Author Topic: Blue Origin - We will not be strangers  (Read 24941 times)

Offline notsorandom

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1682
  • Ohio
  • Liked: 375
  • Likes Given: 88
Re: Blue Origin - We will not be strangers
« Reply #20 on: 03/10/2016 01:27 PM »
The other difference of course is that this is not far from pocket change for Bezos, so they should not lack for funds. Bezos has a far larger and more liquid fortune than Musk, who in turn is richer than Branson, I believe, although perhaps not as liquid.  Not new info but definitely supportive of Jon's thinking.
...however, we're starting to get into billions of dollars in investment to pull all these things off (New Shepard, multiple Cryogenic pump-fed rocket engines, launch pad, large new actors for full scale BE4 production, etc). New Shepard could be funded with Bezos' fun money, but the orbital stuff relies on real contracts with real customers or at least would require Bezos to sell off (or leverage) some Amazon stock. I think it's a good change because it forces Blue Origin to actually fly stuff.
In that context it is easy to understand how the Blue/ULA relationship with the BE-4 is beneficial for both parties.

Offline parabolicarc

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 192
  • Liked: 127
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Blue Origin - We will not be strangers
« Reply #21 on: 03/10/2016 02:45 PM »
The minute self-made billionaires start making statements such as the one above: add (at least) two years.
The old rule that was working well for SpaceShipTwo seems to be:

promised_launch_year = current_year + 2

Current year is the key here. It's 2018 in 2016, but it will be 2019 in 2017.

I'm looking forward to be proven wrong, though.

Blue Origin doesn't seem to have problems with its engines the way that Virgin Galactic has had over the years. Virgin seems to have resolved those problems now, but the engine held things up for a long time. They also had issues with manufacturing the nitrous oxide tank.

The other problem was that Virgin had no idea how to set realistic expectations for its program. The Virgin Group treated it as yet another venture like airlines and trains, to be plugged into a global branding effort. The idea is that Galactic will greatly enhance the brand. They never quite grasped that this was a development program involving first generation technology. That led Branson to a series of predictions that had little to do with what was happening in Mojave. He's finally stopped making predictions, which is a good thing.

Bezos and Blue have been quite cautious over the years in making predictions about anything. If they're saying 2018, it's a good bet that is a realistic time frame.

Blue has said it wants to have dozens of additional flight tests of New Shepard before putting tourists on board. That's a very positive sign that they're going to test the bejesus out of the system first and they're not in any hurry to be the first to fly. If the schedule slips into 2019, it will be because the testing took longer than planned.


Offline llanitedave

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2103
  • Nevada Desert
  • Liked: 1280
  • Likes Given: 1487
Re: Blue Origin - We will not be strangers
« Reply #22 on: 03/10/2016 02:57 PM »
Today + 18 months is the standard for suborbital tourism. Today + 3 years is the standard for launching NASA astronauts to the ISS. Both are claims made consistently and it always "feels like for reals this time".

If you want a hint as to why Blue Origin won't be launching tourists in 2018, just read the rest of the article. They're already distracted by other things.


That kind of thinking didn't work for Zeno, and it doesn't work here either.
"I've just abducted an alien -- now what?"

Online Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8736
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 5444
  • Likes Given: 3589
Re: Blue Origin - We will not be strangers
« Reply #23 on: 03/10/2016 03:22 PM »
If you want a hint as to why Blue Origin won't be launching tourists in 2018, just read the rest of the article. They're already distracted by other things.
Jeff Bezos' focus is clearly on the near term (BE-4, New Shepard) and not a million people living and working in space, you're reading way too much into articles that simply mentioned the bigger picture.
I mostly agree with you, but I do think that it is possible that BE-4 and Very Big Brother become distractions for New Shepard. At least somewhat. But I am nowhere near as pessimistic (Based on nothing at all except fanboyishness) as QuantumG
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2485
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2384
  • Likes Given: 1746
Re: Blue Origin - We will not be strangers
« Reply #24 on: 03/10/2016 04:20 PM »
As to the OP's article:
Quote from: KENNETH CHANG
For years, what went on here was mysterious and unknown, like Willy Wonka’s chocolate factory in Roald Dahl’s children’s book.
The capsule with its large glass windows reminds
of Dahl's "Great Glass Elevator", visualized in the 70's "Willy Wonka" movie:


Today + 18 months is the standard for suborbital tourism. Today + 3 years is the standard for launching NASA astronauts to the ISS. Both are claims made consistently and it always "feels like for reals this time".

