I really appreciate Blue Origin's methodical approach to building this system. I note that they are closer to being operational than Virgin Galactic who I consider their primary competitor.<p>The challenge I have with the 'suborbital tourist' economy is that while some folks will pay $200K per ride for less than 3 minutes of zero gravity, one has to compare that to the Zero Gravity Corp which gives you over 6 minutes of weightlessness (in 20 - 30 second increments) for $5K[1]<p>Sure there is the 'Concorde' effect where the very wealthy will all do it once so that they won't feel left out at cocktail parties but that does not seem sustainable.<p>My hope is that Blue Origin's plans to move into orbital flights is successful. Spending $200K to spend nearly 90 minutes (1 orbit) weightless has much more appeal.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.gozerog.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=reservations.welcome" rel="nofollow">https://www.gozerog.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=reservations.we...</a>
The article glosses over what kind of rocket this is, so it's worth pointing out that New Shepherd is a suborbital booster. You can't launch satellites with it, only go up and fall back down.<p>Still cool though!<p>ADDENDUM - if you want to keep an eye on other projects, their reusable orbital booster is New Glenn. IIRC it's higher capacity than Falcon 9, maybe more toward Falcon Heavy. Last I heard they're shooting for a first test launch in 2020.<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Glenn" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Glenn</a>
Note that this flight tested an in-space abort, firing the crew capsule's solid motor to simulate an emergency escape from the booster.<p>Because the abort took place after MECO, the capsule reached an apogee of 118.8km. This will likely stand as New Shepard's altitude record.<p>Blue Origin previously tested a transonic abort and (unexpectedly) recovered the booster. Recovery did not appear to be in question this time.
Interesting that they stated a passenger would have experienced a peak of 10 Gs, that seems excessively high for tourism. The space shuttle launches were around 3 Gs and Soyuz rockets around 4 Gs.<p><a href="https://space.stackexchange.com/a/7857" rel="nofollow">https://space.stackexchange.com/a/7857</a>
The difference between suborbital spaceflight and orbital spaceflight is like the difference between reading a book about Antarctica and going to Antarctica.
Is it me or the capsule didn't land where it supposed to be? from the video looks like there was a spot for it.<p>Also, landing at 16mph seems a little rough? I guess the capsule is not reused?
Straight up... straight down. No orbit. Nothing to see other than "tourist" flights for people who want to see what space is like but without weightlessness.
It's been said before, but it bears repeating: Bezos and Musk are literal Bond-villains -- freaky looking billionaires building ICBMs under our very noses -- and no one is doing anything about it.<p>Where is the gadget-laden, womanizing secret agent who will save us?
SpaceX has been a phenomenal force in space flight, but their whole philosophy has been to move fast and break things. And consumers have gotten to watch crash after crash and explosion after explosion.<p>Bezos is making the bet that the average person is to trust their luggage but not their life on SpaceX. If they take their time and get it right, there are huge second mover advantages here.