Not needing to develop lunar hardware means someone with the skills and abilities finding the funding to do so in advance of your launch, and them being willing to risk launching with you.It means them developing hardware that fits your timeline and capabilities, and does not delay what you may intend by four or ten years.It means they can easily and affordably grow their initial test hardware out to 'lots' as scaled.This is a lot of requirements to put on external companies. At least initially, when nobody with money (other than your CEO) believes you will be capable of providing the service, or they do not see a profit in it.The situation is fairly analogous IMO.None of the 'serious' institutional providers is geared up to provide hardware like this, especially with no formal budget, and none of the usual round of subcontractors either. The same forces that lead to not being able to find more than a boilerplate thing to launch on FH apply perhaps even stronger to a hypothetical Blue lunar effort. There are at least in principle various satellites awaiting launch. There is very much less lunar hardware.
Quote from: speedevil on 05/26/2018 08:10 pmQuote from: Brovane on 05/26/2018 08:05 pmQuote from: speedevil on 05/26/2018 07:33 pmQuote from: Eric Hedman on 05/26/2018 07:20 pmArticle in the Wall Street Journal by Andy Pasztor. It is an interesting article. I find it curious that Jeff Bezos says that he may develop rovers and habitats for the Moon.Why?If you've got a reusable launch vehicle that can launch cargo to the moon for $1000/kg or so landed to the surface (cost) - where else are you going to get rovers that are millions, not billions of dollars?'If you build it they will come' runs the risk of being another Tesla in space moment.I don't understand how your analogy to Tesla has any relevance to this discussion.To be more specific, the Tesla as a payload for FH, when a real payload did not materialise.Just because you have delivered a capability does not mean the market will exploit it.It could be that he's done more research and come to the conclusion that in-house may be a faster, more certain, cheaper option.A quick look at the SpaceX manifest shows customers buying three scheduled Heavy flights (STP-2, Arabsat 6A, and an option for 3-EMEA), all contracted well before the demo launch. These were presumably contingent on a successful demo -- hence the dummy payload on that flight -- but the implication that SpaceX was unable to find commercial customers for Heavy is just wrong. They could; it's just that all of them wanted to see a successful demo before risking their payload.Mind you, it's certainly true that all sorts of technically neat products have been developed, in aerospace and elsewhere, by people who focused on technical "sweetness" and were then unable to find buyers. And commercial prospects for lunar anything are pretty risky. But Falcon Heavy isn't a good example. And this risk, though real, is mitigated for Blue in any event because given their $1 billion a year of Bezos money, they aren't constrained much by needing to find customers.
Quote from: Brovane on 05/26/2018 08:05 pmQuote from: speedevil on 05/26/2018 07:33 pmQuote from: Eric Hedman on 05/26/2018 07:20 pmArticle in the Wall Street Journal by Andy Pasztor. It is an interesting article. I find it curious that Jeff Bezos says that he may develop rovers and habitats for the Moon.Why?If you've got a reusable launch vehicle that can launch cargo to the moon for $1000/kg or so landed to the surface (cost) - where else are you going to get rovers that are millions, not billions of dollars?'If you build it they will come' runs the risk of being another Tesla in space moment.I don't understand how your analogy to Tesla has any relevance to this discussion.To be more specific, the Tesla as a payload for FH, when a real payload did not materialise.Just because you have delivered a capability does not mean the market will exploit it.It could be that he's done more research and come to the conclusion that in-house may be a faster, more certain, cheaper option.
Quote from: speedevil on 05/26/2018 07:33 pmQuote from: Eric Hedman on 05/26/2018 07:20 pmArticle in the Wall Street Journal by Andy Pasztor. It is an interesting article. I find it curious that Jeff Bezos says that he may develop rovers and habitats for the Moon.Why?If you've got a reusable launch vehicle that can launch cargo to the moon for $1000/kg or so landed to the surface (cost) - where else are you going to get rovers that are millions, not billions of dollars?'If you build it they will come' runs the risk of being another Tesla in space moment.I don't understand how your analogy to Tesla has any relevance to this discussion.
