Author Topic: SpaceX vs Blue Origin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better? Thread 1  (Read 566805 times)

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Who said Falcon Heavy was only designed to lift 6.4mT to GTO?  You know Musk has stated that FH is capable of throwing 14mT to Mars.
6.4 tonnes appears to be for booster recovery missions.  Expendable missions can lift much more, but will have to also cost much more since the boosters will be lost.

Blue Origin's big orbital rocket appears to have legs in released artwork, so it will also be losing payload capability to allow recovery.  The capability losses for stage recovery are substantial for beyond-LEO missions.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 11/28/2015 07:49 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline TrevorMonty

Article in The Space Review on New Shepard's latest flight, and what its early revenue sources could be:

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2871/1


So they're mentioning micro-gravity experiments ahead of space tourism. Is there a significant market for micro-gravity payloads?

Here is one possible payload, producing high performance silicon wafers.

http://www.abqjournal.com/583056/biz/biz-most-recent/new-investment-boosts-space-wafer-technology.html


Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Article in The Space Review on New Shepard's latest flight, and what its early revenue sources could be:

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2871/1


So they're mentioning micro-gravity experiments ahead of space tourism. Is there a significant market for micro-gravity payloads?

Here is one possible payload, producing high performance silicon wafers.

http://www.abqjournal.com/583056/biz/biz-most-recent/new-investment-boosts-space-wafer-technology.html
Absolutely! I've been following ACME Advanced Materials for a while. This is one of those very nice areas that could substantially expand the spaceflight market.
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 pathfinder_01

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 8
appears to be for booster recovery missions.  Expendable missions can lift much more, but will have to also cost much more since the boosters will be lost.

Reuse would cut cost across the board.  Due to the commonality between F9 and FH either the whole booster or parts of the expended booster could come from reuse from other missions. How much more Space X charges for it is an business decision. What could cost much more is an flight in an expendable mission with a booster that has not been used esp. with parts that have not be used.

Quote
Blue Origin's big orbital rocket appears to have legs in released artwork, so it will also be losing payload capability to allow recovery.  The capability losses for stage recovery are substantial for beyond-LEO missions.

The loss could be manageable(i.e. at an point where there is an market for the capability).
 - Ed Kyle
[/quote]

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
From the calculations upthread, New Shepard has an estimated empty mass of 10t, and holds about 30t of fuel.  So the delta-V will be 421 * 9.8 * ln(4) = 5.7 km/sec.  For the Falcon first stage, it's suspected the empty mass is about 30t, and it's known to hold 386t of fuel (without sub-cooling).  So the total delta-V is 310*9.8*ln(416/30), or about 7.9 km/sec.  So in terms of delta-v provided per stage, the stage using Merlin is far more efficient than the stage using a BE-3.

Of course you are comparing a stage designed for a specific suborbital mission and a return landing every time with one designed for orbital launch .  Here's another comparison.

Replace the Falcon 9 second stage with a BE-3 power LH2/LOX stage.  You will find that the second stage weighs much less and that it should be possible to remove two of the first stage Merlin engines altogether and still put the same mass to GTO.  Indeed the first stage can be shrunk, required to carry 30-80 tonnes less propellant.  The entire rocket weighs 85-120 tonnes less at liftoff.  Less rocket for the same payload.  That's where the savings accrue. 

 - Ed Kyle

To add to this .....Historically speaking we must remember its Hydrogen that got the US to the moon.  The "Hydrogen book" available at one time out of NASA is a must read on the subject.

2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
Blue Origin likely would've been MUCH further along if Bezos had devoted as much mental bandwidth to Blue Origin as Musk has devoted to SpaceX. I think that might be changing, though.

...not that this was necessarily a suboptimal strategy. By focusing on Amazon, Bezos significantly increased his net worth, which gives more ammo for Blue Origin.

Couldn't disagree more.  Bezos is right on plan.  The timing might be off a bit but Both Blue and SX worked from the very beginning for a reusable stage. 

Going to put this up as a "Historical reminder".
These facts can be found in the older NSF files available with NSF searches.

