Author Topic: SpaceX vs Blue Origin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better? Thread 1  (Read 566941 times)

Offline IRobot

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1312
  • Portugal & Germany
  • Liked: 310
  • Likes Given: 272

I think Blue could destroy SpaceX if Bezos wanted to, I can think of the moves to do it (some underhanded, some expensive, all mean spirited) ... But I don't think he wants to.

Only in America you could have companies like SpaceX or BlueOrigin, but also only in America a company would be allowed to openly destroy a competitor with schemes like selling services under cost.

Still, I am curious to know if this would be a scheme different than just giving away "free" launches...
« Last Edit: 04/06/2017 08:20 pm by IRobot »

Offline RedLineTrain

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2459
  • Liked: 2412
  • Likes Given: 10229
Hiring away key personnel is sometimes an effective method used in Silicon Valley.

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25242
  • Likes Given: 12115
On that sort of timescale SpaceX are very likely to have been doing commercial crew for a few years and potentially more than one circumlunar mission. So I wonder what Blue Origin's selling points will be? Price? Types of mission? Spacecraft features (e.g. large windows) ?
As of now, they still stand a chance of establishing a spotless flight record.
No, they don't. They lost a VTVL vehicle in flight. Anyway, I'd take 40 consecutive successful launches (with a failure before that) over a 5 flight "flawless" record any day. Only someone with a naive understanding of statistics would do otherwise.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Chasm

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 495
  • Liked: 230
  • Likes Given: 0
I think Blue could destroy SpaceX if Bezos wanted to, I can think of the moves to do it (some underhanded, some expensive, all mean spirited) ... But I don't think he wants to.

Both of them could.
I don't really get that vibe from either of em. The sandbox is certainly big enough.

One of my favorite reveals is Jeff as an silent investor in SpaceX. Just for the amount of speechlessness that would cause.


As of now, they still stand a chance of establishing a spotless flight record.
No, they don't. They lost a VTVL vehicle in flight. Anyway, I'd take 40 consecutive successful launches (with a failure before that) over a 5 flight "flawless" record any day. Only someone with a naive understanding of statistics would do otherwise.

They've lost at least two.
A Goddard got the FTS medicine after loosing control during a full power test.
The first New Sheppard propulsion module did not land but impacted instead. IIRC loss of hydraulic power during decent. Not so much a problem at that point the time. Now I'd say it would be one.

Online Navier–Stokes

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 367
  • Liked: 720
  • Likes Given: 6768
A Goddard got the FTS medicine after loosing control during a full power test.
I believe that particular flight was actually PM2 (pictured below), an early developmental vehicle for New Shepard. According to the brief statement by Blue Origin at the time, it was lost due to a flight instability.
« Last Edit: 04/07/2017 12:07 am by Navier–Stokes »

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
As of now, they still stand a chance of establishing a spotless flight record.
No, they don't. They lost a VTVL vehicle in flight. Anyway, I'd take 40 consecutive successful launches (with a failure before that) over a 5 flight "flawless" record any day. Only someone with a naive understanding of statistics would do otherwise.

They've lost at least two.
A Goddard got the FTS medicine after loosing control during a full power test.
The first New Sheppard propulsion module did not land but impacted instead. IIRC loss of hydraulic power during decent. Not so much a problem at that point the time. Now I'd say it would be one.

And none of those were operational vehicles in commercial service.
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline Chasm

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 495
  • Liked: 230
  • Likes Given: 0
Entirely possible that I got it wrong.

Now that Blue is much more open it's time to do a documentary on their first years. Something to show during the 20 year anniversary party. September 2020 is not that far off but far enough to put such a project together.


Good point about operational vs. development.
With ongoing development how and when things fail is becoming more important and complex. The customer won't care too much as long as their payload arrives in the right place, in working condition, not exceeding environmental limits on the way. Loosing reusable stages before they are written off is "just" a financial problem.
I still hope that Blue is a bit more obvious about tests that carry customer payloads than others seemed to be. Jeff has the money, why not sell that risk to the customer. Something like this should shift expectations nicely: "Announcing a development launch opportunity on our x vehicle in the y quarter of 202z. Not guaranteed to arrive in any orbit. As cheap as you dare. Reverse auction, no minimum."

Offline Lemurion

It's gradatim ferocitor on one side, and "Dude, hold my beer," on the other.

I don't know that either is better in the long term, but from my armchair space enthusiast's seat SpaceX is more entertaining.


Offline corneliussulla

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 249
  • Liked: 88
  • Likes Given: 48
Elon Musk tweeted on Friday 7th April that he thinks falcon will be 100% reusable by end of 2018. That isn't Evan on BO schedule. Bezos going to need to keep selling his AMZN stock for a few more years. Musk is moving the boundaries of what is achievable faster than Bezos is catching up.

Offline DanielW

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 628
  • L-22
  • Liked: 577
  • Likes Given: 85
Elon Musk tweeted on Friday 7th April that he thinks falcon will be 100% reusable by end of 2018. That isn't Evan on BO schedule. Bezos going to need to keep selling his AMZN stock for a few more years. Musk is moving the boundaries of what is achievable faster than Bezos is catching up.

