Author Topic: Blue Origin Lunar Settlement Proposal  (Read 7324 times)

Offline sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3591
  • Liked: 418
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Blue Origin Lunar Settlement Proposal
« Reply #20 on: 03/03/2017 08:26 PM »
Bezos has talked about the need for Infrastructure, like the kind that enabled Amazon to be possible - like the phone telecom system which enabled the data communications for the internet, and the UPS/Fedex/Postal service that he was initially sending parcels through.

So it seems natural he'd go for these more incremental/intermediate steps of first building & stretching vital infrastructure to the Moon, and then farther and farther out.

Bezos doesn't want to venture too much too far out where adequate infrastructure isn't available to sustain it. He wants sustainable expansion, and not mere flags-&-footprints or one-offs. Therefore Bezos wouldn't bother doing a Red Dragon type of mission, since it doesn't do much of anything for sustained presence.

So will Amazon Prime to the Moon offer free shipping under certain circumstances - like if you're sending over a certain amount of goods?

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5476
  • "With peace and hope for all mankind."
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 575
  • Likes Given: 676
Re: Blue Origin Lunar Settlement Proposal
« Reply #21 on: 03/04/2017 01:57 AM »
"And just to be clear: nobody's claiming there are permanently shadowed regions up on the ridge, right?"

Yes, there are permanent shadows on the ridge, not just down on the floor of Shackleton!

Ahh, thank you for providing this insight!

I suppose it is intuitively obvious this would be so. Yet I wonder if it is obvious that the same phenomena that might be making the floor of Shackleton a cold trap are also at work in these smaller-scale versions.
« Last Edit: 03/04/2017 01:57 AM by sdsds »
-- sdsds --

Offline eric_astro

  • Member
  • Posts: 29
  • USA
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 88
Re: Blue Origin Lunar Settlement Proposal
« Reply #22 on: 03/04/2017 02:36 AM »
Thumbs up...

But am I missing something?

Red Dragon has NASA agreeing to provide some support help, but instead, is Mr. Bezos trying to force NASA's hand? I watched his award presentation talk (ars technica and geek wire have links), and he said we (Blue) need to have NASA along. If I remember correctly, Mr. Musk has said "our plans will run more slowly without NASA, but we're going".

Online WindnWar

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 402
  • South Carolina
  • Liked: 205
  • Likes Given: 1128
Re: Blue Origin Lunar Settlement Proposal
« Reply #23 on: 03/04/2017 02:49 AM »
I'm trying to figure out how you do the lander with an Atlas V 551, I just don't see how it would have the capacity unless they are talking multiple launches.

Offline Ludus

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 727
  • Liked: 251
  • Likes Given: 113
Re: Blue Origin Lunar Settlement Proposal
« Reply #24 on: 03/04/2017 05:57 AM »
Eric Berger's write-up of Blue Moon, based on WP article and Jeff Bezos' comments at the AvWeek awards:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/03/jeff-bezos-says-nasa-should-return-to-the-moon-and-hes-ready-to-help/

This makes it sound quite modest and tentative. It seems peculiar for someone currently building a rocket factory for reusable New Glenn which would be capable of cheaply launching these lunar deliveries to emphasize he needs the cooperation of ULA with Atlas or NASA's SLS which would cost many times as much.

Perhaps this is a pitch toward a Competitive Commercial Moon program, where he wants to emphasize that ULA or SLS could in theory be part of the biz too?


Offline Darkseraph

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 432
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 81
Re: Blue Origin Lunar Settlement Proposal
« Reply #25 on: 03/04/2017 07:38 PM »
Eric Berger's write-up of Blue Moon, based on WP article and Jeff Bezos' comments at the AvWeek awards:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/03/jeff-bezos-says-nasa-should-return-to-the-moon-and-hes-ready-to-help/

This makes it sound quite modest and tentative. It seems peculiar for someone currently building a rocket factory for reusable New Glenn which would be capable of cheaply launching these lunar deliveries to emphasize he needs the cooperation of ULA with Atlas or NASA's SLS which would cost many times as much.

Perhaps this is a pitch toward a Competitive Commercial Moon program, where he wants to emphasize that ULA or SLS could in theory be part of the biz too?

New Glenn isn't due to even fly a test flight until 2020 and SLS/Atlas V wouldn't cost Bezos a dime in this scenario. It is actually a pretty smart pitch in that it does nothing to appear to undermine SLS/Orion or Blue's commercial partner ULA. And it solves a problem with the SLS architecture the lack of a funded lander without NASA spending anything on R&D. That's a win/win. A NASA developed lander would likely cost a few billion and take the better part of a decade before even flying, which would require a willing Congress to appropriate funds for. That's going to be tough to do, judging by precedent. When a modest base has been built on the Moon, New Glenn or New Armstrong will be well ready to make regular runs to the Moon.

It may even happen that a New Sheppard derived lander gives SpaceX access to the Lunar Surface without them having to develop their own lander, with SpaceX sendng a crew to Lunar Orbit in a Dragon 2.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." R.P.Feynman

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2274
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2036
  • Likes Given: 1498
Re: Blue Origin Lunar Settlement Proposal
« Reply #26 on: 03/04/2017 11:45 PM »
Essentially Bezos is offering to do for the Moon what Musk is offering to do for Mars - be the transportation company.
Nope, couldn't be more wrong.

He's solely focused on cargo to the moon, enabled by BO hydrolox props and automated precision landing.

Musk is focused on people+cargo precision lander in a context allowing development on Mars/other.

Differences without distinctions.  Both are focused on solving the transportation side of the equations, not the "what we do when we're there" part.  BO is working on moving people to space, so just because they didn't announce it as part of this effort (which hasn't been officially announced anyways) doesn't mean they wouldn't offer it later as their vehicle plans firm up.

Sorry you don't see the distinctions. When you are in the business, they are obvious and meaningful. Because they have billion dollar and decade consequences.

BO has announced moving people to suborbital space, with the logical distinction of following up with orbital. Those are billion dollar/decade "things".

CC shows that this is not cheap, easy, or risk free.

Bezos goes out of his way to talk about hydrolox architecture cargo reusable landers / infrastructure, with no ZBO in sight. We're looking at multibillion, multidecade. Not next year. Maturing that to human systems is also a big deal.

Would you like more detail on the distinctions? Remember, not a "happy talk guy" here.

Quote
Quote
You're presuming much more than he says. There's specific reasons for what he says and doesn't say. Listen, don't project.

We don't have anything official from Bezos on this, so I'm not listening to anything he says...   ;)
Then you are wise.

Quote
Quote
Very important, because you all want to fantasize than Musk/Bezos are same/like. Not!

And again I'd say you are highlighting differences without distinctions - both Musk and Bezos are focused on lowering the cost to access (and travel through) space, which to me has been the initial barrier to expanding humanity out into space.  Adding landers to their capabilities are natural extensions.

Distinctions matter a great deal when you bootstrap markets. Get them wrong and your tidy little venture goes up in smoke.

Already, why SX has survived and others before failed has in part been proper choice of choosing distinctions.

Jim and others are on his case, rightly because others including subcooled props and "evolved reuse" seem like possibly bad distinctions. I'd say more than half the traffic on this board is about distinctions.

Quote
Quote
And don't count on the current hoopla for much - its just a distraction at the moment. When the cost of doing something appears, suddenly things might shift. RIFs are permanent, and deconstruction of institutions too.

Which does not mean that you don't value the moment, one does strike while the iron's hot.

You're being contradictory here.  Don't celebrate.  OK to celebrate.  I think you're experiencing a lot of emotions right now...

More about subjectivity. Comes from working with policy makers, investors, and "leaders" - who shift priorities like whims, and on the other side dealing with engineers, project/program managers, scientists - who spend years in "get sht done".

So "always put a good invented crisis to good use". Like now. You can do stuff aligned with that vector. (As you would say "celebrate!).

But ... adhere to the whim/timing ... it will be gone ... possibly taking other stuff too. So in your vernacular - "stop celebrating and secure quarters on short notice".

That way both of the above mentioned groups don't get burned.

Quote
Quote
But listen very very carefully to what they say. And timelines.

I really don't care about timelines, I only care about progress.  And I see Musk and Bezos making progress - ON THEIR OWN DIME!

They have the motivation and the means, which no one else has right now, so I'm going to cheer them on.

I do more than cheer. Care about the timelines/words. Its how you make progress and don't "backslide".

Never thought in the 70's - 90's backsliding was ever going to end.
« Last Edit: 03/05/2017 04:26 PM by Space Ghost 1962 »

Online TrevorMonty

Re: Blue Origin Lunar Settlement Proposal
« Reply #27 on: 03/05/2017 01:30 AM »
I'm trying to figure out how you do the lander with an Atlas V 551, I just don't see how it would have the capacity unless they are talking multiple launches.
A partly fuelled lander would stay within 19t of Atlas and still around 1-2t to surface.

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5051
  • Liked: 909
  • Likes Given: 325
Re: Blue Origin Lunar Settlement Proposal
« Reply #28 on: 03/05/2017 06:46 AM »
Make's me think of Jan Woerner's "Moon village".

Moon Village: A vision for global cooperation and Space 4.0

Exactly. If Bezos would be shopping for partners worldwide, he could gather a lot of support for this.
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5476
  • "With peace and hope for all mankind."
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 575
  • Likes Given: 676
Re: Blue Origin Lunar Settlement Proposal
« Reply #29 on: 03/05/2017 06:54 AM »
Bezos goes out of his way to talk about hydrolox architecture cargo reusable landers / infrastructure, with no ZBF in sight. We're looking at multibillion, multidecade. Not next year.

This. Except I think you mean ZBO (zero boil off). Or ... what's ZBF except a Cisco router thing?
-- sdsds --

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2020
  • Liked: 194
  • Likes Given: 540
Re: Blue Origin Lunar Settlement Proposal
« Reply #30 on: 03/05/2017 11:08 AM »
The rule of thumb for heavy launchers is that 20 mt to LEO roughly translates as 2 mt to the lunar surface. The rule applies to Saturn IB or Titan III as much as H-2A, Ariane 5, Proton, or Atlas 551.

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2274
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2036
  • Likes Given: 1498
Re: Blue Origin Lunar Settlement Proposal
« Reply #31 on: 03/05/2017 04:24 PM »
Bezos goes out of his way to talk about hydrolox architecture cargo reusable landers / infrastructure, with no ZBF in sight. We're looking at multibillion, multidecade. Not next year.

This. Except I think you mean ZBO (zero boil off). Or ... what's ZBF except a Cisco router thing?
Correct. Fixing.

Offline Navier–Stokes

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 193
  • Liked: 166
  • Likes Given: 1162
Re: Blue Origin Lunar Settlement Proposal
« Reply #32 on: 03/06/2017 02:18 PM »
Aviation Week has posted an article with a few interesting new details (such as Blue Moon's engines):

Blue Origin Developing 10,000-lb. Lunar Polar Lander (free registration required to access full article)
Quote
A robotic lunar lander capable of delivering as much as 10,000 lb. of cargo to a permanent outpost on the rim of the Moon’s polar Shackleton Crater could make its first flight by July 2020, with a little help from NASA. Blue Origin owner Jeff Bezos said on Thursday that his company has been working on a cargo lander that would support a human base set up in a zone of almost full-time sunlight on the crater’s rim. The site is adjacent to the permanently shadowed cold sink inside ...
« Last Edit: 03/06/2017 02:21 PM by Navier–Stokes »

Online TrevorMonty

Re: Blue Origin Lunar Settlement Proposal
« Reply #33 on: 03/06/2017 10:58 PM »
The surprising thing from this article was that Blue will being pursuing ISRU, they will be primary customer of lander. If they can sell a few to NASA for exploration missions even better. 
 

Online AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4555
  • Liked: 2679
  • Likes Given: 3782
Re: Blue Origin Lunar Settlement Proposal
« Reply #34 on: 03/06/2017 11:07 PM »
The surprising thing from this article was that Blue will being pursuing ISRU, they will be primary customer of lander. If they can sell a few to NASA for exploration missions even better.

Could be part of the collaboration with ULA.  CisLunar 1000 is all about someone supplying water (or its cryogenic constituents) from the Moon.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline daveklingler

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 433
  • Liked: 101
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: Blue Origin Lunar Settlement Proposal
« Reply #35 on: 03/07/2017 03:17 AM »
Essentially Bezos is offering to do for the Moon what Musk is offering to do for Mars - be the transportation company.
Nope, couldn't be more wrong.

He's solely focussed on cargo to the moon, enabled by BO hydrolox props and automated precision landing.


While I understand your desire to limit speculation, I dispute your use of the words "solely focused".  Blue is working on New Glenn, after all, and they have mentioned a larger rocket named "New Armstrong".  In addition, it has always seemed very evident to me that Jeff Bezos was aiming at going to the lunar surface himself; he has dreamt of going there since boyhood.  To that end, he is carefully building a path, like any good chess player.

I frequently fling poo at people who talk about lunar and Mars colonization by attempting to assert the necessity of an enormous logistical supply chain, in my view the failure point for all non-orbital basing.  Bezos is offering to build one. 

He talks about Atlas V and SLS, but I don't seriously believe that Blue is designing a lunar cargo delivery system based on either of those rockets.  They're placeholders for something he doesn't care to mention. It seems obvious that he would like to use a Blue rocket.  Likewise, I don't seriously believe that Blue is proposing to deliver only cargo to the lunar surface, or even limit itself to 10-ton deliveries.  To that end, I look at New Glenn, and imagine it with a couple of side boosters.

Hmmm...New Glenn with side boosters...now there's a topic worthy of speculation...  :)

Online TrevorMonty

Re: Blue Origin Lunar Settlement Proposal
« Reply #36 on: 03/07/2017 07:57 AM »
The New Glenn with cargo lander should be enough to establish a lunar base along ISRU fuel production. Besides the lander Blue have also been developing a biconic capsule crew vehicle, I'm picking this will be BLEO capable. Given a long live 3rd stage on New Glenn this vehicle should be able to ferry crew to DSH. Add reusable crew lander plus lunar fuel and Blue has an afford lunar transport system.

Online TrevorMonty

Re: Blue Origin Lunar Settlement Proposal
« Reply #37 on: 03/07/2017 01:08 PM »
At 45t to LEO, should be good for about 15t direct to DSH. Enough for 7 man crew vehicle, not sure if it would carry 7 given it is 3day trip.
« Last Edit: 03/07/2017 01:09 PM by TrevorMonty »

Tags: