
Blue Origin has launched and landed its reusable rocket for the third time - jonbaer
http://www.theverge.com/2016/4/1/11349178/blue-origin-reusable-rocket-third-launch-land-new-shepard
======
88e282102ae2e5b
> The vehicle is designed to launch a crew capsule filled with six passengers
> to a height of 62 miles above the Earth's surface. There, the capsule will
> detach from the rest of the rocket, and crew members on board will
> experience four minutes of weightlessness.

Why aren't they going straight to orbital rockets? I mean, I guess you could
offset some of the engineering costs and gain experience by working on an
easier problem, but I can't imagine tourism will be that lucrative, and all
the real money is in orbital flight anyway. Are my assumptions all wrong?

~~~
rebootthesystem
Suborbital is like building a little 2-seater Cessna. Orbital is like bulding
a Boeing 777. Actually, no, it's much harder than that.

Just look at the size of the vehicles to get a sense.

If you are interested, read-up on what it takes to escape into space and then
to orbits as high as 22,000 miles.

Beyond that, landing a first stage from orbital escape delivery of the second
stage is harder than landing from zero velocity suborbital.

And then, add to that landing from orbital delivery to an orbit that leaves
you no choice but to land on a postage stamp sized barge and, yeah, there
really is no comparison.

~~~
calgoo
Also, for a basic understanding of the physics at work, he could also try
Kerbal Space Program. Its been one of the best tools to teach me of escape
velocities, suborbit vs orbit, etc. Its not exact but very good at explaining
the principal behind all the rules of physics.

------
rebootthesystem
What companies like Blue Origin and SpaceX are doing is great for the
aerospace industry in the long run. Congrats!

------
Houstonymous
Shweeeet.

