In other words - he has no business plan for LEO. But... weren't they talking about space/LEO manufacturing?
I always figured LEO stations were Bezos' big thing, and lunar stuff was secondary.Doesn't make a lick of sense to their priorities if it's not.If lunar ISRU and all that is a bigger deal, then that makes sense for a long term vision. But if so why the hell did they put any time at all into New Shepard? Why deprioritize the 3 stage variant of New Glenn?At its core New Glenn is a LEO rocket - big fairing and big lift capacity for big stuff to LEO. If he's not interested in LEO than why on Earth is New Glenn built the way it is? Why has space tourism been a theme in what's publicly known from them for years? They used to advertise on their site that future orbital tourism was a thing you could sign up for to learn more about.Honestly I don't think Jeff knows what Jeff wants
Quote from: JayWee on 02/17/2023 08:10 pmIn other words - he has no business plan for LEO. But... weren't they talking about space/LEO manufacturing?Not really, there is no business case. If you listen to the entire interview (Eric Berger is the space journalist from arstecnica), they go one to talk about how no one has a closed business case for a leo station yet. Its always been that "magic thing you manufacture in space" since the 70s. After 50 years, no one has any idea what that is though.
I always figured LEO stations were Bezos' big thing, and lunar stuff was secondary.Doesn't make a lick of sense to their priorities if it's not.If lunar ISRU and all that is a bigger deal, then that makes sense for a long term vision. But if so why the hell did they put any time at all into New Shepard? Why deprioritize the 3 stage variant of New Glenn?
At its core New Glenn is a LEO rocket - big fairing and big lift capacity for big stuff to LEO. If he's not interested in LEO than why on Earth is New Glenn built the way it is? Why has space tourism been a theme in what's publicly known from them for years? They used to advertise on their site that future orbital tourism was a thing you could sign up for to learn more about.Honestly I don't think Jeff knows what Jeff wants
Quote from: GWH on 02/17/2023 08:38 pm Honestly I don't think Jeff knows what Jeff wantsOr Berger is not objective...
Honestly I don't think Jeff knows what Jeff wants
Quote from: GWH on 02/17/2023 08:38 pmI always figured LEO stations were Bezos' big thing, and lunar stuff was secondary.Doesn't make a lick of sense to their priorities if it's not.If lunar ISRU and all that is a bigger deal, then that makes sense for a long term vision. But if so why the hell did they put any time at all into New Shepard? Why deprioritize the 3 stage variant of New Glenn?At its core New Glenn is a LEO rocket - big fairing and big lift capacity for big stuff to LEO. If he's not interested in LEO than why on Earth is New Glenn built the way it is? Why has space tourism been a theme in what's publicly known from them for years? They used to advertise on their site that future orbital tourism was a thing you could sign up for to learn more about.Honestly I don't think Jeff knows what Jeff wantsOr Berger is not objective...
Quote from: Tywin on 02/17/2023 08:41 pmQuote from: GWH on 02/17/2023 08:38 pmI always figured LEO stations were Bezos' big thing, and lunar stuff was secondary.Doesn't make a lick of sense to their priorities if it's not.If lunar ISRU and all that is a bigger deal, then that makes sense for a long term vision. But if so why the hell did they put any time at all into New Shepard? Why deprioritize the 3 stage variant of New Glenn?At its core New Glenn is a LEO rocket - big fairing and big lift capacity for big stuff to LEO. If he's not interested in LEO than why on Earth is New Glenn built the way it is? Why has space tourism been a theme in what's publicly known from them for years? They used to advertise on their site that future orbital tourism was a thing you could sign up for to learn more about.Honestly I don't think Jeff knows what Jeff wantsOr Berger is not objective...I find this comment disturbing. Putting aside the matter that objectivity doesn't matter here - there is no opinion. He says people with direct knowledge have told him so.Your post says that maybe Berger is biased therefore the entire thing should be ignored. This is nothing more than trolling. Discuss the idea, attacking the messenger is a fox news type defense that has no place here.
Space tourism is a real, demonstrated business use case for LEO space stations. There are potentially others (a natural staging point for deep space missions, the nearest low gravity point for assembling very large satellites with people or low-latency telerobotics, etc) but this one has been proven.If it’s enough… well that depends on how cheap you can get it. If you can get the costs down to, say, $500 million per year or lower, then it’s possible IMHO.NASA shouldn’t invest in it for its own purposes unless it can do so for very cheap. Ideally, NASA would be the minority of revenue and that ought to be the mid-term goal of the program.
Quote from: Tywin on 02/17/2023 08:41 pmOr Berger is not objective...Pray tell, what exactly do you mean by that?
Or Berger is not objective...
Quote from: Robotbeat on 02/17/2023 09:40 pmSpace tourism is a real, demonstrated business use case for LEO space stations. There are potentially others (a natural staging point for deep space missions, the nearest low gravity point for assembling very large satellites with people or low-latency telerobotics, etc) but this one has been proven.If it’s enough… well that depends on how cheap you can get it. If you can get the costs down to, say, $500 million per year or lower, then it’s possible IMHO.NASA shouldn’t invest in it for its own purposes unless it can do so for very cheap. Ideally, NASA would be the minority of revenue and that ought to be the mid-term goal of the program.Why does tourism require or even desire a LEO station?A Starship like vehicle can give you all you want, without the need for continuous presence in space with all the cost that it entails. It can go to any orbit or around the moon, and is plenty spacious enough.All the servicing that goes around human presence can be done at port instead of in orbit, which is so much cheaper. You take everything you need with you for the trip, and after you land you refresh the galley, empty the tanks, vacuum the rugs, and go again.Starships are more like cruise ships, since Space is more like the oceans. It's the trip that's the destination.--It's a positive move by BO. And in the very very long run, as stated upthread, the road to crazy large in-space habitats goes through the moon or asteroids anyway.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 02/17/2023 09:52 pmQuote from: Tywin on 02/17/2023 08:41 pmOr Berger is not objective...Pray tell, what exactly do you mean by that?That he lets his biases influence his reporting[1]. And in particular he has a pro SpaceX bias. I think any fairly dispassionate[2] observer would agree with that assessment. But so what? It doesn't matter, facts are facts. (so it doesn't matter if he's biased in this instance)1 - Guess what? We ALL have biases. There is no perfectly[2] dispassionate voice out there. 2 - it's possible to be fairly dispassionate.[3]3 - yes, I reused a footnote.
Quote from: meekGee on 02/17/2023 10:02 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 02/17/2023 09:40 pmSpace tourism is a real, demonstrated business use case for LEO space stations. There are potentially others (a natural staging point for deep space missions, the nearest low gravity point for assembling very large satellites with people or low-latency telerobotics, etc) but this one has been proven.If it’s enough… well that depends on how cheap you can get it. If you can get the costs down to, say, $500 million per year or lower, then it’s possible IMHO.NASA shouldn’t invest in it for its own purposes unless it can do so for very cheap. Ideally, NASA would be the minority of revenue and that ought to be the mid-term goal of the program.Why does tourism require or even desire a LEO station?A Starship like vehicle can give you all you want, without the need for continuous presence in space with all the cost that it entails. It can go to any orbit or around the moon, and is plenty spacious enough.All the servicing that goes around human presence can be done at port instead of in orbit, which is so much cheaper. You take everything you need with you for the trip, and after you land you refresh the galley, empty the tanks, vacuum the rugs, and go again.Starships are more like cruise ships, since Space is more like the oceans. It's the trip that's the destination.--It's a positive move by BO. And in the very very long run, as stated upthread, the road to crazy large in-space habitats goes through the moon or asteroids anyway.Let’s say you want a station-like experience on Starship. Easy, because its volume is so huge. BUT only huge if you have few people, like the 12 people SpaceX currently offers per Starship flight on their website. Let’s say that costs $120 million. That’s $10m per person. But Starship is big enough to fit 480 people for a few hours. If they had a large station in LEO, you could launch 480 people at a time for the same $120 million (give or take). Then, the per-person launch costs are just $250,000 for the same price per launch. Up to a Factor of 40 reduction in launch costs if you don’t have to relaunch your space station for every trip! (Still need servicing, but I think you understand the value proposition here… you can drastically expand the number of people who could afford to go).Starship is a Jumbo Jet. Sure, you can fit out a Jumbo Jet like a luxury yacht, but it’s ultimately built for mass transit (with sleeper cars if you want a trip all the way to Mars).EDIT: same argument would apply to a large Blue Origin vehicle.