Quote from: Eric Hedman on 05/26/2018 07:20 pmArticle in the Wall Street Journal by Andy Pasztor. It is an interesting article. I find it curious that Jeff Bezos says that he may develop rovers and habitats for the Moon.Why?If you've got a reusable launch vehicle that can launch cargo to the moon for $1000/kg or so landed to the surface (cost) - where else are you going to get rovers that are millions, not billions of dollars?'If you build it they will come' runs the risk of being another Tesla in space moment.
Article in the Wall Street Journal by Andy Pasztor. It is an interesting article. I find it curious that Jeff Bezos says that he may develop rovers and habitats for the Moon.
Quote from: speedevil on 05/27/2018 09:42 amNot needing to develop lunar hardware means someone with the skills and abilities finding the funding to do so in advance of your launch, and them being willing to risk launching with you.It means them developing hardware that fits your timeline and capabilities, and does not delay what you may intend by four or ten years.It means they can easily and affordably grow their initial test hardware out to 'lots' as scaled.This is a lot of requirements to put on external companies. At least initially, when nobody with money (other than your CEO) believes you will be capable of providing the service, or they do not see a profit in it.The situation is fairly analogous IMO.None of the 'serious' institutional providers is geared up to provide hardware like this, especially with no formal budget, and none of the usual round of subcontractors either. The same forces that lead to not being able to find more than a boilerplate thing to launch on FH apply perhaps even stronger to a hypothetical Blue lunar effort. There are at least in principle various satellites awaiting launch. There is very much less lunar hardware.With Blue Origin we are kind of going into unchartered territory. We have a CEO who just isn't a billionaire he is literally the world's richest person at $130B whose wealth is based on a extremely strong company, Amazon who just keeps growing. Essentially BO is Bezos "hobby company". “One of two things will happen,” he said. “Either other people will take over the vision, or I’ll run out of money.”Literally with that type of money he can create his own payloads as necessary. Bezos could self fund his own lunar exploration program including manned landings. NASA and other organizations might not get on board until literally a BO payload is sitting on the lunar surface and prospecting water. Or a BO astronaut is standing on the lunar surface and NASA is still struggling with getting out of LEO. Bezos has the financial means to take it this far.
So, let's get public sources: What do we know about any people's names on the Blue Origin team? What do we know about who their former employers were? for which years? Who, from all of Kistler's people are not working, at Blue Origin today? How many ever joined Blue from Kistler? At what levels of responsibility? When? What evidence do we have that any persons who formerly were employed by Kistler are playing the major directional role at Blue?
Quote from: Llian Rhydderch on 05/26/2018 01:29 amSo, let's get public sources: What do we know about any people's names on the Blue Origin team? What do we know about who their former employers were? for which years? Who, from all of Kistler's people are not working, at Blue Origin today? How many ever joined Blue from Kistler? At what levels of responsibility? When? What evidence do we have that any persons who formerly were employed by Kistler are playing the major directional role at Blue?It's common knowledge in the space community, which I figured people on this forum were in.Anyway, go trawl through LinkedIn, if that's your thing.
Quote from: QuantumG on 05/28/2018 04:59 amQuote from: Llian Rhydderch on 05/26/2018 01:29 amSo, let's get public sources: What do we know about any people's names on the Blue Origin team? What do we know about who their former employers were? for which years? Who, from all of Kistler's people are not working, at Blue Origin today? How many ever joined Blue from Kistler? At what levels of responsibility? When? What evidence do we have that any persons who formerly were employed by Kistler are playing the major directional role at Blue?It's common knowledge in the space community, which I figured people on this forum were in.Anyway, go trawl through LinkedIn, if that's your thing.Lotsa people here are in the space community. But your revelation that Blue's orbital team is basically "reheated Kistler" is in fact a surprise to several of those people. So, I wouldn't exactly call it "common knowledge".Unless your revelation is really just an assumption.