Perspective - JFK and his "within the decade" to put a man on the moon. Doable/done by a world power, as a demonstration of that power (in lieu of a nuclear confrontation/war). The power of a national commitment under duress, done at a severe cost.

Afterwards, a relaxation of commitment/goals. Shuttle, a "follow-on" to claim space transportation dominance through launch, with an undercurrent of overt military threat (as interpreted by rival), doable/"half-done" in another decade or so, again by national commitment. More relaxation of commitment/goals by a super power.

These are singular goals. Another, related into a quasi commercial form, was EELV, to provide a reliable launch provider for national aims, not unlike what happened elsewhere with Ariane. Gradually relaxed commitment.

Singular goals fit with national need, but they aren't truly "commercialization" - they serve a purpose because there is no "market" because there cannot be a market this early in the process.

When you have a handful of businesses moot businesses in a related area, you still have no market, no compelling need unsatisfied by efforts that came before it. The "aberrations" created by the "non market" of national need distort the process, and as a market is either discovered as real or dispelled as fantasy, these players weave a drama as they cast about for it. Musk and Branson are showmen for that drama, with different tales to tell, funding different plays on the stage. Bezos is slightly different, wishing to compartmentalize to not show the "gears and cogs" as much, until he can maintain a pace.

None of them have even the tiniest fraction of the resources to bring off a market here, even if it is doable. But, as many have found, money attracts money that wants to stand next to it.

Branson builds a brand first and lets others risk money filling out the brand with something behind it.

Musk entertains with actual "you can't do this but I did this", kind of a Mythbusters as we gear up for a revision 2.0 of "old space" leaving old baggage behind on the unproven promise of launch frequency/cost improvements. He gets SiliValley+related deep pockets to fund a extremely long term business, mostly for "bragging rights".

Bezo's is obsessive about a narrow agenda that he cleaves to and hammers away at it, believing in a "the right thing, for the right reason, done the right way, in good time", irrespective of if that is, in the end, the correct path in retrospect. Since he's used to doing deals with large companies to get what he might need, he gradually factors them in, but keeps them at arms length the entire time. Unlike Musk who resents dependency with large firms of the kind that killed Kistler with aerospace "cost loading", Bezo's relies on controlled "co-dependency" to control the mutual "poisoning", a bit like the Princess Bride's "iocane powder" routine. This requires relentless patience that the other two don't possess.

None of them have true access to the big "monies" of government and global finance. Musk leverages, like ULA/BA/LMT, OA, and various others, government contracts/initiatives/... but these come with limits/politics.

They all talk beyond their headlights - they have to do that, because for what they are doing, they are severely underfunded to bring things off. Every space launch/craft/systems vendor has been this way, it is the nature of the beast at this stage, even with US/China LV efforts consuming 1,000's of times more funding/economic leverage.

Space is hard.

The difference is in approach - what you put in, what you get out. Governments look a singular goals and fund to get them regardless of means to the end - this limits what they attempt. Entrepreneurs massively leverage an indeterminate vision/path. because they can't afford time/cost that the government can. Such indeterminacy is unbounded, and the visions can also be hallucinations.

Offline Oli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2124
  • Liked: 379
  • Likes Given: 55
Re: Blue Origin - We will not be strangers
« Reply #25 on: 03/10/2016 04:28 PM »
Blue Origin doesn't seem to have problems with its engines the way that Virgin Galactic has had over the years. Virgin seems to have resolved those problems now, but the engine held things up for a long time. They also had issues with manufacturing the nitrous oxide tank.

Blue Origin is using a 490kn hydrolox engine though, which is somewhat excessive for suborbital tourism. Unless that makes it super reusable.