The most straightforward and obvious model of Jeff’s ideas of space utilization is that Jeff is at heart an O’Neillian. And O’Neil Cylinders are not stationed in LEO, they’re too big. They’re also too big to build with material launched from Earth, which is why the focus on lunar ISRU (although I have my doubts this will be cheaper, that is the logic).Berger is almost certainly correct. I haven’t seen any evidence that Jeff is anything but an O’Neillian, and LEO is not a special place in the O’Neillian approach, other than a transit hub or something.
Space tourism is a real, demonstrated business use case for LEO space stations...
...There are potentially others (a natural staging point for deep space missions, the nearest low gravity point for assembling very large satellites with people or low-latency telerobotics, etc) but this one has been proven.If it’s enough… well that depends on how cheap you can get it. If you can get the costs down to, say, $500 million per year or lower, then it’s possible IMHO.NASA shouldn’t invest in it for its own purposes unless it can do so for very cheap. Ideally, NASA would be the minority of revenue and that ought to be the mid-term goal of the program.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 02/17/2023 10:11 pmQuote from: meekGee on 02/17/2023 10:02 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 02/17/2023 09:40 pmSpace tourism is a real, demonstrated business use case for LEO space stations. There are potentially others (a natural staging point for deep space missions, the nearest low gravity point for assembling very large satellites with people or low-latency telerobotics, etc) but this one has been proven.If it’s enough… well that depends on how cheap you can get it. If you can get the costs down to, say, $500 million per year or lower, then it’s possible IMHO.NASA shouldn’t invest in it for its own purposes unless it can do so for very cheap. Ideally, NASA would be the minority of revenue and that ought to be the mid-term goal of the program.Why does tourism require or even desire a LEO station?A Starship like vehicle can give you all you want, without the need for continuous presence in space with all the cost that it entails. It can go to any orbit or around the moon, and is plenty spacious enough.All the servicing that goes around human presence can be done at port instead of in orbit, which is so much cheaper. You take everything you need with you for the trip, and after you land you refresh the galley, empty the tanks, vacuum the rugs, and go again.Starships are more like cruise ships, since Space is more like the oceans. It's the trip that's the destination.--It's a positive move by BO. And in the very very long run, as stated upthread, the road to crazy large in-space habitats goes through the moon or asteroids anyway.Let’s say you want a station-like experience on Starship. Easy, because its volume is so huge. BUT only huge if you have few people, like the 12 people SpaceX currently offers per Starship flight on their website. Let’s say that costs $120 million. That’s $10m per person. But Starship is big enough to fit 480 people for a few hours. If they had a large station in LEO, you could launch 480 people at a time for the same $120 million (give or take). Then, the per-person launch costs are just $250,000 for the same price per launch. Up to a Factor of 40 reduction in launch costs if you don’t have to relaunch your space station for every trip! (Still need servicing, but I think you understand the value proposition here… you can drastically expand the number of people who could afford to go).Starship is a Jumbo Jet. Sure, you can fit out a Jumbo Jet like a luxury yacht, but it’s ultimately built for mass transit (with sleeper cars if you want a trip all the way to Mars).EDIT: same argument would apply to a large Blue Origin vehicle.My argument is that the 480 person station station would cost you more than individual Starship cruises.Why? Because the upmass (which is the only thing you'd be saving on) is cheap, but now you'll have to maintain an in-space hotel, including all the life support for example. All the factors that go into making a manned Starship trip more expensive than a cargo launch would multiply because now it's a permanent habitat. For example, for a one week trip Starship would not need a closed life support system. It'll carry oxygen, water and food from earth for basically no cost.And Starships are self-contained and can go anywhere - LEO, HEO, lunar... Can't do that with a station.As per your cruise ship analogy - note that you could also pack the cruise ship like a jet plane and transport 50,000 people to a sea-borne hotel... But you don't. You give each one of them a cabin, and the model works, and again the ship can go to any destination, touch it, and sail right back.
Quote from: meekGee on 02/18/2023 12:24 amQuote from: Robotbeat on 02/17/2023 10:11 pmQuote from: meekGee on 02/17/2023 10:02 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 02/17/2023 09:40 pmSpace tourism is a real, demonstrated business use case for LEO space stations. There are potentially others (a natural staging point for deep space missions, the nearest low gravity point for assembling very large satellites with people or low-latency telerobotics, etc) but this one has been proven.If it’s enough… well that depends on how cheap you can get it. If you can get the costs down to, say, $500 million per year or lower, then it’s possible IMHO.NASA shouldn’t invest in it for its own purposes unless it can do so for very cheap. Ideally, NASA would be the minority of revenue and that ought to be the mid-term goal of the program.Why does tourism require or even desire a LEO station?A Starship like vehicle can give you all you want, without the need for continuous presence in space with all the cost that it entails. It can go to any orbit or around the moon, and is plenty spacious enough.All the servicing that goes around human presence can be done at port instead of in orbit, which is so much cheaper. You take everything you need with you for the trip, and after you land you refresh the galley, empty the tanks, vacuum the rugs, and go again.Starships are more like cruise ships, since Space is more like the oceans. It's the trip that's the destination.--It's a positive move by BO. And in the very very long run, as stated upthread, the road to crazy large in-space habitats goes through the moon or asteroids anyway.Let’s say you want a station-like experience on Starship. Easy, because its volume is so huge. BUT only huge if you have few people, like the 12 people SpaceX currently offers per Starship flight on their website. Let’s say that costs $120 million. That’s $10m per person. But Starship is big enough to fit 480 people for a few hours. If they had a large station in LEO, you could launch 480 people at a time for the same $120 million (give or take). Then, the per-person launch costs are just $250,000 for the same price per launch. Up to a Factor of 40 reduction in launch costs if you don’t have to relaunch your space station for every trip! (Still need servicing, but I think you understand the value proposition here… you can drastically expand the number of people who could afford to go).Starship is a Jumbo Jet. Sure, you can fit out a Jumbo Jet like a luxury yacht, but it’s ultimately built for mass transit (with sleeper cars if you want a trip all the way to Mars).EDIT: same argument would apply to a large Blue Origin vehicle.My argument is that the 480 person station station would cost you more than individual Starship cruises.Why? Because the upmass (which is the only thing you'd be saving on) is cheap, but now you'll have to maintain an in-space hotel, including all the life support for example. All the factors that go into making a manned Starship trip more expensive than a cargo launch would multiply because now it's a permanent habitat. For example, for a one week trip Starship would not need a closed life support system. It'll carry oxygen, water and food from earth for basically no cost.And Starships are self-contained and can go anywhere - LEO, HEO, lunar... Can't do that with a station.As per your cruise ship analogy - note that you could also pack the cruise ship like a jet plane and transport 50,000 people to a sea-borne hotel... But you don't. You give each one of them a cabin, and the model works, and again the ship can go to any destination, touch it, and sail right back.”upmass is cheap” is a good argument if you’re a billionaire and can afford tens of millions for a ticket, not if you’re only able to afford $250,000…
I think Gravitics, or even larger, is a model that could work. Not small, shuttle-bay-sized modular stations.If we don’t end up putting dozens or even hundreds of passengers on a Starship launch, the cost won’t be much different than Dragon, just roomier. Only the very rich will be able to afford it. That is not using Starship to its full potential.
I'm obviously speculating but I suspect Jeff's reasoning went something like this:1) Blue Origin should be the company that enables millions of people live and work in space.2) Millions of people can live and work in space only if we can build large structures in space.3) To build large structures in space, we need to get the building materials from the Moon.4) To get materials from the Moon, we need transportation systems that can land the necessary ISRU and manufacturing systems.5) To get those transportation systems, we're going to need a lander and a launcher to put the lander in space.6) To build a launcher, we need to start small, so let's build a New Shepard vehicle and use it as a cash cow.Point #5 was the critical error.
I will have to ask my old colleagues who are working on Blue Reef what they think of this.
I think LEO will be the logical place for transit points, where dedicated Earth-to-LEO transportation systems will transport people and cargo to LEO, offload it at the transit point, where it will then transfer to space-only transportation systems going beyond LEO. But that might not be of interest to Jeff Bezos either.
Jeff seems to be floundering around, trying to figure out how to get a piece of the pie without even knowing yet what flavor the pie is. If he ever properly figures it out he would be a major player in HSF but until then I have come to view him as a major distraction. I didn't used to feel that way but his actions and non-actions in the recent past have changed my opinion. It makes me worry about the future of the Vulcan launch vehicle. As much as I like SpaceX, I do NOT want them to be a monopoly. We need ULA and, if he ever gets his act together, Blue Origin.