Back when SpaceX promoted the early Falcon9 their planning, simulation, engineering, and testing were all for the  F9 design to parachute down for a water recovery and reuse.  This as we know was a complete failure. SX next went on to the grasshopper tests, and a new approach to recovery we see in work today.

Results count, plain and simple. Blue delivered a first stage recovery on its 2nd try per their design, and concept (and a lot of hard engineering work).  SX with 19 launches has yet to accomplish a first stage recovery.

We can be shallow and try and nit pick who's stage is bigger, or who's mission was more difficult, who's richer; it doesn't matter.  No matter how much spin, or negative PR a company wishes to put out, its the end result of "stage recovery" that matters.

In the end results count ;) 
« Last Edit: 11/29/2015 04:16 pm by Prober »
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline DAZ

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 162
  • Everett WA
  • Liked: 165
  • Likes Given: 1
Not to nitpick (but that does seem to be what people are doing here) but what BlueOrigin has done here is nothing more than an advance on what SpaceX has already done with their Grasshopper project.  In fact it could be argued that BlueOrigin hasn’t accomplished yet what SpaceX is done with their Grasshopper project.  That is to say that SpaceX has actually launched the same rocket and recovered it multiple times and BlueOrigin has not yet. BlueOrigin’s rocket is basically just a scaled up SpaceX Grasshopper.  SpaceX could’ve scaled up their Grasshopper and most likely could’ve accomplished the same thing but it really would not have served any purpose.  From SpaceX’s point of view the next logical step is to recover a full size stage from hypersonic all the way down to the ground, a task many times more difficult than what BlueOrigin has attempted.  This is something that BlueOrigin is not even attempted to build let alone actually try to accomplish.  This is not to say that BlueOrigin is not making significant progress nor that they will not actually build a full stage and recover it, only that they are in no way ahead of SpaceX at this time in accomplishing this task.

Offline TrevorMonty

Blue were doing VTVL in 2007. Look up Goddard on you tube.

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
Blue were doing VTVL in 2007. Look up Goddard on you tube.

thx 2006

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6230245.stm

Edit: fix broken link
« Last Edit: 11/30/2015 01:20 pm by Prober »
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline mulp

  • Member
  • Posts: 72
  • merrimack, nh
  • Liked: 37
  • Likes Given: 9
Isn't the difference between the two the value supply chain strategy?

Bezos-Blue-Amazon uses existing mostly legacy suppliers.

Musk-Tesla-SpaceX builds it's own supply chain based on Musk's belief, backed by experience, he can build a better, higher quality and lower cost supply chain that answers only to the needs of Tesla and SpaceX.

I see Musk as pursuing a Chinese type of strategy of acquiring technogy with strategic partnerships and as soon as possible becoming independent and self sufficient. It's all about control.

Bezos out of necessity must form partnerships.  Selling books required working with publishers, even when disrupting the business model they evolved into existance. Selling other goods that customers wanted required going with existing manufacturers rather than designing Amazon brand products. Amazon was the next stage of Sam Waltons Walmart. Amazon partners with all package delivery companies.

Both Bezos and Musk actually build and own critical capital assets which many other competitors outsource.

That is in contrast with Gates Microsoft and Tim Cook Apple.  Both to the maximum degree possible only own the software and other intangible zero cost to replicate assets. Microsoft charges $10-50 per computer manufactured by others in Asian, and especially Chinese, factories Asians own. Apple contracts with suppliers to build computers for Apple, which for all intents never pass through an Apple facility, unless it is sold in an Apple store front. The same value-supply chain builds both Apple and Microsoft computers as well as the Google Android and Amazon Fire computers.

And the Chinese factories are the model for Musk - he in effect is saying, "I can beat the Asians who beat the US at its own game."

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8862
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11934
Isn't the difference between the two the value supply chain strategy?

It's a factor, and definitely a big one, but we don't know yet whether it will be a deciding one.

Quote
Bezos-Blue-Amazon uses existing mostly legacy suppliers.