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2485
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2384
  • Likes Given: 1746
Re: Blue Origin - We will not be strangers
« Reply #26 on: 03/10/2016 05:12 PM »
Blue Origin doesn't seem to have problems with its engines the way that Virgin Galactic has had over the years. Virgin seems to have resolved those problems now, but the engine held things up for a long time. They also had issues with manufacturing the nitrous oxide tank.

Blue Origin is using a 490kn hydrolox engine though, which is somewhat excessive for suborbital tourism. Unless that makes it super reusable.

Where to start ... certainly doesn't need "hydrolox", even if to avoid coking on reuse. Even more on vehicle trades following propulsion. New Shepard is meant to set a direction beyond suborbital space tourism.

Clearly its the top part of an orbital stack, and they are incrementally introducing parts of an orbital architecture well ahead of the need for them in a suborbital system. Add a little to a pile every time ... and you end up with a big pile.

And the thrust/iSP/weight of the BE-3 seems to be consistent with what you might like for an in-space stage that can carry a meaningful payload to some C3 destinations.

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4416
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 770
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Blue Origin - We will not be strangers
« Reply #27 on: 03/10/2016 06:34 PM »
Where to start ... certainly doesn't need "hydrolox", even if to avoid coking on reuse. Even more on vehicle trades following propulsion. New Shepard is meant to set a direction beyond suborbital space tourism.

Clearly its the top part of an orbital stack, and they are incrementally introducing parts of an orbital architecture well ahead of the need for them in a suborbital system. Add a little to a pile every time ... and you end up with a big pile.

And the thrust/iSP/weight of the BE-3 seems to be consistent with what you might like for an in-space stage that can carry a meaningful payload to some C3 destinations.

Uhm... Well you're correct that any reusable vehicle doesn't need a hydrolox engine to be reusable, though there are quite a number of people and organizations that seem to think it IS a requirement. Considering the background of a majority of the BO engineers I was actually surprised when they started with keroxide and jet engines :) You really want a better combination than hydrolox for a booster. Which is why (I assume) they chose methalox (LNG/LOx technically but :) ) for the BE-4.

As for New Shepard being part of an orbital stack and more specifically an upper stage I'm not seeing that as a logical conclusion. It is designed for suborbital use and most of it's recovery features are not suited for orbital entry at all. I think you have that backwards. It is a good subscale demonstrator for a possible booster stage, it has all the needed "bits" to reenter and land from a suborbital trajectory which can be significantly upgraded with size and adding BE-4 engines. (New Shepard both in design and flight profile can easily be considered a "prototype" pop-up booster if one adds the appropriate upper stage{s} :) )

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2485
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2384
  • Likes Given: 1746
Re: Blue Origin - We will not be strangers
« Reply #28 on: 03/10/2016 07:15 PM »
Uhm... Well you're correct that any reusable vehicle doesn't need a hydrolox engine to be reusable, though there are quite a number of people and organizations that seem to think it IS a requirement.
Hi Randy,

I think that is the seduction of LH as the ideal rocket fuel. And that learning how to manage it from the start is a necessary "right of passage" to the big leagues.

As opposed to the SX/other sentiment of "LH? LH? We don't ever want to touch the stinking stuff, it brings a world of pain/expense, it'll just slow us down and keep us insanely priced".

Quote
Considering the background of a majority of the BO engineers I was actually surprised when they started with keroxide and jet engines :) You really want a better combination than hydrolox for a booster. Which is why (I assume) they chose methalox (LNG/LOx technically but :) ) for the BE-4.
Agreed.

Quote
As for New Shepard being part of an orbital stack and more specifically an upper stage I'm not seeing that as a logical conclusion. It is designed for suborbital use and most of it's recovery features are not suited for orbital entry at all.
Point was about tankage, sizing, GNC, propulsion, props, and not necessarily design/recovery, although I think they are considering US recovery at some point. Its also about the right size for a stage that could, like EUS, handle part of ascent as well as an in-space insertion/circularization burns.

