10-year project to build the LM was among Grummans proudest efforts, and the centerpiece of the companys contribution to Americas space effort.
For the country, the Moon program NASA called it Project Apollo began on May 25, 1961, when President John F. Kennedy proposed before Congress that the U.S. should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to Earth. Those LM days are now taking focus again in the minds of Grummies, as they called themselves, as the anniversary of the first Moon landing in 1969 approaches.
Throughout July, celebrations are scheduled across the country to commemorate one of the most memorable days in world history. Several events are to be held at the Cradle of Aviation Museum in Garden City, which on July 20 will hold an Apollo at 50 Countdown Celebration, including a screening of Neil Armstrongs first steps on the Moon.
Grummies are delighted to recall those days. Everybody was enthusiastic, says Mike Lisa, now 76, of Hicksville, who was an LM environmental test engineer. Our job was to put guys on the Moon, and thats what we did. The work became all consuming at a company accustomed to work and pressure. Grumman signed a $2 billion contract enormous at the time with NASA in 1962. We didnt know anything about a clock, says Sam Koepel, now 90, of Floral Park, who wrote and edited LM specifications. We did everything exactly when the company needed it done.
https://www.longislandpress.com/2019/07/16/long-islanders-recall-leading-role-in-moon-landing/
A "$2 billion contract" in 1961. Imagine what that would be in today's dollars.
NNadir
(33,512 posts)...who worked for Grumman. (This would be opposed to my father who drove a fork lift until he was promoted to meat cutter at a Supermarket warehouse. It's unsurprising that I always felt intellectually inferior even though lots of people told me I was decently smart.)
There was a lot of pride around those parts connected with the Apollo Missions.
So I know.
Of course, the CEO of Grumman was the CEO of a contractor. He was not in a position to bump Neil Armstrong off of Apollo 11 because he didn't pay taxes and could build a spaceship that he could pay for out of his pocket change.
As for whether things might change, I'm not about to give up. Lots of things once thought intractable problems have been resolved in a good way, others in a bad way, but I don't believe that Bezos, Branson and Musk have quite managed the moniker of dictators yet.
My hobby is reading history, a fair amount of it World War II history, a kind of guilty pleasure. In 1940, Germany seemed unstoppable; in 1942 so did Japan. I'm reading Max Hastings "Inferno" right now. He offers the thesis that many British citizens were willing to give up after France fell, and might have done so had Hitler not pissed them off by bombing them. Whether that's true or not, I cannot say, but it would seem that the all powerful Hitler of 1940 did, in fact, push a little too far.
In more modern times, there's Trump, Hitler wannabe, who wasn't quite up to the Hitler mark, not that he didn't try. (He's not even good at fascism.) He seems to have chosen the wrong country to usurp.
I'm not impatient for Donald Trump to end up in prison; it didn't need to happen yesterday, but I have a fair amount of confidence it will happen.
As for Citizens United...well...
I hoping for Clarence Thomas, Alito, to blow a cerebral gasket or for that reputed God to get pissed off and strike Barrett with a few bolts of lightening, or Kavanaugh to choke on beer nuts, and for the old guy to choose their successors.
I'm an old guy, of course, but I haven't lost hope for my country.
BumRushDaShow
(128,858 posts)who was a history/poly-sci major so "history" was a given in my household. She was also a CSPAN junky when cable finally came around the neighborhood.
My dad was a computer programmer for the government who was taught COBOL by the famous Admiral Grace Hopper, back in the '50s. He worked for the VA back then (was a WW2 vet), so I grew up with mag tape write protectors and punch cards around the house. His unit worked on the programming and processing of checks for vets. Nowadays, that work is contracted out and the only thing that the government workers do is project management stuff - defining the requirements and letting "private industry" carry out/create the end product or service.
I think my issue is that there seems to be an assumption that "private" industry only recently got involved in government work and particularly in the space program. But that is just nonsense.
What I think the Bransons and Bezos and Musks of the world know is that the deep pocket is in the contracting and when Branson and Bezos missed that boat, they had to find something to justify the expenditures - a fad-ish thing, not unlike the Concorde once was, that pays the bills until a "good government contract" comes along.
I haven't completely lost all hope given even what happened the past year (not counting COVID-19) with things that were upended and removed and changed that were previously untouchable and unmovable for over a century. But here we are.
But we are also in a period where technology has magnified discord and misinformation and the headwinds from that are strong, making it difficult to focus on meaningful goals that need to happen.
Sgent
(5,857 posts)are going too slowly to maintain orbit. Without constant power from their ion engines they fall out of orbit and burn into the atmosphere within months.
