Blue Origin thread.

[RCgothic]

Serious shake-up underway?

[StrandedonEarth]

Getting  out before the axe falls?

[Beccab]

 

[tater]

 

[GuessingEveryDay]

So now they're going after Starship? (2:05 in the video)

Oy vey...

[tater]

33 minutes ago, GuessingEveryDay said:

So now they're going after Starship? (2:05 in the video)

Oy vey...

NG has always been huge, it's 7m diameter.

Both vehicles were in development in similar time frames, and both were officially announced at some level in 2016 I think.

Edited March 26, 2022 by tater

[darthgently]

Not sure where to start. 

More affordably?  Seriously, when does that kick in?

Lessons learned from New Shepard apply to New Glenn?  What lessons exactly that haven't been in textbooks for decades or already learned elsewhere?

Expanding New Shepard fleet?  How about getting some working BE-4s to ULA instead of expanding the carnival space ride?

New Glenn going to need big engines?  Maybe they could get some loaner Raptor 2s from SpaceX or even focus 100% on the BE-4s?

Its taken Four Years to get the launch pad to point it is today!  Wow!  I didn't realize that the amount of time spent is necessarily something to brag about.  They have huge bragging rights in the BE-4 situation if daylight burned is the metric.  Though I acknowledge that BE-4 appears to nearly ready for almost prime-time, I'm not sure the amount of time it has taken as a bottleneck justifies anything other than a somber and humble turnover to ULA rather than a bunch of "yay BO!" backslapping.  Still, 10,000 seconds on the test stand is a milestone to be acknowledged.  Finally.

I don't have a dog in the Mars vs Orbital fight between Musk and Bezos.  I think both are very worthy goals.  I really like the concept of Orbital Reef and have tremendous amounts of empathy for every individual at Blue Origin excepting Bezos (when he starts giving up his seat on New Shepard hops to kids with cancer maybe I'll change my mind).  I wish the individuals all the success they are looking for and wish BO the success it is pushing toward. But I can't pretend the company has been playing a high level 3d chess game

 

 

[SunlitZelkova]

The "debut" date for New Glenn and BE-4 has slipped so many times, I could Sharpie dates or years on a backyard slip 'n slide, slide down with my eyes closed and a random amount of physical force, and still correctly stop at the date when both will be operational.

[Ultimate Steve]

4 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

The "debut" date for New Glenn and BE-4 has slipped so many times, I could Sharpie dates or years on a backyard slip 'n slide, slide down with my eyes closed and a random amount of physical force, and still correctly stop at the date when both will be operational.

To be fair, that's just the space industry in general.

[Beccab]

6 hours ago, Ultimate Steve said:

To be fair, that's just the space industry in general.

Having an engine readiness slip of 7+ years and ending up taking two times and a half the initial schedule is not too normal even for space

[RCgothic]

Sort of Blue Origin, but more Amazon project Kupier news:

 

Missions awarded to Blue Origin, ULA and Arianespace

[tater]

68 launches with rockets that don't actually exist yet.

[darthgently]

1 hour ago, RCgothic said:

Sort of Blue Origin, but more Amazon project Kupier news:

 

Missions awarded to Blue Origin, ULA and Arianespace

Contrast with SpaceX's taking on of OneWeb's launches without hesitation.  Bezos' pettiness and narcissism will be the downfall of BO before anything else.  The day Bezos gives up his perennial seat on New Shepard carnival rides to kids with cancer will be the day Moho freezes over

[SunlitZelkova]

I don't understand the negative reaction to this. SpaceX has more than enough customers to sustain itself, and who cares if a Bezos related company decides to stick with non-"related to the guy who made fun of Bezos' health condition" companies?

[darthgently]

8 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

I don't understand the negative reaction to this. SpaceX has more than enough customers to sustain itself, and who cares if a Bezos related company decides to stick with non-"related to the guy who made fun of Bezos' health condition" companies?

It can be argued fairly strongly that BO has been wasting taxpayer dollars and holding up very important public projects at NASA.  The people paying for what Bezos said he'd deliver, that is each and every US taxpayer, and those waiting for the the BE-4 to stop holding things up, have earned an opinion on the subject.  Seems understandable to me

[tater]

23 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

I don't understand the negative reaction to this. SpaceX has more than enough customers to sustain itself, and who cares if a Bezos related company decides to stick with non-"related to the guy who made fun of Bezos' health condition" companies?

A few points.

1. I always wanted to be a fan of BO. They have yet to deliver anything meaningful in spite of existing before SpaceX, and in spite of the fact that Bezos has accrued wealth before Musk.