Quote from: clongton on 02/18/2023 06:18 pmJeff seems to be floundering around, trying to figure out how to get a piece of the pie without even knowing yet what flavor the pie is. If he ever properly figures it out he would be a major player in HSF but until then I have come to view him as a major distraction. I didn't used to feel that way but his actions and non-actions in the recent past have changed my opinion. It makes me worry about the future of the Vulcan launch vehicle. As much as I like SpaceX, I do NOT want them to be a monopoly. We need ULA and, if he ever gets his act together, Blue Origin.Why should we care about the fate of ULA and Blue Origin? Neither exert (nor will exert) much competitive pressure on SpaceX.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 02/18/2023 01:48 amI think LEO will be the logical place for transit points, where dedicated Earth-to-LEO transportation systems will transport people and cargo to LEO, offload it at the transit point, where it will then transfer to space-only transportation systems going beyond LEO. But that might not be of interest to Jeff Bezos either.For example, designing, building and operating the LEO "airport" would be a great way for BO to gain the necessary experience to properly plan and build an O'Neil cylinder, something that he originally said was his main goal.
Eric Berger's comment sort of confirms my personal crazy idea that the founding purpose of Blue Origin was New Shepard and everything else was handwaving and BS.
But Blue just does not seem all that dedicated to creating a launch system.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 02/18/2023 01:48 amI think LEO will be the logical place for transit points, where dedicated Earth-to-LEO transportation systems will transport people and cargo to LEO, offload it at the transit point, where it will then transfer to space-only transportation systems going beyond LEO. But that might not be of interest to Jeff Bezos either.I agree with your point. LEO is where the environment changes completely. Going from atmosphere to pure vacuum means that you can't really build a spacecraft that can operate efficiently in both environments without compromising a lot of things in the design. Yes, it can be and has been done (Apollo) but it is far, far more efficient to have a vehicle designed to opperate efficiently in either environment, not both.LEO is the perfect place for the space equivilant of an airport. You travel by ground transportation to the airport in a vehicle designed for the ground, where you board an aircraft, a vehicle designed to fly thru the air, to a destination where you board another ground transportation vehicle to take you to your final destination. You don't fly cars, trucks or trains in the air and you don't drive aircraft on the ground. What should be happening is getting into LEO in a vehicle dessigned to operate as efficiently as possible in the atmosphere where you transfer to a vehicle designed to operate as efficiently as possible in the vacuum of space. That's the most efficient and cost effective way to get to destination in space, like the moon or another planet.I don't even think Starship is the best way to get to Mars for this same reason. I like the design but it is optimized for the atmosphere, to do the skydiver move to bleed off reentry energy and control its orinetation in the air. A better approach would be for Starship to go to the "airport" in LEO, where an interplanetary spacecraft is already docked and waiting, dock to it, and just be along for the ride to Mars, where the ground crew would then re-board it to descend to the Martian surface. Starship would be the ascent and descent vehicle, but the interplanetary journey would be onboard a vehicle designed for that purpose. My opinion.Jeff seems to be floundering around, trying to figure out how to get a piece of the pie without even knowing yet what flavor the pie is. If he ever properly figures it out he would be a major player in HSF but until then I have come to view him as a major distraction. I didn't used to feel that way but his actions and non-actions in the recent past have changed my opinion. It makes me worry about the future of the Vulcan launch vehicle. As much as I like SpaceX, I do NOT want them to be a monopoly. We need ULA and, if he ever gets his act together, Blue Origin.For example, designing, building and operating the LEO "airport" would be a great way for BO to gain the necessary experience to properly plan and build an O'Neil cylinder, something that he originally said was his main goal.
The "airport" metaphor might be adequate for lunar transit, but it's less apt for interplanetary destinations, where inclination and RAAN at time of departure are a big deal.
I thought his public statements (few as they've been) were that the moon was his goal. Elon wants to colonize Mars, but Bezos thinks it should be the moon.
Blue Origin was founded with a vision of millions of people living and working in space for the benefit of Earth. Blue Origin envisions a time when people can tap into the limitless resources of space and enable the movement of damaging industries into space to preserve Earth, humanity’s blue origin.
With all the investment Jeff Bezos has made in New Glenn, it is hard to see it as some sort of elaborate head-fake. Occam's razor leads us to believe that Jeff Bezos, at least for some period of time, was serious about New Glenn, and they certainly don't look like they are shutting down the program.
The airport metaphor is most appropriate for lunar surface destinations. But it would also be useful for interplanetary missions staged from an EML-2 station. The spacecraft could go to either the lunar surface or the interplanetary station at EML-2 which, delta-v wise, is literally halfway to anywhere else in the solar system.
Quote from: beb on 02/18/2023 09:52 pmEric Berger's comment sort of confirms my personal crazy idea that the founding purpose of Blue Origin was New Shepard and everything else was handwaving and BS.With all the investment Jeff Bezos has made in New Glenn, it is hard to see it as some sort of elaborate head-fake. Occam's razor leads us to believe that Jeff Bezos, at least for some period of time, was serious about New Glenn, and they certainly don't look like they are shutting down the program.QuoteBut Blue just does not seem all that dedicated to creating a launch system.Well they certainly seem to be under-performing, considering Blue Origin started before SpaceX...
Bezos thinks the Moon is the means to the end of getting millions of people to live and work in orbit, which is his ultimate goal. As robotbeat said, Bezos is an O'Neillian. I think he's right. I think this is much more likely than building a vibrant civilization on Mars. But if SpaceX is wrong, they can eat Blue's lunar lunch any time they want to, and Blue can't defend itself.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 02/18/2023 01:48 amI think LEO will be the logical place for transit points, where dedicated Earth-to-LEO transportation systems will transport people and cargo to LEO, offload it at the transit point, where it will then transfer to space-only transportation systems going beyond LEO. But that might not be of interest to Jeff Bezos either.I agree with your point. LEO is where the environment changes completely. Going from atmosphere to pure vacuum means that you can't really build a spacecraft that can operate efficiently in both environments without compromising a lot of things in the design. Yes, it can be and has been done (Apollo) but it is far, far more efficient to have a vehicle designed to opperate efficiently in either environment, not both.LEO is the perfect place for the space equivilant of an airport. You travel by ground transportation to the airport in a vehicle designed for the ground, where you board an aircraft, a vehicle designed to fly thru the air, to a destination where you board another ground transportation vehicle to take you to your final destination. You don't fly cars, trucks or trains in the air and you don't drive aircraft on the ground. What should be happening is getting into LEO in a vehicle dessigned to operate as efficiently as possible in the atmosphere where you transfer to a vehicle designed to operate as efficiently as possible in the vacuum of space. That's the most efficient and cost effective way to get to destination in space, like the moon or another planet.
Quote from: TheRadicalModerate on 02/19/2023 04:12 amBezos thinks the Moon is the means to the end of getting millions of people to live and work in orbit, which is his ultimate goal. As robotbeat said, Bezos is an O'Neillian. I think he's right. I think this is much more likely than building a vibrant civilization on Mars. But if SpaceX is wrong, they can eat Blue's lunar lunch any time they want to, and Blue can't defend itself.That doesn't seem to square with the absolutely abysmal Option A HLS proposal though.If that was the case, BO would be building moon landers as a core competency. Blue Moon appeared to be that, but it was thrown away in lieu of a multi-company bid. I wonder what they'll propose this time.
Quote from: RedLineTrain on 02/18/2023 08:24 pmQuote from: clongton on 02/18/2023 06:18 pmJeff seems to be floundering around, trying to figure out how to get a piece of the pie without even knowing yet what flavor the pie is. If he ever properly figures it out he would be a major player in HSF but until then I have come to view him as a major distraction. I didn't used to feel that way but his actions and non-actions in the recent past have changed my opinion. It makes me worry about the future of the Vulcan launch vehicle. As much as I like SpaceX, I do NOT want them to be a monopoly. We need ULA and, if he ever gets his act together, Blue Origin.Why should we care about the fate of ULA and Blue Origin? Neither exert (nor will exert) much competitive pressure on SpaceX.Blue might if they actually start executing. New Glenn is a good design, and they claim they want to go for full reuse eventually.
Quote from: deadman1204 on 02/17/2023 08:53 pmQuote from: JayWee on 02/17/2023 08:10 pmIn other words - he has no business plan for LEO. But... weren't they talking about space/LEO manufacturing?Not really, there is no business case. If you listen to the entire interview (Eric Berger is the space journalist from arstecnica), they go one to talk about how no one has a closed business case for a leo station yet. Its always been that "magic thing you manufacture in space" since the 70s. After 50 years, no one has any idea what that is though.Then Varda Space and others are dead too...