Quote
I think you have that backwards. It is a good subscale demonstrator for a possible booster stage, it has all the needed "bits" to reenter and land from a suborbital trajectory which can be significantly upgraded with size and adding BE-4 engines.
Does both roles. Not unlike Falcon 9's stages.

Expendable US is first with minimized version of the existing stage/propulsion, remove top "fins/fixture", add OA's drop down nozzle extension. Booster is larger version with new propulsion and higher capacity legs.

I think unlike F9/Atlas, they'll fly with an oversized US undersized booster from the start, giving more richer "abort for payload issues" options.

Offline Bynaus

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 406
  • Planetary Scientist
  • Switzerland
  • Liked: 273
  • Likes Given: 170
Re: Blue Origin - We will not be strangers
« Reply #29 on: 03/29/2016 07:34 AM »
I was at the Johnson Space Center in Houston last week, took the tour of the astronaut training facility. There, I noticed the interesting screen (pictured below, sorry for the low quality) showing four "commercial crew" rockets: from right to left, Falcon 9 / Dragon 2, Atlas 5 / Dream Chaser, Atlas 5 / Starliner and... well yes, what is that? A depiction of the Blue Origin "Very Big Brother", providing us with a scale for that rocket? Or am I missing something?
« Last Edit: 03/29/2016 07:35 AM by Bynaus »

Online Kryten

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 26
Re: Blue Origin - We will not be strangers
« Reply #30 on: 03/29/2016 08:40 AM »
I was at the Johnson Space Center in Houston last week, took the tour of the astronaut training facility. There, I noticed the interesting screen (pictured below, sorry for the low quality) showing four "commercial crew" rockets: from right to left, Falcon 9 / Dragon 2, Atlas 5 / Dream Chaser, Atlas 5 / Starliner and... well yes, what is that? A depiction of the Blue Origin "Very Big Brother", providing us with a scale for that rocket? Or am I missing something?
The illustration is consistent with Blue's circa 2011 Be-3 powered 'reusable booster system' concept; it's probably just not been updated since the early days of CCDEV.

Offline Bynaus

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 406
  • Planetary Scientist
  • Switzerland
  • Liked: 273
  • Likes Given: 170
Re: Blue Origin - We will not be strangers
« Reply #31 on: 03/29/2016 10:23 AM »
I was at the Johnson Space Center in Houston last week, took the tour of the astronaut training facility. There, I noticed the interesting screen (pictured below, sorry for the low quality) showing four "commercial crew" rockets: from right to left, Falcon 9 / Dragon 2, Atlas 5 / Dream Chaser, Atlas 5 / Starliner and... well yes, what is that? A depiction of the Blue Origin "Very Big Brother", providing us with a scale for that rocket? Or am I missing something?
The illustration is consistent with Blue's circa 2011 Be-3 powered 'reusable booster system' concept; it's probably just not been updated since the early days of CCDEV.

That certainly sounds like something likely to happen at JSC. :)

But you are right: Googling "blue origin reusable booster system" leads to images like this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Origin#/media/File:Blue_Origin_Incremental_Development_%28Spacecraft%29.jpg

Offline The Amazing Catstronaut

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1071
  • Arsia Mons, Mars, Sol IV, Inner Solar Solar System, Sol system.
  • Liked: 755
  • Likes Given: 628
Re: Blue Origin - We will not be strangers
« Reply #32 on: 03/29/2016 09:15 PM »

- First tourist flights "as soon as" 2018.

That is very interesting.
The minute self-made billionaires start making statements such as the one above: add (at least) two years.

I have more confidence in Bezos hitting this target than others in this area. Plus maybe not as default cynical as some posters.

Why? Whilst Blue's achievements are impressive, they have not actualised anything unprecedented yet. The two-years statement is another example of an event that has precedence in aerospace and space tourism. What are you going off? Bezos's past business patterns? His companies are prone to delays like everybody else in every tech field ever to have existed, ever.

