Watch Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin space launch livestream here
Check out the Blue Origin space launch livestream so you don't miss seeing Jeff Bezos go to space.
The first ever human flight test of Blue Origin’s spaceship is scheduled to launch this week, and Jeff Bezos will be one of the first humans aboard. The whole Blue Origin launch event is being livestreamed and you can watch it all unfold right here on Shacknews. Strap in, because Jeff Bezos is going to space.
Jeff Bezos goes to space – Blue Origin space launch livestream
The Jeff Bezos Blue Origin space launch livestream is scheduled to begin at 4:30 a.m. PT / 7:30 a.m. ET on Tuesday, July 20, 2021. This is roughly 90 minutes prior to liftoff, which is planned for 6:00 a.m. PT / 9:00 a.m. ET – so set your alarms accordingly. You can use the Shacknews Twitch embed below to watch along with us.
The livestream is also taking place on the Blue Origin site and will also be streamed by ABC News on YouTube. It looks like all eyes will be on this special event, and it’s no wonder, this will be the first time Blue Origin will be launching a manned flight into space. It’s been a long time coming, with the news of this venture first making the rounds back in June.
Of those on the manned flight, Jeff Bezos is but one of a few. The others passengers are Jeff’s brother, Mark, Wally Funk, and someone who won the auction for the fourth seat. Given everything that can go wrong with a space launch, it’s kind of incredible to put your hand up to go first.
As all the excitement unfolds, make sure you keep it locked to Shacknews as we bring you the latest on Blue Origin, Jeff Bezos, and the other billionaires engaged in the modern version of the space race.
-
Shacknews
replySam Chandler posted a new article, Watch Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin space launch livestream here
-
Blue Origin live updates: First crewed spaceflight carrying Jeff Bezos prepares to launch
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/20/blue-origin-jeff-bezos-launch-watch-video-stream-live-updates.html
Blue Origin is livestreaming its first passenger spaceflight on Tuesday, carrying founder Jeff Bezos, his brother Mark Bezos, aerospace pioneer Wally Funk, and Dutch teenager Oliver Daemen. The company’s broadcast is scheduled to begin at 7:30 a.m. EDT.
The crew for Tuesday’s flight is Jeff Bezos, who founded Blue Origin and retail giant Amazon, his brother Mark, aerospace pioneer Wally Funk and Dutch teenager Oliver Daeman.-
[deleted]
-
-
-
-
-
What is null besides the emptiness of your life when you realize you're spending your money on crap?
-
Oh wait your comment now says "Yeah rich people hate their kids 🤣"
Originally it was just "null". I'm not sure what's going on here.-
-
I blame the general funkiness in the shack API.
I was using Shack browse.
-
-
-
-
-
-
That’s Wally Funk’s role.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wally_Funk
-
-
-
Have to start somewhere.
-
[deleted]
-
-
Yeah that would be cool. I'm not sure if it's 28 million dollars cool but it's cool.
-
-
-
“Dutch teenager.” They’re saying that like he’s just some regular kid, but he’s the son of a billionaire who paid a ridiculous amount of money for the ticket.
-
-
Cool. The planet is burning, we're running out of time staring down the barrel of °6 C by 2100, and the smartest people in the planet are working to send the richest into space for a minute. Cool cool cool.
-
-
Perhaps, my reasoning is that this privatized exploration of space has an opportunity cost which is relevant here because instead of fixing this planet, the richest are obsessing about space.
Paraphrasing Scott Galloway, we are incentivizing our world’s brightest minds to work on increasing the number of Facebook Likes.-
[deleted]
-
-
It’s rich assholes releasing a shitload of CO2 in a dick measuring contest.
-
"New Shepard, which billionaire Bezos will ride on its initial crewed flight today (July 20), is combining liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen in its engine to generate thrust, meaning "the main emissions will be water and some minor combustion products, and virtually no CO2," Darin Toohey, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Colorado, Boulder, told Live Science in an email. (Water — H2O — is composed of hydrogen and oxygen."
https://www.space.com/amp/new-shepard-emissions.html
Say what you will about the merits of a private space race, but at least Blue Origin is apparently green-ish when it comes to CO2 emissions.-
Hydrogen does not naturally occur on its own. It has to be manufactured. The most common way of manufacturing hydrogen basically amounts to lighting methane on fire. The resulting CO2 is released into the atmosphere.
Producing 1 ton of hydrogen that way releases 6 tons of CO2.
There are other ways to produce it, like electrolysis, but that requires so much electricity that the result is a net energy loss.
Hydrogen is not green by a longshot.
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
[deleted]
-
Eh you could argue that making large batteries could have it's own set of issues related to climate change.
I mean it might be better than oil and gas but that's not the saying much. -
You can’t amass a wealth his size without having a disregard for other humans. His track record with the horrible working conditions of the warehouse workers and drivers. Crushing any unionization efforts.
The metric fuckton of products they just dispose of in a landfill for any returned item (literally all returns, most perfectly fine) is probably doing it’s own huge hit to any environmental efforts.
And then there’s the fact that he has so much money that the only thing he can think of doing with it is shooting it off into space.
He could fix all of those problems and a whole lot more, but he wants to play starship captain for 60 seconds and have everyone applaud him.-
I've done work in both Blue Origin Huntsville, AL, and Blue Origin Kent, WA.
The people that work there have awesome working conditions and are treated well. They are also some of the nicest and coolest people you'd ever meet.-
That’s great for them, but you can’t be that blind to what I’m talking about.
The money for all that nice atmosphere you experienced was acquired through massive mistreatment of low income workers.
Amazon has had some of the worst employee stories in the west coming out of their warehouses and delivery drivers for years.
And with the boom they’ve had due to the pandemic, they’ve done nothing to improve conditions for any of them.
Bezos could have done something for a long time and he chose not to.
-
-
-
-
-
I do get a lot of little chuckles about watching the little egos spats involved in this competition between private firms. It's funny to me like if you ever doubted everyone doing this is still a 6yr old boy, just look at how Blue Origin is using Rivian to drive to the pad
Straight out of Silicon Valley (the show but probably also the place) -
-
-
Is Branson still planning on having Virgin Galactic eventually become a suborbital passenger service? I remember that being his goal years and years ago when he first got into the private space race.
-
-
Oh shit that is tragic.
-
-
-
-
Branson has said it's just like normal flight, how when it first came out only rich people could use it, but over time it got cheaper and more accessible. So maybe in 20 years we'll all be flying into space, but why? I have no idea.
-
Alright we get it you wear your cowboy hat everywhere
-
Good day for science. Bad day for doom scrolling nuboomers I guess https://i.imgur.com/dkhQkof.jpeg
-
[deleted]
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
[deleted]
-
-
The rocket is now parked, looks perfect.
https://i.redd.it/d4900dbyiac71.jpg -
-
-
-
is there a reason we should think a government monopoly on space exploration is more likely to produce better results than competing private firms? We can all lament the lack of funding for NASA but did SpaceX and Blue Origin really outspend 50 years of NASA funding since their inception? Or is NASA just not getting as good a return on investment? From what I see SpaceX has raised $6bn in funding so far since its founding ~20 years ago. NASA spent ~$280bn in 13 years through the Apollo program. Their budget now looks to be $18-20bn/year. Why does NASA still not have a reusable vehicle close to what these companies have then?
Was NASA going to try to orient their mission design primarily around selling space on board rockets to private companies? If not, how likely would they be to prioritize making cheap, reusable rockets compared to what SpaceX and Blue Origin are doing with their business models?
We can lament the lack of funding for NASA and lack of taxes on corporations and the wealthy but people seem way too caught up in how it's not actually a big deal that private companies now have reusable space flight available at reasonable costs (for launching satellites and payloads, not space tourism). As if that's not a major innovation from what NASA did in the 60s.-
Private companies like McDonnell-Douglas made prototypes of rockets that could take off on their own and land vertically starting in the 80's and tested in the 90's. If NASA has backed it more (along with the DOD) we'd probably have SpaceX type rockets probably two decades earlier. They did the work on their own volition and got some token funding when they had a decent proof of concept but it wasn't serious enough to continue development. Then when the prototype burned up on the ground it was canceled.
IIRC some of those engineers eventually ended up at SpaceX and B.O. -
The private sector can do what it pleases, my problem is when they're seen as a substitute and especially an alternative for where public funds go. I'd rather we didn't defund everything outside of the military and the police over the last 40 years. NASA is just as victim to that defunding as infrastructure, education, and social welfare have been.
I'm way more interested in knowing how much farther along we would be if their funding wasn't so kneecapped in the first place. I'm not convinced that they are a good substitute to the state, and I certainly don't think they are a substitute for state funded research. The backbone of everything has come out of publicly funded research, mainly because there are no ROI demands or efficiency requirements for doing that work.-
mainly because there are no ROI demands or efficiency requirements for that work.
But some of the biggest hurdles in space flight the past 40 years are about ROI and efficiency. How much more fundamental research will NASA be able to do with launch costs reduced by a factor of 4, 10, or 20? How much faster will their other processes and research improve by having so many more iterations for the same price? Because that's what they're going to get from private industry having ROI and efficiency goals that NASA did not.
We should certainly fund NASA more but I think some of you are dreaming if you think we would've gotten here, or even been farther ahead, with more NASA funding given the speed with which they operate. Even with SpaceX and co around for multiple decades now NASA doesn't appear to have been able to keep up even though NASA has more more than those companies by quite a lot? Obviously NASA is using that money for more things than just reusable rocket development but the fact remains.
No one seems to be lamenting how much farther along we'd be in computing if only the government invested more in basic research in computing the past 40 years. There seems to be a general consensus that private industry delivered the maximum possible innovation in that sector (as in most sectors, since our economy is built on that concept). People lamenting NASA's lack of progress often invoke a lack of funding as a primary cause rather than maybe a lack of efficiency or direction at NASA during the period. Whereas when a private company fails to deliver results we usually ascribe it to their failure to execute, not a lack of funding.
-
-
-
That publicly funded space program came at the heels of a wartime footing and drive to win a national level of pride (which was manufactured by LBJ because even when Sputnik launched no one cared about it until he made enough of a fuss about it). Once it was won that was it, the political will and money dried up.
-
-
NASA back then was essentially another branch of the military. Nearly all the astronauts were on loan from the military services and many still are.
The work done was all by other major defense contractors and they continued to get contracts separate from NASA after the Apollo program ended. With NASA you end up with those same contractors forcing a program to last longer than intended or becoming too integral to be replaced outright like what happened to the Shuttle. It took Columbia's disaster to get it to be seen its shortcomings and be canceled. Though it's replacement is basically parts of the Shuttle Program living on in other capacities. Commercial Crew allowed for alternatives to compete and do it for cheaper while NASA could attempt to replace the Shuttle with something the private industry won't do such as deep space.
It's not unlike how Boeing is making the CH-47 helicopter too integral to replace so it's operating lifespan is pushed to its limits while a replacement takes longer to be found. Commercial programs simply just have to set out requirements to be met to fulfill program needs of NASA. It's not unlike how the military relies on commercial or charter travel to move its personnel around instead of relying heavily on Strategic Airlift like the C-17.
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
it took way less than 100 years to go from 0 flying aircraft to cheap air travel available to most people. Given the exponential acceleration in technological innovation predictions of 200-400 years for a ROI could look very silly.
For the government and most of the public, they are too short sighted to realize it’s all about building an infrastructure to allow things like colonization, asteroid mining, etc that will help solve some very real world problems.
Agreed. But the irony here is that private companies are usually the ones who are short sighted (thinking in quarterly profits) yet meanwhile they're going to be the ones who deliver the innovation required to build out this infrastructure with cheap, reusable rockets while NASA was spending a decade getting a Mars rover going.-
Well with every politician trying to get re-elected every few years and the Republican mantra of small government, it’s no wonder NASA has been gutted over the years.
It’s a hard thing for senator dumbass from bumbfuck WV to approve spending billions of dollars going to space and also lie about coal jobs coming back.
-
-
-
-
