I think SpaceX has a greater chance at bringing a version of BFR online in the next decade then Blue has of bringing NG online, because seeing progress gives me more faith and FH to BFR is a much smaller leap than testing NS is to NG.
Quote from: intrepidpursuit on 05/30/2018 11:59 pmBlue Origin doesn't have any operational systems at all at the moment. New Shepard should come online soon, though Blue themselves don't seem to use that as a measure of success. They may sell BE-4, but again that isn't a significant revenue stream as far as we can tell. The aspiration of New Glenn is a MASSIVE leap from anything they've done before. First orbital flight, first fairing (not as easy as they look), first use of methane, first flight of BE-4 (scale, fuel, staged combustion are all new), first moving ship landing, and mansy more firsts. Absolutely no doubt this will be delayed, but I would be shocked if they accomplish all these things on a first flight, or even in the first three. I'm sure they'll test many of these things before they try the full up flight, but doing it all at once will be an incredible feat. No one thought SpaceX would get to where they are and they didn't have to do them all at once to operate.I think there is a strong element of "Well if SpaceX could do it, it can be done" and treating "can" as the same as "will". I think this tends to go hand in hand with a contempt for "bureaucracy" and "old space" which are treated like the only reasons these things were never done before. It's true that there were certain technologies that anyone could have exploited before SpaceX came along but that doesn't mean SpaceX waltzed their way into the position they are today. History is littered with failed space startups, all of which were embracing some great idea the government and oldspace were slow to adopt. So only looking at SpaceX is one hell of a survivorship bias. SpaceX has really talented leadership and was really lucky. Leadership and luck aren't things money can buy. We haven't seen enough news from inside Blue to know how good their leadership is. It's just one of the many unknowns. Where ever there is an unknown people seem to default to assuming "just like SpaceX". And heck, SpaceX crashed ~20 times before they stuck the landing. How much would it cost Blue Origin to crash 20 New Glens into the ocean?
Blue Origin doesn't have any operational systems at all at the moment. New Shepard should come online soon, though Blue themselves don't seem to use that as a measure of success. They may sell BE-4, but again that isn't a significant revenue stream as far as we can tell. The aspiration of New Glenn is a MASSIVE leap from anything they've done before. First orbital flight, first fairing (not as easy as they look), first use of methane, first flight of BE-4 (scale, fuel, staged combustion are all new), first moving ship landing, and mansy more firsts. Absolutely no doubt this will be delayed, but I would be shocked if they accomplish all these things on a first flight, or even in the first three. I'm sure they'll test many of these things before they try the full up flight, but doing it all at once will be an incredible feat. No one thought SpaceX would get to where they are and they didn't have to do them all at once to operate.
Money, boatloads of it, will decide what gets developed and when with these massive rockets. Which company has ready access to the most billions of dollars, to deal with the inevitable development hiccups along the way?
I didn't mean to imply that I think either SpaceX or Blue's success is inevitable.
In terms of actual real estate, New Glenn already has a factory built and a launch pad under construction.
It's engines are being tested on already-operational test stands.
BFR has a factory and launch pad or pads planned and an engine test site under construction with another apparently ready to enter service very soon.
Quote from: johnfwhitesell on 05/31/2018 01:51 amQuote from: intrepidpursuit on 05/30/2018 11:59 pmBlue Origin doesn't have any operational systems at all at the moment. New Shepard should come online soon, though Blue themselves don't seem to use that as a measure of success. They may sell BE-4, but again that isn't a significant revenue stream as far as we can tell. The aspiration of New Glenn is a MASSIVE leap from anything they've done before. First orbital flight, first fairing (not as easy as they look), first use of methane, first flight of BE-4 (scale, fuel, staged combustion are all new), first moving ship landing, and mansy more firsts. Absolutely no doubt this will be delayed, but I would be shocked if they accomplish all these things on a first flight, or even in the first three. I'm sure they'll test many of these things before they try the full up flight, but doing it all at once will be an incredible feat. No one thought SpaceX would get to where they are and they didn't have to do them all at once to operate.I think there is a strong element of "Well if SpaceX could do it, it can be done" and treating "can" as the same as "will". I think this tends to go hand in hand with a contempt for "bureaucracy" and "old space" which are treated like the only reasons these things were never done before. It's true that there were certain technologies that anyone could have exploited before SpaceX came along but that doesn't mean SpaceX waltzed their way into the position they are today. History is littered with failed space startups, all of which were embracing some great idea the government and oldspace were slow to adopt. So only looking at SpaceX is one hell of a survivorship bias. SpaceX has really talented leadership and was really lucky. Leadership and luck aren't things money can buy. We haven't seen enough news from inside Blue to know how good their leadership is. It's just one of the many unknowns. Where ever there is an unknown people seem to default to assuming "just like SpaceX". And heck, SpaceX crashed ~20 times before they stuck the landing. How much would it cost Blue Origin to crash 20 New Glens into the ocean?SpaceX and Blue have already proven the technical feasibility of almost all the requirements for New Glenn: clustered engines, propulsive landing, downrange landing, BE-3, BE-4, deep throttling. Since we know it's possible, it's just a matter of engineering. And Blue is long past the space startup phase, they have done things no startup got remotely close to, like a flight tested fully reusable suborbital LH2 crew vehicle and a ground tested high pressure MN class ORSC engine.Bezos can afford to crash all the New Glenns he wants, but as I've mentioned before that is not how Blue operates. They start inside a safe envelope, then push out into the margins. They might crash 2, but are very highly unlikely to crash 20.Blue will fly New Glenn unless Bezos runs out of money or interest. I can't see either of those happening.
