• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.
I believe that Blue Origin will be launching today.
 
Am I the only one who thinks that if Bezos can make Blue Origin so that the rocket bit can land back safely, upright, on legs, only a mile or two from the launch site, then why not keep the capsule attached?
Much easier, and safer than allowing it to free-fall and then parachute into some remote region.
 
Didn't realise how cramped the capsule was.
If you're remotely claustrophobic, then the Virgin Galactic craft has to be preferable.
 
Are you watching?

They have a gloriously phallic rocket

Indeed.

fleshg.jpg
 
Impressive!
Not the least of which was the rocket/booster landing so precisely on the pad.
 
Yes, that was the best bit.

Fritz Lang would be proud...it was very 30s.
 
I wanted to see the view from the cockpit. Nevertheless, it was good to the safe return of the rocket and the capsule. Interesting to them them grounding the capsule to drain electric charge.
 
Yeah the Virgin craft cabin looked more like the Pan Am Clipper in 2001.
The planned interior of Starship knocks them all into a cocked hat.
I know this is the 'unofficial' design, but apparently Musky has said that it is extremely close to his vision.
 
Am I the only one who thinks that if Bezos can make Blue Origin so that the rocket bit can land back safely, upright, on legs, only a mile or two from the launch site, then why not keep the capsule attached?
Much easier, and safer than allowing it to free-fall and then parachute into some remote region.
Safer than risking an explosion on re-entry.
 
Not so fast B&B, not so fast.

In a move that pours cold water on the dreams of a few billionaire space explorers, the US has tightened its definition of the word "astronaut".

New Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) rules say astronaut hopefuls must be part of the flight crew and make contributions to space flight safety. That means Jeff Bezos and Sir Richard Branson may not yet be astronauts in the eyes of the US government. These are the first changes since the FAA wings programme began in 2004.

The Commercial Astronaut Wings programme updates were announced on Tuesday - the same day that Amazon's Mr Bezos flew aboard a Blue Origin rocket to the edge of space. To qualify as commercial astronauts, space-goers must travel 50 miles (80km) above the Earth's surface, which both Mr Bezos and Mr Branson accomplished.

But altitude aside, the agency says would-be astronauts must have also "demonstrated activities during flight that were essential to public safety, or contributed to human space flight safety".

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57950149
 
Not so fast B&B, not so fast.

In a move that pours cold water on the dreams of a few billionaire space explorers, the US has tightened its definition of the word "astronaut".

New Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) rules say astronaut hopefuls must be part of the flight crew and make contributions to space flight safety. That means Jeff Bezos and Sir Richard Branson may not yet be astronauts in the eyes of the US government. These are the first changes since the FAA wings programme began in 2004.

The Commercial Astronaut Wings programme updates were announced on Tuesday - the same day that Amazon's Mr Bezos flew aboard a Blue Origin rocket to the edge of space. To qualify as commercial astronauts, space-goers must travel 50 miles (80km) above the Earth's surface, which both Mr Bezos and Mr Branson accomplished.

But altitude aside, the agency says would-be astronauts must have also "demonstrated activities during flight that were essential to public safety, or contributed to human space flight safety".

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57950149
Surely all they have to do in future is take the wheel for a few seconds, job done they are part of the crew. I'm pretty sure very few of the astronauts that went up in the Russian rocket and Musks space Uber to the ISS would be classed as crew under these new rules either.
 
Yes, mission specialists and such would likely not qualify. The FAA might need a rethink.
 
To be fair, they're all closer to being an astronaut than I ever will be.
Maybe they can come up with a new descriptive term that is more fitting to anyone who is essentially just a rocket-borne traveller?
Atmosnaut?
Kármán Have-a-Go-er?
Rocket-Jockey?
 
This is just being fussy.

And its harsh on Ms Funk.

Im still very saddened by all the negativity...(Whilst reserving the right to laugh at everyone...)

Maybe we should go back to Von Braun nearly potting the British Interplanetary Institute with a V2 and in consequence being voted an honorary member?

Space should be Fun
 
Back
Top