It isn't on Blue Origin's public schedule, but it wasn't on SpaceX's either until the past few weeks. Also 2018 is aspirational like all Musk timelines.

That being said. Bezos likes to say that you get really good at what you practice. He advocates launching at a high of a cadence as possible to build up that base of expertise. However, SpaceX is the one doing all the launching and pushing for higher cadence on actual flights. I think the fact that they are working on real paying flights as they develop their tech will serve them well in the long run, even if fraught with risk now.

Online Navier–Stokes

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 367
  • Liked: 720
  • Likes Given: 6768
Elon Musk tweeted on Friday 7th April that he thinks falcon will be 100% reusable by end of 2018. That isn't Evan on BO schedule. Bezos going to need to keep selling his AMZN stock for a few more years. Musk is moving the boundaries of what is achievable faster than Bezos is catching up.
This post really feels like trolling to me but I'll respond anyways.

We know for a fact that Blue Origin intends for New Glenn to eventually have reusable upper stages. How they intend to accomplish that, and what the timeline may be, is unknown but it is on their schedule. If SpaceX is able to rapidly implement second stage reusability as planned, I would expect Blue Origin would accelerate their timeline. That said, in many ways, operational second stage reusability is a more difficult problem than first stage reusability and, even though I am rooting for SpaceX to succeed, I wouldn't be surprised if SpaceX's timeline gets pushed back by a couple of years.

Offline Lemurion

I think it's important to note that I don't think either company would be as successful if the places were reversed. SpaceX doesn't have the resources to follow Blue's path, and without someone in front pushing the envelope I think Blue's ferocitor would be a lot more gradatim.

At least for the moment, I see a lot of synergy between the two approaches and that means everyone wins.

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48176
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 81689
  • Likes Given: 36943
Here's Jeff Bezos latest (2016) annual letter to Amazon shareholders:

https://www.amazon.com/p/feature/z6o9g6sysxur57t

I'm posting here as it's really about his approach to business and staying ahead of the game. May give some insights to future developments at Blue Origin?
« Last Edit: 04/12/2017 07:08 pm by FutureSpaceTourist »

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
.. Musk is moving the boundaries of what is achievable saying things faster than Bezos is catching up...
Quick check
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25242
  • Likes Given: 12115
"Building orbital class rockets, landing them, then reusing them" isn't mere "saying." Bezos is just "saying" things about New Glenn by the same measure...

But anyway I disagree with the quote. It's not Bezos catching up with Musk, it's Musk catching up with Bezos and now far exceeding him. Although Blue Origin will be absolutely fine, as they have almost the richest person in the world bankrolling them.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline AlexP

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 113
  • Liked: 202
  • Likes Given: 74
SpaceX is now providing the dual benefit of advancing through its own activities in addition to dragging Blue along with it. I think ideally, Blue would have liked to start their orbital operation with the smaller BE-3 powered booster, but Falcon 9 growing increasingly dominant forced them to skip straight ahead to the Falcon Heavy class.

I'd love to know whether ITS had a similar effect on the New Armstrong plans!

Offline Steve G

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 578
  • Ottawa, ON
    • Stephen H Garrity
  • Liked: 616
  • Likes Given: 56
SpaceX's biggest risk is the ITS. This is not a commercial investment in the classic sense. It's a philosophical driven project to populate another planet. The scale is monstrously huge, insanely high risks, with little commercial potential. There isn't a demand of a million people waiting in line with a quarter million to put down for a ticket to Mars. There isn't tons of Mars habitat modules waiting for a truck.

Blue Origin is far more sustainable and offering a new class of wide bodied LV which may attract satellite companies some relief from confining their ever growing satellites to current payload shroud constraints.

ITS is wonderful from a human species perspective, but EM's plans to start colonizing Mars in the next decade has no business case. Worse, all he's presented so far is the transport system. He, or another entity, still have to come up with the Mars habitat and sustainable facilities.

He needs to use the system, or a modified version of it, for the satellite market, and for tourists in Earth orbit and eventually Cis Lunar space. Then with those profits, move forward to his non-profit Mars ambitions.

Offline HVM

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 749
  • Finland
  • Liked: 1203
  • Likes Given: 596
.. Musk is moving the boundaries of what is achievable saying things faster than Bezos is catching up...
Quick check

More than 91 metric tons of working hardware in orbit. Actual reused orbital booster.
« Last Edit: 04/13/2017 04:52 pm by HVM »

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48176
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 81689
  • Likes Given: 36943
SpaceX's biggest risk is the ITS.

I agree that as presented in September ITS is a huge step to take with no clear market for any flights. However, I think Elon is very aware of that. My guess is that's why Elon said after the SES-10 launch that the updated ITS plan makes much more sense economically. So we'll have to wait a few weeks to see it and then re-assess.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7278
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Forbes puts Bezos' net worth a little over $75 billion.  I have more confidence in his ability to finance BO's space efforts than in NASA's ability to finance its own program.

EDIT:  "about over" -> "a little over"
« Last Edit: 04/15/2017 11:25 am by Proponent »

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1