Quote from: intrepidpursuit on 05/31/2018 04:24 amI think SpaceX has a greater chance at bringing a version of BFR online in the next decade then Blue has of bringing NG online, because seeing progress gives me more faith and FH to BFR is a much smaller leap than testing NS is to NG.In terms of actual real estate, New Glenn already has a factory built and a launch pad under construction. It's engines are being tested on already-operational test stands. BFR has a factory and launch pad or pads planned and an engine test site under construction with another apparently ready to enter service very soon.Money, boatloads of it, will decide what gets developed and when with these massive rockets. Which company has ready access to the most billions of dollars, to deal with the inevitable development hiccups along the way? - Ed Kyle
The real question is how long does BFS take... that is where the hiccups for the other team will be encountered. I believe that they should go with a classical second stage to ensure that there is something for the booster to boost when it is ready.
Quote from: AncientU on 05/31/2018 08:42 pmThe real question is how long does BFS take... that is where the hiccups for the other team will be encountered. I believe that they should go with a classical second stage to ensure that there is something for the booster to boost when it is ready.I was on board until that part. They are developing BFS first because it is harder. An expendable second stage would completely ruin the cost effectiveness of the system. There is no market for an enormous rocket unless it is dirt cheap.That's my problem with Blue. Throwing away a huge second stage makes it pretty hard for them to compete on cost with SpaceX throwing away a much smaller second stage.
BFR is an enormous gamble and its massive scale will be unforgiving if there are flight failures, especially in the test phase. What's also scaring me is Tesla, >
Quote from: intrepidpursuit on 05/31/2018 09:24 pmQuote from: AncientU on 05/31/2018 08:42 pmThe real question is how long does BFS take... that is where the hiccups for the other team will be encountered. I believe that they should go with a classical second stage to ensure that there is something for the booster to boost when it is ready.I was on board until that part. They are developing BFS first because it is harder. An expendable second stage would completely ruin the cost effectiveness of the system. There is no market for an enormous rocket unless it is dirt cheap.That's my problem with Blue. Throwing away a huge second stage makes it pretty hard for them to compete on cost with SpaceX throwing away a much smaller second stage.Blue Origin is not planning to keep throwing the second stage away forever.They will initially throw the second stage away, to have a working rocket (which can fullfill many missions, profitably) earlier, and to gain valuable flight experience.They will later develop a reusable second stage for it.This is the same strategy than what spaceX haws been doing with their first stage.
Quote from: hkultala on 06/01/2018 06:13 amQuote from: intrepidpursuit on 05/31/2018 09:24 pmQuote from: AncientU on 05/31/2018 08:42 pmThe real question is how long does BFS take... that is where the hiccups for the other team will be encountered. I believe that they should go with a classical second stage to ensure that there is something for the booster to boost when it is ready.I was on board until that part. They are developing BFS first because it is harder. An expendable second stage would completely ruin the cost effectiveness of the system. There is no market for an enormous rocket unless it is dirt cheap.That's my problem with Blue. Throwing away a huge second stage makes it pretty hard for them to compete on cost with SpaceX throwing away a much smaller second stage.Blue Origin is not planning to keep throwing the second stage away forever.They will initially throw the second stage away, to have a working rocket (which can fullfill many missions, profitably) earlier, and to gain valuable flight experience.They will later develop a reusable second stage for it.This is the same strategy than what spaceX haws been doing with their first stage.Well, if this is all as written in stone as you imply, that would be a definitive answer to the OP. ;-)
Quote from: edkyle99 on 05/31/2018 01:34 pmIn terms of actual real estate, New Glenn already has a factory built and a launch pad under construction.More accurately, all we know is that they have a factory BUILDING that is complete. That doesn't mean they have the means to produce rockets yet.