Jump to content

Blue Origin thread.


Vanamonde
 Share

Recommended Posts

Also, that particular legal mechanism is not going to succeed I think.

BO needs to start actually doing stuff. If any personal rocket company doesn't need external money, it's BO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blue Origin, et al were picked in the initial competition, then given $579M dollars to write the proposal, including any engineering they needed to push through in advance of that.

When you look at the differences specifically mentioned in the GAO doc, the tomes SpaceX wrote explaining their engineering on boiloff mitigation, etc., it makes you wonder what they did with the money at the National Team. How do you spend a half a billion dollars on a proposal, and not have every single duck in a row?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, tater said:

 

LOL. They really are pathetic.

Just build the bloody thing, Jeff, show everyone wrong by landing on the Moon.

My wish to be a BO fanboy is decreasing by the day.

The difference between the GAO protest and taking it to a court is that the latter doesn't require stopping funds and work until it is settled right?

3 hours ago, StrandedonEarth said:

Well, to be fair, Bezos’  wealth is tied up in Amazon. If he were to try to sell billions worth of stock at once, the price would drop, deflating the wealth of himself and others…

He has been doing that every year, giving BO a billion a year for development. Adding a few hundred millions for the rest of their activities and putting that billion a year on HLS would fund it all by 2026, or if he adds a bit more money 2025 or even earlier

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, tater said:

 

Ooooookay now THAT is some memelord-level trolling.

Just now, Beccab said:

The difference between the GAO protest and taking it to a court is that the latter doesn't require stopping funds and work until it is settled right?

Well, if they took it to court they could try to get a temporary injunction, but their chances of succeeding at THAT are about as slim as the odds of Bezos asking Elon to loan him Raptor engines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The worst part is that this is exactly the same tactic Bezos used for JEDI. It took Microsoft to court for it stopping the award for enough time that the government had to cancel it

If HLS is cancelled BO won't have a single sympathiser in the whole world, this time especially the SLS supporters which see their rocket made useless by this cancellation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Beccab said:

If HLS is cancelled

But SpaceX would most likely continue the development regardless, and possibly land on Moon without gov contract just to flip off Bezos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Beccab said:

The difference between the GAO protest and taking it to a court is that the latter doesn't require stopping funds and work until it is settled right

Courts can halt everything - presuming the plaintiff can make it seem like irreparable harm will occur unless the courts act. 

This is where 'choosing venue' comes in - a sympathetic judge in Nebraska might be asked to rule on something happening in Texas and Florida if the clever attorney can justify it 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Courts can halt everything - presuming the plaintiff can make it seem like irreparable harm will occur unless the courts act

My armchair lawyering opinion is that monetary damages are usually not considered irreparable harm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, RCgothic said:

what, they actually are still at it.

https://www.blueorigin.com/blue-moon/national-team

The 16 flights is already debunked. This is embarrassing, stop it.

I am seriousy questioning their ability to make Starship look bad. Remove the title and reduce the 16 launches and you have a pretty infographic (with bad colours) that can be put on the SpaceX website to show why the Starship plan is so exciting

The "not demostrated until at least in 2023" is both false and hilarious, considering NASA has a contract with spaceX to demonstrate it next year and that most of the NT lunar lander can't be tested until the crewed flight

Edited by Beccab
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeez, when will BO cone to the realization that enough is enough? They are only making themselves look bad. They lost the contract (not that they ever really were competing for it) they’re just being whiny, entitled brats. At least it sure seems like it. I really do think this is all bc of the comment Musk directed to Bezos after SpaceX won the contract. 

anyways lol I can’t wait to see LSS, that thing is gonna be amazing!

Edited by Lewie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Beccab said:

I am seriousy questioning their ability to make Starship look bad.

*snip*

Hey! Let’s take this LV that will change the way we go to space forever, bring down the cost of spaceflight, and make humanity multi planetary and demonize it!!  

Jeez louise, what is BO thinking???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Beccab said:

And the fins. Blue Origin clearly isn't an expert in orbital rockets

And on their website they claimed (on yet another infographic) that the NT lander could be launched on ‘existing LVs’ such as SLS and New Glenn...

yikes. Anybody that can think for themselves can see that BO is a mess...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Beccab said:

Good news everyone:

They did another infographic!

RDT_20210813_1232461439108014153774135.j

No, I am not joking. This is from the official BO website

 

 

Their main point is about cryogenic storage and transfer, but reusability was a stated criteria for selection (which necessitates fuel storage and transfer). SpaceX was unique in selecting LEO refueling, but all of the proposals had some variant of this. It is unprecedented, but one of the points of Artemis is to set this precedent.

I do think the national team had decent hardware proposed, but I can't say they've handled this well. I expected the protests, but this just not putting their best foot forward. They seem to have decent engineering, but management and marketing could use improvement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, satnet said:

Their main point is about cryogenic storage and transfer, but reusability was a stated criteria for selection (which necessitates fuel storage and transfer). SpaceX was unique in selecting LEO refueling, but all of the proposals had some variant of this. It is unprecedented, but one of the points of Artemis is to set this precedent.

I do think the national team had decent hardware proposed, but I can't say they've handled this well. I expected the protests, but this just not putting their best foot forward. They seem to have decent engineering, but management and marketing could use improvement.

That's a lot more courteously stated than I would have done, but this sums up my thoughts perfectly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...