How many times does Falcon 9 have to fly? Right now it has tens of flights behind its back, and only a single in-flight failure.
How many times will Blue Origin have to fly the New Shepard capsule, before sending a test astronaut?
Quote from: Robotbeat on 12/30/2017 01:57 pmPet peeve is when people say NET (No Earlier Than) dates, or even projections, are "deadlines."No, they're not. Please stop doing that. It's called NET for a reason.In my opinion Bezos, as well as Branson and Musk should stop giving dates.No NETs. No Deadlines. No dates at all.
Pet peeve is when people say NET (No Earlier Than) dates, or even projections, are "deadlines."No, they're not. Please stop doing that. It's called NET for a reason.
Manned suborbital spaceflight is always one-two years in the future. It has been always "next year" since 2010. And I think there's still a big chance to be one year away in the future in the end of 2018.
I agree. What a fun year 2018 will be! I also wish Blue Origin all the best, but please... all hurry I want to fly to space some day
Attempting to return to topic.BO is a very proud organization. They don't want half measures. Or "booms". They find "agile" as suspect or "half assed".ULA admires BO for this as of like kind.(SX, in contrast, doesn't, more impatient, has a far more narrow objective.)
It’s funny. People are in two camps. Some think BO is being duly careful taking most of two decades to develop a system to take tourists and experiments briefly out of the atmosphere. The other group believes that BO will fly a very large, fully reusable, LOX-LCH4, composite, TSTO, orbital launcher by 2020. While supplying the next generation, high performance, high reliability, disposable cryogenic rocket engine to ULA. Mind you I have a friend who works at Blue. I wish her and them the best, even while I remain skeptical.
Quote from: Comga on 12/30/2017 07:52 pmIt’s funny. People are in two camps. Some think BO is being duly careful taking most of two decades to develop a system to take tourists and experiments briefly out of the atmosphere. The other group believes that BO will fly a very large, fully reusable, LOX-LCH4, composite, TSTO, orbital launcher by 2020. While supplying the next generation, high performance, high reliability, disposable cryogenic rocket engine to ULA. Mind you I have a friend who works at Blue. I wish her and them the best, even while I remain skeptical.I have seen zero evidence that New Glenn will be primarily composite, or that it will be TSTO fully reusable.
According to Mr. Henderson, the facility will contain the largest carbon AFP (Automated Fiber Placement – advanced method of manufacturing composite materials) machine and the largest autoclave in the world as well as a stir welding machine
Belay thatQuoteAccording to Mr. Henderson, the facility will contain the largest carbon AFP (Automated Fiber Placement – advanced method of manufacturing composite materials) machine and the largest autoclave in the world as well as a stir welding machine CompositeNot that it mattersNG represents a host of breakthrough attributesThere is a good Air Force study, done after the X-33 fiasco, that details the obvious problem with relying on multiple breakthroughs.There will be plenty of issue to work through.Money will buy them time, but time will be spent.2020 is right around the corner.
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 12/30/2017 06:20 pmAttempting to return to topic.BO is a very proud organization. They don't want half measures. Or "booms". They find "agile" as suspect or "half assed".ULA admires BO for this as of like kind.(SX, in contrast, doesn't, more impatient, has a far more narrow objective.)It is hard to compare SX and BO because they both have very different financial situations.
SX has to produce a revenue stream to fund development of new technology. SpaceX has to stay agile and has a large customer base waiting on launches.
BO is self funded by Bezos and is not dependent on any revenue stream from customer.
This key difference drives a lot of decision making at both companies.
Quote from: Brovane on 12/30/2017 09:55 pmQuote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 12/30/2017 06:20 pmAttempting to return to topic.BO is a very proud organization. They don't want half measures. Or "booms". They find "agile" as suspect or "half assed".ULA admires BO for this as of like kind.(SX, in contrast, doesn't, more impatient, has a far more narrow objective.)It is hard to compare SX and BO because they both have very different financial situations.Likewise ULA. Kind of "in between".QuoteSX has to produce a revenue stream to fund development of new technology. SpaceX has to stay agile and has a large customer base waiting on launches.They have to also generate ROI on those developments as a "going concern", so it matters what they choose to attempt.QuoteBO is self funded by Bezos and is not dependent on any revenue stream from customer.Nor when/how they need to do so.QuoteThis key difference drives a lot of decision making at both companies. That's another thread here.In short, I've always found that companies that do actual business progress better than those who don't need to.
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 12/31/2017 02:07 amIn short, I've always found that companies that do actual business progress better than those who don't need to.Kind of ignoring the fact that Amazon is a very successful business and that Blue Origin should be seen as more a part of that overall umbrella even if it’s nominally separate.
In short, I've always found that companies that do actual business progress better than those who don't need to.
Quote from: Star One on 12/31/2017 10:13 amQuote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 12/31/2017 02:07 amIn short, I've always found that companies that do actual business progress better than those who don't need to.Kind of ignoring the fact that Amazon is a very successful business and that Blue Origin should be seen as more a part of that overall umbrella even if it’s nominally separate.No. Amazon did actual business from the start, was never like BO. (Firephone, OTOH, "flamed out" because Bezos didn't want to "do the business" from the start.)He also has many business failures. Not the thread/site to discuss then. He doesn't $hit gold, trust me on this. Nor does Musk.