Yes, I agree that the design is relevant or could be redesigned to be relevant for the '20s. But even if relevant, Blue doesn't appear to be ambitious enough on launch rate to impact SpaceX's market position appreciably.
Bringing it back to LEO/Lunar/Mars - I'd listen to what Musk has to say. SpaceX showed zero interest in orbital stations, and a very limited one in Lunar presence - even though they are positioned to dominate both. There's a reason for that.
The problem with NG was not the concept itself - it was basically a "me too" to the F9's "I'm first" design.
Yup. SpaceX/Elon didn’t decide to go the direction of vertical landing for reuse until 2010. They were parachutes until that year.Blue had decided to go the direction of vertical landing since just a few years after it was founded, about a decade earlier. Its first VTVL testbed flew in 2005, called Charon (jet engines to simulate rocket flight). Its second was the rocket powered Goddard in 2006.SpaceX was still 100% parachutes at this time.New Glenn wasn’t “me too.” If anything, Falcon 9 was. Elon dismissed DC-X’s/Blue’s VTVL approach as too complicated/expensive until Masten Space Systems’ in-air relight showed even some guys in a “garage” could do it… SpaceX had tried and failed to achieve recovery with parachutes with Falcon 1 and were about to attempt the same with Falcon 9 which flew successfully that year. (The first few Falcon 9s attempted parachute recovery… to the same result as the Falcon 1 attempts.)Masten’s stunt convinced Elon to charter a study on VTVL with Falcon 9, and SpaceX soon went hard in that direction, with the redesign of Falcon 9 to the octoweb v1.1 configuration, throttleable Merlin 1D, the Grasshopper program, etc, and ultimately left Blue Origin in their dust…
So I agree about ideas being dime a dozen, it’s just that “me too” seems to imply they weren’t already planning to make a booster very much like New Glenn when they most certainly were. Maybe you can quibble about propellant choice or size, but they very much were planning on a TSTO VTVL reusable launch vehicle.“me too” also has negative connotations. Copying good approaches to be competitive is Good, Actually. Beats Not Invented Here.
They had a Grasshopper type test program in 2005 and 2006.
<snip>I'm sure the Eastern Range's capacity can be expanded into the low hundreds of flights per year. But after that, the FAA and the air traffic control system are gonna start pushing back--hard. Slots will then become a scarce resource. This is ultimately a problem that SpaceX can fix with other launch sites, but for the remainder of the decade, competing with Blue for slots would seriously constrain SpaceX. <snip>
NS would work fine as part of an orbital rocket. That’s kind of what the earlier iteration of New Glenn was.
Honestly, what advice would you have given JB (other than to not hire half of the Old Space leadership)? "Be an Elon"?
Quote from: Robotbeat on 02/19/2023 09:54 pmNS would work fine as part of an orbital rocket. That’s kind of what the earlier iteration of New Glenn was.Maybe, though it's LH2 powered, and in its current form too heavy to be a first stage, but let's stipulate that it was. (Or did you mean that NS would have been the upper stage?)Anyway, after 10 years of meandering, and in light of F9, suddenly came the new NG, ("big brother") and any talk of using little brother disappeared.I stand by my comment that NG was conceived as an F9 imitator/competitor/killer.
Sure, but modifying a concept to increase the size due to competition is hardly “me too.” Additionally, a big reason New Glenn is the size it is, and why BE-4 was delayed, is because they decided to sell the engines to ULA which wanted them significantly larger than Blue was originally planning to make them for New Glenn.
Perhaps SpaceX or BO will buy Stoke and change the ground rules yet again. F9 extended first stage plus a Stoke plug nozzle second stage would make a fully reusable design, as would a Stoke-based upper stage on BO’s offerings. Both Musk and Bezos have money to burn and Stoke would be a tiny purchase by their standards.
Quote from: meekGee on 02/19/2023 05:02 pmHonestly, what advice would you have given JB (other than to not hire half of the Old Space leadership)? "Be an Elon"?Honestly? Believe it or not I'd suggest to him to team up with Elon, figure out the strengths and weaknesseses of each company, find a way to play TOGETHER to the strengths of each company, feed each company that piece of the pie that they do best and outright replace NASA for both human and robotic spaceflight. NASA will never, ever, be able to do what these two companies could do together because:1. NASA's funding profile is not intended to advance spaceflight but to enrich the political masters.2. Private companies are not necessarily beholden to any "lobbied"interests - neither company needs the lobbiests' money.3. NASA's way of doing business actually stiffles inovation and holds back progress.4. Well funded and run private comanies will ALWAYS beat the pants off of any government-funded agency every day of the week and twice on Sunday.5. Together, these 2 companies could accomplish much more than either one separately. Their efforts would be truly synergistic.That would be my advice to Mr. Bezos.
Quote from: meekGee on 02/19/2023 10:08 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 02/19/2023 09:54 pmNS would work fine as part of an orbital rocket. That’s kind of what the earlier iteration of New Glenn was.Maybe, though it's LH2 powered, and in its current form too heavy to be a first stage, but let's stipulate that it was. (Or did you mean that NS would have been the upper stage?)Anyway, after 10 years of meandering, and in light of F9, suddenly came the new NG, ("big brother") and any talk of using little brother disappeared.I stand by my comment that NG was conceived as an F9 imitator/competitor/killer.You might be wrong, regardless. He's talking about how NS was to be the tech demonstrator for the Orbital Launch Vehicle (OLV) which was the predecessor to New Glenn as part of Commercial Crew in the late 00s/early 10s.The graphics posted by Robert shows this clearly and you can see it in the PM-2 prototype test flown in 2011 as a multi-engined vehicle. The idea was that NS would work out a lot of the tech, particularly the BE-3s, of which, at least 5 would power the hydrolox 1st stage of the OLV, though it wasn't clear what was going to be powering the disposable 2nd stage that in turn would put the biconic capsule into orbit. Much of the work for NS was done under the auspices of the Commercial Crew program. It's unfortunate that Blue got kicked from CC so Boeing could stay in and drink from the trough. Had Blue won the larger sums of money in the later rounds (billions of $$), it would've allowed for a much faster expansion of the company ala SpaceX in the 00s, and kept them focused tightly on an orbital rocket they could fly within five years since it was closely based on NS which likely would've flown also a few years earlier.So where does New Glenn come in? New Glenn in the form we understand it today was clearly in the works before 2014 when the Blue-ULA partnership was announced, and BE-4 was at least conceptionally a thing in 2011. Even then it was a 500,000 lbf engine and only when ULA asked for it, was it increased to the current 550,000 lbf beast it is.So, what would Blue need such an engine for back then? Clearly, they were looking beyond OLV and I suspect that the theory that what is now NG was actually going to be New Armstrong (NA) is correct. Hence the quick pivot after failing to go on in CC. It was an easy thing because Blue had already been long working towards it, and suddenly outside cash from ULA helped BE-4 along and become even more powerful.Unfortunately, this is where people think Bezos and Blue made a mistake. They were hoping for securing other NASA and military/NRO contracts to fund NG, and when those didn't materialize as hoped, and Bezos could only put so much money into the company that he could, the development timeline for NG got stretched out for several more years. Had Blue stuck with the less ambitious OLV, they could've had it ready far sooner, and maybe won some commercial contracts to fund NA/NG with.
Quote from: clongton on 02/19/2023 10:30 pmQuote from: meekGee on 02/19/2023 05:02 pmHonestly, what advice would you have given JB (other than to not hire half of the Old Space leadership)? "Be an Elon"?Honestly? Believe it or not I'd suggest to him to team up with Elon, figure out the strengths and weaknesseses of each company, find a way to play TOGETHER to the strengths of each company, feed each company that piece of the pie that they do best and outright replace NASA for both human and robotic spaceflight. NASA will never, ever, be able to do what these two companies could do together because:1. NASA's funding profile is not intended to advance spaceflight but to enrich the political masters.2. Private companies are not necessarily beholden to any "lobbied"interests - neither company needs the lobbiests' money.3. NASA's way of doing business actually stiffles inovation and holds back progress.4. Well funded and run private comanies will ALWAYS beat the pants off of any government-funded agency every day of the week and twice on Sunday.5. Together, these 2 companies could accomplish much more than either one separately. Their efforts would be truly synergistic.That would be my advice to Mr. Bezos.You are aware that spaceX largely exists because of NASA's business methods?
Unlike Elon Musk and SpaceX, Jeff Bezos has never needed to win government money to fund Blue Origin, or to develop New Glenn. Which is why the lack of progress at Blue Origin is so puzzling...
