This graphic aptly shows the differences in complexity between the two flight plans, but it doesn't show the biggest difference between the two rockets. When the Falcon 9, enters space at the height of 100 km, it is traveling at 5000 km/h with 125 metric tons of payload[0]. Blue Origin's New Shepard, the best I can tell was traveling at ~0 km/h at that height, as it reached apogee at the height of 100.5 km and began falling back to Earth.<p>According to Musk[0], a first stage of a rocket is judged by the energy it can impart to its payload at the standardized height of 100 km. Merely getting to 100 km is the easy part. The Falcon 9 is able to deliver 120 giga-joules to its payload at the height of 100 km, while performing a return to launch site landing. While it appears the New Shepard had ~0 joules left at 100 km.<p>[0] - <a href="http://www.spacex.com/news/2015/12/21/background-tonights-launch" rel="nofollow">http://www.spacex.com/news/2015/12/21/background-tonights-la...</a><p>[1] - <a href="https://www.blueorigin.com/news/news/blue-origin-makes-historic-rocket-landing" rel="nofollow">https://www.blueorigin.com/news/news/blue-origin-makes-histo...</a>
A more apt comparison is this: A single SpaceX F9 rocket can lift <i>three</i> Blue Origin New Shepards <i>into orbit</i> at 200km altitude (vs merely touching space at 100km) and then <i>come back to land</i>.
Here's a size difference comparison as well: <a href="http://i.imgur.com/g2VIKVC.jpg" rel="nofollow">http://i.imgur.com/g2VIKVC.jpg</a>
So it turns out that guy messed up the SpaceX plot (the distance downrange was doubled), and posted a corrected one to reddit:
<a href="http://i.imgur.com/Z81NgAk.png" rel="nofollow">http://i.imgur.com/Z81NgAk.png</a>
Jeff Bezos: "... Welcome to the club!"
<a href="https://twitter.com/jeffbezos/status/679116636310360067" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/jeffbezos/status/679116636310360067</a>
I'm curious, why does the falcon reverse course after having so much lateral velocity? Why not launch somewhere in Arizona and land in Texas or Florida?
It's also a great illustration why SpaceX landing on land requires substantially more reserve fuel than a barge landing. (look at the length of the burn at apogee)
For those trying to figure out the importance of who did what first please read . <a href="http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/24/9793220/blue-origin-vs-spacex-rocket-landing-jeff-bezos-elon-musk" rel="nofollow">http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/24/9793220/blue-origin-vs-sp...</a>
Please read this Trisell and others who are so concerned about who did what first. <a href="http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/24/9793220/blue-origin-vs-spacex-rocket-landing-jeff-bezos-elon-musk" rel="nofollow">http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/24/9793220/blue-origin-vs-sp...</a>
A somewhat tangential question I've had since seeing the landing -- why are these rockets trying to land by themselves, which seems really difficult, compared to say getting the rocket <i>roughly</i> in the right place and then having a robotic arm attached to the ground reach out and grab them?
What about hard numbers? Anyone has delta-v figures for first stage ascent, velocity both vertical and lateral components at meco, and delta-v for boostback, entry, and landing burns?
The problem that SpaceX has is that Blue Origin did it first. Even if the technical challenges were larger for SpaceX then Blue Origin.<p>In the mind of the general public that cares, it's all the same thing. The technicalities of a suborbital flight of a small capsule verses an orbital flight carrying a payload is meaningless. They just saw the Blue Origin rocket do it, and then the SpaceX rocket do it, and they looked about the same.