2. It's not a matter of SpaceX needing the work, launch is a bad way to make money. 68 launches at those prices is several billion dollars over several years. OK money for launch, but not huge in the scheme of things.

3. AMZN being a public company probably needs to justify spending more on launch than they need to to stockholders.

[CatastrophicFailure]

13 hours ago, tater said:

68 launches with rockets that don't actually exist yet.

Welp… now they have a bit more motivation to actually exist, I suppose. 

Tory Bruno says ULA is gonna build a whole second production line, et al, just for this contract. 

[mikegarrison]

Nobody batted an eyelash when Musk built a launch company and a satellite company and then proceeded to use his launch company to launch his satellites and his satellite company to provide the customer base needed to keep his launch company busy.

Roughly half of all SpaceX flights in the last two years have been Starlink launches, and 100% of Starlink launches have been on Falcon 9 rockets.

Why is is shocking if Bezos is trying to do the same thing?

Edited April 6, 2022 by mikegarrison

[StrandedonEarth]

18 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

Why is is shocking if Bezos is trying to do the same thing

Probably because SpX developed a working launch vehicle before launching their own netsats, while Amazon is contracting for launches on proto-ware, if not vapourware. If NG was flying I doubt it would be so shocking. 

I think it’s telling that by also contracting to fly on Ariane 6, it suggests that there may not be enough engines to sustain the flight rate needed with just NG and V-C. Backed up by the fact  that ULA will be accelerating the development of  SMART engine re-use on Vulcan. 

 

[darthgently]

32 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

Nobody batted an eyelash when Musk built a launch company and a satellite company and then proceeded to use his launch company to launch his satellites and his satellite company to provide the customer base needed to keep his launch company busy.

Roughly half of all SpaceX flights in the last two years have been Starlink launches, and 100% of Starlink launches have been on Falcon 9 rockets.

Why is is shocking if Bezos is trying to do the same thing?

You are really missing the point in my view.  Musk *did* all that.  Bezos *talks* about doing all that while riding his rocket into space multiple times and backburnering obligations he has made to America/NASA/ULA...

I'm all into the goals Bezos has, especially orbital reef and such, and the obligations he has taken on.  But he needs to put up or shut up.  BO was formed before SpaceX, Bezos/BO had a head start in that race (and yes, it was a race between Bezos and Musk; both made it clear).  And yet, here we are, ULA is still waiting for the BE-4 while Raptor 2 is getting installed on real boosters with second stages, and there Bezos is, back there somewhere dawdling along very much behind everyone else still talking about his great plans for a rocket that doesn't exist.  If it were his own money and only his own money, I'd just chuckle and move on, but it isn't his money, or his project he is holding up.  He announced recently that he was going to *expand* the New Shepard fleet; basically a carnival ride up and down.  Why?  He has obligations and like a stubborn little kid he just ignores them.  Every dollar going to his expanded carnival ride is *owed* to getting ULA good to go as he said he would do.  </rant>

[tater]

1 hour ago, mikegarrison said:

Nobody batted an eyelash when Musk built a launch company and a satellite company and then proceeded to use his launch company to launch his satellites and his satellite company to provide the customer base needed to keep his launch company busy.

Roughly half of all SpaceX flights in the last two years have been Starlink launches, and 100% of Starlink launches have been on Falcon 9 rockets.

Why is is shocking if Bezos is trying to do the same thing?

It's not shocking at all. But there is a difference.

Starlink is SpaceX. They can charge themselves the same as they charge OneWeb, but in the end, it only actually costs them their cost. Any profit is them paying it to themselves.

Amazon is not Blue Origin.

If Bezos owned both outright, then yeah, no problem. If BO was offering launch costs substantially below market price (Bezos paying himself would be the same even if they charged the same to external customers because he banks the difference between cost and retail anyway). I have no idea if it matters, but Amazon had shareholders who then have to pay more for launches by Ariane 6 than they do for F9 (which already exists and has a good record into the bargain).

If it's just Amazon wanting to spread launches out, great, that also makes sense—but it would be prudent to also use a known rocket with good reliability, and that is a known, available entity. Prudent for the owners of the sompany—people who own AMZN stock.

 

 

[mikegarrison]

I'm not sure you guys realize what you are saying. It's amusing that the Spacex forum is all about what Starship can do, what it will do, etc. And it's never been to space yet either.

TRL is a harsh mistress, and no matter how high you are in the TRL scale you are never *guaranteed* to keep advancing.