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 02/20/2023 02:55 amUnlike Elon Musk and SpaceX, Jeff Bezos has never needed to win government money to fund Blue Origin, or to develop New Glenn. Which is why the lack of progress at Blue Origin is so puzzling... I think it actually explains the slow progress. His cash allows a lack of focus and a lack of urgency to get prioritized things done. If you look at the magnificent facilities they built before building rockets versus SpaceX using tents to get products done with a sense of urgency says it all in my opinion.
Quote from: TheRadicalModerate on 02/19/2023 08:25 pm<snip>I'm sure the Eastern Range's capacity can be expanded into the low hundreds of flights per year. But after that, the FAA and the air traffic control system are gonna start pushing back--hard. Slots will then become a scarce resource. This is ultimately a problem that SpaceX can fix with other launch sites, but for the remainder of the decade, competing with Blue for slots would seriously constrain SpaceX. <snip>I have been thinking about this recently. Is it possible to launch orbital flights from more than one pad in Florida at a time? Two flights in one window is half as many interruptions of flights/cruises/commerce in general.
Not that it isn't fun speculating about where Blue went wrong, but can anybody think of a way for it still to go right? Suppose Jeff got out of the hot tub (a great line, BTW), fired Bob Smith, and put you in charge. What would you do?
<snip>Unlike Elon Musk and SpaceX, Jeff Bezos has never needed to win government money to fund Blue Origin, or to develop New Glenn. Which is why the lack of progress at Blue Origin is so puzzling...
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 02/20/2023 02:55 am<snip>Unlike Elon Musk and SpaceX, Jeff Bezos has never needed to win government money to fund Blue Origin, or to develop New Glenn. Which is why the lack of progress at Blue Origin is so puzzling... The slow speed of progress at Blue is actually perfectly understandable....Basically: the need to meet deadlines does not exist. And with THAT disappears any sense of urgency. And THAT, in turn, will result in a glacial speed of progress....A guaranteed source of funding is therefore the best way to make sure that a project does NOT deliver on time.
You are aware that spaceX largely exists because of NASA's business methods?
Quote from: woods170 on 02/20/2023 10:49 amQuote from: Coastal Ron on 02/20/2023 02:55 am<snip>Unlike Elon Musk and SpaceX, Jeff Bezos has never needed to win government money to fund Blue Origin, or to develop New Glenn. Which is why the lack of progress at Blue Origin is so puzzling... The slow speed of progress at Blue is actually perfectly understandable....Basically: the need to meet deadlines does not exist. And with THAT disappears any sense of urgency. And THAT, in turn, will result in a glacial speed of progress....A guaranteed source of funding is therefore the best way to make sure that a project does NOT deliver on time.What you wrote is absolutely true.One small counter-point though: One which Musk mentions from time to time - "I want to see it before I die". Why doesn't Bezos feel the same?
Quote from: TheRadicalModerate on 02/20/2023 04:39 amNot that it isn't fun speculating about where Blue went wrong, but can anybody think of a way for it still to go right? Suppose Jeff got out of the hot tub (a great line, BTW), fired Bob Smith, and put you in charge. What would you do?I would ask the big boss to give me clear direction on what he wants done. He's supposed to be an O'Neillian, so why isn't he laser focused on O'Neill type stuff in LEO or the Legrangian points, bootstrapped by Kuiper in LEO?I also may not have taken the job in the first place, knowing that company culture is extremely difficult to change. Or I may have insisted that I head up Blue Origin Mark II and leave Blue Origin Mark I for dead.
Quote from: TheRadicalModerate on 02/20/2023 04:39 amNot that it isn't fun speculating about where Blue went wrong, but can anybody think of a way for it still to go right? Suppose Jeff got out of the hot tub (a great line, BTW), fired Bob Smith, and put you in charge. What would you do?Take the massive publicity and ego hit and abandon New Glenn and Kuiper. They're both outdated money pits with no chance of ever becoming profitable or even being lose-leaders. Focus on becoming the new universal U.S rocket engines supplier for the immediate future while developing the next generation LV.
Quote from: RedLineTrain on 02/20/2023 02:39 pmQuote from: TheRadicalModerate on 02/20/2023 04:39 amNot that it isn't fun speculating about where Blue went wrong, but can anybody think of a way for it still to go right? Suppose Jeff got out of the hot tub (a great line, BTW), fired Bob Smith, and put you in charge. What would you do?I would ask the big boss to give me clear direction on what he wants done. He's supposed to be an O'Neillian, so why isn't he laser focused on O'Neill type stuff in LEO or the Legrangian points, bootstrapped by Kuiper in LEO?I also may not have taken the job in the first place, knowing that company culture is extremely difficult to change. Or I may have insisted that I head up Blue Origin Mark II and leave Blue Origin Mark I for dead.A crucial part of the O’Neillian vision is ISRU, and this is usually assumed to be the Moon. O’Neill would test a linear accelerator concept sometimes (used for lunar launch in his vision). So I’d say their lunar focus is appropriate. The solar cell thing from regolith is neat.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 02/20/2023 02:55 am<snip>Unlike Elon Musk and SpaceX, Jeff Bezos has never needed to win government money to fund Blue Origin, or to develop New Glenn. Which is why the lack of progress at Blue Origin is so puzzling... The slow speed of progress at Blue is actually perfectly understandable.[...]A guaranteed source of funding is therefore the best way to make sure that a project does NOT deliver on time.
Basically: the need to meet deadlines does not exist. And with THAT disappears any sense of urgency.
Quote from: Jer on 02/20/2023 01:51 pmQuote from: TheRadicalModerate on 02/20/2023 04:39 amNot that it isn't fun speculating about where Blue went wrong, but can anybody think of a way for it still to go right? Suppose Jeff got out of the hot tub (a great line, BTW), fired Bob Smith, and put you in charge. What would you do?Take the massive publicity and ego hit and abandon New Glenn and Kuiper. They're both outdated money pits with no chance of ever becoming profitable or even being lose-leaders. Focus on becoming the new universal U.S rocket engines supplier for the immediate future while developing the next generation LV.Kuiper is not a Blue Origin project; it's an Amazon project. Unless Blue can provide a competitive launch bid that will at least break even, New Glenn won't be getting much business from Amazon, which has a fiduciary duty to its public stockholders.
NG is not large enough for a forward-looking lunar program. It's just the minimum viable size in the age of full reusability.If the goal is a massive lunar presence, then IMO:- Put the engine team on BE4.1 that can be aggregated more densely. - Change the goal of NG to be a training vehicle only. This will lubricate things. Incentivize for accelerating the schedule.- Free Kuiper. You already have all the moneys. Let Kuiper solve its own launch problems.- Start on NA ASAP. Do that with a completely new org, transferring engineering talent from NG very carefully.The new org is key. There's something very dysfunctional with the current one, and such things are impossible to fix in place.
You're fooling yourself it you think they are not linked. Bezos is still the executive chairman of amazon. Its not like he has no control. Also, the fact that kuiper bought flights from everyone BUT spaceX shows that his preferences are still very much in control.
NG is big enough for job especially with lunar ISRU fuel. Blue aren't trying send 100s tons are year to surface to build city overnight like Elon. Blue are taking more of bootstrap approach as demostrated by recent announcement on solar panels made from regolith. In lab they extracted Al, Si and Fe from regolith then used it to make solar cells and wire.
Quote from: meekGee on 02/20/2023 10:18 pmNG is not large enough for a forward-looking lunar program. It's just the minimum viable size in the age of full reusability.If the goal is a massive lunar presence, then IMO:- Put the engine team on BE4.1 that can be aggregated more densely. - Change the goal of NG to be a training vehicle only. This will lubricate things. Incentivize for accelerating the schedule.- Free Kuiper. You already have all the moneys. Let Kuiper solve its own launch problems.- Start on NA ASAP. Do that with a completely new org, transferring engineering talent from NG very carefully.The new org is key. There's something very dysfunctional with the current one, and such things are impossible to fix in place.NG is big enough for job especially with lunar ISRU fuel. Blue aren't trying send 100s tons are year to surface to build city overnight like Elon. Blue are taking more of bootstrap approach as demostrated by recent announcement on solar panels made from regolith. In lab they extracted Al, Si and Fe from regolith then used it to make solar cells and wire.
