user_mobilelogo
Facebook
Dienstag, 13 September 2016 13:42

5 Foto-Formeln auf dem Prüfstand

5 Foto-Formeln auf dem Prüfstand

"Sonne lacht, Blende 8!" hat sicherlich jeder schon mal gehört. Fakt ist aber, die meisten dieser und ähnlicher Regeln stammen aus einer Zeit, in der Kameras noch nicht automatisch belichten konnten und man noch einen Film einlegen musste. Es stellt sich also die Frage: wie sehr sollte man sich daran halten? Macht das noch Sinn?

 

 

 

Regel 1 - Der Klassiker: Sonne lacht, Blende 8!

Das kennt jeder, der schon mal eine Kamera in der Hand hatte. Dummerweise beißt sich das mit diversen anderen Weisheiten, angefangen von: „Für Mensch und Tier nimm Blende vier.“, "Blende auf drei – der Hintergrund ist Brei." bis hin zu "Ist selbst Blende 2 zu knapp, nimm einfach den Deckel ab."

Anwendbar: Jein! Diese Regel beschreibt einen Sachverhalt, der so dermaßen allgemein ist, dass man kaum sagen kann, ob es Sinn macht sie zu befolgen. Grundsätzlich ist an sonnigen Tagen nichts zu sagen gegen Blende 8. Man schränkt sich aber kreativ sehr ein, wenn man sich stoisch daran hält. Während Landschaftsfotos meist noch gut gelingen sollten, stößt man bei Bildern mit Portraitcharakter unter Umständen schnell ans gestalterische Limit. Beispielsweise hält sich der Freistellungseffekt mit Blende 8 stark in Grenzen (bis hin zu ist nicht existent), wenn nicht gerade ein riesiger Abstand zwischen Model und Hintergrund besteht.

 

Regel 2 - Sunny Sixteen: Belichtungszeit = 1 / ISO bei Blende f/16

Oder in Worten: an einem sonnigen Tag, stell die Blende auf f/16 und belichte so lange wie der Kehrwert der eingestellten ISO Empfindlichkeit (also z.B. 1/400 s bei ISO400). Erscheint diese Regel auf den ersten Blick ähnlich allgemein wie die erste, so existieren hier immerhin noch diverse Verfeinerungen (f/22 bei Schnee/Sand, f/11 für leichte Bewölkung, f/8 für normale Bewölkung, f/5.6 für starke Bewölkung, f/4 für Sonnenauf-/untergänge).

Anwendbarkeit: Nein. Diese Regel stammt aus einer Zeit, in der der ISO Wert durch den eingelegten Film fest vorgegeben war .Heute kann man wesentlich flexibler auf die herrschenden Lichtverhältnisse reagieren. Außerdem liegt f/16 bei vielen Objektiven bereits hinter dem sog. "sweet spot" (die Blende, mit der das Objektiv die schärfsten Resultate erzielt). Das heißt, die stark geschlossene Blende verursacht bereits wieder Beugungsunschärfen und somit generell unschärfere Bilder als eigentlich möglich. Nicht zuletzt schränkt man sich hier ähnlich stark kreativ ein wie bei Regel 1.

 

Regel 3 - Looney Eleven: Belichtungszeit = 1 / ISO bei Blende f/11

Diese Regel ist das Äquivalent zu Regel 2, nur das Szenario ist ein anderes, nämlich die Mondfotografie. Auch diese Regel ist sehr allgemein, was aber nicht ganz so schlimm ist, denn die Situation ist auch deutlich eingeschränkter. Wenn man den Mond fotografiert, hat man fast immer viel schwarz und einen helleren Punkt im Bild (es sei denn man trickst mit den Double Exposure Features von modernen Kameras). Wenn man nicht gerade ein Teleskop zur Verfügung hat, ist dieser helle Punkt auch nie übermäßig groß. 

