...What's Bezos' excuse for not taking Blue Origin public sooner rather than later?
So you feel Bezos' billions means capital isn't a constraint for him, and that control is a necessity at this juncture.When would these assumptions change, to enable him to go public? Will it be once Blue is clearly profitable?
And at least Bezos is just focused on one vision - the space vision - whereas Musk is trying spearhead multiple transformative efforts. I sometimes feel Musk should just do the Keiretsu thing and set up a holding company as a central hub to underpin his agenda, and then he can use it to shift cash amongst his various transformative enterprises (SpaceX, Tesla, Boring Company, etc) as needed.
As discussed at length Jeff has enough money to fund Blue out of pocket for a long time to come.
It's not like he is burning the money in a bonfire either, is see it more as redirecting the growth of this wealth into another company.
Other than Blue and some usual stuff he also puts some small part of his money into projects that are interesting but cash starved like the 10000 year clock and occasionally into other investments are way out there.
Sticking some money into an idea that maybe, theoretically, in better world, could work and be a game changer like General Fusion. It's interesting to to hear some of the long Wendelstein 7X interviews, when they are talking about the commercial and oddball projects and why they are not that relevant. Boils down to that at the end of the day there only one important number in fusion, the product of temperature, density and confinement time. [See Lawson criterion.] Get that number high enough by any means and the fusion energy problem should be solved.
For Lockheed Martin and their compact system that number was so low they were not able to fill vacancies when they they presented it at a conference.
Elon on the other hand has multiple ventures filled with all kinds of investors. Stock options are the carrot of choice to sweeten wages and long working hours. We can see some tension with the investors and through their complaints about what looks to be increasingly complicated constructions to keep him in control.
One of the bigger complaints was Ponzi scheme. Make customers prepay at contract signage, and not just a little bit. Always sell the future and don't ever forget to regularly add something even more far out. Have the accusations been substantiated? No. Has SpaceX collapsed yet? No. Does it even matter? Not really. Still we see more wavering across the companies. Solar City, the fix that got put in and the waves that were caused by said fix being a prominent example.
So there are much more differences between the two than Moon vs. Mars.What is hard to tell from the outside but seems quite funny is this: The Jeff at Amazon has the reputation to be thrifty, esp. in some of the stories from the early days. Building office furniture out of shipping crates and so on and so forth.
The Jeff at Blue seems to be much more generous. Much less complaints about work conditions too, apparently no revolving door for engineers either.
Painting with a very broad brush Elons companies seem to be closer to the Amazon system. Spend less, work smarter, squeeze all work out of everyone. I wonder how a company founded by him in a decade will look.
ITS seems like a big leap of faith - the kind of huge leap Bezos hasn't yet made, and likely wouldn't make by departing from "Gradatim Ferociter".
Quote from: sanman on 04/21/2017 01:40 PM ITS seems like a big leap of faith - the kind of huge leap Bezos hasn't yet made, and likely wouldn't make by departing from "Gradatim Ferociter".Is ITS really more of a leap from FH than NG is from NS? People seem to underestimate the size of NG.
Quote from: Lars-J on 04/21/2017 05:26 PMQuote from: sanman on 04/21/2017 01:40 PM ITS seems like a big leap of faith - the kind of huge leap Bezos hasn't yet made, and likely wouldn't make by departing from "Gradatim Ferociter".Is ITS really more of a leap from FH than NG is from NS? People seem to underestimate the size of NG.ITS is:1. Bigger than any rocket that ever existed. Seriously, ITS is in the bloody Sea Dragon range. You'd have to to attach three Saturn V together to get more payload to LEO.2. Made primarily of composite materials, which was never done before.3. Reuses the second stage, which is also a brand new thing.New Glenn, on the other hand, is just a scale-up of Falcon 9 with some incremental improvements.So, NG is certainly more realistic, at this point, than ITS.
So the step is relatively smaller for SpaceX, unquestionably.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 04/22/2017 12:32 AMSo the step is relatively smaller for SpaceX, unquestionably.SpaceX doesn't exist in a vacuum. For the industry, and thus for SpaceX, ITS is a far bigger step than Falcon.
Quote from: Steve G on 04/13/2017 01:18 PMITS 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.Musk has said that ITS will be the hab for the first missions. However, I agree with your general point that we're not seeing surface infrastructure, and that has a long lead time.Cheers, Martin
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.