Musk-Tesla-SpaceX builds it's own supply chain based on Musk's belief, backed by experience, he can build a better, higher quality and lower cost supply chain that answers only to the needs of Tesla and SpaceX.

Let's leave Tesla out of this since there is no Blue Origin equivalent.  Leave it to SpaceX vs Blue Origin.

Quote
I see Musk as pursuing a Chinese type of strategy of acquiring technogy with strategic partnerships and as soon as possible becoming independent and self sufficient. It's all about control.

Musk creates his own technology, he doesn't acquire it.

Quote
Bezos out of necessity must form partnerships.  Selling books required working with publishers, even when disrupting the business model they evolved into existance. Selling other goods that customers wanted required going with existing manufacturers rather than designing Amazon brand products. Amazon was the next stage of Sam Waltons Walmart. Amazon partners with all package delivery companies.

An interesting dissection, but from what we know Blue Origin is building the New Shepard themselves, as well as the engine for it.  That is pretty much what SpaceX does.

It would not be unreasonable to think that they would continue that same strategy...

Oh, and congrats on your first post!  Don't worry if not everyone agrees with what you say (that happens to all of us), it's important for you to air your thoughts and opinions so you can get feedback and add to the discussion.
« Last Edit: 11/30/2015 02:33 am by Coastal Ron »
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5974
  • Liked: 1312
  • Likes Given: 8
Results count, plain and simple. Blue delivered a first stage recovery on its 2nd try per their design, and concept (and a lot of hard engineering work).  SX with 19 launches has yet to accomplish a first stage recovery.

So just comparing the reusability results of both - can we say that the return flight and recovery of New Shepard is more or less equivalent to a return flight of F9R Booster in terms of engineering difficulty?

I'm just wondering how Blue achieved such a success by getting a full flyback by the 2nd flight, as compared to so many flights with Grasshopper and F9R.

New Shepard doesn't achieve orbit, but F9R booster doesn't either. Is it fair to say that both re-enter the atmosphere at comparably similar velocities? How similar is the re-entry profile of both?
I've read that given F9R booster's braking burn, that it's actually doing re-entry at lower velocity than New Shepard is.

How well-positioned is Blue to give SpaceX a run for their money, overall? Could Blue one day take a share of SpaceX's business directly, or will it be done through partners like ULA mainly? Is Blue just going to focus purely on manned space tourism flights?

Offline Nilof

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1177
  • Liked: 597
  • Likes Given: 707
Results count, plain and simple. Blue delivered a first stage recovery on its 2nd try per their design, and concept (and a lot of hard engineering work).  SX with 19 launches has yet to accomplish a first stage recovery.

So just comparing the reusability results of both - can we say that the return flight and recovery of New Shepard is more or less equivalent to a return flight of F9R Booster in terms of engineering difficulty?

I'm just wondering how Blue achieved such a success by getting a full flyback by the 2nd flight, as compared to so many flights with Grasshopper and F9R.

New Shepard doesn't achieve orbit, but F9R booster doesn't either. Is it fair to say that both re-enter the atmosphere at comparably similar velocities? How similar is the re-entry profile of both?
I've read that given F9R booster's braking burn, that it's actually doing re-entry at lower velocity than New Shepard is.

How well-positioned is Blue to give SpaceX a run for their money, overall? Could Blue one day take a share of SpaceX's business directly, or will it be done through partners like ULA mainly? Is Blue just going to focus purely on manned space tourism flights?

F9 first stage recovery is much, much harder. It separates at a much higher velocity, and has to do a braking burn to avoid being torn apart as it falls back into the atmosphere.  It also travels very far horizontally and has to maneuver to a tiny barge in the atlantic. The New Shephard just does a pop-up flight with almost no lateral motion and thus has an easy time navigating to the pad.

On the second part, I would say that Blue is very well positioned to enter the orbital market in a few years. It'll have arguably the two best engines on the market at that time for a reusable launch vehicle and prior experience with operating a reusable suborbital stage. I wouldn't be surprised if they iterated their way to a reusable second stage fairly quickly. Whether they actually end up beating SpaceX is a much harder question to answer.
For a variable Isp spacecraft running at constant power and constant acceleration, the mass ratio is linear in delta-v.   Δv = ve0(MR-1). Or equivalently: Δv = vef PMF. Also, this is energy-optimal for a fixed delta-v and mass ratio.

Offline saliva_sweet

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 614
  • Liked: 476
  • Likes Given: 1826
So just comparing the reusability results of both - can we say that the return flight and recovery of New Shepard is more or less equivalent to a return flight of F9R Booster in terms of engineering difficulty?

No. As has been discussed in the other thread to make the engineering efforts comparable BO engineers would somehow have to load about five times as much fuel into a vehicle with the same dry mass, which would make it unable to take off. Or alternatively somehow magically shave ~80% off the vehicles dry weight. Which would make it unable to land the way it did. Safe to say there are significant challenges ahead.

Offline TrevorMonty

Here is another possible business for New Shepard, testing space suits. Not large market maybe worth a few flights.

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2015/11/30/nasa-selects-final-frontier-test-iva-spacesuit-microgravity/

Online meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14158
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14046
  • Likes Given: 1392
Blue Origin likely would've been MUCH further along if Bezos had devoted as much mental bandwidth to Blue Origin as Musk has devoted to SpaceX. I think that might be changing, though.

...not that this was necessarily a suboptimal strategy. By focusing on Amazon, Bezos significantly increased his net worth, which gives more ammo for Blue Origin.

Couldn't disagree more.  Bezos is right on plan.  The timing might be off a bit but Both Blue and SX worked from the very beginning for a reusable stage. 

Going to put this up as a "Historical reminder".
These facts can be found in the older NSF files available with NSF searches.

Back when SpaceX promoted the early Falcon9 their planning, simulation, engineering, and testing were all for the  F9 design to parachute down for a water recovery and reuse.  This as we know was a complete failure. SX next went on to the grasshopper tests, and a new approach to recovery we see in work today.

Results count, plain and simple. Blue delivered a first stage recovery on its 2nd try per their design, and concept (and a lot of hard engineering work).  SX with 19 launches has yet to accomplish a first stage recovery.

We can be shallow and try and nit pick who's stage is bigger, or who's mission was more difficult, who's richer; it doesn't matter.  No matter how much spin, or negative PR a company wishes to put out, its the end result of "stage recovery" that matters.

In the end results count ;)

What BO recovered was not a first stage of an orbital system.  It is a suborbital carrier, capable of much much lower energies.  It looks like a stage, but does more or less what VG does.  So they have "vehicle recovery", but not "stage recovery".

If you go by results, SpaceX is still much further ahead.

As for plans, I can tell you that internally, RTLS was the plan much much earlier than the re-use video came out - almost all the way back to original F9 flight.
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5974
  • Liked: 1312
  • Likes Given: 8
http://techcrunch.com/2015/11/29/dont-compare-blue-origins-success-to-spacexs-failures/

To what extent are Musk and Bezos the architects of their respective strategies?
Or is it likely more of a senior team decision, even if it's the CEO who gets to stand out in front and make the presentations?

We never hear much from Bezos, so I'm wondering how hands-on he is in guiding the overall plan as compared to Musk. Presumably, he grasps the key fundamentals of rocket science.

It's interesting to see how business and physics meet in the middle.
« Last Edit: 11/30/2015 09:19 pm by sanman »

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23394
  • Liked: 1879
  • Likes Given: 1023
What BO recovered was not a first stage of an orbital system.  It is a suborbital carrier, capable of much much lower energies.  It looks like a stage, but does more or less what VG does.  So they have "vehicle recovery", but not "stage recovery".

I have to disagree with you here, if Blue put an upperstage on the New Shepard Stage it has the performance to put a small payload in orbit.  It almost went to Mach 4 at 100 km, a Falcon 9 1st stage sep is near Mach 5 at 80 km.  So if you trade altitude for speed (there is a reason the earliest technicians who worked on the first satellite launches thought the rocket was going too low, trading altitude for speed)

Quote
If you go by results, SpaceX is still much further ahead.

Why does it have to be a race? Blue Origin is going for human +spaceflight +re-usability simultaneously, but starting from suborbital to build up to orbital.  SpaceX went orbital first, and now is working on re-usability followed by human spaceflight.

Also we said the same about ULA and SpaceX back in the Falcon 1 days, doent take long to catch up. I for one am looking forward to the competition.

Quote
As for plans, I can tell you that internally, RTLS was the plan much much earlier than the re-use video came out - almost all the way back to original F9 flight.

As I recall the first couple flights of Falcon 9 still had cork and parachutes.....

Online meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14158
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14046
  • Likes Given: 1392
What BO recovered was not a first stage of an orbital system.  It is a suborbital carrier, capable of much much lower energies.  It looks like a stage, but does more or less what VG does.  So they have "vehicle recovery", but not "stage recovery".

I have to disagree with you here, if Blue put an upperstage on the New Shepard Stage it has the performance to put a small payload in orbit.  It almost went to Mach 4 at 100 km, a Falcon 9 1st stage sep is near Mach 5 at 80 km.  So if you trade altitude for speed (there is a reason the earliest technicians who worked on the first satellite launches thought the rocket was going too low, trading altitude for speed)

IIUC, It got to 100 km, which means zero vertical velocity there...  So probably hit Mach 4 somewhere on the way.   So the comparison to VG from a specific energy standpoint stands...

And at that point, it did not have a 100 tons of second stage and 20 tons of payload on top.

The rocket equation makes it so that you're exponentially sensitive to the dV, and linearly sensitive to to your dry weight (which in this case was probably 10% of an F9s1)

Quote
Quote
If you go by results, SpaceX is still much further ahead.

Why does it have to be a race?

A friendly race...  I'm rooting for BO too, but calling the situation for what it is.  They didn't pass SpaceX's results to date, but they certainly made a large leap.  Competition is good, and I hope they catch up.  I actually believe they have aspirations much further than suborbital flight.
Quote

Blue Origin is going for human +spaceflight +re-usability simultaneously, but starting from suborbital to build up to orbital.  SpaceX went orbital first, and now is working on re-usability followed by human spaceflight.

Also we said the same about ULA and SpaceX back in the Falcon 1 days, doent take long to catch up. I for one am looking forward to the competition.

Quote
As for plans, I can tell you that internally, RTLS was the plan much much earlier than the re-use video came out - almost all the way back to original F9 flight.

As I recall the first couple flights of Falcon 9 still had cork and parachutes.....

« Last Edit: 11/30/2015 10:13 pm by meekGee »
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline leaflion

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 103
  • United States
  • Liked: 52
  • Likes Given: 17
So just comparing the reusability results of both - can we say that the return flight and recovery of New Shepard is more or less equivalent to a return flight of F9R Booster in terms of engineering difficulty?

No. As has been discussed in the other thread to make the engineering efforts comparable BO engineers would somehow have to load about five times as much fuel into a vehicle with the same dry mass, which would make it unable to take off. Or alternatively somehow magically shave ~80% off the vehicles dry weight. Which would make it unable to land the way it did. Safe to say there are significant challenges ahead.

Thought experiment:
Take new shepard booster, and stretch/increase the diameter of the tanks so the volume is 5X.  Now add 4 more BE-3's (around the central one).  Maybe do a bit of structural optimization and mass fraction gets even better.

There you go.  Now you have an orbital booster with a reasonable mass fraction that can land without hoverslamming.  Most of the weight is on the ends of that rocket, so making the tanks bigger won't add that much weight.

If Merlin could throttle down even to 40%, spacex could land without hoverslamming.  In a multiple engine configuration 20klbf thrust is plenty low for hovering on landing.  But it can't.


If you go by results, SpaceX is still much further ahead.


If you go by results, Blue is ahead.  They just got results, something spacex has been trying to do for a year.  Once spacex lands they will once again be ahead in the business of landing high-speed rocket stages.  But right now if you look at results all they've done is crash rockets in to a barge/the sea in a somewhat out-of-control manner.

For now.

Tags:
 

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