Anwendbarkeit: Ja! Diese Regel wird zwar nicht unbedingt beim ersten Versuch ein korrekt belichtetes Bild hervorbringen, bietet aber einen ausgezeichneten Startpunkt für Belichtungsanpassungen. Man liegt selten komplett daneben. Praxis-Pro-Tipp am Rande: Displayhelligkeit so gering wie möglich einstellen, während man den Mond fotografiert. Die Augen haben sich irgendwann an die Dunkelheit gewöhnt und es besteht die Gefahr, dass man mit einem zu hell eingestellten Display alles als Überbelichtung interpretiert. Aber am besten sowieso immer in RAW fotografieren, da kann man dann hinterher noch fast alles regeln. 

 

Regel 4 - Belichtungszeit bei "Mitziehern": 1 / Geschwindigkeit des Subjekts in km/h

Sogenannte Mitzieher sind Fotos, bei denen die Kamera während der Belichtung einem sich bewegenden Subjekt folgt. Mit etwas Übung bleibt so das Subjekt scharf, aber der Hintergrund verwischt. Auf diese Art und Weise entstandene Bilder vermitteln gut den Eindruck von Bewegung, Dynamik und Geschwindigkeit. Es stellt sich in diesem Fall aber die Frage: wie lange muss man für einen Möglichst guten Effekt belichten? Eine zu kurze Belichtung reicht nicht aus um das gewünschte Gefühl zu vermitteln. Eine zu lange Belichtung kann die Umgebung des Subjektes komplett unkenntlich machen und führt sehr wahrscheinlich auch beim Subjekt selbst zu einer verwackelten Darstellung. Eine Antwort gibt diese Mitzieher-Regel. Beispielhaft: Fotografiere den Rennradfahrer, der mit 40km/h fährt 1/40 Sekunde lang und den Sportwagen auf der Rennstrecke, der mit 250 Sachen an dir vorbeirauscht, mit 1/250 Sekunde.

Anwendbarkeit: Jein! Natürlich kommt es auch auf die Brennweite und den Abstand zum Motiv an, aber sobald das Subjekt das Bild einigermaßen gut ausfüllt, kann man sagen: diese Regel produziert brauchbare Ergebnisse. Beispielhaft zeigt das folgende Bild ein Foto, das ich mal auf einer Hochzeit geschossen habe. Die Belichtungszeit war 1/40 Sekunde und wir waren vielleicht etwas schneller unterwegs, maximal aber 50 km/h.

 

Regel 5 - Maximale Belichtungszeit bei Astrofotografie (die "600er Regel"): 600 / (Brennweite * Cropfaktor)

Diese Regel läuft einem auch häufiger als 500er Regel über den Weg, was aber deren Inhalt nicht extreeem verfälscht. Möchte man den Sternenhimmel fotografieren, "verwischen" die einzelnen Sterne aufgrund der Erdrotation während einer Langzeitbelichtung. Die verwendete Brennweite hat einen maßgeblichen Einfluss darauf, wie schnell das passiert (übrigens auch die Auflösung des Kamera Sensors, aber wir wollen es an dieser Stelle nicht unnötig kompliziert machen). Möchte man diesen Verwischungseffekt nicht haben, sollte man nicht länger belichten, als diese Regel vorgibt. Beispiel 24mm Objektiv an einer APS-C Kamera: 600 / (24*1,6) = 15,6 Sekunden. Belichtet man länger, ziehen die Sterne Spuren im Bild (was manchmal natürlich aber auch erwünscht sein kann). 

Anwendbarkeit: Ja! Das kommt in etwa hin. Wenn man nicht gerade mit einer 150 MP Kamera Bilder macht, die hinterher auf Hauswände tapeziert werden sollen, funktioniert diese Regel ziemlich gut. Das folgende Bild zeigt ein zugegebenermaßen etwas extremeres Beispiel. Verwendet wurde ein 8mm Fisheye an der Canon EOS 7D. Das heißt: 600 / (8 * 1,6) = max. 46,8 Sekunden. Das Bild wurde aber "nur" 30 Sekunden belichtet. Es hätte also noch etwas zeitlichen Puffer gegeben. Dafür gibt's aber auch absolut keine Anzeichen von Verwischungen.