NG is not large enough for a forward-looking lunar program. It's just the minimum viable size in the age of full reusability.…
Quote from: meekGee on 02/20/2023 10:18 pmNG is not large enough for a forward-looking lunar program. It's just the minimum viable size in the age of full reusability.…I strongly disagree with both of these.Arguably, the smallest viable full RLV is actually SMALLER than expendable… because you don’t need the cost benefit of large scale as you can just launch again and again. Remember, reuse is largely enabled on the demand side by megaconstellations. Which are made out of basically smallsats (…even Starlink Gen2 full size is what, like 2.5t?). Stoke’s rocket would be large enough for this and could potentially compete with Starship on a per-kg basis.Elon has mentioned larger variations for the future, but he has more recently said that Starship may have actually been too big.New Glenn may end up being the smallest orbital rocket Blue Origin ever makes, as Bezos said. But I don’t think it’s on the cutting edge of minimum viable size for full reuse. It may arguably be closer to the optimal size than Starship is.Again, though, it’s execution that matters most of all. And SpaceX is hardcore winning there.
Elon isn't a huge fan of LEO. He hasn't even flown in his own spaceship, unlike two other billionaires who both flew on their spaceships on their maiden human voyages. (VG first passenger flight, not human test flights, of course)
ISRU (in meaningful quantities) is not available until a very large factory is present on the moon.You need a big chicken before you can get big eggs.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 02/21/2023 12:37 amQuote from: meekGee on 02/20/2023 10:18 pmNG is not large enough for a forward-looking lunar program. It's just the minimum viable size in the age of full reusability.…I strongly disagree with both of these.Arguably, the smallest viable full RLV is actually SMALLER than expendable… because you don’t need the cost benefit of large scale as you can just launch again and again. Remember, reuse is largely enabled on the demand side by megaconstellations. Which are made out of basically smallsats (…even Starlink Gen2 full size is what, like 2.5t?). Stoke’s rocket would be large enough for this and could potentially compete with Starship on a per-kg basis.Elon has mentioned larger variations for the future, but he has more recently said that Starship may have actually been too big.New Glenn may end up being the smallest orbital rocket Blue Origin ever makes, as Bezos said. But I don’t think it’s on the cutting edge of minimum viable size for full reuse. It may arguably be closer to the optimal size than Starship is.Again, though, it’s execution that matters most of all. And SpaceX is hardcore winning there.That's why I added "Viable". In theory you can make it really really small, but reuse penalty, and investment in reuse, both demand a certain size....
Quote from: meekGee on 02/21/2023 03:07 amQuote from: Robotbeat on 02/21/2023 12:37 amQuote from: meekGee on 02/20/2023 10:18 pmNG is not large enough for a forward-looking lunar program. It's just the minimum viable size in the age of full reusability.…I strongly disagree with both of these.Arguably, the smallest viable full RLV is actually SMALLER than expendable… because you don’t need the cost benefit of large scale as you can just launch again and again. Remember, reuse is largely enabled on the demand side by megaconstellations. Which are made out of basically smallsats (…even Starlink Gen2 full size is what, like 2.5t?). Stoke’s rocket would be large enough for this and could potentially compete with Starship on a per-kg basis.Elon has mentioned larger variations for the future, but he has more recently said that Starship may have actually been too big.New Glenn may end up being the smallest orbital rocket Blue Origin ever makes, as Bezos said. But I don’t think it’s on the cutting edge of minimum viable size for full reuse. It may arguably be closer to the optimal size than Starship is.Again, though, it’s execution that matters most of all. And SpaceX is hardcore winning there.That's why I added "Viable". In theory you can make it really really small, but reuse penalty, and investment in reuse, both demand a certain size....Again, I just don't agree with this.The most important thing about rapid reuse is flight rate, and being smaller actually *helps* that for a full RLV.You can't just reuse the "expendable smallsat launchers are not viable" argument for reusable medium launch vehicles. New Glenn is heavy, nearly super heavy.
I’m honestly relieved. LEO is a good staging point, but it’s the ocean, not an island (let alone a continent). We need a physical place, which has physical resources, to make our future out there.
The solar cell thing from regolith is neat.
Can we have more positivity in the posts on this forum than those who want to point out how bad Blue Origin is, as well as Jeff Bezos.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 02/21/2023 04:53 amQuote from: meekGee on 02/21/2023 03:07 amQuote from: Robotbeat on 02/21/2023 12:37 amQuote from: meekGee on 02/20/2023 10:18 pmNG is not large enough for a forward-looking lunar program. It's just the minimum viable size in the age of full reusability.…I strongly disagree with both of these.Arguably, the smallest viable full RLV is actually SMALLER than expendable… because you don’t need the cost benefit of large scale as you can just launch again and again. Remember, reuse is largely enabled on the demand side by megaconstellations. Which are made out of basically smallsats (…even Starlink Gen2 full size is what, like 2.5t?). Stoke’s rocket would be large enough for this and could potentially compete with Starship on a per-kg basis.Elon has mentioned larger variations for the future, but he has more recently said that Starship may have actually been too big.New Glenn may end up being the smallest orbital rocket Blue Origin ever makes, as Bezos said. But I don’t think it’s on the cutting edge of minimum viable size for full reuse. It may arguably be closer to the optimal size than Starship is.Again, though, it’s execution that matters most of all. And SpaceX is hardcore winning there.That's why I added "Viable". In theory you can make it really really small, but reuse penalty, and investment in reuse, both demand a certain size....Again, I just don't agree with this.The most important thing about rapid reuse is flight rate, and being smaller actually *helps* that for a full RLV.You can't just reuse the "expendable smallsat launchers are not viable" argument for reusable medium launch vehicles. New Glenn is heavy, nearly super heavy.This comes down to a fundamental design philosophy difference between Elon/ Gwynne on the one hand, who both state that cost efficiency scales with size for reusable launchers, and those on the other side (yourself, Jon Goff, etc), who firmly argue for the opposite.I guess it’s all dependent on the assumptions, right. If a small, 2-ton payload upper stage can indeed whizz to orbit and back a thousand times, with little to no physical degradation, with airline-like reliability, at basically the cost of its fuel only, and if that fuel cost per kg of payload is less than Starship’s fuel cost per kg, then you will be right.If that proves impractical, then Elon will be right.I lean towards Elon’s view.
There is real economy of scale. It’s just that those insisting you have to be huge in order fro reuse to make sense are just fundamentally wrong from a physics/engineering perspective.
I think Blue Origin started too big with New Glenn. And New Shepard isn't a close enough analogue, plus flying almost always with crew is going to cause a pretty difficult choice between safety and launch rate which goes away if 90% of your launches are uncrewed.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 02/21/2023 02:41 pmThere is real economy of scale. It’s just that those insisting you have to be huge in order fro reuse to make sense are just fundamentally wrong from a physics/engineering perspective. Size does matter, under X liftoff mass, reuse is indeed impossible. Under some Y liftoff mass, orbit is impossible. Why are no one meter tall TSTO launchers proliferating? Hugeness has its own problems for handling etc. SpaceX May have overreacted when they realized full reuse would hobble F9. B.O. did the trades and came up in between F9 and SS. Will be a while before industry finds the sweet spots.
Quote from: M.E.T. on 02/21/2023 06:49 amQuote from: Robotbeat on 02/21/2023 04:53 amQuote from: meekGee on 02/21/2023 03:07 amQuote from: Robotbeat on 02/21/2023 12:37 amQuote from: meekGee on 02/20/2023 10:18 pmNG is not large enough for a forward-looking lunar program. It's just the minimum viable size in the age of full reusability.…I strongly disagree with both of these.Arguably, the smallest viable full RLV is actually SMALLER than expendable… because you don’t need the cost benefit of large scale as you can just launch again and again. Remember, reuse is largely enabled on the demand side by megaconstellations. Which are made out of basically smallsats (…even Starlink Gen2 full size is what, like 2.5t?). Stoke’s rocket would be large enough for this and could potentially compete with Starship on a per-kg basis.Elon has mentioned larger variations for the future, but he has more recently said that Starship may have actually been too big.New Glenn may end up being the smallest orbital rocket Blue Origin ever makes, as Bezos said. But I don’t think it’s on the cutting edge of minimum viable size for full reuse. It may arguably be closer to the optimal size than Starship is.Again, though, it’s execution that matters most of all. And SpaceX is hardcore winning there.That's why I added "Viable". In theory you can make it really really small, but reuse penalty, and investment in reuse, both demand a certain size....Again, I just don't agree with this.The most important thing about rapid reuse is flight rate, and being smaller actually *helps* that for a full RLV.You can't just reuse the "expendable smallsat launchers are not viable" argument for reusable medium launch vehicles. New Glenn is heavy, nearly super heavy.This comes down to a fundamental design philosophy difference between Elon/ Gwynne on the one hand, who both state that cost efficiency scales with size for reusable launchers, and those on the other side (yourself, Jon Goff, etc), who firmly argue for the opposite.I guess it’s all dependent on the assumptions, right. If a small, 2-ton payload upper stage can indeed whizz to orbit and back a thousand times, with little to no physical degradation, with airline-like reliability, at basically the cost of its fuel only, and if that fuel cost per kg of payload is less than Starship’s fuel cost per kg, then you will be right.If that proves impractical, then Elon will be right.I lean towards Elon’s view.I actually don’t think either perspective is wrong.There is real economy of scale. It’s just that those insisting you have to be huge in order fro reuse to make sense are just fundamentally wrong from a physics/engineering perspective.The real thing, again, is demand. For any given level of demand in tonnes per year, the smaller RLV will be able to have a higher flight rate, and this negates most (and maybe all) of the cost advantage of being large scale.Starship is a 747. Like, literally. The payload and volume are comparable. New Glenn is roughly 757 or 737 sized. Terran-R A220 sized. Stoke is Cessna Caravan or a Dessault a Falcon. There’s room for all of these in a large market. Not everything has to be a monster.And there’s not an appreciable difference between a 737 and a 747 in terms of cost per passenger mile. I think the knee in the curve is around 20-50 tons.Starship is a monster. It’s like a year 2100 rocket. It’s made for like 10 million tons per year launch demand. We’re at 1000 tons per year.
Being able to move stuff around with a pickup truck trailer is pretty nice.
The assumption that there is room for several reusable launchers seems tenuous. Given the drastically lower marginal costs of fully reusable launch, and the difficulty level of introducing a launcher and building launch cadence, the first out of the gate could have a huge, perhaps overwhelming medium-term advantage. The size of that launcher may be less important.
But, to say the obvious, the Starship is the right size for going to Mars. And it is also the right size for going to the Moon. Does anyone really want a smaller vehicle to go to Mars? I don't think so.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 02/21/2023 06:01 pmBeing able to move stuff around with a pickup truck trailer is pretty nice.That's a perfect analogy. A pickup truck is a viable vehicle. But if you want to move an industrial amount of stuff, many trips with a pickup is not a viable solution.That's why I'm saying it's a matter of goal.NG a couple of years ago would have been ok as a satellite launcher. By the time it fields, it probably still will be, but it certainly won't dominate the market - it'll have an uphill battle to get any decent share of it.NG for even a small lunar base (as opposed to a small lander for boots and flags) - it's too small. The lander for such needs to be able to deploy large vehicles, large habitats... The Apollo lander module was 15 tons, (starting with 100 tons in LEO) and had barely enough mass for 3 people and a buggy.We talk about processing lunar rock for Oxygen and Solar cells and what not. That's a quarry's worth of various handling equipment. It's not a 10-ton project or anywhere near that.In Comparison, SH starts out at 2x Saturn V and then does a bunch more fueling flights... Per each outbound trip, of which they'll need several just to land the first crew.In that context, NG is not even enough to start. You'll land a few people for a few days and then be stuck like NASA's moon program was, since you'll need a much bigger rocket to carry on beyond that.
NG for even a small lunar base (as opposed to a small lander for boots and flags) - it's too small. The lander for such needs to be able to deploy large vehicles, large habitats... The Apollo lander module was 15 tons, (starting with 100 tons in LEO) and had barely enough mass for 3 people and a buggy.
We talk about processing lunar rock for Oxygen and Solar cells and what not. That's a quarry's worth of various handling equipment. It's not a 10-ton project or anywhere near that.
In Comparison, SH starts out at 2x Saturn V and then does a bunch more fueling flights... Per each outbound trip, of which they'll need several just to land the first crew.In that context, NG is not even enough to start. You'll land a few people for a few days and then be stuck like NASA's moon program was, since you'll need a much bigger rocket to carry on beyond that.
Quote from: meekGee on 02/21/2023 07:30 pmNG for even a small lunar base (as opposed to a small lander for boots and flags) - it's too small. The lander for such needs to be able to deploy large vehicles, large habitats... The Apollo lander module was 15 tons, (starting with 100 tons in LEO) and had barely enough mass for 3 people and a buggy.Why do you think large vehicles are heavy? Empty space and air don't weigh very much.FWIW, if you have an expendable hydrolox lander¹ and a refuelable but expendable Jarvis stage sent to TLI, you can land about 12.7t with two NG launches. If pre-Jarvis New Glenn could deliver 45t to LEO, and we assume that a reusable Jarvis can take 35t to LEO, then:1) First launch: Reusable core, expendable (but refuelable) stage 2, expendable Blue Moon (1.4t dry, 8.6t prop, 12.7t payload) and 22.3t of prop left over in stage 2.2) Second launch: Reusable core and reusable Jarvis tanker delivers 35t of prop to the expendable stage 2.So two launches, including one expended Blue Moon and one second stage, gives you 12.7t of payload to the surface.QuoteWe talk about processing lunar rock for Oxygen and Solar cells and what not. That's a quarry's worth of various handling equipment. It's not a 10-ton project or anywhere near that.Why are you assuming that the whole thing is delivered in one mission? For that matter, why are you assuming that it has to go from nothing to massive scale immediately?QuoteIn Comparison, SH starts out at 2x Saturn V and then does a bunch more fueling flights... Per each outbound trip, of which they'll need several just to land the first crew.In that context, NG is not even enough to start. You'll land a few people for a few days and then be stuck like NASA's moon program was, since you'll need a much bigger rocket to carry on beyond that.But that's not the context. The context is one in which NASA keeps doing stupid things with Artemis and SpaceX doesn't care that much about the Moon.If NASA stops doing stupid things, i.e., gets rid of SLS/Orion and moves a lot of its budget into lunar surface tech and ops, then Blue will have to be smart about leveraging NASA's infrastructure to accelerate the construction of profitable projects, or at least projects that can lead to profitable on-orbit structures.Remember, I think that New Glenn won't succeed at all. In that case, Blue should be building bigger modules for lunar tech and ops and landing them using Starship. But that's not really the question. The question is whether Blue could make a go of it if NG by some miracle becomes successful and Blue decides to invest heavily in the Moon as soon as possible.I think the answer to that last question is "yes", but it's nowhere near as good a strategy as giving up on NG and betting big on surface manufacturing, in order to pave the way for large on-orbit structures.______________¹Why an expendable lander? Because, unless your launch costs are well under $10M, the expendable lander is cheaper than the extra prop needed to recover it.There's a case to be made that a recoverable Jarvis that can take a payload to LLO might be cheaper than the expendable version that doesn't have to save prop for TEI. That one is worth figuring out. But the lander has to be huge to get back to LLO, to say nothing of LEO or Earth's surface.
I'm talking about the machinery that processes lunar rock to create anything from oxygen to solar cells. It's not empty structures - it's a lot of steel and is heavy.And I'm all in favor of modular designs, but as you decrease the size of the modular units, you add mass penalty. The lander itself is less mass efficient, and the equipment itself can't get broken down beyond a certain point. And, assembly costs mass too. You can break down a tractor into separate tracks, engine, body - and then you need another tractor to assemble it. And you can't easily break it down to smaller units.
...Musk was the first the first to outline a viable business plan to get humanity to Mars.
Meanwhile, Stoke isn't in the same weight class as Blue Origin, it does have a couple advantages when compared. Unlike Blue Origin, we have seen very fast progress on Stoke and unlike every other startup, their first rocket is designed to be reusable. Depending on how fast they move, they can become the "other" launch provider to SpaceX by achieving a fully reusable craft before Blue Origin.
Quote from: c4fusion on 02/24/2023 05:08 amMeanwhile, Stoke isn't in the same weight class as Blue Origin, it does have a couple advantages when compared. Unlike Blue Origin, we have seen very fast progress on Stoke and unlike every other startup, their first rocket is designed to be reusable. Depending on how fast they move, they can become the "other" launch provider to SpaceX by achieving a fully reusable craft before Blue Origin.Stoke may be ready to do upper stage suborbital tests but it is long way from developing booster and all launch infrastructure to go with it. 2025 is realistic target for first orbital launch.
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 02/24/2023 09:48 amQuote from: c4fusion on 02/24/2023 05:08 amMeanwhile, Stoke isn't in the same weight class as Blue Origin, it does have a couple advantages when compared. Unlike Blue Origin, we have seen very fast progress on Stoke and unlike every other startup, their first rocket is designed to be reusable. Depending on how fast they move, they can become the "other" launch provider to SpaceX by achieving a fully reusable craft before Blue Origin.Stoke may be ready to do upper stage suborbital tests but it is long way from developing booster and all launch infrastructure to go with it. 2025 is realistic target for first orbital launch.Definitely, it maybe even later, like 2026; however, that still might be before Jarvis starts flying.
Quote from: pathfinder_01 on 02/22/2023 06:53 pm...Musk was the first the first to outline a viable business plan to get humanity to Mars.Musk is only copying what Werner Von Braun worked out 75 years ago! That project was also financially viable, provided you had a rich enough country to support it. :-)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mars_Project
I'm reading the wiki article. Musk's plans are very different from what's described there, in both the strategic and tactical levels.
Quote from: meekGee on 02/25/2023 04:19 pmI'm reading the wiki article. Musk's plans are very different from what's described there, in both the strategic and tactical levels.Here's a copy of his book about the project from the internet archives (linked in the wikipedia article). I remember watching him on tv talking about his Mars ambitions and explaining the project. It was fascinating.https://archive.org/details/TheMarsProject-WernherVonBraun1953/mode/2up
How did we get down this rabbit hole in this thread? It’s better suited for a SpaceX colonizing Mars thread.I just came on to comment that he can’t be very serious about BO when he’s considering using his money to fund the purchase of the NFL’s Washington Commanders.It just adds fuel to the “just another hobby” speculation.
Musk is also have speculation about him buying the Manchester United...
I really don't think lack of money has been BO's problem. Time has been the bigger question, we were told a little while back that Bezos would be spending more of his with BO but yet to see any real evidence of that beyond the supposed push for Jarvis.
Quote from: AlexP on 02/27/2023 12:45 pmI really don't think lack of money has been BO's problem. Time has been the bigger question, we were told a little while back that Bezos would be spending more of his with BO but yet to see any real evidence of that beyond the supposed push for Jarvis.It’s interesting to me how focused people are on the money thing. There’s a friend and professional colleague of mine who is insistent that it’s money that enabled SpaceX to succeed but Blue Origin to fail (to achieve orbit so far), in spite of the fact that Blue had way more no-strings-attached (ie no need to provide a product, so pure investment) money from the get-go.In fact it could’ve been the lack of money that enabled SpaceX to succeed. Or rather, just the right amount of money. Plus hard work and a central point of technical authority that could cut through paralysis by analysis (and who started out not knowing that much about spaceflight but ended up learning by doing…).Bezos could do the same thing, and I’m disappointed he hasn’t started.
The launch vehicles he is having designed and built are not really destined for a LEO business case. They are for putting enough infrastructure into space to begin construction of the cylinders. The ULA and NASA contracts are actually a sidebar to the goals for BO. He is, after all, a businessman who is not likely to snub the opportunity to get (unneeded) funding for his dream goal along the way. Thus BO is not actually competing with SpaceX.
Re: the thread titleI have given this a lot of thought recently. In my opinion, the title speaks truth. One only needs to look back to when BO was first started. It is not Jeff's goal to become profitable in LEO, but to put millions of people living and working in space. The vehicle to do that is the O'Neil cylinder. The launch vehicles he is having designed and built are not really destined for a LEO business case. They are for putting enough infrastructure into space to begin construction of the cylinders. The ULA and NASA contracts are actually a sidebar to the goals for BO. He is, after all, a businessman who is not likely to snub the opportunity to get (unneeded) funding for his dream goal along the way. Thus BO is not actually competing with SpaceX. Space Race hysteria has been cooked up by fan-boys because that's what they want to see - a race. But in actuality, Jeff is not playing that game. His goal is unlikely to see SIGNIFICANT progress in his lifetime. He has said that multiple times. I think his modus operandi is closer to the Chinese slow, steady long term view than to the fan-boy-induced race to space hysteria. His goal is to make sufficient progress to guarantee, as far as anything can be guaranteed, that his dream survives him and continues along at a pace, after he has passed on, that is most likely to one day come to fruition. SpaceX is simply not involved, except as a parallel effort by someone else with a completely different end goal. So I've modified my view wrt Jeff Bezos and Blue Origin somewhat from what I have posted previously, and the reasons for that are stated above. Will he succeed? That's anybody's guess. But at the pace his company is proceding, which seems to me to be by design, it will be the next generation that will have a better idea than any of us here.
You guys are missing my point. I'm not saying his asperations are practical. I'm saying he's not trying to create a LEO business model. That's the same point Eric Berger was making too. LEO isn't his end goal. It's just a way station to pass thru. He knows he has to get to LEO, but only because it's a prerequisite to what he's actually doing. Suggesting he needs to do this or he needs to do that is totally and completely missing the point. Saying "BO needs to focus on something attainable" only reveals what YOU want him to do, not what he is actually doing. He's not interested in any of that stuff you want. He is not interested in LEO, no matter how much you think he should be. THAT is the point. All you are doing is painting him with the color that YOU think he should wear instead of the color he has already chosen for himself. Why? Because you know better that he does what he wants? I don't think so. He's NOT interested in LEO. Will he succeed? Not in this lifetime, no. But he already knows that and has said that multiple times. Whether you or I think his dream is achievable, or even possible, is irrelevant. It's HIS dream, not yours or mine. We don't get a say. All we can do is watch. So grab your popcorn and soda, sit back and watch the show. Cause he thinks he's going where no man has gone before. (Where have we heard that before?) And I think this show is going to be epic.
I thought you were exaggerating, but no, you’re right it’s a billion ton. For 8km diameter, 32km long cylinder filled with air at 50% Earth’s atmospheric pressure at sea level. Rule of thumb is that a good quality pressure vessel (like a Scuba tank) can be built that weighs the same as the compressed air inside of it, with appropriate safety margins.That’s just the largest one, tho.Blue Origin is taking roughly the right approach if you believe the O’Neillian vision (I think the Moon is largely a dead end, tho). But they have to execute.Blue has hinted at larger rockets a lot, but I actually think they started out too big for New Glenn. Even so, it’s not a small rocket. It’s a good starting point for iteration, and I can see it getting up to 100 tonnes if they took a rapid iteration approach (which they aren’t, unfortunately).Falcon 9 more than doubled its payload capacity over its life. I don’t think they need a bigger rocket than that, they need to execute their plan aggressively and then iterate upon that plan, adjusting the plan as they go.
Stratolaunch is weirdly still alive. This is actually one area that I think Jeff might have planned better than Elon. (Although if Blue isn’t on its feet soon, it won’t really matter.)
Just the air inside O'Neill cylinders weighs a billion tons. The envelope, which must have significant thickness, will weigh more. As will the soil, water, etc.
You guys are missing my point. I'm not saying his aspirations are practical. I'm saying he's not trying to create a LEO business model.
Quote from: clongton on 02/27/2023 05:34 pmYou guys are missing my point. I'm not saying his aspirations are practical. I'm saying he's not trying to create a LEO business model.I agree that LEO is not his end goal. But you can't operate a launcher and not be interested in LEO. As Willie Sutton said when asked why he robbed banks, "That's where the money is." So there are two ways forward:1) Get interested in LEO, do the business development to be successful launching stuff to LEO, and be a launch company. Note that Kuiper isn't going to be the cash cow that makes this easy: most of the launch contracts for the first tranche are going to ULA or Arianespace.2) Figure out a way to be a cislunar and lunar surface operations company. This is a tough row to hoe, but it's much closer to what Jeff wants to see in the long term. It's a necessary predicate for enabling humans to live and work in orbit at high scale. More importantly, it's a business where Blue hasn't been lapped by their competition. But it's a high risk business, because nobody knows how to make money beyond earth orbit yet.These are almost mutually exclusive. The days of being able to enter the launch biz without putting everything you have into it are over. Blue missed that opportunity by being too slow. Jeff needs to do something really risky, or he might as well just climb back into the hot tub.
I agree that LEO is not his end goal. But you can't operate a launcher and not be interested in LEO. As Willie Sutton said when asked why he robbed banks, "That's where the money is."
I simply can’t understand a serious space company not being interested in LEO. It’s where the sure money is.
I think clongton makes some really good points and that many of you are missing the point. You are first and foremost SpaceX fans (admit it) and therefore are projecting the SpaceX way and expectations onto BO. This is understandable and it's hard not to do.However, the difference here (I believe) is the fact that Jeff Bezos is very wealthy. They don't *need* to rush. He can just fund BO, whether or not they are profitable, and if they want to, they can experiment with doing lunar stuff. A lot of people say "there's no market there", but hey, if Jeff wants to play around on the Moon, I guess why not. It's frustrating to watch SpaceX and others doing exciting things and not compare the two.
Luckily, Island One is just some 70 million cubic meters in volume, and at half a bar pressure, the air would mass only around 40000-45000 tonnes.You all do know that the 32km×8km cylinder is the Island Three design, and that it would be preceded by the significantly smaller Island Two and Island One designs?
Quote from: TheRadicalModerate on 02/27/2023 10:25 pm