BO is much more like old space than new space. Here's my reasoning, When NASA first decided to get quotes for commercial flights to the ISS it worked out what it would cost to develop is own solution using its usual cost plus contracting methods. It came up with a $4 bill + price tag. Musk got F9 up and running for about 1/10 th of that. Meanwhile BO has been on the go for 17 years or so. It's first rocket to orbit will probably not fly to 2020/21 and a cost of approx 6-7 billion(guesstimate of $1 bill a year in recent years and much less earlier) Old space development costs there. Orion type timescales with NASA time cost structures.
Quote from: corneliussulla on 07/22/2017 05:07 pmBO is much more like old space than new space. Here's my reasoning, When NASA first decided to get quotes for commercial flights to the ISS it worked out what it would cost to develop is own solution using its usual cost plus contracting methods. It came up with a $4 bill + price tag. Musk got F9 up and running for about 1/10 th of that. Meanwhile BO has been on the go for 17 years or so. It's first rocket to orbit will probably not fly to 2020/21 and a cost of approx 6-7 billion(guesstimate of $1 bill a year in recent years and much less earlier) Old space development costs there. Orion type timescales with NASA time cost structures.BO is not Old Space.Old Space is "government space" or nominally private enterprises which nevertheless are primarily targeting government contracts. They "can't fail", and thus have no serious incentives to innovate.
Quote from: corneliussulla on 07/22/2017 05:07 pmBO is much more like old space than new space. Here's my reasoning, When NASA first decided to get quotes for commercial flights to the ISS it worked out what it would cost to develop is own solution using its usual cost plus contracting methods. It came up with a $4 bill + price tag. Musk got F9 up and running for about 1/10 th of that. Meanwhile BO has been on the go for 17 years or so. It's first rocket to orbit will probably not fly to 2020/21 and a cost of approx 6-7 billion(guesstimate of $1 bill a year in recent years and much less earlier) Old space development costs there. Orion type timescales with NASA time cost structures.bad reasoning. They aren't spending $1 bill a year. That is just what is available, not what spent. BO doesn't have the number of people to support such spending ratesYou aren't going to be able to support your (in my view, iincorrect) claims that Spacex is better than BO
SpaceX has had a bunch of successes in the first half of this year, and Blue Origin has had a long lull in visible successes.However, that is a temporary state and we shouldn't expect it to last long. Blue Origin will have more successes in the future, and talk of Blue Origin not being able to compete with SpaceX despite having up to a billion per year in "free" funding will disappear.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 07/25/2017 12:39 pmSpaceX has had a bunch of successes in the first half of this year, and Blue Origin has had a long lull in visible successes.However, that is a temporary state and we shouldn't expect it to last long. Blue Origin will have more successes in the future, and talk of Blue Origin not being able to compete with SpaceX despite having up to a billion per year in "free" funding will disappear.SpaceX started trying to reach orbit in 2006 and finally succeeded in 2009. Orbital Sciences made it in 1990. Ariane reached orbit in 1979 (Ariane 1). ULA's predecessors first reached orbit in 1958. Blue Origin has yet to perform a single orbital launch. No matter how many billions Bezos spends, his company still has a long hard climb to get there. BE-4 full scale test was supposed to be in 2015, then 2016, etc.. - Ed Kyle
Quote from: Jim on 07/23/2017 12:56 pmQuote from: corneliussulla on 07/22/2017 05:07 pmBO is much more like old space than new space. Here's my reasoning, When NASA first decided to get quotes for commercial flights to the ISS it worked out what it would cost to develop is own solution using its usual cost plus contracting methods. It came up with a $4 bill + price tag. Musk got F9 up and running for about 1/10 th of that. Meanwhile BO has been on the go for 17 years or so. It's first rocket to orbit will probably not fly to 2020/21 and a cost of approx 6-7 billion(guesstimate of $1 bill a year in recent years and much less earlier) Old space development costs there. Orion type timescales with NASA time cost structures.bad reasoning. They aren't spending $1 bill a year. That is just what is available, not what spent. BO doesn't have the number of people to support such spending ratesYou aren't going to be able to support your (in my view, iincorrect) claims that Spacex is better than BOThis is a direct quote from Bezos. “My business model right now for Blue Origin is, I sell about $1 billion a year of Amazon stock, and I use it to invest in Blue Origin,” he told reporters here at the 33rd Space Symposium. “So the business model for Blue Origin is very robust.”He has also said NG will cost about $2.5 bill to develop. Then u have the cost of new Shepard and BE3 and BE4, not hard to see my guesstimate probably not to far wrong.Wether SX will prove to better in the long run who knows, but since both companies are of a similar age it is easy to see who has been most effective to date.