 

Fazit:

Nicht alle Weisheiten aus analogen Tagen machen heute noch Sinn, aber erstaunlich viele. Gerade die Mitzieher- und die 600er Regel haben durch den technischen Fortschritt nichts an Gültigkeit eingebüßt und es kann sich lohnen, sie im Hinterkopf zu behalten.

P.S.: Widersprüche oder Ergänzungen gerne in die Kommentare!

 

 


Dir gefällt was du siehst? Dann zwitschere uns weiter oder like uns auf Facebook

19558 Kommentare

  • Kommentar-Link KeithBrubs Mittwoch, 08 Januar 2025 23:59 gepostet von KeithBrubs

    What New Glenn will do
    In some ways, New Glenn has already made its mark on the launch industry. Blue Origin has for years pitched the rocket to compete with both SpaceX and United Launch Alliance — a joint venture of Boeing and Lockheed Martin that buys engines from Blue Origin — for lucrative military launch contracts.
    площадка omg ссылка
    The US Space Force selected Blue Origin, ULA and SpaceX in June to compete for $5.6 billion worth of Pentagon contracts for national security missions slated to launch over the next four years.
    Blue Origin also has deals with several commercial companies to launch satellites. The contracts include plans to help deploy Amazon’s Kuiper internet satellites and a recently inked deal with AST SpaceMobile to help launch the Midland, Texas-based company’s space-based cellular broadband network.

    New Glenn could also be instrumental in building Blue Origin’s planned space station, called Orbital Reef. Blue Origin and it commercial partners, including Sierra Space and Boeing, among others, hope the station will one day provide a new destination for astronauts as the International Space Station is phased out of service.
    https://omgprice10.com
    зайти на омг
    New Glenn vs. other powerful rockets
    New Glenn packs significant power. Dubbed a “heavy-lift” vehicle, its capabilities lie between SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket and the more powerful Falcon Heavy launch vehicle.

    SpaceX’s workhorse Falcon 9, for example, can haul up to 22.8 metric tons (50,265 pounds) to space. While New Glenn is capable of carrying about double that mass, it may also be roughly the same price as a Falcon 9: reportedly around $60 million to $70 million per launch.

    “I think in order to compete with Falcon 9, you have to go head-to-head or better on price,” said Caleb Henry, the director of research at Quilty Space, which provides data and analysis about the space sector.

    The question, however, is whether Blue Origin will be able to sustain a competitive price point, Henry added.

    Still, one feature that makes New Glenn stand out is its large payload fairing, or nose cone. The component protects the cargo bay and is a whopping 23 feet (7 meters) wide — nearly 6 feet (2 meters) larger than that of SpaceX’s Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy.

    Henry said Blue Origin likely opted to outfit New Glenn with such a large fairing in order to help fulfill Bezos’ vision of the future.

  • Kommentar-Link Jaredcix Mittwoch, 08 Januar 2025 23:58 gepostet von Jaredcix

    What’s on board this flight
    Blue Origin had planned to launch a pair of Mars-bound satellites on behalf of NASA for the first flight of New Glenn.

    But delays with the rocket’s development prompted the space agency to change course, moving that flight to this spring at the earliest. So for this inaugural flight, Blue Origin opted to instead fly a “demonstrator” that will test technology needed for the company’s proposed Blue Ring spacecraft — which will aim to serve as a sort of in-space rideshare vehicle, dragging satellites deeper into space when needed.
    омг вход
    The demonstrator on this New Glenn flight will remain aboard the rocket for the entire six-hour flight, Blue Origin said, and it will validate “communications capabilities from orbit to ground” as well as “test its in-space telemetry, tracking and command hardware, and ground-based radiometric tracking.”