NNadir
(33,512 posts)Last edited Wed Jul 21, 2021, 02:54 AM - Edit history (1)
...just don't appreciate how wonderful that asshole Musk is: Massey, R., Lucatello, S. & Benvenuti, P. The challenge of satellite megaconstellations. Nat Astron 4, 10221023 (2020)
That changed last July, when SpaceX, well known as a pioneering private space company led by its CEO Elon Musk, began a series of launches to build its Starlink megaconstellation. This system, with a licence from the US Federal Communications Commission to eventually place up to 42,000 satellites in orbit, is designed to deliver high-speed broadband to terrestrial users, particularly those in remote areas where the Internet connection is often non-existent. Starlink launches take place every few weeks, and deploy around 60 satellites each time, with SpaceX now reportedly manufacturing 120 spacecraft every month. The company currently has nearly 600 in orbit, enough to make commercial operations viable, initially targeting the US and Canadian markets.
Independently but concurrently, the UK-licenced OneWeb made its first launches soon after and there are at least 12 other organizations with plans for their own constellations. Together these could increase the number of spacecraft in LEO by a factor of 50 or more.
It is fair to say that the scale of this change took at least optical astronomers by surprise. At radio wavelengths, researchers are used to monitoring company filings to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the US body affiliated to the International Telecommunications Union, responsible for approving and regulating the deployment of new satellites. At the moment, being a good corporate citizen and meeting FCC standards (or those of other national regulators) primarily depends on having a commitment to remove defunct satellites from orbit, observing protocols about space debris and collision avoidance, and in the radio spectrum, not transmitting in the bands protected for astronomy. In the optical no such protection exists at present.
42,000 satellites, with no consulting with the bulk of humanity?
They have ion engines to keep them aloft? They have computational power to account for the trajectory of all those ion beams?
When they come down and burn up they'll be no effects on the environment?
You think this is wonderful?
I don't agree. It's the work of a morally indifferent asshole in my estimation. There are thousands of reasonable ways to bring communications to those who lack them,
As the authors conclude in their paper:
I am not in favor of shit canning human knowledge for the benefit of a petulant adolescent billionaire who smokes too much dope and cares not a whit for anything other than his own fame.
EX500rider
(10,839 posts)BumRushDaShow
(128,858 posts)being done under the mantle of SpaceX.
Was just looking at where things were with that and apparently a bunch of the same players are putting up similar sats for internet comms.
https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/27/22405779/fcc-approves-spacex-starlink-lower-orbits-against-amazon-rival-objections
So more and more stuff is being put up there.
EX500rider
(10,839 posts)BumRushDaShow
(128,858 posts)but when you're talking about thousands of them from multiple companies, the concern might be raised that someone else's craft might hit one if it's not where it is supposed to be when they fly past.
This is a real concern for the ISS. For example, I had heard about some small debris hits and/or close debris misses over the years, but just found this story about an incident that literally just happened back in May and was reported this past June -
By Sophie Lewis
June 2, 2021 / 12:10 PM / CBS News
The International Space Station has been hit by fast-moving debris but it didn't cause too much damage. Space junk hurtling towards the station smashed into one of its robotic arms, leaving a hole.
NASA and the Canadian Space Agency first noticed the damage on Canadarm2 on May 12, according to a recent statement. The debris left a gaping hole in a section of the arm boom and thermal blanket.
According to NASA, over 23,000 objects the size of a softball or larger are being tracked by the U.S. Department of Defense at all times to monitor for possible collisions with satellites and the ISS. However, some smaller objects that cannot be tracked still pose a threat, like rocks, dust particles and flecks of paint that chip off of satellites.
"A number of space shuttle windows were replaced because of damage caused by material that was analyzed and shown to be paint flecks," NASA said. "In fact, millimeter-sized orbital debris represents the highest mission-ending risk to most robotic spacecraft operating in low Earth orbit."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/space-junk-damage-international-space-station/
EX500rider
(10,839 posts)Currently about 87 percent of functioning satellites are commercial or non-military government birds. About 60 percent of the commercial satellites, and at least half the non-commercial ones are used for communication. Another 27 percent of commercial birds are for earth observation (weather, land use and so on). The majority of the military/government satellites are communications and earth observation. The United States owns about half the operational satellites, China about 15 percent, Russia about seven percent and Britain has five percent. These five nations control 76 percent of operational satellites and that percentage will increase. A growing number of other nations now control their own satellites but American firms are largely responsible for the rapid growth of satellites launched, especially the swarms of cubestats used for communication, including worldwide cellphone connections or high-speed Internet access.