Quote from: Llian Rhydderch on 05/26/2018 01:29 amSo, let's get public sources: What do we know about any people's names on the Blue Origin team? What do we know about who their former employers were? for which years? Who, from all of Kistler's people are not working, at Blue Origin today? How many ever joined Blue from Kistler? At what levels of responsibility? When? What evidence do we have that any persons who formerly were employed by Kistler are playing the major directional role at Blue?For starters Rob Meyerson.
Why does it even matter? People have employment histories. Doesn’t mean they’re doing exactly the same thing as in the past.
Trent made a claim that the non-suborbital team at Blue Origin is just reheated Kistler Aerospace.He's been asked by many here to put up data to back that extensive claim. He is apparently unwilling to do so, or cannot, and goes for the "it's common knowledge" dodge.As said above, Trent, the BMOF stuff is wearing awfully thin. Moreover, it's hurting your reputation as it counterbalances the often useful analysis you can bring when you put your mind to it. I think we can do better; and do better it treating the readers of this forum as your colleagues in the endeavor of learning about spaceflight technology development, not little people who ought to know what you know.
Quote from: Llian Rhydderch on 05/28/2018 08:34 pmTrent made a claim that the non-suborbital team at Blue Origin is just reheated Kistler Aerospace.He's been asked by many here to put up data to back that extensive claim. He is apparently unwilling to do so, or cannot, and goes for the "it's common knowledge" dodge.As said above, Trent, the BMOF stuff is wearing awfully thin. Moreover, it's hurting your reputation as it counterbalances the often useful analysis you can bring when you put your mind to it. I think we can do better; and do better it treating the readers of this forum as your colleagues in the endeavor of learning about spaceflight technology development, not little people who ought to know what you know.Lilian - specific employment information is generally sensitive. What you're asking for in essence is a good list of BO's leading engineering staff.I don't think QG can or will do that, and if he did, it'll be modded off in a blink.Whether these people moved on to BO after K1 was canceled - at least the timing is right. And it's a small industry. And they are less likely to have gone to SpaceX or ULA, timing wise.
Quote from: meekGee on 05/28/2018 11:57 pmQuote from: Llian Rhydderch on 05/28/2018 08:34 pmTrent made a claim that the non-suborbital team at Blue Origin is just reheated Kistler Aerospace.He's been asked by many here to put up data to back that extensive claim. He is apparently unwilling to do so, or cannot, and goes for the "it's common knowledge" dodge.As said above, Trent, the BMOF stuff is wearing awfully thin. Moreover, it's hurting your reputation as it counterbalances the often useful analysis you can bring when you put your mind to it. I think we can do better; and do better it treating the readers of this forum as your colleagues in the endeavor of learning about spaceflight technology development, not little people who ought to know what you know.Lilian - specific employment information is generally sensitive. What you're asking for in essence is a good list of BO's leading engineering staff.I don't think QG can or will do that, and if he did, it'll be modded off in a blink.Whether these people moved on to BO after K1 was canceled - at least the timing is right. And it's a small industry. And they are less likely to have gone to SpaceX or ULA, timing wise.What? Employment information is not generally sensitive. It’s all over LinkedIn and Facebook.QG made very specific claims with nothing to back them up. It’s perfectly reasonable to call him out on it. At the very least his post should have used different language to emphasize that he is stating a rumor instead of an objective fact.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 05/25/2018 04:52 amThey can be a gang or a club within Blue Origin, but if they don't do what the boss wants they will be unemployed...Bezos isn't like Musk... he doesn't understand rocketry, or even pretend to.
They can be a gang or a club within Blue Origin, but if they don't do what the boss wants they will be unemployed...
"but our BE-3U engine, which is the upper-stage variant of our liquid hydrogen engine, made such fast progress that we decided to flip that second stage to hydrogen. Then the two-stage vehicle gets vastly improved performance." - Jeff Bezos on using two BE-3U's instead of one BE-4U.