    The Blue Ring Pathfinder demonstrator is part of a deal Blue Origin inked with the US Department of Defense’s Defense Innovation Unit.
    https://omgprice10.com
    omg официальный
    Why Blue Origin wants to reuse rockets
    Similar to SpaceX, Blue Origin is aiming to recover and refly its first-stage rocket boosters in a bid to make launches less expensive.

    “Reusability is integral to radically reducing cost-per-launch,” the company said in a recent news release, using the same oft-repeated sentiment that SpaceX has touted since it began landing rocket boosters in 2015.
    Bezos, however, has acknowledged the importance of reusing rocket parts since he founded the company in 2000 — two years before Musk established SpaceX. And the company has already developed its suborbital New Shepard tourism rocket to be reusable.
    “It’s not a copy cat game,” Henry said. “Blue Origin has been pursuing reusable vehicles since before reusable vehicles were cool. Now it’s much more of a mainstream idea (because of SpaceX). The difference is that it’s taken Blue Origin so much longer to get to orbit.”

    If successful, returning the New Glenn rocket booster for a safe landing will be a stunning feat. After expending most of its fuel to propel the rocket’s upper stage to space, the first-stage booster will need to make a clean separation. The booster must then maneuver with pinpoint guidance and reignite its engines with precision timing to avoid crashing into the ocean or the Jacklyn recovery platform.

  • Kommentar-Link Briankarie Mittwoch, 08 Januar 2025 23:57 gepostet von Briankarie

    New Glenn’s first flight
    Blue Origin formally announced the development of New Glenn — which aims to outpower SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rockets and haul spacecraft up to 45 metric tons (99,200 pounds) to orbit — in 2016.
    kraken at
    The vehicle is long overdue, as the company previously targeted 2020 for its first launch.

    Delays, however, are common in the aerospace industry. And the debut flight of a new vehicle is almost always significantly behind schedule.

    Rocket companies also typically take a conservative approach to the first liftoff, launching dummy payloads such as hunks of metal or, as was the case with SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy debut in 2018, an old cherry red sports car.
    https://kra23att.cc
    кракен ссылка
    Blue Origin has also branded itself as a company that aims to take a slow, diligent approach to rocket development that doesn’t “cut any corners,” according to Bezos, who founded Blue Origin and funds the company.

    The company’s mascot is a tortoise, paying homage to “The Tortoise and the Hare” fable that made the “slow and steady wins the race” mantra a childhood staple.

    “We believe slow is smooth and smooth is fast,” Bezos said in 2016. Those comments could be seen as an attempt to position Blue Origin as the anti-SpaceX, which is known to embrace speed and trial-and-error over slow, meticulous development processes.
    But SpaceX has certainly won the race to orbit. The company’s first orbital rocket, the Falcon 1, made a successful launch in September 2008. The company has deployed hundreds of missions to orbit since then.

    And while SpaceX routinely destroys rockets during test flights as it begins developing a new rocket, the company has a solid track record for operational missions. SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket, for example, has experienced two in-flight failures and one launchpad explosion but no catastrophic events during human missions.

  • Kommentar-Link RichardSonge Mittwoch, 08 Januar 2025 23:42 gepostet von RichardSonge

    On a long-dormant pad in Florida, a rocket that could challenge SpaceX’s dominance is poised to launch
    kraken

    On a Florida launchpad that has been dormant for almost two decades, a new, roughly 320-foot (98-meter) rocket — developed by Jeff Bezos’ company Blue Origin — is poised for its maiden flight.

    The uncrewed launch vehicle, called New Glenn, will mark Blue Origin’s first attempt to send a rocket to orbit, a feat necessary if the company hopes to chip away at SpaceX’s long-held dominance in the industry.

