I'm not really getting the point of the Blue Origin New Shephard tourism launches. Blue Origin launched 15 test flights before putting people on there, and around 16 more of which 11 were 'crewed' flights. I used 'crewed' intentionally as I don't think anybody does anything more useful than just floating around. It seems more like an amusement ride than anything more practical than that.
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations JAE on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Blue Origin space tourism
- Thread starter thebard3
- Start date
Public interest insures that funding and support continue for basic research and science.
Blue Origin has flown with people from countries that have not participated in space flight, so there's some possibility that those countries might be more interested in space flight going forward.
Blue Origin has flown with people from countries that have not participated in space flight, so there's some possibility that those countries might be more interested in space flight going forward.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #3
btrueblood
Mechanical
"Are tax dollars being used to supplment Katy Perry and other celebrities who are paying to ride into 'space'?"
I don't know, are they?
Virgin Space has been doing tourism launches as well. I doubt much in the way of tax dollars, other than FAA, and local and state taxes to maintain airspace, is involved in either enterprise (at least no more than in any other air- or space-related tourism based industry).
Certainly not to the level of NASA- and DOD-funded launches by SpaceX. But even there, a lot of funding is coming from private enterprise for commercial space launches, I'd venture that more than half of SpaceX revenues are private? Would be interested if you can come up with that data, but then, all 3 players are corporations and don't have the same reporting requirements as public agencies, so those numbers are likely buried.
I don't know, are they?
Virgin Space has been doing tourism launches as well. I doubt much in the way of tax dollars, other than FAA, and local and state taxes to maintain airspace, is involved in either enterprise (at least no more than in any other air- or space-related tourism based industry).
Certainly not to the level of NASA- and DOD-funded launches by SpaceX. But even there, a lot of funding is coming from private enterprise for commercial space launches, I'd venture that more than half of SpaceX revenues are private? Would be interested if you can come up with that data, but then, all 3 players are corporations and don't have the same reporting requirements as public agencies, so those numbers are likely buried.
Not directly; Blue Origin has contracts for specific launch services, notably defense and intelligence payloads, so it's the same learning curve that also benefits the commercial side.
https://www.space.com/space-explora...aunch-contracts-to-spacex-ula-and-blue-origin
- Thread starter
- #7
Sure, they do, everything "needs" to be commercialized to make money. While not suborbital, it's still mostly, if not purely, commercial flight
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/polaris-dawn-sunday-splashdown-gulf-of-mexico/
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/spacex-crew-first-flight-around-earths-poles/
Blue Origin 'New Sheppard' flights are manned suborbital... and since the PAX have NO crew function the FAA will no-longer award official astronaut wings... Blue Origin wings only.
Blue Origin is principally owned by Jeff Bezos... and New Sheppard is 100% private/commercial venture... paying PAX and/or payloads suborbital... and is great training for NASA, Blue Origin crews, and tourists/wanna-be astronauts. Blue Origin New Glenn is likely a private/USG partnership for heavy launch services.
Same-Same for Virgin Galactic [suborbital] and Virgin Orbit [payloads launch services], by Richard Branson
Hmmmmm. Bezos and Branson have both flown on their suborbital launch vehicles. I wonder if Musk will ever have the stomach/teste's to fly on Falcon/Dragon... or would he be medically disqualified???
Blue Origin is principally owned by Jeff Bezos... and New Sheppard is 100% private/commercial venture... paying PAX and/or payloads suborbital... and is great training for NASA, Blue Origin crews, and tourists/wanna-be astronauts. Blue Origin New Glenn is likely a private/USG partnership for heavy launch services.
Same-Same for Virgin Galactic [suborbital] and Virgin Orbit [payloads launch services], by Richard Branson
Hmmmmm. Bezos and Branson have both flown on their suborbital launch vehicles. I wonder if Musk will ever have the stomach/teste's to fly on Falcon/Dragon... or would he be medically disqualified???
LiftDivergence
Aerospace
The primary purpose of New Shepard is as a sort of demonstration / knowledge building endeavor for other programs, namely New Glenn.
The main cabin of the capsule is composite structure... there are a lot of composite structures on New Glenn that greatly benefited from the experience on NS. Same with things like their flight ops training, internal certification processes, continued airworthiness substantiation, engineering tools & methods, etc. Some of the sensors & instrumentation used on NG was even partially certified in payload missions on NG.
It takes a long time for a company to build internal knowledge and capability... a lot of what was learned on NS was directly applied to NG in terms of both methods, and talent.
Obviously NS is suborbital, but the whole idea is to practice or provide a staging ground for reusability with the goal of reducing the cost of space infrastructure. People forget that the first time a rocket passed the Karman line and was propulsively landed on Earth was NS. Of course, it was not an orbital flight.
I think the whole idea of paying customers is a way to make NS a viable business. It is almost exclusively privately funded... nobody wants to run a private venture without income for 20 years.
Yes, there is a lot of media attention when celebrities fly and a lot of the criticisms are valid. But it is frequently overlooked that there is real science being done on NS as well. Even the most recent flight included several tended payload experiments.
The main cabin of the capsule is composite structure... there are a lot of composite structures on New Glenn that greatly benefited from the experience on NS. Same with things like their flight ops training, internal certification processes, continued airworthiness substantiation, engineering tools & methods, etc. Some of the sensors & instrumentation used on NG was even partially certified in payload missions on NG.
It takes a long time for a company to build internal knowledge and capability... a lot of what was learned on NS was directly applied to NG in terms of both methods, and talent.
Obviously NS is suborbital, but the whole idea is to practice or provide a staging ground for reusability with the goal of reducing the cost of space infrastructure. People forget that the first time a rocket passed the Karman line and was propulsively landed on Earth was NS. Of course, it was not an orbital flight.
I think the whole idea of paying customers is a way to make NS a viable business. It is almost exclusively privately funded... nobody wants to run a private venture without income for 20 years.
Yes, there is a lot of media attention when celebrities fly and a lot of the criticisms are valid. But it is frequently overlooked that there is real science being done on NS as well. Even the most recent flight included several tended payload experiments.
michaelmiles
Student
- Apr 25, 2025
- 6
I get where you're coming from at first glance, New Shepard does seem like an expensive amusement ride with people just floating in zero gravity for a few minutes. But I think there’s more to it than that.
These flights are laying the groundwork for the future of commercial space travel. The repeated tests and crewed missions are not just for fun they’re refining safety systems, proving reusability, and building public trust in private spaceflight. That’s critical if we ever want to scale up to more ambitious goals like orbital hotels, lunar missions, or Mars travel.
Also, space tourism, even in its early form, is helping fund further innovation. What looks like just a joyride now might be the first step in making space more accessible over time.
So yes, it’s not “useful” in the traditional sense yet but it’s part of a bigger picture.
TugboatEng
Marine/Ocean
Space adaptation syndrome apparently occurs in half of people that travel into space. These are specially selected people to be the least likely to experience these problems. There is no chance commercial space travel has any commercial viability.
Similar threads
- Question
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question