While the debris is a danger, it should be put into perspective. Orbital space is actually quite large. Each layer of orbital space is over 600 million square kilometers. A layer is anything you want it to be (say a kilometer) between orbits. Even in low orbit (500-2,000 kilometers) you have 1,500 such layers. Orbits lower than 500 kilometers will rapidly drag debris back into the atmosphere. While this amounts to two billion square kilometers of orbital space for half a million bits of dangerous debris, most satellites occupy a small portion of these orbits and move through an orbit every 90 minutes. Most of the debris is concentrated in a small number of debris swarms, but these swarms tend to be in the most heavily used orbits. Bottom line is that current chances of any live satellites getting hit by debris are low but as more debris accumulates the chances of getting hit increase. It has reached the point where satellite operators take precautions, like equipping their satellites with the ability to move (until the fuel runs out) and paying people to constantly monitor the debris collision situation. For a satellite costing several hundred million dollars to build and put into orbit, this is considered a prudent way to operate.
This space debris is moving at high velocity meaning that objects as small as one cm (0.4 inch) can damage satellites and larger stuff (at least 10cm) can destroy satellites and seriously damage the ISS (International Space Station). While there are millions of fragments in orbit, most of the pieces are tiny. At least a thousand bits of debris are truly dangerous and these are the one that are at least 10 cm (four inches) long, wide, or in diameter. There are many such debris swarms up there that have to be watched and avoided. Not all the debris swarms are the result of accidents. For example, in 2007 a Chinese KillSat test put a huge debris swarm in orbit followed by another new swarm created by the accidental explosion of a Russian rocket that put over 1,100 dangerous fragments in orbit. Those two incidents increased the dangerous debris in orbit by about fifteen percent.
https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htspace/articles/20201113.aspx
BumRushDaShow
(128,858 posts)but also attempting to put it in the perspective of how (made up word) "gynormous" the earth really is is compared to the stuff that might be floating around it.
But one of my other concerns (not trying to be concern trolly ) is that you now have China in the fray since they have a space station under construction and are continually launching things on boosters that were apparently designed for or end up going into an uncontrolled re-entry. Of course we recall what happened with one just a few months ago with one - https://www.space.com/china-rocket-body-fall-implications
dalton99a
(81,455 posts)LastLiberal in PalmSprings
(12,582 posts)Hell, the dog Laika, who was sent up in a Soviet satellite early in their space program, could be considered more of a crew than these yahoos. During her flight, an electrocardiogram monitored her heart rate, and further instrumentation tracked respiration rate, maximum arterial pressure, and the dog's movements. This information was sent back to scientists on Earth to study in their efforts to learn about the problems involved in putting a living creature into space. The only instrumentation involved in Bezo's flight were the microphones that picked up the "Ooh!" and "Ahh!" from the passengers as they floated around the cabin for three minutes.
As an aside, I remember that at that time the Soviets reported that Laika died peacefully from oxygen deprivation after six days. The fact was that Laika died within hours after launch from overheating, possibly caused by a failure of the central R-7 ICBM sustainer to separate from the payload. The true cause and time of her death were not made public until 2002.
BumRushDaShow
(128,858 posts)One of those "passengers" was 82-year old Wally Funk who was part of a group of women pilots who worked in the Mercury program in the '60s, and today she beat John Glenn's record as the oldest person to go up in space (where he did a final ride on Discovery at age 77).
But of course she was not allowed to actually be an astronaut back then and go on a space flight. Because. Woman. It took over 20 years later before the first woman (Sally Ride) would actually go into space - that was in the 80s.
The below was done 7 years ago (I didn't realize she was attempting to get on Branson's ship back then but I am assuming that never happened) -
Yup. Women are "yahoos". Always have been. Always will be.
LastLiberal in PalmSprings
(12,582 posts)I was being dismissive of a person who has accomplished more in 80 years than I could in three times that many years. The truth is, I'm jealous that she got to take the ride. I am very happy that she got to have an experience she had been seeking for decades. I don't think I've ever seen someone of any age express such exuberance.
For the most part, the women astronaut candidates did better in every way than their male counterparts. The only reason they weren't selected as one of the Mercury Seven astronauts was -- because they were women! The thinking was that the American public's image of an astronaut was male.
Whether women were qualified to fly in space was answered by the Soviets when Valentina Tereshkova flew as the first woman -- Soviet or American -- to fly in space. That was in 1963; the Americans sent their first woman astronaut -- Sally Ride -- as a shuttle crew member in 1983.
As far as today's flight goes, it was definitely an accomplishment on three fronts: (1) the booster returned to land safely on a designated pad; (2) it carried passengers to the Kármán line, a 330,000 ft. altitude which was established in the 1960s by the Fédération aéronautique internationale (FAI) as the boundary between the Earth's atmosphere and outer space, and (3) the safe return of those passengers to a landing in a capsule on solid ground, which is new to our country, although the Russians have been doing it for decades. These are not trivial accomplishments.
Throw in there the fact that both the booster and capsule had flown before, and it was impressive flight. No matter what you think of him personally, Bezos has made a significant contribution to commercial space flight.