    New Glenn is set to lift off from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station as early as next week.
    https://kra23s.cc
    kraken marketplace
    The rocket, which stands about as tall as a 30-story building, consists of several parts: The first-stage rocket booster gives the initial thrust at liftoff. Atop the booster is an upper rocket stage that includes a cargo bay protected by a nose cone that will house experimental technology for this mission.

    And, in an attempt to replicate the success that SpaceX has found reusing rocket boosters over the past decade, Blue Origin will also aim to guide New Glenn’s first-stage rocket booster back to a safe landing on a seafaring platform — named Jacklyn for Bezos’ mother — minutes after takeoff.

    Like SpaceX, Blue Origin will seek to recover, refurbish and reuse first-stage rocket boosters to drive down costs.

    For this inaugural mission, a smooth flight is not guaranteed.

    But the eventual success of New Glenn, named after storied NASA astronaut John Glenn, is instrumental to some of Blue Origin’s most ambitious goals.

    The rocket could one day power national security launches, haul Amazon internet satellites to space and even help in the construction of a space station that Blue Origin is developing with commercial partners.

  • Kommentar-Link Kennethphany Mittwoch, 08 Januar 2025 23:42 gepostet von Kennethphany

    Останні новини Черкас https://18000.ck.ua та Черкаської області. Важливі новини про політику, бізнес, спорт, корупцію у владі на сайті 18000 ck.ua.

  • Kommentar-Link Pedrosnilt Mittwoch, 08 Januar 2025 23:41 gepostet von Pedrosnilt

    Chile’s President Boric leads journey to South Pole in historic trip
    kraken тор

    Chile’s President Gabriel Boric travelled to Antarctica’s South Pole on Friday, a place where no other Latin American president has set foot, according to the Chilean government.

    Boric led the historic two-day trip, named Operation Pole Star III, to extend the environmental monitoring of pollutants on Antarctica, Chile’s government said in a statement.

    He travelled with scientists, armed forces commanders and government ministers from the Chilean capital of Santiago to Punta Arenas, a city in southern Chile, public broadcaster Television Nacional de Chile (TVN) reported. From there, they made several stops before finally reaching the US-run Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station, according to TVN.
    https://kra23s.cc
    kraken сайт

    Chile is one of seven countries that has a territorial claim in Antarctica, alongside Argentina, Australia, France, New Zealand, Norway and the United Kingdom.

    It is also a signatory of the Antarctic Treaty, which dictates that the continent may only be used for peaceful and scientific purposes.

    While Chile has historically carried out scientific activity in Antarctica’s northern sector, the country’s government is now hoping to expand research into the west of the continent, its statement said.
    Boric called his trip to the South Pole an “honor” and a source of pride, TVN reported.

    “This is a milestone for us. It is the first time a Chilean and Latin American President has visited the South Pole,” he said, according to TVN.

  • Kommentar-Link DanielKes Mittwoch, 08 Januar 2025 23:31 gepostet von DanielKes

    Most plane crashes are ‘survivable’
    kraken официальный сайт
    First, the good news. “The vast majority of aircraft accidents are survivable, and the majority of people in accidents survive,” says Galea. Since 1988, aircraft — and the seats inside them — must be built to withstand an impact of up to 16G, or g-force up to 16 times the force of gravity. That means, he says, that in most incidents, “it’s possible to survive the trauma of the impact of the crash.”

    For instance, he classes the initial Jeju Air incident as survivable — an assumed bird strike, engine loss and belly landing on the runway, without functioning landing gear. “Had it not smashed into the concrete reinforced obstacle at the end of the runway, it’s quite possible the majority, if not everyone, could have survived,” he says.

    The Azerbaijan Airlines crash, on the other hand, he classes as a non-survivable accident, and calls it a “miracle” that anyone made it out alive.
    https://kra23c.cc
    kraken зайти
    Most aircraft involved in accidents, however, are not — as suspicion is growing over the Azerbaijan crash — shot out of the sky.