Expecting elastic timescales isn't cynical. We need to care about time less regarding spaceflight - it's often irrelevant unless you're talking decades or your competitors are extremely close at your heels. Neither is the case here. They don't compete for orbital payload delivery yet and won't for years, whilst they've got a reasonably safe shot at making a first with space tourism (whatever that "first" is when orbital tourism to that grand old space hotel the ISS has already been a phenomenon for years).
« Last Edit: 03/29/2016 09:19 PM by The Amazing Catstronaut »
Resident feline spaceflight expert. Knows nothing of value about human spaceflight.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8272
  • UK
  • Liked: 1341
  • Likes Given: 168
Blue Origin - We will not be strangers
« Reply #33 on: 03/29/2016 09:24 PM »

- First tourist flights "as soon as" 2018.

That is very interesting.
The minute self-made billionaires start making statements such as the one above: add (at least) two years.

I have more confidence in Bezos hitting this target than others in this area. Plus maybe not as default cynical as some posters.

Why? Whilst Blue's achievements are impressive, they have not actualised anything unprecedented yet. The two-years statement is another example of an event that has precedence in aerospace and space tourism. What are you going off? Bezos's past business patterns? His companies are prone to delays like everybody else in every tech field ever to have existed, ever.

Expecting elastic timescales isn't cynical. We need to care about time less regarding spaceflight - it's often irrelevant unless you're talking decades or your competitors are extremely close at your heels. Neither is the case here. They don't compete for orbital payload delivery yet and won't for years, whilst they've got a reasonably safe shot at making a first with space tourism (whatever that "first" is when orbital tourism to that grand old space hotel the ISS has already been a phenomenon for years).

I prefer a company that speaks in actions and progresses steadily and doesn't make grandiose claims of Martian colonies.
« Last Edit: 03/29/2016 09:27 PM by Star One »

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2485
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2384
  • Likes Given: 1746
Re: Blue Origin - We will not be strangers
« Reply #34 on: 03/29/2016 09:35 PM »

- First tourist flights "as soon as" 2018.

That is very interesting.
The minute self-made billionaires start making statements such as the one above: add (at least) two years.

I have more confidence in Bezos hitting this target than others in this area. Plus maybe not as default cynical as some posters.

Why? Whilst Blue's achievements are impressive, they have not actualised anything unprecedented yet. The two-years statement is another example of an event that has precedence in aerospace and space tourism. What are you going off? Bezos's past business patterns? His companies are prone to delays like everybody else in every tech field ever to have existed, ever.

Expecting elastic timescales isn't cynical. We need to care about time less regarding spaceflight - it's often irrelevant unless you're talking decades or your competitors are extremely close at your heels. Neither is the case here. They don't compete for orbital payload delivery yet and won't for years, whilst they've got a reasonably safe shot at making a first with space tourism (whatever that "first" is when orbital tourism to that grand old space hotel the ISS has already been a phenomenon for years).

I prefer a company that speaks in actions and progresses steadily and doesn't make grandiose claims of Martian colonies.

I can prefer warp drive over space folding for space propulsion, but that's irrelevant to the choice of a propulsion system to mount a current mission off of.

Bezos also makes grandiose claims. One of the reasons I still regard them as pure "BO".

Musk has been in the space business for a number of years with actual missions. BO, while having some impressive accomplishments, has not yet done a single mission nor is one even proposed.

Accomplishing missions are a relevant measure. Not our preferences.

Speaking of which, I prefer to drink a sip of water right now ...

Offline The Amazing Catstronaut

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1071
  • Arsia Mons, Mars, Sol IV, Inner Solar Solar System, Sol system.
  • Liked: 755
  • Likes Given: 628
Re: Blue Origin - We will not be strangers
« Reply #35 on: 03/29/2016 09:39 PM »

I prefer a company that speaks in actions and progresses steadily and doesn't make grandiose claims of Martian colonies.

It's a company that aspires to put thousands of people living and working in space, another company wants to have thousands of people living and working in space as well. Both have similar ethoses which are extremely self-demanding. A lot of NASA people have similar goals, the Chinese want people to be working on the moon. Space is all about grandiose claims. Kennedy made one if you remember. But that's where the comparative ability ends.