Anyway, I think I already made my real point, which that I think a lot of people are reacting emotionally to this. None of you questioned in the least why Starlink wasn't buying flights on Ariane or Proton or Atlas or whatever. Of course they are only going to fly on SpaceX flights, right?

Does Ford buy Chevy engines for their cars or do they put their own engines in their cars?

[Beccab]

17 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

I'm not sure you guys realize what you are saying. It's amusing that the Spacex forum is all about what Starship can do, what it will do, etc. And it's never been to space yet either.

Having some hardware is the least you need to do to be believable. Starship at the moment is at least as real as Vulcan or Ariane 6; New Glenn is currently sitting between the National Launch System, Titan V and OmegA

[darthgently]

32 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

I'm not sure you guys realize what you are saying. It's amusing that the Spacex forum is all about what Starship can do, what it will do, etc. And it's never been to space yet either.

TRL is a harsh mistress, and no matter how high you are in the TRL scale you are never *guaranteed* to keep advancing.

Anyway, I think I already made my real point, which that I think a lot of people are reacting emotionally to this. None of you questioned in the least why Starlink wasn't buying flights on Ariane or Proton or Atlas or whatever. Of course they are only going to fly on SpaceX flights, right?

Does Ford buy Chevy engines for their cars or do they put their own engines in their cars?

Apples and oranges.  For the record, your point wasn't made here for me and I think you are setting up an extreme straw man to attack, nor do I think you really read my response.  I'm all for BO goals, but not impressed with the progress at all.  Starship engines are tested and ready.  The second stage has gone through several real world test flights.  Falcon 9 and FH have gone orbital so many times I've lost count.  All after BO began its journey.  At SpaceX, there has been treasure, sweat, and tears expended and the results show it, IRL.

From my view you are the one emotionally reacting to the fact that others find BO's progress dismal.  But our finding is very supportable in reality.  It is what it is by any real world measure.  Sure the SS booster hasn't flown as a whole, but Starship has, multiple times.  Raptor is on it's 2nd version after a lot of measurable sweat and tears.  Where is New Glenn?  Where is the BE-4?   Where is the sweat and tears and real world evidence thereof?

Again, if it weren't for the obligations to the nation/NASA that BO has taken on, and the public money it has received, and if it was all a BO privately funded venture I'd just smh and move on.  But I, and many Americans, feel burned because we have skin in the game

Edited April 6, 2022 by darthgently
clarified

[tater]

27 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

I'm not sure you guys realize what you are saying. It's amusing that the Spacex forum is all about what Starship can do, what it will do, etc. And it's never been to space yet either.

TRL is a harsh mistress, and no matter how high you are in the TRL scale you are never *guaranteed* to keep advancing.

Absolutely, but the other 2 constellations (Starlink and OneWeb) are in fact launching already on rockets that exist (Soyuz/F9).

Kuiper as a competitor is now waiting on the existence of their ride to space. Perhaps this is the point, and they are not really ready to fly anyway—though they have a time limit to get 50% of the sats up from the point they got permission (6 years?), so timing is a concern.

 

27 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

Anyway, I think I already made my real point, which that I think a lot of people are reacting emotionally to this. None of you questioned in the least why Starlink wasn't buying flights on Ariane or Proton or Atlas or whatever. Of course they are only going to fly on SpaceX flights, right?

There's no possible way any other launch option is cheaper for SpaceX. From a legal and accounting POV they likely internally buy launches at nominal retail—moving money from the Starlink pile to the SpaceX pile, but overall, they spend whatever their actual cost is (refurb+Stage 2+fixed costs, etc). Word is <$30M per launch.

27 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

Does Ford buy Chevy engines for their cars or do they put their own engines in their cars?

If a Ford executive happened to also own a tire company that made car-sized tires (not trucks), would the Ford board be OK with Ford buying all their car tires from that company, even if they were more expensive than other tires? What if the tire company was new, and the tires won't be available for a few years, would the stockholders be cool with Ford not selling any cars until the new tires were available, in spite of other companies having acceptable tires?

Doesn't matter to me honestly, I want to see BO fy, and I always assumed Amazon would fly on BO. The ULA buy is partially Bezos throwing ULA a bone for their abject failure to deliver Be-4 in a timely manner. I'd guess the Ariane 6 buy is partially to generate political goodwill in Europe where there seems to be some animus towards Amazon's business practices.

I think it's a smart move by Amazon, actually (it's like BO putting the engine factory in AL) WRT the politics (business and gov politics). If the goal is to get the constellation up quickly, it's not so smart, since they can't even start for a couple years at best.