    And with modern planes built to withstand impacts and slow the spread of fire, Galea puts the chances of surviving a “survivable” accident at at least 90%.

    Instead, he says, what makes the difference between life and death in most modern accidents is how fast passengers can evacuate.

    Aircraft today must show that they can be evacuated in 90 seconds in order to gain certification. But a theoretical evacuation — practiced with volunteers at the manufacturers’ premises — is very different from the reality of a panicked public onboard a jet that has just crash-landed.
    Galea, an evacuation expert, has conducted research for the UK’s Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) looking at the most “survivable” seats on a plane. His landmark research, conducted over several years in the early 2000s, looked at how passengers and crew behaved during a post-crash evacuation, rather than looking at the crashes themselves. By compiling data from 1,917 passengers and 155 crew involved in 105 accidents from 1977 to 1999, his team created a database of human behavior around plane crashes.

    His analysis of which exits passengers actually used “shattered many myths about aircraft evacuation,” he says. “Prior to my study, it was believed that passengers tend to use their boarding exit because it was the most familiar, and that passengers tend to go forward. My analysis of the data demonstrated that none of these myths were supported by the evidence.”

  • Kommentar-Link JosephNak Mittwoch, 08 Januar 2025 23:30 gepostet von JosephNak

    The survivors of recent crashes were sitting at the back of the plane. What does that tell us about airplane safety?
    kraken войти

    Look at the photos of the two fatal air crashes of the last two weeks, and amid the horror and the anguish, one thought might come to mind for frequent flyers.

    The old frequent-flyer adage is that sitting at the back of the plane is a safer place to be than at the front — and the wreckage of both Azerbaijan Airlines flight 8243 and Jeju Air flight 2216 seem to bear that out.
    https://kra23c.cc
    kra25 cc
    The 29 survivors of the Azeri crash were all sitting at the back of the plane, which split into two, leaving the rear half largely intact. The sole survivors of the South Korean crash, meanwhile, were the two flight attendants in their jumpseats in the very tail of the plane.

    So is that old adage — and the dark humor jokes about first and business class seats being good until there’s a problem with the plane — right after all?

    In 2015, TIME Magazine reporters wrote that they had combed through the records of all US plane crashes with both fatalities and survivors from 1985 to 2000, and found in a meta-analysis that seats in the back third of the aircraft had a 32% fatality rate overall, compared with 38% in the front third and 39% in the middle third.

    Even better, they found, were middle seats in that back third of the cabin, with a 28% fatality rate. The “worst” seats were aisles in the middle third of the aircraft, with a 44% fatality rate.
    But does that still hold true in 2024?

    According to aviation safety experts, it’s an old wives’ tale.

    “There isn’t any data that shows a correlation of seating to survivability,” says Hassan Shahidi, president of the Flight Safety Foundation. “Every accident is different.”

    “If we’re talking about a fatal crash, then there is almost no difference where one sits,” says Cheng-Lung Wu, associate professor at the School of Aviation of the University of New South Wales, Sydney.

    Ed Galea, professor of fire safety engineering at London’s University of Greenwich, who has conducted landmark studies on plane crash evacuations, warns, “There is no magic safest seat.”

  • Kommentar-Link Williamawano Mittwoch, 08 Januar 2025 23:07 gepostet von Williamawano

    What’s on board this flight
    Blue Origin had planned to launch a pair of Mars-bound satellites on behalf of NASA for the first flight of New Glenn.

    But delays with the rocket’s development prompted the space agency to change course, moving that flight to this spring at the earliest. So for this inaugural flight, Blue Origin opted to instead fly a “demonstrator” that will test technology needed for the company’s proposed Blue Ring spacecraft — which will aim to serve as a sort of in-space rideshare vehicle, dragging satellites deeper into space when needed.
    omgomg
    The demonstrator on this New Glenn flight will remain aboard the rocket for the entire six-hour flight, Blue Origin said, and it will validate “communications capabilities from orbit to ground” as well as “test its in-space telemetry, tracking and command hardware, and ground-based radiometric tracking.”

    The Blue Ring Pathfinder demonstrator is part of a deal Blue Origin inked with the US Department of Defense’s Defense Innovation Unit.
    https://omgprice10.com
    площадка omg
    Why Blue Origin wants to reuse rockets
    Similar to SpaceX, Blue Origin is aiming to recover and refly its first-stage rocket boosters in a bid to make launches less expensive.

    “Reusability is integral to radically reducing cost-per-launch,” the company said in a recent news release, using the same oft-repeated sentiment that SpaceX has touted since it began landing rocket boosters in 2015.
    Bezos, however, has acknowledged the importance of reusing rocket parts since he founded the company in 2000 — two years before Musk established SpaceX. And the company has already developed its suborbital New Shepard tourism rocket to be reusable.
    “It’s not a copy cat game,” Henry said. “Blue Origin has been pursuing reusable vehicles since before reusable vehicles were cool. Now it’s much more of a mainstream idea (because of SpaceX). The difference is that it’s taken Blue Origin so much longer to get to orbit.”

    If successful, returning the New Glenn rocket booster for a safe landing will be a stunning feat. After expending most of its fuel to propel the rocket’s upper stage to space, the first-stage booster will need to make a clean separation. The booster must then maneuver with pinpoint guidance and reignite its engines with precision timing to avoid crashing into the ocean or the Jacklyn recovery platform.

  • Kommentar-Link Joshuahamma Mittwoch, 08 Januar 2025 23:06 gepostet von Joshuahamma

    What New Glenn will do
    In some ways, New Glenn has already made its mark on the launch industry. Blue Origin has for years pitched the rocket to compete with both SpaceX and United Launch Alliance — a joint venture of Boeing and Lockheed Martin that buys engines from Blue Origin — for lucrative military launch contracts.
    omg
    The US Space Force selected Blue Origin, ULA and SpaceX in June to compete for $5.6 billion worth of Pentagon contracts for national security missions slated to launch over the next four years.
    Blue Origin also has deals with several commercial companies to launch satellites. The contracts include plans to help deploy Amazon’s Kuiper internet satellites and a recently inked deal with AST SpaceMobile to help launch the Midland, Texas-based company’s space-based cellular broadband network.

    New Glenn could also be instrumental in building Blue Origin’s planned space station, called Orbital Reef. Blue Origin and it commercial partners, including Sierra Space and Boeing, among others, hope the station will one day provide a new destination for astronauts as the International Space Station is phased out of service.
    https://omgprice10.com
    официальная ссылка на omg
    New Glenn vs. other powerful rockets
    New Glenn packs significant power. Dubbed a “heavy-lift” vehicle, its capabilities lie between SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket and the more powerful Falcon Heavy launch vehicle.

    SpaceX’s workhorse Falcon 9, for example, can haul up to 22.8 metric tons (50,265 pounds) to space. While New Glenn is capable of carrying about double that mass, it may also be roughly the same price as a Falcon 9: reportedly around $60 million to $70 million per launch.

    “I think in order to compete with Falcon 9, you have to go head-to-head or better on price,” said Caleb Henry, the director of research at Quilty Space, which provides data and analysis about the space sector.

    The question, however, is whether Blue Origin will be able to sustain a competitive price point, Henry added.

    Still, one feature that makes New Glenn stand out is its large payload fairing, or nose cone. The component protects the cargo bay and is a whopping 23 feet (7 meters) wide — nearly 6 feet (2 meters) larger than that of SpaceX’s Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy.

    Henry said Blue Origin likely opted to outfit New Glenn with such a large fairing in order to help fulfill Bezos’ vision of the future.

Schreibe einen Kommentar

Make sure you enter all the required information, indicated by an asterisk (*). HTML code is not allowed.