Quote from: corneliussulla on 07/25/2017 06:35 amThis is a direct quote from Bezos. “My business model right now for Blue Origin is, I sell about $1 billion a year of Amazon stock, and I use it to invest in Blue Origin,” he told reporters here at the 33rd Space Symposium. “So the business model for Blue Origin is very robust.”...I'm sorry - this is not a business model."My business model right now for Blue Origin is, I sell about $1 billion a year of Amazon stock, and I use it to invest in Blue Origin" - that's a financing model....
This is a direct quote from Bezos. “My business model right now for Blue Origin is, I sell about $1 billion a year of Amazon stock, and I use it to invest in Blue Origin,” he told reporters here at the 33rd Space Symposium. “So the business model for Blue Origin is very robust.”...
Quote from: meekGee on 07/27/2017 06:28 amQuote from: corneliussulla on 07/25/2017 06:35 amThis is a direct quote from Bezos. “My business model right now for Blue Origin is, I sell about $1 billion a year of Amazon stock, and I use it to invest in Blue Origin,” he told reporters here at the 33rd Space Symposium. “So the business model for Blue Origin is very robust.”...I'm sorry - this is not a business model."My business model right now for Blue Origin is, I sell about $1 billion a year of Amazon stock, and I use it to invest in Blue Origin" - that's a financing model....Bezos knows perfectly well that its not a business model. His comments were slightly tongue in cheek, and his point was that he doesn't need a viable business model for Blue right now, since he is willing and able to fund it for quite some time without making any money.
But any vehicle with engine-out redundancy has to protect against a single engine failure taking out multiple other engines or the whole vehicle: it does not matter if there are 7 engines or 42, this protection is required.
Single catastrophic engine failure is a lot higher with 42 engines than 7 which brings increased risk of bringing down the LV.
So BO will have a leg up over SpaceX in this aspect of HLV design if BO dev. an engine powerful enough that they only need 7 of them for NA booster.
SpaceX is much more funding limited than BO which is why they are going about the N-1 approach with the ITS. BO has more than ample funding to dev. a SC engine with greater thrust than the F-1 which SpaceX has not.
Quote from: envy887 on 07/31/2017 08:39 pmBut any vehicle with engine-out redundancy has to protect against a single engine failure taking out multiple other engines or the whole vehicle: it does not matter if there are 7 engines or 42, this protection is required.Single catastrophic engine failure is a lot higher with 42 engines than 7 which brings increased risk of bringing down the LV. ...
Quote from: Lar on 07/23/2017 04:50 pmBlue is better than SpaceX because it has more money behind it...I don't know that to be true. SpaceX's book of business sustains quite a lot of development activities.
Blue is better than SpaceX because it has more money behind it...
And its investors are even more deep-pocketed than Bezos.
What "book of business"?
Who are more deep-pocketed than Jeff Bezos?
"Book of business" is a term of art describing the grouping of relationships served by a company. Often used in relationship management and legal firms, as to degrees of certain kinds/classes of clients.
Quote from: hkultala on 08/01/2017 08:35 pmWho are more deep-pocketed than Jeff Bezos?Alphabet, which has more cash on hand than Bezos has in total assets.