If this TeamX/TeamB crudball keeps rolling on, somebody could earn a killing printing shirts. Hell, I have access to a press, I might bootleg a few and fund my next car. They're not even in the same ballpark as each other and won't be for years - could we not appreciate each company for their individual merits, rather than by placing them in artificial adjacency? We can evangelise, sure, but we don't need to do attack PR. Indeed, the OP contains a healthy, constructive example of BO marketing itself in a way that is both optimistic and revealing.

There really should be a censor function on this website for every use of the word "fanboy".
« Last Edit: 03/29/2016 09:43 PM by The Amazing Catstronaut »
Resident feline spaceflight expert. Knows nothing of value about human spaceflight.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4969
  • Liked: 2965
  • Likes Given: 4190
Re: Blue Origin - We will not be strangers
« Reply #36 on: 03/29/2016 10:30 PM »

- First tourist flights "as soon as" 2018.

That is very interesting.
The minute self-made billionaires start making statements such as the one above: add (at least) two years.

I have more confidence in Bezos hitting this target than others in this area. Plus maybe not as default cynical as some posters.

Why? Whilst Blue's achievements are impressive, they have not actualised anything unprecedented yet. The two-years statement is another example of an event that has precedence in aerospace and space tourism. What are you going off? Bezos's past business patterns? His companies are prone to delays like everybody else in every tech field ever to have existed, ever.

Expecting elastic timescales isn't cynical. We need to care about time less regarding spaceflight - it's often irrelevant unless you're talking decades or your competitors are extremely close at your heels. Neither is the case here. They don't compete for orbital payload delivery yet and won't for years, whilst they've got a reasonably safe shot at making a first with space tourism (whatever that "first" is when orbital tourism to that grand old space hotel the ISS has already been a phenomenon for years).

I prefer a company that speaks in actions and progresses steadily and doesn't make grandiose claims of Martian colonies.

Q: What do you do if a company progresses steadily and makes grandiose claims of Martian colonies?
A: Ignore the progress.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8272
  • UK
  • Liked: 1341
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: Blue Origin - We will not be strangers
« Reply #37 on: 03/29/2016 11:00 PM »

- First tourist flights "as soon as" 2018.

That is very interesting.
The minute self-made billionaires start making statements such as the one above: add (at least) two years.

I have more confidence in Bezos hitting this target than others in this area. Plus maybe not as default cynical as some posters.

Why? Whilst Blue's achievements are impressive, they have not actualised anything unprecedented yet. The two-years statement is another example of an event that has precedence in aerospace and space tourism. What are you going off? Bezos's past business patterns? His companies are prone to delays like everybody else in every tech field ever to have existed, ever.

Expecting elastic timescales isn't cynical. We need to care about time less regarding spaceflight - it's often irrelevant unless you're talking decades or your competitors are extremely close at your heels. Neither is the case here. They don't compete for orbital payload delivery yet and won't for years, whilst they've got a reasonably safe shot at making a first with space tourism (whatever that "first" is when orbital tourism to that grand old space hotel the ISS has already been a phenomenon for years).

I prefer a company that speaks in actions and progresses steadily and doesn't make grandiose claims of Martian colonies.

I can prefer warp drive over space folding for space propulsion, but that's irrelevant to the choice of a propulsion system to mount a current mission off of.

Bezos also makes grandiose claims. One of the reasons I still regard them as pure "BO".

Musk has been in the space business for a number of years with actual missions. BO, while having some impressive accomplishments, has not yet done a single mission nor is one even proposed.

Accomplishing missions are a relevant measure. Not our preferences.

Speaking of which, I prefer to drink a sip of water right now ...

Yes Bezos makes claims but at least his seem based in the realm of the possible for what a company such as his may achieve & don't seek to overreach themselves.

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2485
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2384
  • Likes Given: 1746
Re: Blue Origin - We will not be strangers
« Reply #38 on: 03/29/2016 11:16 PM »

- First tourist flights "as soon as" 2018.

That is very interesting.
The minute self-made billionaires start making statements such as the one above: add (at least) two years.

I have more confidence in Bezos hitting this target than others in this area. Plus maybe not as default cynical as some posters.

Why? Whilst Blue's achievements are impressive, they have not actualised anything unprecedented yet. The two-years statement is another example of an event that has precedence in aerospace and space tourism. What are you going off? Bezos's past business patterns? His companies are prone to delays like everybody else in every tech field ever to have existed, ever.

Expecting elastic timescales isn't cynical. We need to care about time less regarding spaceflight - it's often irrelevant unless you're talking decades or your competitors are extremely close at your heels. Neither is the case here. They don't compete for orbital payload delivery yet and won't for years, whilst they've got a reasonably safe shot at making a first with space tourism (whatever that "first" is when orbital tourism to that grand old space hotel the ISS has already been a phenomenon for years).

I prefer a company that speaks in actions and progresses steadily and doesn't make grandiose claims of Martian colonies.

I can prefer warp drive over space folding for space propulsion, but that's irrelevant to the choice of a propulsion system to mount a current mission off of.

Bezos also makes grandiose claims. One of the reasons I still regard them as pure "BO".

Musk has been in the space business for a number of years with actual missions. BO, while having some impressive accomplishments, has not yet done a single mission nor is one even proposed.

Accomplishing missions are a relevant measure. Not our preferences.

Speaking of which, I prefer to drink a sip of water right now ...

Yes Bezos makes claims but at least his seem based in the realm of the possible for what a company such as his may achieve & don't seek to overreach themselves.

Glad you improved your post over the deleted one:
Quote from: Star One
Another one who has been drinking the Space X kool aid I see.
... which sounded bitter and counter to your usual quality posts.

Let's get this straight - "bitter" and "kool aid" are both poisons. Doesn't matter how they work differently, they have the same effect. The providers have been bitter for a long time, with good reason.

Have been into both Musk and Bezos organizations (others here too). Generally don't like the way they are run, nor do like the way they pontificate. If you asked me I'd say they'd do better to STFUP.

Just look at missions as reality. The good and the bad. The rest is noise. Some sounds more pleasing, some less, but its easy to be deceived.

Watched them go right into the wall eyes open. Musk bugs me but can deal with it. Bruno makes consistent sense, but the parent's straight jacket limits whatever can be done. Bezos weirds me out - was present to watch him lose a $100M on his, and only his, decision. Yes these color my view of people.

And am just giving impressions. Take them or leave them. Not making any of this, or necessarily an advocate for it.

add:

And you haven't heard Bezos in private with what he claims he wants to do. Its no less off the wall than Musk.

If you visit facilities, you'll see some things, and if you ask about them, the sentiments are real and in the DNA of the firms. So you may be reacting to the "public face" without knowing what backs it up.

And I'll add that BO's incrementalism is more comforting to me as a professional than Musks over the top showmanship. It does grate. But then lets let Bezos roll for an equal number of launches before comparing rational claims - it would not surprise me if they seem more alike as the numbers converge.
« Last Edit: 03/29/2016 11:26 PM by Space Ghost 1962 »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27033
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6927
  • Likes Given: 4888
Re: Blue Origin - We will not be strangers
« Reply #39 on: 03/30/2016 12:46 AM »
Bezos has mentioned millions of people living in space (and has implied either on rocky bodies or free space structures).

Musk has mentioned a million person Mars city.

Honestly, that's about as ambitious either way, and perhaps Bezos' is more ambitious. It's just more vague. And Blue Origin's accomplishments have been dwarfed by SpaceX's, in spite of Blue Origin starting earlier and with access to much more wealth from its founder.

Honestly, if you look at statements such as those, SpaceX's walk-to-talk ratio is much greater than Blue Origin's. It's just that Musk is in the public eye much more often.

Anyway, who cares. I'm just glad there are two such space billionaires energetically working to achieve 7-figures of people in space using rapidly reusable rockets in case one of them (god forbid) gets hit by a bus.
« Last Edit: 03/30/2016 12:48 AM by Robotbeat »
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

Tags: