Jeff Bezos' spaceship fails during test flight
An unmanned spacecraft bankrolled by Amazon.com Inc. CEO Jeff Bezos failed during a recent test flight.
The vehicle became unstable at 45,000 feet and ground controllers had to terminate it as a precaution. Additional details about what went wrong were not released.
"Not the outcome any of us wanted, but we're signed up for this to be hard," Bezos wrote in a blog post Friday.
Bezos founded Blue Origin to develop a vertical takeoff and landing rocketship that would fly passengers to suborbital space. It recently won money from NASA to compete to go into orbit as a space taxi now that the space shuttle fleet is retired.
The mishap occurred during a test flight last week from Blue Origin's West Texas spaceport. The ultra-secretive company notified the Federal Aviation Administration about the launch and only acknowledged the accident publicly on Friday.
The Wall Street Journal, which first reported about the failure, said the test did not use federal funds and was not part of the development agreement with NASA.
Blue Origin's failure shines a spotlight on the risks of commercial space ventures.
SpaceX, which has a NASA contract to develop a commercial vehicle to haul supplies and astronauts, suffered three rocket failures before it found success. Later this year, the company, run by PayPal founder Elon Musk, will launch a capsule on a cargo test run to the International Space Station.
Virgin Galactic, founded by Sir Richard Branson, lost three workers in 2007 after an explosion rocked a California airport during testing of a propellant system for its space tourism vehicle. The company is currently conducting flight tests in the Mojave Desert and has not set a date for the first passenger flights.
©2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
-
From lemons to lemonade: Reaction uses carbon dioxide to make carbon-based semiconductor,
32 comments
-
Thioridazine kills cancer stem cells in human while avoiding toxic side-effects of conventional cancer treatments,
3 comments
-
SpaceX private rocket blasts off for space station (Update),
42 comments
-
Climate scientists say they have solved riddle of rising sea,
31 comments
-
SpaceX capsule has 'new car' smell, astronauts say (Update),
4 comments
-
Distance of planets from stars and revolution
3 hours ago
-
revamping general concept and cosmological principle
May 25, 2012
-
Transiting Exoplanet Light Curve
May 25, 2012
-
Math behind Theoretical Physics
May 24, 2012
-
Do we know whats at the center of galaxies yet?
May 23, 2012
-
Structure of the Milky Way?
May 20, 2012
- More from Physics Forums - General Astronomy
More news stories
Land and sea species differ in climate change response: study
(Phys.org) -- Marine and terrestrial species will likely differ in their responses to climate warming, new research by Simon Fraser University and Australia’s University of Tasmania has found.
1 hour ago |
not rated yet |
1
|
Yale study concludes public apathy over climate change unrelated to science literacy
Are members of the public divided about climate change because they don't understand the science behind it? If Americans knew more basic science and were more proficient in technical reasoning, would public consensus match ...
3 hours ago |
4 / 5 (1) |
10
|
10 million years needed to recover from mass extinction
It took some 10 million years for Earth to recover from the greatest mass extinction of all time, latest research has revealed.
Space & Earth / Earth Sciences
3 hours ago |
not rated yet |
1
|
Sophisticated simulations predict future warming
The chances of our planet being hit by a global warming of 3 degrees Celsius by 2050 is as likely as it being hit by an increase of 1.4 degrees, new research shows. Presented in the journal Nature Geoscience, the British study ...
Space & Earth / Earth Sciences
May 22, 2012 |
4.4 / 5 (9) |
51
Aliens don't want to eat us, says former SETI director
Alien life probably isn’t interested in having us for dinner, enslaving us or laying eggs in our bellies, according to a recent statement by former SETI director Jill Tarter.
Space & Earth / Space Exploration
May 25, 2012 |
4.4 / 5 (14) |
39
'Unzipped' carbon nanotubes could help energize fuel cells, batteries
Multi-walled carbon nanotubes riddled with defects and impurities on the outside could replace some of the expensive platinum catalysts used in fuel cells and metal-air batteries, according to scientists at ...
T cells 'hunt' parasites like animal predators seek prey, study shows
By pairing an intimate knowledge of immune-system function with a deep understanding of statistical physics, a cross-disciplinary team at the University of Pennsylvania has arrived at a surprising finding: T cells use a movement ...
Computer model used to pinpoint prime materials for efficient carbon capture
When power plants begin capturing their carbon emissions to reduce greenhouse gases – and to most in the electric power industry, it's a question of when, not if – it will be an expensive undertaking.
Change in developmental timing was crucial in the evolutionary shift from dinosaurs to birds: study
At first glance, it's hard to see how a common house sparrow and a Tyrannosaurus Rex might have anything in common. After all, one is a bird that weighs less than an ounce, and the other is a dinosaur that ...
Almost half of new vets seek disability
(AP) -- America's newest veterans are filing for disability benefits at a historic rate, claiming to be the most medically and mentally troubled generation of former troops the nation has ever seen.
Nvidia trumpets Tegra 3 phone design wins for 2012
(Phys.org) -- Nvidia’s competitive war paint has a name, Tegra 3. On the heels of Nvidia announcements about lowering costs of its Tegra 3 processors and Nvidia-enabled tablets running Android Ice Cream ...
Sep 03, 2011
Rank: 4.7 / 5 (14)
Poppycock!! How many rockets did NASA lose in its early days? That's why they're called TEST FLIGHTS! The whole idea is to find problems, then improve the vehicle.
Someone needs to get someone who knows page-one about aerospace development to write this stuff, or just don't bother.
Sep 03, 2011
Rank: 4.5 / 5 (4)
IMO, NASA's great failure was not a science failure, nor a money failure, but a PR failure. They never succeeded, or even attempted, at making space science an inspired and necessary venture in the ultimate advancement of human potential. Let's hope these new folks put some brain power against that elemental goal. Without success there, the future of space flight is sunk.
Sep 03, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
Sep 03, 2011
Rank: 1.3 / 5 (13)
Sep 03, 2011
Rank: 4.2 / 5 (5)
I'd imagine it has something to do with the velocity needed for orbit that a balloon isn't capable of. Once in space you'd still need a lot of energy/fuel to reach the needed speed to obtain orbit which is probably more weight than any feasible balloon would ferry, plus the additional altitude I doubt a weather balloon has reached 350km doing 27,000km/h yet.
Sep 03, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
Sep 03, 2011
Rank: 4 / 5 (4)
Sep 03, 2011
Rank: 4.2 / 5 (5)
i agree. and i find it out that no-one has ever even tried to create a high altitude cabin.
i for one have been thinking , reading, and even making napkin designs for something like this for years.
i also have been seeing a number of modern airship designs recently that i've been impressed with. and darpa has been investing in airship technology too as of late ( with one spectacular failure in deploying a blimp in pennsylvania ) .
also, a high altitude ship would not be anywhere as unsafe as a rocket, and it would use far less fuel. also, you wouldn't have to deal with the military being up your ass for being in outer space , and you could more easily sell or license your technology abroad.
Sep 03, 2011
Rank: 3.6 / 5 (5)
We need to get to space cheaply not for sightseeing, but for extremely practical reasons. Weather satellites, GPS, low gravity fabrication of drugs and other process (including science) all scream for a practical space program.
Tourism can be part of it, but it isn't even close to a justification for the time, money, and expense. I get the feeling both of you have missed the point on this one.
Sep 03, 2011
Rank: 3.3 / 5 (3)
http://www.gizmag...n/19553/
Projects launching rockets from balloons do happen, Usually an amature thing.
For example, some news of a current project I am following.
http://search.the...?q=lohan
Sep 03, 2011
Rank: 2.5 / 5 (2)
An airborn launch platform would make more sense, stationary in the upper atmosphere.This could be as big as an aircraft carrier, built with modern composites.no engines would be needed, and the space vehicle could be dropped from the bottom in a similar maner as virgins craft.
this platform hanging from the same cord as the tested but failed space elevator would put less stress on the lines, and couldbe enlarged over time as needed.
In early aviation, plans were made for platforms in the ocean as waypoints befor intercontinental flight was possible, abandoned soon after technology was developed the could fly between the continenets.
people could have a resort upon this platform,just never use hydrogen as the gas in the baloons. this could be processed and replenished enroute to the desired altitude.
Sep 03, 2011
Rank: 2.5 / 5 (2)
Sep 03, 2011
Rank: 2.3 / 5 (4)
Aren't there any out of the box thinkers on this planet ?
Sep 03, 2011
Rank: 4.3 / 5 (6)
Sep 03, 2011
Rank: 4 / 5 (4)
The nature of technology is we build on existing knowledge bases.
I assume you are leaving yourself out of the category as an out of the box thinker? There are problem solvers out there, but I suspect they are too busy to be very active on this forum.
Sep 03, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
http://www.blueor...tter.htm
Very nice looking vehicle - there isn't a capsule, this is just a test of the booster.
There was a successful DC-X style short hop done before launching the vehicle to 42,000 feet and Mach 1.2!
Sep 03, 2011
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
Height: 12.2m (~40 ft)
Top diameter: 3.7m
Bottom diameter:3.4m
Sep 03, 2011
Rank: 3.3 / 5 (3)
Rocket-powered landing requires an incredible amount of energy compared to winged, helicoptered, parachute, etc landings. Gliding landings require essentially no fuel, while a vertical rocket landing requires huge amounts of fuel. Of course, you've got to take that landing fuel with you up into space in the first place, itself requiring quite a bit more fuel.
Payload and flight altitude being equal, it would seem that you'd need well over twice as much fuel than a non-powered decent method would require.
On Earth, where we have a wonderful atmosphere to use for non-powered descents, I see no benefit to hauling into space and back all the fuel required for a vertical landing.
Sep 03, 2011
Rank: 2.5 / 5 (2)
Sep 03, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
Sep 03, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
I think they did my young apprentice...the spam used to pop up so fast on this site that after each post a NEW spam message would follow your post!...yes...they are getting better, not best, just better.
word-
Sep 03, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Lift off with a balloon or dirigible.
Launch the hypersonic craft to orbit/orbital speed and altitude.
Now, hybridize; combination solar sail and highest possible impulse ionic or electrostatic drive :-)
Am I close? Mars in 30 months instead of 23 with a 50% payload increase?
Wha?
word-to-ya-muthas
Sep 03, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (4)
GonnaWanna use dem capcherd alienz teknowledgeee is we?
Sep 03, 2011
Rank: 2.3 / 5 (3)
Imagine the vast profits that will be made by flying fresh cheese and pepperoni to the moon.
The era of commercial space flight is here.
Sep 03, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
For low Earth orbit missions only, it would be wasteful. On bodies without atmospheres, it may be the only way to do it. I don't know if they are planning a future that includes moon or asteroid landings, but if they are, this type of vehicle can land on nearly any type of large rock out there.
Sep 03, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Makes perfect sense for a re-usable fly-back booster. It would throttle down after deploying its upper stage(s) (by now much lighter), orient itself for a ballistic tail-first fall until it decelerated to its terminal velocity (usually <300 mph), then do a guided fall until it was time to crank the power up for the landing.
A similar vertical landing system will be used by SpaceX for the crewed version of their Dragon spacecraft. Tests of the required Super Draco landing/launch escape thrusters should happen soon at White Sands.
Sep 04, 2011
Rank: 2 / 5 (1)
Sep 04, 2011
Rank: 4 / 5 (1)
Single stage, runway launch and recovery, a dozen tonnes to low equatorial orbit, a break-through in heat-exchanger tech and, unlike 'solids' or rocket-boosted hypersonic ram-jets, Sabre engines can be ground-tested progressively. A non-orbital version of engine enables antipodal express passenger 'aircraft'. And they've got a million Euros grant to progress design & test...
Sep 05, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Check the heights a balloon can go. It tops out at about 35km(and at that altitude the balloon size to payload ratio is enormous)
If you want to go into space you usually want to go a lot higher (at least low earth orbit - which is where the ISS is stationed - meaning: 300-450km high)
So getting your craft up to 35km high before ignition would only be a small bonus (you save 10% of the trip). When you take into account the vast reduction in size/weight you incur to be able to get it lifted by a balloon to that height then it just doesn't work out.
A Saenger type delivery system would be better (Think of it like a semi-ballistic, reusable SCRAM-jet with the rocket on its back.)
Sep 05, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
Building on captured WWII technology from another country 60 years ago is really creative and innovative, NOT.
During this time NO out of the box thinkers have appeared, then none must exist. Evidenced by today's same o same o
rocket propulsion technology.
Man is doomed to extinction if this is the best we can do.
President Kennedy challenged us to go to the Moon and we did.
Who and What is challenging us today ?
Why haven't we seen any extraordinary new technologies ?
Sep 05, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
You're expecting a timeline for scientific breakthroughs? You remind me of the epic line a science manager once uttered to my face:
"The project is starting today, so draw up a project plan until when you will have finished inventing this." (He said it with a straight face, too. Yes, he got his project plan - and no: it wasn't worth the paper it was written on)